the overthrow of all errors against faith; but since men are liable to be misled by the evil interpretations of others to misunderstand the divine meaning of scripture, the doctrine or tradition of Christians in all ages, i. e. of the catholic church, is presented to us as a confirmation of the true meaning of scripture. It is not meant that this tradition conveys to us the exact interpretation of all the particular texts in the Bible. Its utility is of a simpler and more general character. It relates to the interpretation of scripture as a whole, to the doctrine deduced from it in general. That doctrine which claims to be deduced from scripture, and which all Christians believed from the beginning, must be truly scriptural. That doctrine which claims to be deduced from scripture, and which all the church from the beginning reprobated and abhorred, must be founded on a perversion and misrepresentation of scripture.

The difference between the Anglo-catholic and the popular Romish doctrine of tradition is this. The former only admits tradition as confirmatory of the true meaning of scripture, the latter asserts that it is also supplementary to scripture, conveying doctrines which scripture has omitted. "We hold," says De la Luzerne, "that unwritten tradition is an irrefragable rule of faith in two ways: "first, by itself, because there are truths which have only been given to the church by this way: secondly, because it is the most certain interpreter of the holy scripture, and the infallible means of knowing its meaning "."

That such a universal tradition, as determining the

De la Luzerne, t. ii. p. 321.

meaning of scripture, must be true, is evident. I am not here arguing with infidels; and therefore may assume that Christianity was a revelation, that no revelation has superseded it, that it was to be proposed to men in all ages as the means of salvation; in fine, that some truth was actually revealed. If then any given doctrine was universally believed by those Christians who had been instructed by the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles: if this doctrine was received by all succeeding generations as sacred and divine, and strictly conformable to those scriptures which were read and expounded in every church: this belief, one and uniform, received in all churches, delivered through all ages, triumphing over the novel and contradictory-doctrines which attempted to pollute it, guarded with jealous care, even to the sacrifice of life in its defence, and after a lapse of eighteen hundred years, believed as firmly by the overwhelming mass of Christians among all nations, as when it was first promulgated: such a doctrine must be a truth of revelation. It rests on evidence not inferior to that which attests the truth of Christianity. Is it possible that the infinite majority of Christians in all ages can have mistaken, or adulterated their own religion, a religion which they held to be divine, and on which they believed their salvation to depend? And this, while the scriptures were in their hands, and the care of God was (as Christians believe) extended over His church-the people whom He chose for himself. If so, then they may have been equally deceived as to the authenticity of scripture, as to the truth of the mission of our Saviour; and the whole fabric of revelation totters to its base. Hence I maintain, that Christians cannot possibly admit that any doctrine established by universal tradi

tion can be otherwise than DIVINELY, INFALLIBLY,

TRUE.

The existence of such a tradition from the beginning is a matter of fact, which is to be established on the same sort of evidence as proves any other historical fact. The question is, what were the tenets of the religious community called Christian, from the beginning? This is evidently to be proved only by authentic documents, monuments, and facts: and we accordingly adduce the creeds or professions of faith acknowledged by the universal church, in proof of her faith on certain points up to the period when she made them, the creeds and liturgies of particular churches, as evidence of their belief as far back as those creeds and liturgies can be traced. We produce the attestations of particular fathers and councils of bishops to the contemporary and former belief of the church, either by direct assertions to that effect, or by the silent testimony to the same, afforded by the fact of their own express belief, and the approbation of that belief by the church generally. We adduce ancient customs and rites to the same end; and even the objections of infidels, and of sectaries, concur in establishing what was the real faith of the catholic church in all ages

If proofs like these be rejected on the ground of the uncertainty of all human testimony, then there can be no certainty of any of the facts of history, and we are reduced to believe only facts which have come under the cognizance of our own senses. If the testimony of the early Christian writers in this question of fact be rejected, the external evidences of Christianity are subverted. The authenticity of primitive tradition and its records, of scripture and its doctrines, and of Christianity as a revelation, stand or fall together. It is not

the defence of any particular doctrine which is involved in the question of the credibility of tradition: the whole fabric of christianity is vitally connected with it.

In former ages infidelity openly assailed the truth of christianity: in later times it has assumed the name of christianity itself, in order to pursue with more success its plans for the subversion of faith. The English deists were the predecessors from whom sprang the Rationalists and the Unitarians 5. These sects are in fact and essentially infidel; for whatever relics of christian doctrine may still linger among some of them are purely accidental, and are only preserved for a time by inability to carry out the principles professed, and at all events are viewed as mere matters of opinion, and received only on the authority of human reason". But what is their line of argument? Tindal the deist commences his attack on revelation by professing to "build nothing on a thing so uncertain as tradition'." He charges the primitive christians and their writers with superstition, intolerance, bigotry. The holy fathers from the earliest times, according to him, were all guilty of falsehood, forgery, fraud, interpolation of scrip

f Magee, on Atonement, vol. ii. Append. p. 71; and Rose, Protestantism in Germany, p. 145. 237-240. Append. p. 34. 95. justly remark on the dishonesty of the Socinian and Rationalist infidels, in using the language of christianity as if they believed its mysteries.

See Rose's Protestantism in Germany. p. 51, &c. and the remarks of Dr. Pusey there cited. See also p. 164, and Appendix p. 76, for the identity of the English Socinians and the Rationalists. Belsham, one of the

VOL. II.

leaders of the former, confessed that the Unitarian creed was the same as that of the French Theophilanthropists or Deists, except in the single point of the mere fact of a man's resurrection.Magee on Atonement, vol. i. p. 175. See also vol. ii. p. 411.

489.

h See Rose, State of Protestantism, p. xxiii, xxiv. for some valuable observations on this subject.

i Tindal, Christianity as old as the Creation, p. iii.

Ibid. p. 89, 90. 101.

E

ture, &c. The further back we go, the more frauds we find'. Hence he concludes that external evidence of a revelation is of no value: internal alone is worthy of attention, and that must be judged by human reason in opposition to all authority ". This reason leads him to judge that scripture is full of absurdities and contradictions; that it has been corrupted; that it is not a rule adapted to mankind generally; in fine, that it is not a revelation". Morgan adopts the same principle. The first disciples, according to him, invented tales about Christ, interpolated passages in the scriptures which seemed to represent him as God, ascribed miracles to him, united Judaism and Christianity. The catholic church of the first three centuries was persecuting, idolatrous, antichristian, &c.P. Semler affirmed that the writings of the early fathers were forged at Rome by a set of men "who entered into combination to falsify history and corrupt the scriptures." Of course he was bound to reject their testimony: and accord

science, lorded it over God's heritage, and claimed and exercised a power absolutely inconsistent with private judgment, rational enquiry, and free choice in religion." p. 383. He observes that the truly primitive christians in those ages who constituted the minority, were styled Heretics, Gnostics, &c. and that the protestants are their successors! (380, 381) as the Roman catholic church is the true successor of the catholic church of the three first centuries, 378, 9. Morgan styles his opponents Judaizing clergy," p. 357, 8. Bishop Kaye on Tertullian,

66

p. 71.