an unwritten tradition, from which Christians might collect all that it was necessary for them to know and to believe unto salvation. But what was this tradition? It was the Creed, the regula fidei, that summary of religious truth, in which every catechumen was required to profess his belief before he was admitted to baptism; and of which all the articles, as they are enumerated by Irenæus, are expressly contained in Scripture. In distinguishing, therefore, the Tradition of the apostolic churches from Scripture, far from meaning to convey the notion that there was any difference between them, he meant to affirm that they were in perfect agreement. We have arrived,' he says, ' at the knowledge of the dispensation of our salvation through no other channel than that, through which the Gospel has come down to us. The Apostles first preached the Gospel, and then, by the will of God, delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be in all future ages the ground and pillar of our faith.' What the Apostles taught orally and what they committed to writing, the unwritten and written Tradition, was one and the same; and when once the Gospel had been committed to writing, the appeal to oral tradition was superseded. According then to Irenæus and all the early fathers, the Rule of Faith was no other than the creed, the summary of truths, of which the belief was a necessary condition of communion with the Catholic Church. Thus then the controversy between the Anglican and Roman churches with respect to doctrine, is reduced to a question of fact. Are the articles in which the two churches differ, and in support of which the church of Rome appeals to the authority of Tradition, (Transubstantiation for instance,) are those articles to be found in the Creed, or the Rule of Faith, of the primitive church? The answer must be in the negative. The Romanist, however, while he must admit the fact, will reject the conclusion will we de duce from it, and contend that we have overlooked an element essential to the right determination of the question; the authority conferred by Christ on his church. The primitive creed, he will say, has undergone alterations; articles have been added to it, as the descent of Christ into hell. The Nicene creed contains many expressions not found in the earlier creeds; the Constantinopolitan creed added articles to the Nicene. By what authority were these alterations and additions made? He answers, by the authority of the church; and asks, why might not the church of the thirteenth do what the church of the fourth century did? Why might it not declare what had always been the true belief respecting the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, as in the Nicene creed it declared what had always been the true belief respecting the unity of substance of the Father and the Son? Christ's promise is that he will be with the church till the end of the world; he has not cancelled that promise; and consequently the authority which the church received at first cannot be affected by the lapse of time. Thus, as was justly remarked by one of the theologians at the council of Trent, the question respecting the Rule of Faith and the authority of Tradition, resolves itself into the question of the authority of the church. The Romanist affirms, not that the church can decree any thing contrary to Scripture, or add any new article of faith; but that it can infallibly declare what is the true interpretation of Scripture, and what has always been the true belief with respect to particular doctrines. I have, I believe, stated the reasoning of the Romanist fully and fairly. I mean at least to do SO. You will not fail to perceive that one point is assumed in it-the appointment by Christ of an infallible judge of controversy in the Church. I say assumed; because if the Romanist is asked to prove this point, he must either decline to answer, on the plea that it is one which the Church cannot allow to be discussed; or reasoning in a vicious circle, he must appeal to Scripture, as interpreted by the uniform Tradition of the Church. Having said that we are to receive the Church's interpretation of Scripture on the ground of its infallible authority, he must now allege that very interpretation of Scripture in proof of its infallibility. Supposing, however, the appeal to be made, where are we to look for the uniform Tradition of the Church? In the writings of the Fathers? Who are the Fathers? A series of writers extending through ten centuries, of whom the more recent cannot be regarded as independent witnesses to the faith of the primitive Church, but merely as repeating what had been declared to be such by those who preceded them. To the authority then of the early Fathers alone, can weight in this question be attached; and when they, living as they did near to the Apostolic times, tell us what was the Rule of faith then taught, and what were the sacred books then read in the Church, we receive their testimony as that of witnesses in whose means of information, and in whose integrity we have perfect confidence. But when they put forth their own arguments in defence of the Rule of Faith, or their own interpretations of Scripture, we no longer regard them as witnesses, but as reasoners and we pay no greater deference to their authority than to that of other good and In the pious, but fallible men. exercise of the right of private judgment, we are bound to consult every source of information, from which we are likely to obtain the means of arriving at a just conclusion; and an interpreter of the Bible would be guilty of great presumption, if he were to disregard or to reject without examination, the opinions of the Fathers; but he is not bound implicitly to subscribe to them, even when he finds a very general agreement in any one interpretation. The only authoritative Tradition is that of which Irenæus speaks, the doctrine delivered by the Apostles to the Churches which they founded, and afterwards consigned by them to writing in the volume of the New Testament, in order that it might be in all future ages the ground and pillar of the truth. The Church of England, therefore, almost speaks the language of Irenæus, when she declares that holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; and proposes it as the test by which the truth of every doctrine is to be tried; requiring her members to give their assent to the three creeds, not because they were sanctioned by the decrees of councils, not in obedience to any infallible authority residing in herself, but because they can be proved by most certain warrants of holy writ. She calls not the Scriptures the Rule of Faith. The framers of her articles knew that in the primitive Church, this title was applied to the creed. But she says that no article is to be received as a part of that Rule which is not read in, or cannot be proved by Scripture. SUNDAY AFTERNOON CONVERSATION. Dear Papa, I cannot help thinking, when I read the story of Adam and Eve, that they were very severely punished for only taking a little fruit which they were told not to take. You only indulge, my dear, when you so think, the same careless and wayward manner of judging God's acts and decisions, which we are all too apt to fall into; when we do not adopt for our own, David's resolution, "I will take heed to my ways, that I offend not with my tongue." You form your notions of the fitness and propriety of what you read in the Bible, by the rules of conduct and of thinking, which prevail among men and women all around you. But this is wrong. You should always bear in mind, that whenever any thing in the Bible is said to be spoken or done by God, that thing is, and must be, perfectly good and right. But the thoughts and opinions of the people whom you see every day, are the thoughts and opinions of men and women who are all by nature sinners; and of many of whom it may truly be said, that "all the imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts are only evil continually." Even the best of them,-those who have been taught by the Spirit of God,—are still poor human creatures, liable to error, and, in fact, falling into mistakes every day. Never, therefore, allow yourself to judge of the acts or the words of God by notions derived from human opinions. In the present instance, I will try to shew you where your mistake lies. But it will be the easiest way to do this in the form of a story. Listen, then, to this little tale. There was a great prince, once, who possessed every thing that heart could wish, or imagination conceive. So entirely happy was he, so glorious, and so powerful, that the only way in which he could become more so, was by imparting of his happiness to others. And this it was his delight to do. One day it so happened, that he met with two poor children they had nothing remarkable about them to call for his notice; but the benevolence of his heart seized upon the opportunity of conferring happiness on those who were destitute. He took them to his own domain; and adopted them for his own children. He gave them a residence for their own special use; surrounded them with servants to supply their every want; and made them in fact, in all respects, a prince's children. He himself visited them day by day, delighting them with his favour, and pleasing himself with seeing them happy. Now, among the chief beauties of their new residence, was a most beautiful series of pleasure-grounds, with a garden filled with the choicest flowers and fruits. As soon as they were settled in their new abode, the prince shewed them this pleasant garden. He pointed out to them the abundance of the fruits, and the immense variety of the exquisite flowers; and gave them entire liberty to gratify themselves with the free use of all. There was only one exception. He shewed them a remarkable plant, placed in a separate bed, and evidently having some peculiar value attached to it. you harm, I desire that this plant may not be touched. This is the only prohibition I shall give you. Of all the other flowers and fruits you may gather as you please. This one I keep for my own use; be careful, therefore, not to touch it, for the penalty will be, the entire loss of my favour, and your consequent banishment from this pleasant abode.' Now think of the enormous folly and ingratitude of these children! They had just been raised from the dirt of the streets, to live in palaces, and be companions of princes. They were surrounded by every thing that their hearts could desire; and all this had been bestowed upon them by their kind benefactor; not in return for any good they had done to him, but of his mere grace and kindness of heart. And after doing all this, he merely lays one single commandment on them, saying, All the garden is yours, except one single flower leave that one plant untouched. And this command I give you for your own good; for that flower, if you touch it, will be your poison.' Yet what did they do? No sooner were they left alone in the garden, and allowed entire liberty to do as as they chose, than they ran to this very plant, and plucked its flowers. Is it possible to imagine an act more foolish or more ungrateful? Well, their benefactor came to see them, the next morning, and these naughty children, very naturally, ran away and hid themselves. They had sense enough to know what they had deserved, and what they might expect. They did not attempt to say, (as you perhaps might think they would,) Oh! it was only a flower, the prince will not be so very angry about such a trifle.' They felt that their offence was in having disobeyed thy command of the Prince; thereby shewing how little regard they had to his commands. They knew, too, that the Prince was one who never forfeited his word,whether for kindness or for punishment ; and they trembled and fled out of his sight. And they were right. For this prince was not one of us poor sinful human creatures; who are bound to be forgiving to our fellowsinners, because we have much that needs forgiveness in ourselves. This prince was perfectly holy, and unchangeably true to his word. He knew that it would be impossible for him to govern his subjects; if he declared that he would punish such and such offences, and then did not punish them. He therefore no sooner saw what these children had done, in disobeying the only commandment he had given them, than he forced them to come before him, and at once fulfilled his promise, by ordering them to be instantly turned out of the place. Now, tell me, do you not see the propriety of this course; and do you not perceive, also, that I have been telling you the story of Adam and Eve, in another shape? Yes, I see where I was mistaken: I understand, now, that the smallness of the thing which God commanded, only made Adam's disobedience the more inexcusable. But yet I cannot help wishing that the punishment had not been so dreadful. My dear, you must learn to think more of the great and dreadful majesty of God. Consider, that He who fixed the sun in the firmament by a word of his mouth, and caused all these worlds to go forth on their revolutions,-c came down, and talked with the man whom he had made. He surrounded him with His gifts and His goodness; and enjoined him only one act of obedience in the way of self-restraint. That single command, Adam went at once and broke. What could follow, but that which did follow? Could it SIR,-There is a passage of Luther's writings which seems applicable to the opinions of the present day. It is found in Milner's Church History, Vol. IV. p. 474. If you think proper you may insert it in your Miscellany. The sacred writings,' says Luther, are not to be understood, but by that Spirit, with which they were written; which Spirit is never felt to be more powerful and energetic than when He attends the serious perusal of the writings, which He himself dictated. Setting aside an implicit dependance on all human writings, let us strenuously adhere to the Scriptures alone. The primitive church acted thus; she must have acted so; for she had seen no writings of the Fathers. The Scripture is its own interpreter, trying, judging, and illustrating all things. If it be not so, why do Augustine and other holy Fathers appeal to the Scripture as the first principles of truth, and confirm their own assertions by its authority? Why do we perversely interpret the Scriptures, not by themselves, but by human glosses, contrary to the example of all Fathers? If these fashionable modes of exposition be right, we had better at once admit, that the writings of the Fathers are more perspicuous than the Scriptures. Again-If this be the case, the Fathers themselves acted very absurdly, when they undertook to prove their own writings by the authority of Scripture; and it will follow, that we ought to pay more regard to expositors than to the word of God. The Apostles themselves proved their assertions by the Scriptures; yet they surely had more right to plead their own authority than any of the Fathers had. Let the Fathers be allowed to have been holy men; still, they were only men, and men inferior to Apostles and Prophets: let them however be an example to us; and, as they in their time laboured in the word of God, so let us in our days do the same. There is one vineyard, and there are labourers employed at different hours. It is enough that we have learned from the Fathers the duty of studying and diligently labouring in the Scriptures; it is not necessary that we should approve of all their works. There are seasons, when the diligence of many does not afford what a critical opportunity alone gives to one-provided that that opportunity be connected with the incomprehensible energy of the Holy Spirit.' I am, Sir, yours faithfully, |