Thus then have we proved, from the words of Christ, His Apostles, and the Fathers, that Traditions are to be rejected; and that the written Scriptures alone are to be the Church's Rule of Faith.

But the question here arises-Are traditions to be altogether rejected?—have they no value whatsoever?

We reply, they have their use, and are not wholly to be set aside; but they have no authority in matters of Faith.

And here it may be necessary to state what we mean by tradition, and also to point out how it may be lawfully used.

"Tradition (rapadoσiç) is a general term, and denotes a doctrine handed down in any manner, whether in words by the mouth, or in written documents." When speaking of "tradition," we must carefully bear in mind that the word is used in two distinct senses, both by the writers of the New Testament and by the Fathers. Sometimes it is used to denote doctrines, which, having been orally delivered, were afterwards substantiated in the written Scriptures; and sometimes to denote mere human ordinances, handed down from one to

another. In the former sense, it is used occasionally by St. Paul. For example:-" Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." -2 Thess. iii. 6. Again:-"I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (ràs Tapadoσus, the traditions) as I delivered them to you."1 Cor. xi. 2.*

These traditions are now equivalent to the written Scriptures, and have no existence apart from them. Many passages have already been quoted in this Essay, which show how traditions are regarded by the writers of the New Testament, when used in the latter of the above senses, and therefore need not be repeated. Suffice it here to state that, in matters of Faith, they unequivocally denied its authority.

The Fathers, also, use the word "tradition" in this twofold sense. One or two examples may suffice. Using the word in the former sense, Cyprian says:-"Whence is that tradi

*See also 2 Thess. ii, 15.

tion? Does it descend from the authority of the Lord by the Gospels, or comes it from the commandments and epistles of the Apostles? For God is witness that those things should be done which are written."*

Basil says that "infants should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the tradition of the Lord” (κατα την του κυριου παραδοσιν).†

When, therefore, we

They also use the term frequently in the sense of oral tradition, and of mere human ordinances; as Tertullian, when he says:"You will find no Scripture; tradition is alleged as authority." understand "tradition" in the sense which the Council of Trent puts upon it, it is to be abjured. But when we understand by it something that has been handed down from ancient authorities, but which is not imposed as an article of faith, then it is valuable, and that in

"Unde est ista traditio? Utrumne de Dominica et Evangelica auctoritate descendens an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse quæ scripta sunt, Deus testatur."-p. 210. Ed. Fell.

+ Adv. Eunomius.-Bk. III.

De Corona Militis.

proportion as it can be traced back to the primitive and Apostolic times. If a tradition can be distinctly proved to be Apostolical, and if the doctrine which it inculcates can be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture, then it is to be received and believed, but not otherwise. But we will go further, and say that even less satisfactory tradition has its uses. It enables us to see how preceding generations worshipped God, and how they understood and interpreted the doctrines of Holy Scripture. It affords us much valuable information on many matters connected with the government and discipline of the early Church, and concerning its rites and ceremonies. On such points it is expedient and wise to consult it, but in matters of salvation we can do without it. On these matters Holy Scripture is perfect in itself, and therefore we need not any help from tradition. Inasmuch, however, as it gives us much valuable information touching the pious customs of our godly forefathers, it were rash indeed to repudiate it as altogether worthless. Christians who feel that they are not wiser and better than the ancients, will at least give Tradition a hearing; and though they may well

put down much of what the garrulous old man says, for fable and farce, yet they will now and then hear a word of wisdom to which they will do well to take heed.

We take, as our last position, the fact that Scripture asserts its own paramount and independent authority, and recognises no other Rule of Faith than itself only.

In approaching this important part of our subject, it will be necessary to remember that the Holy Scriptures were written in detached portions, and that they were composed at various intervals during the long space of about sixteen hundred years. Notwithstanding this, however, the knowledge of salvation might have been gathered from them at any period, for "in each age and generation, according to the circumstances of the Church, the books which were extant were sufficient."

The Scriptures, at all times, whether they were few or many, were the true light of God, shining in this dark world as man's guide to heaven, and unto them he "did well to take heed." Did the first Israelites desire the knowledge of salvation?—They had the Pentateuch. Did their successors need further light?-They