undertakes to explain the sense and to supply the defects of the word of God; and in doing this it effectually supersedes its authority. "When the sense of scripture as interpreted by reason," says Mr. Newman, "is contrary to that given it by catholic antiquity, we ought to side with the latter." This is practically saying, that when scripture and tradition clash, we must side with tradition. This must in practice be its meaning. For to say when scripture interpreted by reason gives a certain sense, can mean only, when we believe it to convey that sense. That is, we must give up what we believe to be the meaning of the word of God, to the authority of tradition, which is but another name for the authority of man. If the Bible says, we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ; and tradition says, we are justified by baptism; then the Bible is made to mean not the faith of the individual, but of the church. If the Bible says, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God; and tradition says, Whosoever is baptized is born again; then the Bible is made to mean, that baptism conveys the Holy Spirit in every case, where there is not the special impediment of mortal sin. If the Saviour says, Come unto me all ye who are heavy laden and I will give you rest; and tradition says, there is no remission of sin, without priestly absolution; then our Lord is made to mean, we must come unto him through the priest. If the Bible requires repentance, and tradition penance; then repentance means penance. The Bible addresses its instructions, its promises, its threatenings to every reader, according to his character. It speaks to him that reads it, promising to the penitent believer pardon of sin, the aid of the Holy Spirit, and the light of God's countenance; tradition says there are no promises but to the church, and there is no church where there is not a certain form of government. Thus through the whole system of divine truth, the Bible yields to tradition; the voice of God is drowned in that of men; the merits of Christ is abstracted by the priest, who for bread gives us a stone, and for an egg, scorpions.

The writings of the traditionists are consequently filled with irreverent depreciation of the scriptures. They are said to contain even essential truths only by a sort of accident; it is a wonder that they are all there, and though there, they are latent, hid under the surface, intimated by mere hints and notices. "The Bible," it is said, "does not carry its own interpretation." The texts of scripture "may im

ply the catholic doctrine, but they need not; they are consistent with any of several theories, or at any rate other persons think so." The answers which Unitarians make to Trinitarians in defence of their claim to be considered orthodox, are said to be resistless, if we grant that the Bible is "the sole authoritative judge in controversies of faith." Certain individuals, says Mr. Newman, may not be injured by this principle, but "the body of men who profess it are, and ever must be injured. For the mass of men, having no moral convictions, are led by reasoning, and by mere consistency of argument, and legitimately evolve heresy from principles which, to the better sort of men may be harmless." In the same tone Dr. Hook says, "I believe it to be only on account of their being bad logicians, that they are not Soci

I believe that they ought to be, if consistent, both Dissenters and Socinians. If they accuse church principles of tending to popery, we think that their opinions must lead logical and unprejudiced minds to Socinianism.”* According to the traditionists, therefore, men may, and the mass of them must, legitimately evolve heresy from the Bible, which, if taken by itself, "must lead logical and unprejudiced minds to Socinianism." It is thus that men allow themselves to speak of the word of God, in order to exalt tradition. Nay, worse than this, they seem willing to destroy all faith, that they may introduce their system of priestly and ecclesiastical domination. For, unable to meet the obvious objection, that if the Bible is obscure, so are the fathers; if the latent doctrines of the scriptures are hard to find, so is catholic consent; they say that doubt is essential to faith; that we have, at most, only probability to show for revelation at all, or even for the existence of an intelligent Creator. They assert that there is but "a bal

*This is quoted by Mr. Goode, vol. i. p. 487, as said of those who hold that "the Bible is the sole, infallible rule of faith."

"Evidence complete in all its parts," says Mr. Keble, " leaves no room for faith." Sermon on Tradition, p. 82. Newman says, "Doubt may even be said to be implied in a Christian's faith." Lectures, p. 104.

+ Speaking of the appeal to antiquity, Mr. Newman says, "Where men are indisposed to such an appeal, where they are determined to be captious and to take exceptions, and act the disputant and sophist instead of the earnest enquirer, it admits of easy evasion, and may be made to conclude any thing or nothing. The rule of Vincent is not of a mathematical or demonstrative character, but moral, and requires practical judgment and good sense to apply it. For instance, what is meant by being taught always?' Does it mean in every century, or every year, or every month? Does 'every where' mean in every

three

ance on the side of revelation;"" there are, so to say, chances for revelation, and only two against it." The whole ground of faith is swept away, and mere feeling put in its place. "Why," asks the author of Tract 85, "why should not the church be divine? The burden of proof is surely on the other side. I will accept her doctrines, and her rites, and her Bible-not one, and not the other, but all -till I have a clear proof that she is mistaken. It is, I feel, God's will that I should do so; and besides I love these, her possessions-I love her Bible(?) her doctrines, and her rites, and therefore I believe." This is the same gentleman who says, "We believe mainly because the church of the fourth and fifth centuries unanimously believed." That is, he likes the doctrines of those centuries, and therefore he believes. Here is the whole logic of tradition. This same writer says, our Saviour required the Pharisees to believe "on weak arguments and fanciful deductions ;" and hence we have no right to complain if we are required to believe on the slight and fanciful evidence which traditionists can produce. He seems to have no conception of the infinite diference between the cases, which is no less than the difference between the authority of God and that of man. The Pharisees were required to believe on the authority of Christ: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him." To call the reasons proposed by such a teacher weak and fanciful, is in the highest degree irreverent. And to represent the Saviour as resting the whole authority of his doctrines on the exposition of certain passages of the Old Testament, is to misstate the fact. Christ showed the Jews that his doctrines were confirmed by their own scriptures; and his expositions of those scriptures were to be received, not only because they were in accordance with the principles of his opponents, but because of his authority

country, or in every diocese. And does the consent of fathers' require us to produce the direct testimony of every one of them? How many fathers, how many instances, constitute a fulfilment of the test proposed? It is, then, from the nature of the case, a condition which never can be satisfied as fully as it might have been; it admits of various and unequal application in various instances; and what degree of application is enough must be decided by the same principles which guide us in the conduct of life, which determine us in politics, or trade, or war, which lead us to accept revelation at all, for which we have but probability to show at most, nay, to believe in the existence of an intelligent Creator." Lectures, p. 69.

as a teacher whose divine mission was fully established. The declaration of Christ is the strongest of all possible reasons as a ground of faith; and his testimony to the sense of scripture is the strongest of all possible grounds of assurance that such is its true sense. It is not, however, to the irreverence of the language referred to that we would call attention; it is to the implied admission that tradition can offer us nothing but weak reasons and fanciful deductions as a ground of belief, which the passage quoted contains. The uncertain teaching of tradition is admitted. It may, as Mr. Newman says, be made to conclude any thing or nothing. But then, say the traditionists, we have no better ground of faith in any thing. Our Saviour required his hearers to believe on weak reasons; we have only a probability to offer even for a divine revelation; three chances, so to say, for it, while there are two against it. The stream, says Mr. Keble, can never rise higher than the fountain, we have but historical tradition for the scriptures themselves, and of course nothing more for any of the doctrines which they contain; and we have the same historical tradition for catholic doctrines, i. e. for the oral teaching of the apostles. Every step of this argument is unsound. It is not true that we have nothing but historical tradition for the authority of scripture and of the doctrines they contain. Mr. Goode, in accordance, we had almost said, with all Christians, says, "It will not I hope be denied, that a saving belief in scripture being the work of God, must be the work of the Spirit of God upon the heart; and that such a faith might be produced under that influence, even though the external evidence should be in itself weak and insufficient; and that such a faith is of the highest and most perfect kind, including all and more than all, which can be produced by a faith wrought by the force of evidence alone; and that any other faith, as long as it stands alone, is, in fact, useless." No true Christian's faith rests exclusively or mainly upon historical tradition, but upon the testimony of the Spirit, by and with the truth upon the heart. And in the second place, it is not true that we have the same historical tradition for the oral teaching of the apostles, that we have for the authenticity of the scriptures. The historical tradition in the church of England in favour of the derivation of the Thirty Nine Articles from the Reformers, is

* Vol. i, p. 59.

perfect and conclusive. No man ever has doubted the fact, or ever can doubt it. Though the evidence is of a different kind, no mathematical demonstration is more convincing. But the tradition of that church for any oral teaching of the Reformers, is absolutely null, it is nothing. In like manner the testimony of the church to the authenticity of the New Testament is as strong as historical testimony can be, while its testimony to the oral teaching of the apostles may be made "to conclude any thing or nothing."

It is very clear that the men who remove our faith from the sure and stable foundation, and place it on one which is false and feeble, are in fact taking the best course to destroy faith altogether. The testimony of the scripture is true and trustworthy; the testimony of tradition, taken as a whole, is in the highest degree uncertain, unsatisfactory and erroneous. This is so, and men cannot but find it out, and when required to believe on grounds which they see to be so unstable, they will either not believe at all, or they will commit themselves blindfold to the guidance of their priests. Infidelity, therefore, or blind, superstitious faith, is invariably attendant on tradition. Speaking in general terms, such is and ever has been its effects in the Romish church. Those who think are infidels; those who do not, are blind and superstitious.

As it is the tendency and actual working of tradition to supersede the word of God, and to destroy the very foundation of faith, so it has never failed to introduce a system of false doctrines and of priestly tyranny. If you take men from the infallible teaching of God, and make them depend on the foolish teaching of men, the result cannot fail to be the adoption of error and heresy. This is a conclusion which all experience verifies. And as to ghostly domination, the result is no less natural and certain. The inalienable and inestimable right of private judgment, which is nothing else than the right to listen to the voice of God speaking in his word, is denied to us. We are told that we must not trust that voice; it is too indistinct; it says too little; and is too liable to lead us into error. We must hearken to tradition. When we ask, where is this tradition? we are told in the church. When we ask further, which church? we are told the Catholic church. When we ask which church is Catholic? we are told, that one whose teachings and institutions can stand the test of antiquity, universality and catholicity. When we say that this is a