doctrines in the orthodox creed of Christianity which furnish a key to passages in the New Testament otherwise irreconcilable, and which indeed, to those who want or refuse this aid, are yet sources of perplexity and error.*

Again, it cannot but be reasonable that this should have been the appointed method, when it is exactly similar to the course which every wise instructor pursues in almost every branch of human knowledge. Even when subjects have been treated in the most exact and systematic order, with an express view to instruction on the part of the author, we seldom even then commit such treatises into the hands of others (especially where persuasion is our object) without some oral, some preliminary, view of the contents of the work.

Were the intention of Heaven admitted indeed, we need not discuss its reasonableness; but prior to the proof of the intention, it may at once afford a presumption in its favour, and a satisfaction to our own minds, to shew that the practice, which would follow such an intention, is analogous to the course pursued in other cases of instruction; and that in the case of religious instruction also it is the practice actually recommended by the best authorities. Hooker in his observations upon the design and usefulness of catechising might be referred to for a complete corroboration of these remarks. In the

*Pour entendre l'Ecriture, il faut avoir un sens dans lequel tous les passages contraires s'accordent. Il ne suffit pas d'en avoir un qui convienne à plusieurs passages accordans; mais il faut en avoir un qui concilie les passages mêmes contraires. Pensées de Pascal xiii. 12. la Loi figurative. Tradition, yet still without authority, often supplies this sense.

66

same place he has these words,* "As the decalogue "of Moses declareth summarily those things which "we ought to do; the prayer of our Lord, what"soever we should request, or desire; so either by "the apostles, or at the least wise out of their writings, we have the substance of Christian "belief compendiously drawn into few and short "articles, to the end that the weakness of no man's "wit might either hinder altogether the knowledge, "or excuse the utter ignorance, of needful things." What is this in effect but to confess the want of system in the Scriptures respecting what we have to believe, compared with what we have to do, or to desire; and to suggest traditional instruction as the obvious supply of the want?

No authorities, however, need be quoted to prove that practice reasonable, which it is alleged was intended, since we are beginning, as a nation, to acknowledge the propriety of reverting universally to systematic and preparatory religious instruction, if we would hope to secure to the mass of the community the purest knowledge of the most important truths and it has already been suggested, that the want of system in the revelation of the Christian doctrines has probably not been felt, or perceived, by many, only because they have in fact been introduced to their knowledge of them by the very mode, and under the very guidance, which most Christians now admit to be reasonable, and which it will hereafter appear perhaps was intended from the first for our assistance.

But again, in reverting as a nation to this

Eccles. Polity, vol. ii. p. 56. Oxford, 1793.

practice we do but resume the too-much neglected principles of our Reformers.

66

By the express provision which they made for catechetical instruction, their opinion of the reasonableness of assisting the knowledge of divine truth by human and unauthoritative teaching is evidently shewn. We might almost refer for the same point to their Liturgy, and Homilies, and the express sanction which they gave in the Articles to the ancient creeds—always supposing indeed that “they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture." (Art. viii.) Even the sixth Article, the fundamental Article of the Protestant faith, whilst it asserts "the sufficiency of the holy "Scriptures for salvation," and the consequent nullity of any doctrine which "is not read therein, "nor may be proved thereby," almost implies the proposed use of unauthoritative tradition; to suggest namely what is not directly or obviously read in the Scriptures, but still to suggest only what may be proved thereby. But what was the conduct of these Reformers in their own case? Did they, (and they had perceived the full mischief of the Romish doctrine concerning traditions, but) did they set themselves to the task of culling for themselves the important points of faith out of the wilderness of Scripture truths, abandoning all that they had heard concerning them? or did they not more soberly and wisely, yet with no less freedom than piety, examine by the standard of Scripture the traditions which they had received, and so, discarding those which would not bear the trial, gratefully retain the doctrines of sterling weight and value?

They could scarcely have done more, had they been most firmly persuaded, that it was the original intention of Heaven in all ordinary cases, that we should trace the intricacies of revealed truth with the clew of tradition for our guide.

The principle of that practice which, in itself reasonable, was intended by the English Reformers for our benefit, and observed by them for their own advantage, comes recommended to us in no slight degree. But we have higher authority. For let us consider what was the conduct of the primitive Church with respect to tradition. It was of course, it could not indeed be otherwise, to receive the faith of Christ first by the spoken word, and then by the written authorities. Therefore, brethren," says the apostle to the Thessalonians, "stand fast, "and hold the traditions which ye have been "taught, whether by word, or our Epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15.)

66

But it will instantly be objected, that the "word," the oral teaching of St. Paul, has nothing in common with the traditions conveyed by the Church, the instructions of a divinely inspired apostle, with those of his weak and fallible successors. Most certainly the cases are distinct; it was quite necessary that those instructions, which were to lay the foundation of all doctrine, should be themselves infallible; but there is no such necessity, when there is ample authority written by St. Paul and the other apostles, that aftertradition should have any independent authority at all; or should be otherwise, than it most surely is, and we allow it to be, quite fallible-yet still it may be just and rational, that this fallible tradition

should be accounted useful, (always indeed in strict reason a presumption of truth, but) useful at least, and intended to be so, in introducing us to those doctrines, which Scripture, the only authority for doctrines now, does not so readily teach.

In one word, as has been the necessity, so seems the supply of it to have been distributed to the first age infallible oral instructions from inspired teachers with less of written authority-to afterages fallible previous instructions with full and complete written authority in the last resort.

To this obvious distinction the Romanists pay no regard; and hence their pernicious errors, respecting the authority of their doctrinal traditions. Accordingly the Romish writers in general consider the passage above cited (2 Thess. ii. 15.) as decisive in their favour; the note to it in the modern editions of the Rhemish Testament exclaims, "See here "that the unwritten traditions of the apostles are "no less to be received than their Epistles." And Bossuet refers to it with the same view in his "Exposition of the Catholic Faith."* When the necessity however for tradition entitled to independent authority was removed, the possibility of establishing its claims ceased also. We We may admit that the apostle here recommends tradition in the sense of the Romish apostolical tradition; and whilst its origin was known, and its authority accredited by the miraculous powers of the teacher, it was doubtless equivalent to the Scriptures themselves. But the Church of Rome entirely fails, and from the very nature of the case cannot but fail, in

*See Comparative View, 2d ed. pp. 61, 62, 63.