a ghostly juggler can convert the December of one year into the June of another, when such conversion is necessary to serve a purpose.

I am aware that to these common sense arguments against popish traditions, writers of that communion adduce the promise of Christ to be with his church to the end of the world, and the promise of his Spirit to lead them into all truth. These promises they consider as belonging exclusively to the church of Rome, and as infallibly securing the priests, "the successors of the apostles," from ever falling into error. But this is again begging the question; it is an impudent assuming of the very thing that is denied, and which she is called upon to prove, but which it is certain she never can prove. Christ promised to be with his church to the end of the world; that is, with those who are separated from the world which lieth in wickedness, and who are devoted in heart and life to the service of God. Christ promised to be present with such to bless them; but it is as explicitly declared, that the face of God is against them that do evil. It must, therefore, be against the church of Rome, which, like Ahab, has sold itself to do wickedly above all that ever pretended to be Christian. This all the world knows; and of this Dr. Milner cannot be ignorant. I beg leave, therefore, to remind him of the words of the duke of Brunswick, which he quotes with approbation, and which are indeed words of wisdom, though partly quoted from an apocryphal book:"Secondly, I made a strong resolution, by the grace of God, to avoid sin, well knowing that wisdom will not enter into a corrupt mind, nor dwell in a body subject to sin! Wisd. i. 4." I ask Dr. Milner, then, how wisdom could dwell in a body so thoroughly corrupt as he knows the church of Rome to have been for many centuries? and how he or any man can believe that this is the church in which Christ promised to dwell by his Spirit to the end of the world? There is blasphemy in the very imagination of the thing, as it tends to represent Christ as the minister of sin, and dwelling in the temple of wickedness, while he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and cannot look upon sin. Yet so certain is Dr. Milner of the truth of those absurdities, which I have been exposing, especially of the traditions propounded and explained by the church, that he tells us, at the conclusion of this branch of his argument, that if it were possible for him to be mistaken, he would lay the blame on his Maker! Were it possible for me to err in following the Catholic method, with such a mass of evidence in its favour, methinks I would answer at the judgment-seat of Eternal Truth, with a pious writer of the middle ages: Lord, if I have been deceived, thou art the author of my error.'" Hugh of St. Victor, p. 116. There is no arguing with a man capable of such impieties. This reminds us of what Mr. Burke said of the infidel Rousseau, that he wrote a book of Confessions, which he proposed to throw in the face of his Maker at the last day; but the infidel did not go so far as to say that he would lay the blame of his errors on his Maker; but merely to declare that he was as good a man as any who should be present at the judgment-seat.

66

Having noticed the principal arguments in favour of tradition, which are drawn from scripture, I shall now advert to one, which, I suppose, is founded on tradition itself: "True it is," says Dr. Milner, "that the apostles, before they separated to preach the gospel in different nations,

agreed upon a short symbol or profession of faith, called the Apostles' Creed; but even this they did not commit to writing: and whereas they made this among other articles of it, I believe in the holy church," they made no mention at all of the holy scriptures. This circumstance confirms what their example proves, that the Christian doctrine and discipline might have been propagated and preserved by the unwritten word or tradition, joined with the authority of the church, though the scriptures had not been composed; however profitable these most certainly are for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness." Letter X. p. 86.

What Dr. Milner here propounds under the positive assurance, that "True it is," is not an oral tradition to him, seeing he gives it on the authority of Rufinus, who had it from an earlier author, who had committed it to writing; but this author lived so long after the apostles, that he could know no more of their acts, from an authentic source, than we do. It was probably an oral tradition to him; but though it were more credible than it is, we are entitled to hold it as an idle tale, which can prove nothing, seeing it itself requires first to be proved.

It was one of the evidences of the divine mission of the apostles, that, without concert or formal agreement on any articles of faith, they all spoke the same things, and bore testimony to the same facts of which they had been witnesses. That this was the case is evident from the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. They were not qualified to propound articles of faith till they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost; and then instantly they began to preach, and continued to preach, not in the measured terms of a previous systematic arrangement, agreed upon among themselves, but as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. Yes; but Dr. Milner says, that before they separated to preach the gospel in different nations, they "agreed upon a short symbol or profession of faith, called the Apostles' Creed." Now what could be the use of this to them? The Holy Spirit continued with them, wherever they went, teaching them all to speak substantially the same things. To have made such an agreement would have indicated a jealousy of one another, or a doubt of the Spirit's remaining in them, which ought not to be supposed. It may be very well for uninspired men to arrange the truths of divine revelation in a systematic form, in order to their satisfying one another as to their understanding and agreement with regard to divine truth; but this was quite unnecessary for the apostles, who knew that they all spoke by one unerring Spirit.

If it be alleged that they composed the creed not for their own sakes, but for the use of the common people; I reply, that this work of all the twelve, if it were such, presents nothing half so useful as what may be found in the writings of any one of them who did write. I grant that this short symbol presents the leading truths of Christianity in very few words; but taken by itself, without a previous acquaintance with these truths, it must be quite unintelligible and useless. Every Papist, I suppose, can say it from memory; but he acquires no more knowledge of the true religion from it, than if he had learned to say it backwards. Its articles are stated so concisely, that it is little else than a general index of Christian doctrines; so that the profession of it cannot ascertain what a man's real sentiments are with regard to most of the things "The title Catholic was afterwards added, when heresies increased." VOL. II.-70

which it embraces. The truth with regard to the person of Christ is stated somewhat in detail; but of what follows no man could make any thing, unless he had information from another source. "I believe in the Holy Ghost," is professing nothing, unless we know who the Holy Ghost is, and what is his part in the plan of our salvation. "I believe in the holy church," are equally words without meaning, in the mouth of a person who does not know what is meant by the words church and holy in the New Testament. Papists understand one thing, and Protestants another, by the very same expression; but neither would understand any thing at all, if he had not previous information. And as for the "communion of saints," I suppose there are few Papists who can tell what it is. In short, it is confessed on all hands, that this creed was inadequate as a standard of orthodoxy when disputes began to .multiply. Hence it was found necessary to compose other and larger ones, such as the Nicene and Athanasian; and neither have they served the purpose of preserving unity among Christians, even in the same

communion.

I conclude this number with remarking, that if Dr. Milner could prove the creed to have been the work of the twelve apostles, I would turn it against himself, by showing that they knew nothing of a body called the Catholic church, seeing that word was foisted into the composition ages after their time.

CHAPTER CXCI.

PROTESTANTS ARE NOT DEPENDANT ON TRADITION AS PAPISTS SAY THEY ARE. SENSE IN WHICH THEY USE IT ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASES OF MILTON AND OSSIAN. SOME PRACTICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM TRADITION CONSIDERED. THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. THIS NOT DEPENDANT ON TRADITION. RELAXATION IN THE STRICTNESS OF KEEP

it

ING THE DAY. THERE IS NO REAL, BUT ONLY A CIRCUMSTANTIAL RELAXATION.

SATURDAY, March 9th, 1822.

ONE principal mode of defence adopted by popish writers is, to make appear that their opponents hold the same principles with themselves; and they think their church fully vindicated if they can show that what is charged against them is allowed by any class of Protestants. If it were so, the Protestants who agreed with them could not attack them with a good grace; but in most instances, where such agreement is alleged, there will be found a great difference of principles, with only a slight resemblance in words.

Thus on the subject of tradition, there is a sense in which Protestants use the word, and they admit the thing which it expresses, with certain modifications. What they understand by it, and the use they make of it, are very different from tradition in the popish sense, which Dr. Milner cannot but know; yet he argues as if he did not know it; and he writes as if we were as much the slaves of tradition as himself. Thus he writes:-"With all their repugnance to tradition and church authority, Protestants have found themselves absolutely obliged, in many instances, to admit of them both. It has been demonstrated above, that they are obliged to admit of tradition in order to admit of scripture itself.

Without this, they can neither know that there are any writings at all dictated by God's inspiration, nor which, in particular, these writings are, nor what versions or publications of them are genuine." Letter XI. p. 96. He then proceeds to tell us of certain articles of faith and practice which, he says, we have derived from tradition, to which I shall attend by and by. But I must first dispose of his assertion, that we are obliged to admit of tradition in order to admit of scripture itself."

66

The reader is requested to remember, that by tradition, Dr. Milner means something handed down, through eighteen centuries, by word of mouth, independent of written testimony. Now I deny that Protestants depend upon such tradition for any thing, or admit of it for any purpose whatever. But they do not reject the tradition of written testimony. They readily avail themselves of it, as furnishing rational evidence of the genuineness of the books of scripture; that is, that they were written by the inspired men whose names they bear. I call it rational evidence, for it rises no higher. The belief of what this proves, is not the faith of the gospel; but it is evidence which satisfies reasonable men that there is no imposition in the matter; and that these books are really what they profess to be,-a record of facts and doctrines concerning Jesus Christ, written by men whom he commissioned to publish his doctrine to the world.

If I were writing against avowed infidels, it would be incumbent upon me to prove that the apostles were inspired; but this is admitted by Dr. Milner; and, therefore, all that I have to show, is, how the tradition of written testimony affords rational evidence that the books which bear their names were written by them. Now of this there is the written testimony of a host of authors, both friends and enemies of Christianity, who, while differing about many things, agree in this, that there were certain books received by Christians, not of the church in Rome only, but all over the world, as undoubtedly written by the apostles. Some of these authors were cotemporary with men who had been cotemporary with some of the apostles; and they have incorporated in their writings many passages, which assure us, that they had the very same narratives and epistles that we have in the New Testament. We know it to be impossible that forgeries should have gained such universal credit then, because we know it to be impossible now; human nature being the same, and the laws of moral evidence the same, in all ages.

About the middle of the seventeenth century, "one Milton,"-I use the language of a contemporary author,-" one Milton wrote a poem about the fall of man, which contained some very good lines." This poem was published in Milton's lifetime, acknowledged by him as the author, and not claimed by any other; but it was little known for about half a century; that is, until the days of the Spectator, when Addison brought it into notice by an exposition of its excellences. Almost every critic since that time has noticed it, and made extracts from it; and no one has ever called in question the genuineness of Paradise Lost, as a writing of Milton. There is, therefore, a moral certainty, as great as the nature of the thing admits of; and the fact has become so identified with English literature, that, supposing our language to exist, living or dead, a thousand years hence, it will be believed then, with as much certainty as it is now, that Paradise Lost was written by one John Mil

ton. No man doubts that the poems ascribed to Virgil are genuine; because the fact is identified with the literature of the Augustan age; so, while there are in the world any traces of English literature, no man can reasonably doubt the genuineness of the poem of Milton. Upon the same principle, but with stronger evidence, the apostolic writings are proved to be genuine; for they were delivered to both individuals and churches, while the writers were alive. By these individuals and churches they were preserved, and became incorporated with the literature of the age immediately following, which it was impossible for forgeries to be; and thus the unanimous testimony of the writers of that age assures us of the genuineness of the apostolic writings.

This is called the tradition of written testimony; and it furnishes abundant evidence of the fact for which it is adduced;-such evidence as no man can resist, without denying the principles by which he would judge of evidence with regard to any thing else. We receive the holy scriptures, therefore, as demonstrated to be the writings of the inspired men whose names they bear, altogether independently of the authority of the church of Rome and her traditions, because they were identified with the literature of the period before the church of Rome was distinguished above other churches. It is impossible that writers of the next century can furnish stronger evidence of the genuineness of Paradise Lost, than that which is already on record; so it was impossible that the church of Rome, after the fourth century, when she began to assume authority over other churches, could add to the evidence in favour of the apostolic writings which had been established beyond all dispute in the second and third centuries.

Such is the use which Protestants make of tradition; and that it is very different from that of the Papist, must be evident to every child who can read the statement. I shall, however, for the sake of illustration, give an example that resembles their tradition, and that also by referring to a great poet. My readers have all, no doubt, heard of Ossian, the son of Fingal. Tradition says, that this Fingal was a great king in Scotland or Ireland, it is not certain which, somewhere between a thousand and two thousand years ago; and that his son Ossian composed many songs in Gaelic, which were handed down by word of mouth, from age to age, till about fifty years ago, when one Macpherson took them down in writing, from the lips of some old men and women, and translated them into English. This was genuine oral tradition, down to the date of the said writing and translation. But I suppose no man, who understands the nature of moral evidence, considers it proved, by the publication of these poems, that they were all, or any of them, written by a prince whose name they bear. Had they been written by Ossian, and received as his, without contradiction by cotemporary writers, or by writers of the immediately succeeding age, the genuineness of them would have been established beyond dispute; but as the case stands, no man can entertain a rational conviction that what we have as the poems of Ossian, were, bona fide, composed by a great prince of that name. Much less will he consider them as containing an authentic record of historical facts. There may be many facts in them, but from the necessary uncertainty of oral tradition, and the want of corroborating testimony, no man can possibly tell what is fact, and what is fable; because, from failure of memory on the one