k mediately, that is, with the addition of the means ordained for its explanation and application, i. e. the ministry of the church; this proposition is true and catholic." Veron in his Rule of Faith says, that "two things must be united in order that any doctrine should be an article of the catholic faith: one, that it be revealed of God by the prophets, apostles, or canonical authors (evidently referring to scripture); the other that it be proposed by the church." And lest his meaning should be mistaken, he says shortly after, of a certain doctrine, "that it is neither found expressed in Scripture, nor in the General Councils, and therefore theologians freely hold a different doctrine," &c. Bossuet argues against the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop from its not being mentioned in scripture'. The Jesuit White says: "It is not the catholic position that all its doctrines are not contained in the scriptures "." Bailly in replying to a passage from S. Cyril on this subject admits, that "not the smallest thing should be taught without the scriptures, whose interpretation belongs to the church. . . . It is true indeed that the whole Christian faith has its force from demonstration of the divine scriptures, or that the scriptures are the foundation of our faith, because the doctrines of the faith are proved by the scriptures, and because the authority of the church, and necessity and truth of tradi tions are founded on scripture "." In another place he says: "Catholics indeed acknowledge scripture to be the rule of faith and morals, but affirm the authority of the church to be necessary to determine controversies, and to interpret the meaning of scripture," &c. La Mennais, in his Essai sur l'Indifference, written while he was of high reputation in the Roman church, says that the laws and truths of revelation are comprised in scripture, though tradition and the church explain their meaning P. And in fine, all the theologians of the Roman obedience testify involuntarily their persuasion that, after all, scriptural proof is necessary, by attempting to prove for themselves from scripture, every point of doctrine or discipline, which they assure us is only to be proved from tradition. According to Trevern, Delahogue, &c. infant baptism, and baptism by sprinkling are only proved by tradition. Bellarmine, Tournely, &c. prove them from scripture'. According to Milner and Melchior Canus, the lawfulness of praying to saints, and worshipping their images and relics, rests only on tradition. Milner himself and the Wallemburgs find it in scripture. So it is with the other doctrines and practices which they pretend to be founded on tradition only, and therefore I claim the inconsistencies of the Roman theologians on the subject of tradition, as a proof of the error of their system. I assert without Bailly, Tract. de Eccl. t. i. p. 337. ⚫ Ibid. p. 294. c. 8, 9. Tournely, Tractatus de Baptismo, p. 306. Melchior Canus, Loci TheP La Mennais, Essai sur l'In- olog. lib. iii. c. 3. Milner, end différence, t. iv. p. 210. of Controv. p. 109. Trevern, Discuss. Amic. t. i. p. 176. Delahogue, de Ecclesia, Append. de Traditione. Milner, p. 251. Wallenburch. Tract. Generales de Controv. Fidei, t. i. p. 444, 447. C fear of effectual contradiction, that the opinion that scripture contains only a portion of revelation, is not a doctrine which the Roman church has ever proposed as de fide, or even declared to be true; and that it is nothing but a mere theological opinion, which happens to be supported by the majority of their modern theologians. And I may add, that the doctrine of the sixth Article may be held free from all censure in the Roman church. How utterly absurd therefore is it in M. Trevern" and other Roman controversialists, to pretend that our catholic and apostolic churches have fallen into doctrinal error in this Article. Such an assertion can only arise from ignorance of the genuine sentiments of the catholic church, or from mere prejudice and uncharitable feeling. any III. Arguments from Scripture. Some of our writers argue from scripture itself in proof that all articles of faith are contained in it. But it seems to me that this is an argument which might be omitted with advantage to the truth, since the texts which are adduced, admit of a very different interpretation. The following texts are alleged. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it "." "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul "." merely to enjoin obedience to The first text seems God's word or com mandments in general, whether they be written or un written. The second acknowledges the law of God to be a great blessing, but does not intimate that it is all contained in scripture only. "It seemed good to me also . . . . to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed *.” "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." "Moreover, I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance"." "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book," &c. These four passages at most only assert the authority of the particular books in which they appear. The three first cannot prove that all revealed truth is contained in scripture only, because they would equally prove that it was contained severally in the particular gospels of Luke and John, and in the epistles of Peter, which no one will contend. The last passage relates entirely to the uncorrupted preservation of the text of the book of Revelations. a "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me "." Admitting, merely for the sake of argument, that this translation is strictly correct, the Jews are here directed to examine the prophecies of the Old Testament which testified to the divine mission of Jesus. But surely there is no reference to the question of tradition. The Old Testament might testify of Christ, and yet there might be also divine unwritten * Luke i. 3, 4. John xx. 31. * 2 Pet. i. 15. a Rev. xxii. 18, 19. traditions, which though they did not testify of Christ, testified of other truths or duties. 66 Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema." This passage merely speaks of the gospel in the abstract, leaving entirely untouched the question of the mode of its transmission. "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, throughly furnished unto all good works "." St. Paul here, apparently, refers to the Old Testament, which alone Timothy knew "from a child," and which, in order to dispel the notion that he contradicted Moses and the prophets, he here pronounces to be inspired and profitable to all teachers. Yet the Old Testament did not then contain all revealed truth. Therefore the Bible generally may be inspired and "profitable for doctrine," &c. and yet some revealed truths may have been handed down by tradition only. 66 Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"-" In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men f." Our Saviour here condemns the Jews for upholding traditions opposed to God's commandments, and as teaching such traditions principally, to the exclusion of God's laws, or as matters of equal or superior obligation. But this only refers to human traditions: it does not c Gal. i. 8. d2 Tim. iii. 15-17. It is thus understood by Whitby, Macknight, and Slade, in loc. f Matt. xv. 4.9. |