vered by the police, are seized and destroyed, as contraband or unlawful articles.

In the midst of a Protestant population, however, and in a land where pretensions of this kind would be instantly spurned, Popery alters its tone. Here no objection is offered to the use of the scriptures, but only to their paramount authority. The Catholic rule of faith,' says Dr. Milner, 'is not merely the written word of God, but the whole word of God, both written or unwritten; in other words, scripture and tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic church. This implies that we have a two-fold rule or law, and that we have an interpreter or judge to explain it, and to decide upon it in all doubtful points.'1

This device, however, only differs from open warfare with the Bible, in its greater insidiousness. To put scripture wholly out of sight, is, perhaps, the simplest and most effectual course; but, when this cannot be attempted, it answers nearly the same purpose to reduce the written word into subjection to the church's decisions. Chillingworth has well said, that 'He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his lawyers. So the church of Rome, to establish her tyranny

1 Milner's End of Controversy, page 116.

over men's consciences, needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy scriptures, the pillars and supporters of Christian liberty. But the more expedite way, and therefore the more likely to be the successful, was to gain the opinion and esteem of being the public and authorized interpreter of them, and the authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleased, under the title of traditions or definitions. For by this means, she might both serve herself of all those clauses of scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences,—which, had the scriptures been abolished, she could not have done; and yet be secure enough of having neither her power limited, nor her corruptions and abuses reformed by them; this being once settled in the minds of men, that unwritten doctrines, if proposed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written; and that the sense of scripture was not that which it seemed to reason and understanding to be, but that which the church of Rome should declare it, seem that never so unreasonable and incongruous.'1

But we are often met, in this stage of the argument, by assertions of the expediency and even the absolute necessity of some authoritative interpreter. A very fallacious analogy is introduced, between divine and human legislation. Dr. Milner remarks that ' in this kingdom we have the common or unwritten law, and the statute or written law, both of them binding, but the former necessarily preceding the latter.'2

Nothing, however, can be more irrational, or more

1 Chillingworth's Works, fol. p. 40.

2 End of Controversy, p. 117.

presumptuous, than this method of prescribing a certain course as a fit and necessary one to be taken by the all-wise Creator, merely because some of his short-sighted creatures have found it needful under their perpetual errors and imperfections. Two reasons may be adduced for the existence and validity of our common or unwritten law;-1. The imperfection attending all man's works, which makes it impossible for any parliament to construct a perfect code, and thus renders the rectifying hand of the judges often needful. 2. The fact, that we had judges in England centuries before we had parliaments, from which it naturally followed that their decisions, recorded and handed down, became a sort of code, long before acts of parliament came into use among us. But neither of these reasons apply in the least to the dealings of God with his creatures; nor can any rational ground be assigned, why that divine Being who has vouchsafed us a revelation of His mind and will in the scriptures, should have left it in such obscurity as to need the perpetual interpretations of a number of human creatures like ourselves; still less, that He should have purposely kept back half of that revelation, in order to entrust it to a mere viva voce preservation, under the name of tradition.

The next objection waxes bolder, and adopts a tone which is almost profane. It runs thus, Jesus Christ wrote no part of the New Testament himself, and gave no orders to his apostles to write it, nor did he intend it to be, together with the Old Testament, the sole rule of religion.'' 'The Almighty did not send a book, the New Testament, to Christians, and without so

1 End of Controversy, p. 97.

much as establishing the authority of that book, leave them to interpret it, till the end of time, each one according to his own opinions or prejudices. But our blessed Master and Legislator, Jesus Christ, having first established his own divine legation from his heavenly Father by undeniable miracles, commissioned his chosen apostles, by word of mouth, to proclaim and explain, by word of mouth, his doctrines and precepts unto all nations, promising to be with them even to the end of the world.'1

Now, not to dwell upon the indecency of this language, its assertions are essentially untrue. If Christ 'gave no orders to his apostles to write the New Testament,' he did more ;-he sent down the Holy Spirit, who in discharge of his office, of bearing witness of the Saviour, inspired the apostles and evangelists to write these books. And by divers signs and wonders, wrought before all the people, He did most fully establish the authority of those writings and of their authors. It is little short, then, of playing the infidel,—to make light of the only book which God has given us, to teach us the knowledge of himself, and to describe it as scarcely more than a fortuitous collection of ancient writings.

An appeal to the Fathers, which generally follows, is less objectionable on the score of presumption. Dr. Milner, to establish the equality of tradition with scripture, quotes St. Basil and St. Epiphanius. The former says 'There are many doctrines preserved and preached in the church, derived partly from written documents, partly from apostolical tradition, which have equally the same force in religion, and which

1 End of Controversy, p. 118.

no one contradicts who has the least knowledge of the Christian laws.' And the last, 'We must make use of tradition; for all things are not to be found in scripture.'1

But he who seeks to establish any great principle by a reference to the fathers, "seeks for the living among the dead." There is scarcely any position in theology, whether true or false, which may not easily be supported by quotations from some one or more of their number. But the folly of relying on them consists in this, that it is just as easy to find passages which make for one side of a question as for the other. And by this we may learn the uncertainty and contrariety of what is called tradition, and the impossibility of finding any sure resting-place, save in the word of God. Against the words of Basil and Epiphanus, we may place those of Justin Martyr and Jerome. Justin says, 'If we will be safe in all things, we must fly to the scriptures, we must believe God only, and rest solely on his institutions, and not on men's traditions.' 2 Jerome says, 'Whereas St. Paul will have his own things to be kept, he will have no strange things added to them.'s Thus it is quickly seen, that if we refer any question to the judgment of the fathers, we are likely to get into a chaos of differing opinions, but with little chance of arriving at a final verdict. On the real value of what is called Tradition,' a late Romanist author, the Rev. D. O'Croly, lately parish priest of Ovens, near Cork, has written very sensibly. He says,―

·

Tradition, about which so much has been said and written, is a mere nonentity in religion. It is called

End of Controversy, p. 127.

2 Dial. cum Trypho.

3 On 2 Thessalonians.