presumptuous, than this method of prescribing a certain course as a fit and necessary one to be taken by the all-wise Creator, merely because some of his short-sighted creatures have found it needful under their perpetual errors and imperfections. Two reasons may be adduced for the existence and validity of our common or unwritten law;-1. The imperfection attending all man's works, which makes it impossible for any parliament to construct a perfect code, and thus renders the rectifying hand of the judges often needful. 2. The fact, that we had judges in England centuries before we had parliaments, from which it naturally followed that their decisions, recorded and handed down, became a sort of code, long before acts of parliament came into use among us. But neither of these reasons apply in the least to the dealings of God with his creatures; nor can any rational ground be assigned, why that divine Being who has vouchsafed us a revelation of His mind and will in the scriptures, should have left it in such obscurity as to need the perpetual interpretations of a number of human creatures like ourselves; still less, that He should have purposely kept back half of that revelation, in order to entrust it to a mere viva voce preservation, under the name of tradition.

The next objection waxes bolder, and adopts a tone which is almost profane. It runs thus, 'Jesus Christ wrote no part of the New Testament himself, and gave no orders to his apostles to write it, nor did he intend it to be, together with the Old Testament, the sole rule of religion.' 'The Almighty did not send a book, the New Testament, to Christians, and without so

1 End of Controversy, p. 97.

much as establishing the authority of that book, leave them to interpret it, till the end of time, each one according to his own opinions or prejudices. But our blessed Master and Legislator, Jesus Christ, having first established his own divine legation from his heavenly Father by undeniable miracles, commissioned his chosen apostles, by word of mouth, to proclaim and explain, by word of mouth, his doctrines and precepts unto all nations, promising to be with them even to the end of the world.'1

Now, not to dwell upon the indecency of this language, its assertions are essentially untrue. If Christ 'gave no orders to his apostles to write the New Testament,' he did more ;-he sent down the Holy Spirit, who in discharge of his office, of bearing witness of the Saviour, inspired the apostles and evangelists to write these books. And by divers signs and wonders, wrought before all the people, He did most fully establish the authority of those writings and of their authors. It is little short, then, of playing the infidel,—to make light of the only book which God has given us, to teach us the knowledge of himself, and to describe it as scarcely more than a fortuitous collection of ancient writings.

An appeal to the Fathers, which generally follows, is less objectionable on the score of presumption. Dr. Milner, to establish the equality of tradition with scripture, quotes St. Basil and St. Epiphanius. The former says 'There are many doctrines preserved and preached in the church, derived partly from written documents, partly from apostolical tradition, which have equally the same force in religion, and which

1 End of Controversy, p. 118.

no one contradicts who has the least knowledge of the Christian laws.' And the last, 'We must make use of tradition; for all things are not to be found in scripture.'1

But he who seeks to establish any great principle by a reference to the fathers, "seeks for the living among the dead." There is scarcely any position in theology, whether true or false, which may not easily be supported by quotations from some one or more of their number. But the folly of relying on them consists in this, that it is just as easy to find passages which make for one side of a question as for the other. And by this we may learn the uncertainty and contrariety of what is called tradition, and the impossibility of finding any sure resting-place, save in the word of God. Against the words of Basil and Epiphanus, we may place those of Justin Martyr and Jerome. Justin says, 'If we will be safe in all things, we must fly to the scriptures, we must believe God only, and rest solely on his institutions, and not on men's traditions.' 2 Jerome says, 'Whereas St. Paul will have his own things to be kept, he will have no strange things added to them.'3 Thus it is quickly seen, that if we refer any question to the judgment of the fathers, we are likely to get into a chaos of differing opinions, but with little chance of arriving at a final verdict. On the real value of what is called Tradition,' a late Romanist author, the Rev. D. O'Croly, lately parish priest of Ovens, near Cork, has written very sensibly. He says,

Tradition, about which so much has been said and written, is a mere nonentity in religion. It is called

End of Controversy, p. 127.

2 Dial. cum Trypho.

3 On 2 Thessalonians.

the unwritten word, and may be denominated a sort of supplement to the New Testament. It is supposed to be a portion of revelation, which was not committed to writing, but continues to be delivered orally as at first; and has been transmitted in this manner from age to age, down to the present time. Now the great point to ascertain is, what this traditionary revelation contains, what dogmata it teaches; what precepts it inculcates; what particular maxims it recommends in contradistinction to the written word, or to the writings of the evangelists and apostles in the New Testament? Has the church, at any time during the eighteen centuries of her existence, placed before the world in a tangible shape, or in due form, this grand section of the revealed word? Has she ever ventured to define it either in whole or in part? She has done nothing of the kind. The apostles and evangelists did not mark it down; the first fathers followed the example of the apostles and evangelists, they slurred it over; their successors, in like manner, passed it heedlessly by; councils that were assembled of every description, general and particular, took no notice of it, and thus has it travelled down to our days without shape or form,—a sort of spiritual essence, unheeded, unperceived, untouched, undefined, and undefinable; and this is to form an essential part of religion! Tradition is a mere figment, an empty name!'1

Let us now, however, try to get a little closer to the practical question, and to ascertain, if possible, how the Romish rule of faith can be made actually available.

'O'Croly's Inquiry, p. 41.

The Protestant offers something which is at least intelligible. He presents the written word of God, and avows his belief, that in that volume is contained all that is "necessary to salvation," so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith.'

The Romanist, not daring, in this Protestant country, to repudiate the holy scriptures, admits their authority and their value, but declares that an authoritative interpreter of their meaning is absolutely necessary, and that that interpreter, properly commissioned, is only to be found in his church. His rule of faith, therefore, is, scripture and tradition conjointly; or, scripture as interpreted by the church.

6

Instantly, then, the question suggests itself to a plain man, honestly seeking after truth;-Where is this scripture and tradition conjoined' to be found? or where is that authoritative interpretation of the scripture, which the church is said to be divinely commissioned to give?

Dr. Milner's main direction, to all seekers after salvation, is, to hear the church, the divinely commissioned guardian and interpreter of the word of God.'1 'No sooner,' says he, ' will you have sacrificed your own wavering judgment, and have submitted to follow the guide whom your heavenly Father has provided for you, than you will feel a deep conviction that you are in the right and secure way.'"

The question, then, is, How is the enquirer to 'hear the church,' and to submit to the guide thus

1 End of Controversy, p. 536.

2 Ibid. p. 170.