Our Reformers do not merely omit to ascribe to any Creed or other statement of any doctrine, an intrinsic authority or one derived from tradiGrounds tion, but in the Article on the three Creeds, the creeds they take care distinctly to assign the ground on rest. which those are to be retained; viz. that " they may be proved by Holy Writ."

on which

are made to

distinction

Pretended § 25. As for the distinction drawn between between making Tradition on the one hand "an authority and subor co-ordinate with Scripture," on the other hand, dinate tra- « subordinate and blended with Scripture," I

co-ordinate

dition.

cannot but think it worse than nugatory."

The

" Nor by the way is it true that our Church has declared, in that, or in any other Article," that all such Articles as are necessary to be believed for Salvation were comprised at first in the [Apostles'] Creed. This, in fact, is neither done, nor was intended to be done by the framers of that Creed; if at least they held—as I doubt not they did, the doctrine of the Atonement for this is not at all mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. The cause, I have no doubt, was that the doctrine had not in the earliest ages, been disputed. But at any rate, the fact is certain; that the Creed does dwell on the reality of the historical transaction only, the actual death of Christ, without asserting for whom or for what He suffered death.

It is not meant to be implied that all persons who take this view are, themselves, disposed to join the Romish Church, or to think little of the differences between that and their own.

Distinctions may be felt as important by one person, which may appear to others, and may be in themselves, utterly insignificant. The members of the Greek Church for instance abhor image-worship, while they pay to pictures an adoration which Protestants would regard as equally superstitious.

latter doctrine I have no scruple in pronouncing the worse of the two; because while it virtually comes to the same thing, it is more insidious, and less likely to alarm a mind full of devout reverence for Scripture.

blended

ture, the

gerous.

When men are told of points of faith which Tradition they are to receive on the authority of Tradition with Scripalone, quite independently of any Scripture- most danwarrant, they are not unlikely to shrink from this with a doubt or a disgust, which they are often relieved from at once by a renunciation, in words, of such a claim, and by being assured that Scripture is the supreme Authority, and that Tradition is to be received as its handmaid only, as not independent of it, but "subordinate and blended with it." And yet if any or every part of Scripture is to be interpreted according to a supposed authoritative Tradition, and from that interpretation there is to be no appeal, it is plain that, to all practical purposes, this comes to the same thing as an independent Tradition. For on this system, anything may be made out of anything. The Jews may resort whenever it suits their purpose, (and often do) to an appeal to their Scriptures INTERPRETED according to their tradition, in behalf of anything they are disposed to maintain. I remember conversing some years ago with an educated Jew on the subject of some of their observances, and

remarking, in the course of the conversation, that their prohibition of eating butter and flesh at the same meal, rested, I supposed, not, like several other prohibitions, on the Mosaic written Laws, but on Tradition alone. No, he assured me it was prohibited in the Law. I dare say my readers would be as much at a loss as I was, to guess where. He referred me to Exod. xxiii. 19. In like manner, if an ordinary student of Scripauthorita- ture declares that he finds no warrant there for

Conse

quences of

tive inter

pretations believing in the bodily presence of Christ in the

of Scrip

ture by Tradition.

Eucharist, and that he finds on the contrary our Lord Himself declaring that " it is the Spirit that quickeneth"; (giveth life) "the flesh profiteth nothing," he is told that Tradition directs us to interpret literally the words "This is my Body," and that he must not presume to set up his

66

private judgment" against the interpretation, and this, when perhaps he is assured by the same person, on similar grounds, that "the whole Bible is one great Parable!"

If again he finds the Apostles ordaining Elders, (Presbyters) and never alluding to any person, except Christ himself, as bearing any such office in the Christian Church as that of the Levitical Priest, (Hiereus) he is told, on the authority of Tradition, which he must not dispute, that Presbyter means Hiereus, a sacrificing Priest. Mahomet's application to himself of the prophecy

of Jesus that He would "send another Paraclete" or Comforter, was received by his followers on similar grounds; that is, it was an interpretation which he chose to put on the words; and woe to him who should dispute it!

If again we find the whole tenor of Scripture opposed to Invocation of Saints, and Imageworship, we may be told that there is a kind of invocation of Saints which the Scriptures, as interpreted by Tradition, allow and encourage. And so on, to an indefinite extent; just as effectually, and almost as easily, as if Tradition had been set up independent of Scripture, instead of being "blended with it."i

"Tradition " and " Church-interpretation " are made, according to this system, subordinate to, and dependent on Scripture, much in the same way that some parasite-plants are dependent on the trees that support them. The parasite at first clings to, and rests on the tree, which it gradually overspreads with its own foliage, till by little and little, it weakens and completely smothers it :

66

Miraturque novas frondes, et non sua poma."

character

And it may be added that the insidious cha- Insidious racter of this system is still further increased, if of a wrong the principle be laid down without following not

principle not at first followed out into all

its results.

Proved to

whom? an

question.

it out, at once, into all the most revolting consequences that may follow, and that have followed from its adoption. For by this means a contrast is drawn between the most extravagant, and a far more moderate, system of falsehood and superstition; and it is insinuated that this favourable contrast is the result of the one being built on "co-ordinate" and the other on "subordinate" Tradition; the real difference being only that every usurped and arbitrary power is usually exercised with comparative leniency at first, till it has been well established. Let but the principle which is common to both systems be established; and the one may be easily made to answer all the purposes of the other.

And all this time the advocates of this authoimportant ritative tradition may loudly proclaim that they require no assent to anything but what 66 may be proved by Scripture;" that is, proved to them; and which, on the ground of their conviction, must be implicitly received by every man. It is most important, when the expression is used of "referring to Scripture as the infallible standard,” and requiring assent to such points of faith only, as can be thence proved, to settle clearly, in the outset, the important question "proved to whom?" If any man or Body of men refer us to Scripture, as the sole authoritative standard, meaning that we are not to be