necessary to remark that there is not the shadow of allusion to such things as these in the written traditions of the New Testament; and it is a proof that they were unknown among the primitive Christians, because there are no traces to be found of them in the writings of the earliest Fathers.

In

The apocryphal writings of the Jews, were never admitted by the Christians of the first three centuries to possess any authority in religion. the first catalogue of canonical books, published by the Council of Laodicea, and in the catalogues given by Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril, the apocrypha does not appear in their account of the Jewish Canon. Jerome expressly assures us, that though the apocrypha was read by the Church, yet it was not received amongst the canonical Scriptures.* Notwithstanding these early testimonies, the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, decreed the divine authority of the apocrypha! In the decisions of that council, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of Esther and Daniel are explicitly mentioned; and it is declared concerning these whole books with all their parts, that whosoever rejects them as not canonical, is accursed! On the ground of supposed traditionary testimony is this declaration founded, and an anathema is pronounced on those who reject it, though that testimony is opposed to the declaration of another council, and is altogether unsupported by the authority of the Christian Church in the first four centuries. So much for the Church of Rome, as the infalli

* "Ecclesia quidem legit, sed intra canonicas Scripturas non recipit." Hieron. Pref. in Lib. Salomon,

ble depository and uncorrupted preserver of tradition!*

2. In the next place, some of the pretended apostolic traditions of the Church of Rome, are directly contrary to the principles and practices of the primitive Church and the declarations of the early Fathers.

The use of images in religious worship, the adoration of saints and angels, the homage offered to the Virgin Mary, the absurd tenet of Supererogation, and some other peculiarities of the Roman Catholic Religion might be specified as not only unsupported by the testimony of the earliest Fathers of the Church, but as opposed to the reasonings and principles which pervade their writings, and totally unauthorised by the practice of the Christian Church in the first century. But the minute investigation of these subjects will require our attention, in another part of our course: and the proof of the assertion before us, I shall confine to the illustration of one or two topics. The very principle of oral tradition as opposed to the sufficiency of Scripture is directly contrary to numerous declarations, which are to be found

* "Some thought it strange," says the Roman Catholic Historian of the Council of Trent, "that they should have so easily "defined the principal and most important points of Religion, "which till then had never been decided; giving canonical au"thority to books considered uncertain and apocryphal, rendering authentic a translation differing from the original text, "prescribing and restricting the manner of understanding the "word of God. Nor was there amongst the Prelates, (who composed the council at that time) any one worthy of attention "from his learning. There were some lawyers learned in their profession, but unskilled in religion, a few theologians, but "these of less than ordinary talent, the greater number gentlemen or courtiers. It could not be said that one thousandth part of "the Christian world was then represented."

See Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent. Lib. II. Anno. 1546.

F

in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Though the Council of Trent decreed, "that tra"ditions should be received as of equal authority "with the Scriptures themselves :" and in consequence of this decision, many advocates of tradition render it the sole interpreter of Scripture, regarding the written word as unintelligible, "a dead and unsensed letter," as some of the writers describe it, till explained by the authority and traditionary practices of their church, yet some of the most eminent Fathers and Saints of whom they boast as being members of their own communion, have most unequivocally asserted the absolute and exclusive sufficiency of the sacred volume.

St. Irenæus assures us," that we have received "the method of our salvation from no others, but "from them, by whom the gospel came to us; "which gospel the Apostles first preached; but "afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to be for the future, the pillar and foundation "of our faith." (Lib. iii. c. 13.)

86

In St. Cyprian we meet with the following inquiry against one who reasoned from tradition-"whence have you that tradition? comes it from "the authority of the Lord and of the gospel, or "from the apostolic epistles? for God hath testi"fied that we are to do those things which are "written. If it be commanded in the gospel, or "contained in the epistles or the Acts of the Apostles, then let us observe it, as a divine and holy tradition."* (Epist. 74.)

66

St. Hilary, writing to the Emperor Constantius, commends him "for regulating his faith only "according to those things which are written:" and to enforce this sentiment, he says, "he who

* See the quotation from St. Chrysostom p. 37.

"refuseth this, is Antichrist, and he who dis"sembles on this point is anathema!"

66

St. Basil, in defence of the doxology as it was used in his days, has the following testimony on this subject. "We have received it from our Fathers, but this is not enough for us, for they "followed the authority of the Scriptures making "its testimonies, the principles on which they "built." (De Spiritu Sancto. c. 7.

St. Austin, has numerous passages on the sufficiency of Scripture.* "The Holy Scripture "fixeth the rule of our doctrine, and is a divine "balance for weighing it," (Contra Donat. 1. 2. c. 6.) In his controversy with Maximinius, he says, “neither ought I now to allege the Nicene Counแ cil, nor you, that of Ariminum: for neither of "us is bound by the authority of the one or the "other. Let us both contest with the authorities "of Scripture, which are witnesses common to us "both. And against the Donatists, (de unitate ecclesiæ, c. 16.) "Let them if they can, demon"strate their church, not by the talk and rumours "of oral traditions of the Africans, not by the "councils of their own Bishops, not by the books "of their disputers, not by deceitful miracles, but by the prescript of the law and the prophets, "&c. i. e. by all the canonical authorities of the holy books."

66

St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, whose catechetical discourses were published, not long after the Council of Trent promulgated its anathemas, says "It behoveth us not to deliver the very least thing "of the sacred mysteries of faith, without the Holy Scripture. This is the security of our "faith-not what is delivered of our own inven

* There are many references to this Father in the admirable work of Daille, on the use of Fathers. B. ii. c. 2.

1

"tions, but what is demonstrated from the holy "Scriptures."

St. Jerome tells us, that " of those things which "without the authorities and testimonies of the Scripture, men invent of their own heads, as "from apostolic tradition, they are smitten by the "sword of God." (Comment: in Hagg. c. 1.) "It comes," says Theophilus Alexander, cited by Jerome," from a demoniacal spirit, that men "follow the sophisms of human minds, and think any thing divine, that wants the authority of "Scripture. (Paschal : 1. 3.)*

66

It would be easy to enlarge the number of these citations, but they are sufficient to prove that the opinion that oral tradition is equal in authority to the Sacred Scriptures, is directly opposed to the reasonings and declarations of those eminent

*Most of these testimonies are cited by Archbishop Tillotson, in his "Rule of Faith." Part 4-and are closed by two remarkable passages from Gerson and Lyra. Gerson in his book on the Trial of Doctrines, says-"It is first and principally to "be considered, whether a doctrine be conformable to the Holy "Scripture. Because the Scripture is delivered to us ASA

SUFFICIENT AND INFALLIBLE RULE for the government "of the whole ecclesiastical body, and its members, to the end "of the world: so that any doctrine not conformable to it, is to "be renounced as heretical." Again, "what mischief, what danger, what confusion hath happened, through contempt of "the Holy Scripture, which surely is sufficient for the govern"ment of the Church, else Christ must have been an imperfect law-giver." (Serm. in die Circum, &c.,

"

Lyra also writes thus, "As in philosophy, truth is discovered by reducing things to their first and self-evident principles; so truth is discovered as to matters of faith, by reducing them "to the canonical Scriptures." (Prolog. de lib. Bib.)

I must here request the reader's attention to the testimony of Optatus Melevitanus, cited by Chillingworth in his "Discourse on the infallibility of the Roman Church," with the remarks of that acute writer on the passage. On account of its length it is inserted in the Appendix. NOTE K.