They have all arisen from the teaching of men, who having wandered from the Scriptures of Truth, have invented authority for them in the uncertain traditions ascribed to Christ and His Apostles. There is a remarkable instance in John xxi, 22, 23, where even an Apostolical tradition was proved to be a false one-" Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me, Then went this saying abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die: yet"(here St. John shews that this tradition was a misconception, and therefore not to be relied on)" Jesus said not unto him he shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"*

Thus, from probabilities and facts, we have proved that unwritten traditions are wholly incompetent to transmit the truth of God undefiled to posterity; and consequently they cannot be relied upon as any part of the Christian Rule of Faith. And here we may triumphantly observe, that while the Romish Rule of Faith is thus affected, the Rule of Faith of the Church

* Vide Bagot's Prot. Catech,

of England suffers nothing from such things. Though the whole body of her ecclesiastics were corrupt and depraved, still her Rule of Faith is undefiled! Engraven indelibly by the finger of God, upon the pages of Holy Scripture, her Rule of Faith has passed through all these corrupt ages, like asbestos through the fire, uninjured and pure as when it entered in! Corruptions, it is true, we have had in the Protestant Church-but, simply because it is the Bible, and the Bible alone, that forms her Rule of Faith, such corruptions could never affect its integrity, or defile its purity.

We are aware that here we shall be met with the objection, that though traditions may be, and have been corrupted, yet there is a power vested by Christ in His church, which is able to distinguish the true from the false; and an effectual refutation of the foregoing statements and arguments, is supposed to be found in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It would be quite beside our purpose to discuss this dogma here, but we must briefly nullify the objection. This dogma, then, hath no foundation in truth for the following reasons:

I. It is opposed to Holy Scripture, in which no such doctrine is taught or found.

II. It is repugnant to reason; because the Church, being composed of men who are individually fallible, cannot as a body be infallible, unless as a body it be miraculously taught; and that the Church is so taught, cannot be proved from Scripture.

III. It is disproved by facts; for, whether we lodge infallibility in the Pope himself, or in a General Council without the Pope, or in a General Council with the Pope at its head, fallibility has been repeatedly manifested by each and all. Moreover, the very fact of the uncertainty respecting the particular locality of this Infallibility, affords a moral certainty as to its non-existence.

* Vide XIX. Art. of Ch. of England. Our subject is not the Infallibility of the Pope, but we cannot refrain from here quoting the valuable opinion of Pope Adrian the Sixth on this dogma. He said :-"Certum est quod (Pontifex) potuit errare in iis quæ tangunt fidem, hæresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo."-Comm. in lib. 4. Sententiarum Quest. de Sacr. Confirm. Romæ, 1522: fol. "It is certain that the Pope may err in matters of faith, in defending heresy by his opinions or decretals." Now, we impale the advocates of Infallibility upon the horns of this dilemma :-In this opinion Pope Adrian was either right or wrong. If he were right, then the Pope is fallible: if he were wrong, then Adrian himself was fallible, who was a Pope.

We take, as our next position, the fact that Traditions were condemned by our Lord, His Apostles, and the Fathers.

The Jews, in the time of our Lord, possessed a vast quantity of traditions, which they had added to the truth of God, to such an extent as greatly to obscure, if not in many cases to nullify it altogether. They believed that they had been handed down, incorrupt, from father to son; until at last, on becoming too numerous to be preserved in memory, they were, towards the end of the second century, permanently recorded in six books, called the Mishna. "Learned Jews afterwards wrote comments upon them, which they called Gemara, or Complement. These two books together are called the Talmud: the one made by the Jews of Judea is called the Jerusalem Talmud, and that by the Jews in Babylon is called the Babylonish Talmud."*

Were they

The Jews thought that these oral or traditionary laws were of divine origin. right or wrong in this supposition? We read in Matthew xv. 1-4, that

* Vide Prideaux,

Let us see.

the Scribes

and Pharisees came to Jesus and said:-"Why do thy disciples transgress the traditions of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of GoD (διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν μv) by your tradition?" If, then, their traditions were of divine institution, how could they, by observing them, transgress the commandment of God? Surely God is not divided against himself! And surely, with the immutable God, that which was morally wrong at one time, cannot be right at another. Our Lord then proceeded, by a striking instance, to prove the justness of this his condemnation. Following these corrupt traditions, the Jews held that a man was absolved from obeying the fifth commandment, and from the duty of supporting an aged or needy parent, if (no matter from what motive) he had dedicated his property to some religious use.

"It is Corban,* they suffered

After he had said

him no more to

do aught for his father or mother." Thus they

a gift, offering, oblation, anything dedicated to God.