New Testament to express, as well what was set down in writing, as what had been delivered verbally. When St. Paul, in his journey through several cities, "delivered to them the decrees for to keep"-meaning those just before established by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem-the verb translated "delivered," has a common origin with the substantive "tradition;" and might have been translated "tradited," if the use of the English language had allowed. So when the same apostle says

"I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you"t-meaning the account of the institution of the Eucharist; the subject of tradition and that of scripture, are the same. The remark applies also to what is said in the next chapter but one "I delivered" (or tradited) "unto you first of all, that which I also received:" After which follows a plain account of the death and the resurrection of Christ-being no other than what is given at large in the gospel. When it is said" Withdraw yourselves from every brother which walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us;"§ the tradition referred to, was a caution against "not working, and being busy. bodies;" as the sequel shows: so that no more was designed, than to remind them of a point of Christian morals, of which the writer of the epistle had discoursed among them in person. In the chapter immediately preceding, he had included both scripture and oral instruction under the article of tradition-"Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle." From this statement, there may be drawn the following inferences. First, the lax sense of the term in question, ought to forbid the considering of it as necessarily expressing what is called tradition, put in an intended contrast with scripture. Secondly, however an apostle might fitly take occasion in writing

Acts, xvi. 4. †1 Cor. xi. 23. verse 3. § 2 Thess. iii. 6.

to any Church, to refresh the memories of his former hearers, and again to charge their consciences by bringing before them what they had formerly heard from his lips; yet it does not follow, that he considered oral instruction as a likely medium of handing down what had been thus delivered, through all the centuries which were to succeed; and especially, when what was so delivered had relation to deep questions in theology.

In religion as well as in philosophy, there would seem to apply the maxim, that the divine economy does not needlessly multiply the means of effecting its designs. That all needful truth was published to the world by Jesus Christ and his apostles, is consented to on both sides. The question is confined to the means of transmitting it. That the written gospel was a mean adopted, appears from several places: as where St. Luke tells Theophilus, and doubtless in him every person to whom the work of that evangelist should come, of its being designed-"That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."* St. John also thus tells us the end of the writing of his gospel-" That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name."+ St. Peter, having received a divine intimation that he was soon to "put off his tabernacle," informs those to whom he writes" I will endeavour that ye may be able, after my decease, to have these things always in your remembrance." St. Paul is supposed to refer to the Old Testament only, when he tells Timothy, that the Scriptures are "able to make him wise unto salvation;" because he is said to have known them from his childhood: a circumstance, not applying to those of the New Testament. Still, the documents spoken of accomplished their effect"through faith:” that is, in the gospel. Accordingly,

*Luke, i. 4. xx. 31. 42 i. 14. Verse 15. || 2 iii. 15.

when the same faith became deposited in other inspired books; the two volumes are to be considered as abundantly sufficient testimony of the facts and of the doctrines, which they respectively record. The scripture spoken of by the apostle was sufficient, in connexion with the truths which were the object of Christian faith, to "make the man of God perfect."* If the competency to perfection be supposed impaired, when those truths, from being vocally delivered, have been set down in writing; it is difficult to perceive, how this medium of communication can have been an adequate depositary of the revelations under the law and the prophets: which yet must be taken into the account, in order to demonstrate the divine origin of the truths peculiar to the gospel.

In order to give countenance to the opinion of tradition under the gospel; it has been appealed to as the only mode of transmission of religious truth, before the delivery of the law. There needs not to be more decisive proof of its inadequacy to that object. Doubtless, the knowledge of the one only true God, was handed down by Noah and his immediate descendants: but that they had degenerated from it in the time of Abraham, is evident from the alternative proposed by Joshua to the Israelites -"Chuse you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served, that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Whatever may have been the measure of the preservation of the same knowledge in the patriarchal family for awhile; it is evident, that before the coming out of Egypt, there must have been a considerable decline: for otherwise, the Israelites would not so easily have been seduced to the worship of the golden calf; exclaiming before it-"These be thy

gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'* In short, it might be easily proved concerning the human race, in all the varieties of their situation, that their frailties incline them to creature worship, in one shape or in another; that the only counteracting cause is divine revelation; and that the effect of this can be perpetuated, only by its being brought before the popular mind from written records. It seems generally agreed, that during the later periods of the history of the Israelites, their preservation from idolatry was in a great measure owing to the institution of the worship of the synagogues, in which the Scriptures were read to the people: were read in the Hebrew language for the preservation of their purity, but rendered in the prevalent language of the times-the Syriack.

Even independently on the unhappy propensity`referred to; there is another, inducing to put human institution on a level with the divine. This is illustrated in the conduct of the Pharisees; whom our Saviour accused of making the word of God of none effect by their tradition." His whole treatment of such addition to the old law, is very unfavourable to the supposition, that he designed to leave a door open, for the like addition to the new law of the gospel.

There can hardly be a more decisive argument against what the Roman Church contends for on the subject of tradition, than that the fathers, whose opinions must be looked back to, in order to determine what tradition says on any particular point of controversy, hold up the Scriptures as the paramount direc

tory.

To begin with Irenæus: in a former dissertation, notice was given of his opposing scripture to the Va lentinians; although, as tradition was pleaded on their side, he opposed to theirs another more respectable; arguing in the way which logicians call" ad hominem:" that is, answering them on their own principles. The same father says" We have known the econo† Matt. xv. 6.

* Exod. xxxii. 4.

my of our salvation from no other than those by whom the gospel came to us; which indeed they then preach. ed, but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures; to be the foundation and pillar of our faith."* Here, "to be the foundation and pillar of our faith," in the latter part of the sentence, answers to "the economy of our salvation," in the beginning of it. And whereas this was at first preached from the gospel, as delivered under inspiration by the first publishers of it; these caused it to be deposited in the Scriptures, that there should be in them the rule of faith, in times to come.

-The following is from Clement of Alexandria: cautioning against the yielding of too much to human authority, on a question of faith, he says "Let us not wait for the witness of man, but let us believe the matter in question, on the word of the Lord; which is the best of all proofs, or is rather the only proof.":

Origen likewise says "We ought to bring forwards the sense of scripture, in proof of what doctrine we bring forwards, as confirming the sense which we lay down." And again-"If so great an apostle" [St. Paul] "holds not what he saysto be sufficient, unless he teaches that those things which he says are written in the law and the prophets; how much rather ought we who are the least, to observe this; that we do not, when we teach, produce our own, but the sentences of the Holy Ghost."

In like manner, Tertullian approves of the discountenancing of those things, which are done without the authority of a precept of the Lord, or of his apostles:" adding" Such things are to be set down, not to religion but to superstition; and are matters of affectation and coaction, and rather of curiosity, than of a reasonable service." Tertullian had been speaking particularly of the notion of some persons, of

Lib. iii. cap. + Stromata, Lib. vii. Matthew. SEp. ad Rom. Lib. iii.

Tract 5, in De Orat.