principle of the Reformation, among which the following are the grounds upon which its application has been most plausibly resisted.

not an au

rule.

§ 2. First, The sufficiency of the Scriptures Tradition has been impugned, on the ground that eccle- thoritative siastical tradition is, on certain points, a necessary guide. This is the plea of the Romanist, who contends for the equal authority of Apostolic tradition, as orally transmitted through successive ages, without interruption, by the Church of God; it being a matter of indifference, according to his argument, whether the doctrines originally given by Divine Revelation, are to be found in the written records, or have been thus delivered by word of mouth. Protestants professedly reject this notion with abhorrence, as subversive of the only solid basis of faith. It has been, indeed, the fruitful source of the grossest impositions ever practised upon the credulity of mankind. Under similar pretences, the Jewish doctors contended for the authority of the Mishna, as imbodying the oral law; making the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions: "In vain do they worship me," said our Saviour, "teach

66

66

ing for doctrines the commandments of men." Yet, although in contending with the Papist, a due jealousy has been manifested for the exclusive claims of the Scriptures, as the only inspired authoritative standard of faith, human au

7

thorities have been on other occasions appealed to, as possessing a force little short of what the Church of Rome ascribes to tradition. It is in a spirit not very different from that of Popery, that the authority of antiquity, the authority of the fathers, the authority of the Church, are called in by Protestant controvertists, in support of opinions and practices, for which the sacred volume affords no sanction. There is, indeed, an obvious sense, in which these may be regarded as authorities, but it is a sense essentially different from that in which the term is employed to express the claims of Divine Revelation. There is the authority attaching to a human record, which consists simply in the internal marks of veracity; but the authority of the Divine records partakes of the authority of a law. With regard to the one, belief is reasonable, but it is at our option to believe; with regard to the latter, there is superinduced upon the reasonableness of believing, the highest obligation to the exercise of faith. When it is asserted, that the Scriptures are the only standard in matters of religious duty, it is not implied that they are the only possible source of information with regard to such subjects as are connected with our faith or our practice, but that the Divine testimony in the Scriptures is the only basis. upon which belief can, as a religious duty, rest; the only

legitimate evidence by which the truth of what is proposed to our reception as the matter of faith, can be established. The highest degree of credibility which belongs to human records, when ascertained to be genuine, amounts only to this, that in the judgment of men of competent understandings, yet fallible in their decisions, and limited in their opportunities of knowledge, things were so; but, without any impeachment of their veracity, there is still room to consider them as mistaken. With respect to the rule of faith, the veracity of the human witness is accompanied with the infallibility of inspiration, and hence results the certainty that what is recorded as revealed, is true.

The three points usually referred to, as warranting the notion of the validity of the authority of Tradition, are, the integrity of the Canon of Scripture, the obligation of the Christian Sabbath, and the practice of Infant Baptism. Each of these, it is imagined, rests upon evidence distinct from the Scriptures; and that, therefore, the practice of every church involves a tacit admission of the necessity of some collateral or auxiliary authority, to supply the deficiencies of the inspired standard.

[1] The genuineness and integrity of the New Testament records, are not, however, the matter of faith, but a previous question deter

objected

exception as

to

the Canon

of Scripture.

Objected exception as to Infant Baptism.

minable by the laws of historical evidence. Those who lived nearest the times of the inspired writers, had, in some respects, superior advantages for ascertaining the fact; and their unanimous concurrence in a declaration concerning it, is entitled to the highest consideration, as part of the chain of external evidence substantiating the authenticity of the sacred Canon. But neither does the genuineness of the Apostolic writings, rest simply on the declaration of any Council that they are genuine, but rather on evidence antecedently existing, which afforded the ground of that decision; nor can their authority, as inspired writings, be made in the least to depend on the testimony of Tradition with respect to their authenticity. That testimony is of no other avail, than to establish the historical fact, that the sacred writings composing the New Testament, were so early received by the Church as constituting the Canon of Christian Scripture. The Divine claims of Revelation to individual reception, are wholly independent of Tradition, and these are what are intended by the exclusive authority of the sacred Scriptures.

[2.] The practice of Infant Baptism, considered as a fact, it is equally within the competent province of Tradition to substantiate, by affording in its support the rational evidence of ancient precedent. From this precedent we

may fairly reason as to the construction which was put upon the scriptural command-to baptize, by those who lived the nearest to the period when Christian Baptism was instituted, adducing this consideration in support of the strong probability that the practice of Infant Baptism did not originate in a departure from the Apostolic directions. In ascertaining the import and design of the Scriptural command, a stress is with propriety laid on the testimony of ancient writers; but the validity of Infant Baptism itself does not rest upon either the opinions or the practice of the early Christians. Historical authorities must be allowed their due weight, as evidence of the pre-existing law, but the obligations of duty can have no other basis than the revealed will of Christ.

exception as

bath.

[3.] The authority of what has been termed Objected the Christian Sabbath, is supposed principally to the Sabto be derived from Tradition, since no specific command substituting the first day of the week for the seventh, as a Sabbath, is to be found in the New Testament. In this case, however, it is not less obvious, than in the preceding one, that the evidence of a pre-existing obligation, and the source of that obligation, are considerations essentially distinct. Waiving, therefore, the question, how far the Scriptures contribute sufficient information for our guidance in this respect, (to say nothing of the arguments in fa