cation of the Church. By the unlearned man, the Apostle means the layman; and he shews how this unlearned man sustains a very great loss when prayers are made in a language such as he, through want of understanding, cannot say Amen to: Chris. in 1 Cor. xiv.-See also St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian.

ERROR WHEN INTRODUCED.-This glaring inconsistency first arose from the Latin language becoming corrupted by a mixture with Italian, French, Spanish, &c. The same forms of prayer continued in use, although those who used them had changed their vernacular tongue.

(To be continued.)

TRADITION.

So much is now said about Tradition by almost all parties, that surely we shall be excused if we also make a few observations in reference thereto. We have neither time, room, nor inclination to go into the subject at any length, but what we do say shall be as much to the point as possible; and if we should happen to turn the tables completely upon those who are now making a great clamour about they know not what, they cannot complain, for we shall be only exercising that right of private judgment and liberty of conscience which they constantly plead and we ardently love.

We frankly confess that we have not given the matter any very deep consideration, chiefly because we do not think it necessary; being satisfied that it is so easy and plain that if the worldly interests of men had not raised a controversy about it, and thereby rendered it in some degree intricate and perplexing, there would have been no difficulty at all in the business. To the sober intelligent Christian, who casts all heat and prejudice to the winds, and desires to learn the simple truth as in the sight of Almighty God, that which will first strike his mind, on examining this much-agitated subject, will be, the lamentable misrepresentation and untruth with which it has been surrounded and mystified. Pride has been the ruin of the world, and is the blight of the Church; and if men would bring more humility and lowliness of mind, in other words, more genuine vital Christianity, to the consideration of any thing and every thing that relates to their eternal welfare, there would be little difference of opinion, less controversy, and an abundant harvest of all those fruits and graces of the Christian character which are so glorifying to God and beneficial to mankind.

Let us, then, first understand the meaning of the word Tradition, that we may the better know what we are discoursing about. Tradition is a Latin word, and simply means in English the act of handing or delivering something to another; but the word is now commonly used, theologically, to signify not so much the act of delivering, as the matter delivered. And when, therefore, we speak of Tradition, we mean the doctrine of our religion, which has been delivered down to us from the earliest ages of the Christian Church. Then, again, Tradition is of two kinds: the one written or delivered down to us by writing; and the other oral, or delivered down to us by word of mouth. About oral tradition, or that delivered by word of mouth from one to another, we need give ourselves no trouble; for as there is no certainty about what some denominate oral tradition, and as we may rest assured that our heavenly Father, who is so merciful and gracious, would not allow anything necessary to our salvation to depend upon uncertainty, we shall be in no sort of danger if we reject all oral tradition at once, without further

66

ceremony. The papists, who are really very great geniuses, speak of "the Holy Scriptures as the written part of the Word of God," thereby wishing us to understand that there is also an "unwritten part of the Word of God," which they call oral tradition, comprising a waggon-load of "lying legends," ridiculous monstrosities, and laughable stories," which have been invented to prop up popery, and which nobody would ever dream of believing, but the poor deluded victims of the crafty priests of that idolatrous system of wickedness and corruption. May God in mercy rescue the souls of the people from so awful a delusion and so grinding a tyranny!

66

Written Tradition is of a very different nature, for the Holy Scriptures themselves are written Traditions-writings delivered down to us by the Church, termed in our twentieth Article "a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ." The Sacred Writings are, indeed, the very first Tradition, and the fountain of all true and legitimate Traditions; and all Traditions which are repugnant to the Word of God," are to be rejected without ceremony; for, as our sixth Article expresses it:-"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." But the Holy Scriptures are not now termed Traditions, the word being employed to distinguish that which is not delivered to us in the Scriptures, but in human writings and otherwise.

Now, as all sects and parties in "The Religious World" hold Traditions of some kind or other, and pay respect to them, all that we have to do is to make our choice. Churchmen hold Traditions, and openly avow that they pay great deference to them. The various sectaries also have their Traditions, and the simple and only question is, what Traditions shall we hold ? which are the best? The answer to this question will settle the business, and may end the controversy about Tradition.

When the dissenters represent Churchmen as alone holding Traditions, they do that which is very wrong; whether wilfully or ignorantly, it is not for us to judge. And when either they or anybody else say, as has been sometimes the case, that Churchmen "exalt Tradition to an equality with the Scripture," or that they make it "co-ordinate with the Scripture," they state that which is decidedly untrue. Churchmen do not treat or consider Tradition or the Fathers as equal with the Scriptures, or as otherwise than subordinate and incomparably inferior. What the Church and Churchmen do, and ever have done, and ever will do, is this, that when, as at present, they are engaged in controversy with the heretics and heresies, and the schismatics and schisms of the day, they appeal to the Fathers, or to Tradition, in support of their interpretation of disputed passages of Scripture. The sectaries of this day, as they always have done, appeal to the Scriptures in proof of their various errors, and Churchmen also appeal to the Scriptures for contradiction of those errors. Here they are at issue. The contending parties all agree that the Word of God is the standard of faith and practice, and appeal to it accordingly; but they differ about the meaning or interpretation thereof. And then other authorities are produced, not in opposition to the Scriptures, or at least we would hope not intentionally so, but in confirmation of the opposite or different interpretations of Scripture by the contending parties. The Churchman appeals to the opinion of the primitive Church, and the primitive Fathers who lived with, and immediately after, the blessed Apostles, in favour of his interpretation; and the various dissenters appeal to their own private judgment, or to the Traditions of the founders or leaders of their respective sects, in confirmation of their interpretations. So that it is no more right to say that Church

men exalt Tradition or the Fathers to an equality with Scripture, than it is to that dissenters exalt their private opinions on the Traditions of the respective fathers and founders of their sects to an equality with Scripture.

say

The controversy is not about the Scriptures themselves, but about the meaning of them. The contrast is not between the Scriptures and the Fathers or Tradition; not between the book interpreted and the interpreters; but between one class of interpreters and another; between the varying interpreters and interpretations of the Word of God; between the interpretation of the primitive Church and the interpretations of the modern sects; between the sound conclusions of the ancient Fathers and modern private opinions. Suppose, for instance, the dispute is about Episcopacy-the disputants appeal to the Bible; the Churchman says that Episcopacy is there clearly laid down, the dissenter denies it. They next cite authorities in favour of their respective interpretations, or belief of the meaning of the Scriptures. The dissenter cites in favour of his interpretation the opinions of Robert Brown, and Mr. James, and Mr. Scales and Towgood, and Dr. Pye Smith and others; or, if he be a Wesleyan, he gives the opinions of John Wesley, of Adam Clarke, and Dr. Bunting and others. But the Churchman says, the nearer the fountain the purer the water;" and cites in favour of Episcopacy the names of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of Clement, of Jerome, of Tertullian, of Augustine, of Cyril, Chrysostom; and, in short, he appeals to the voice of the whole Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years after Christ. And not only so, but he gives the solemn decision of the Church of England, in her Preface to her Ordination Services, wherein she says:-"It is evident unto all men, diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostle's time there have been these three orders of Ministers in Christ's Church-Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority."

The question then seems to resolve itself into this, What Traditions are most worthy of credit ?—the Traditions of St. Ignatius, who was many years intimate with the Apostles, and was made a Bishop of Antioch by them, with Priests and Deacons under him, or the Traditions of Emanuel Swedenborg; the Traditions of St. Augustine, the celebrated Bishop of Hippo, or the Traditions of John Wesley; the Traditions of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, or the Traditions of Johanna Southcote; the Traditions of Tertullian, or the Traditions of Edward Irving; the Traditions of Chrysostom, or the Traditions of Micaiah Towgood, Dr. Pye Smith, Mr. James, Mr. Binney, or any other of the moderns? In short, shall we be guided by the unanimous voice of the Church, during her primitive purity, and for the whole course of fifteen hundred years, or shall we be guided by the Traditions of any one, or all, the conflicting sects of modern times? No Churchman will hesitate a moment for an answer.

But we must not forget, that dissenters are constantly stating and insinuating that Churchmen virtually reject "the Bible as their standard of faith and practice," and prefer in its stead a mass of vain Traditions, destitute of foundation, either in Scripture, in truth, in Ecclesiastical history, in reason, or in anything else, save in their own imaginations. Of course, it is as frequently stated, insinuated, or left to be inferred, that they themselves take "the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice," and reject entirely all Traditions of every kind, and every notion or practice that is not expressly and clearly inculcated in God's Holy Word. But we have often been struck with the fact, that almost invariably—yes, we repeat it—almost invariably are the dissenters themselves

NO. III. VOL. I.

M

flagrantly guilty of the very practices of which they falsely accuse the Church. We could show this to be the case to such an extent of gross and palpable inconsistency, that none would credit it but those who have turned their minds to the subject. So, in this matter of Tradition, they are precisely in the state in which they untruly represent the Church to be. And most truly may it be said of them, as Christ said of the Pharisees, "Full well ye reject the Commandments of God, that ye may keep your own Traditions." (Mark vii. 9.)

So Scriptural is the foundation and superstructure of the Church of England, that all the notions which the various sects of dissenters hold differently from the Church are neither more nor less than Traditions, vain Traditions, pure inventions of men, and either directly opposed or implying opposition to the Word of God. If we take the Independents or Brownists for example, we shall search the Scriptures in vain for a single text in support of congregational independency; the election of Ministers by the people; the mode or modes of admitting persons to membership with their societies; or of any other peculiarity which distinguish them from the Church. Congregational independency and the election of Ministers by the people, which may be considered as the foundation of their whole scheme of dissent, are both directly opposed to the whole tenor of the Word of God, and rest for support entirely upon the Traditions of men of modern times. They are, indeed, Traditions "repugnant to the Word of God," and never followed, known, or heard of, until within the last two hundred and fifty years. And yet these very people, who hold these Traditions in opposition to the whole tenor of Divine Revelation, are continually asserting that they dissent from the Church because of her Traditions, and that they may hold "the Word of God as their only rule of faith and practice!" In short, such is the inconsistency of these people that, while they are representing their system to Churchmen as perfectly Scriptural, they are differing about it with each other, and endeavouring to improve it; whereas if it be, as they say, Scriptural now, it could not be so after they had improved it. Some of them are even recommending the system of the Church; for, in the first article of the Congregational Magazine for September last, we positively find the following very remarkable words:" We should have been glad to see some congregational ministers EPISCOPALLY ORDAINED, since they would thereby have acquired an essential element of goodness." (P. 531.) They here admit that they are destitute of "an essential element of goodness," which the Church possesses; and that that essential element of goodness" is Episcopal ordination!! Why, in all conscience, what do these men dissent for, except that they may get rid of essential element of goodness?"

66

an

And if we take the Wesleyans, the next largest body of dissenters, we find them acting precisely on the same grounds and with the same palpable inconsistency. They pretend that they hold "the Sacred Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice," and that they reject Traditions of all kinds; and yet we know not of any sect which pays so much respect to Traditions. Their religion is, in fact, little else but a mass of Traditions, and some of them fraught with something bordering on absurdity, if nothing worse. Where shall we find in Scripture the remotest sanction for their conference, their band-meetings, their class-meetings, or confessionals; their extraordinary conversions, and similar proceedings; their "perfection" in living without sin either in thought, word, or deed; their order of conducting their service, and many other things "too numerous to mention ?" The truth is, that nothing of this kind, nor anything else that is peculiar to Wesleyanism, is to be found in Scripture at all. The whole system is composed of the Traditions of John Wesley. The written Traditions of Mr. Wesley are to be found in his Sermons and his "Notes" on the New Testament, in his Journal and the Minutes of Confer

ence. To the Sermons and the "Notes" all candidates for the Wesleyan Ministry are obliged to subscribe; as they are considered the standard Traditions of Wesleyan Methodism. The unwritten Traditions of Methodism are not quite so tangible, but we believe just as Scriptural, as many of the written Traditions, which were not known in Christendom until the time of the Rev. John Wesley. This Rev. gentleman, we believe, delivered one Tradition which has not exactly been verified. In a Sermon delivered at Bradford, Yorkshire, we think in 1788, he prophesied that the world would be at an end in 1836.

The Quakers, who are indeed the most consistent of all the sects of dissenters, have been just as infelicitous in their prophecies. Friend Barclay says, in the conclusion to his Apology:-"That little spark (Quakerism) that hath appeared, shall grow to the consuming of whatsoever shall stand up to oppose it! The mouth of the Lord has spoken it." For the mouth of the Lord, read the mouth of Barclay. Friend Bayly (Works, p. 196,) says:"Christ in the people, the Immanuel who is now coming in ten thousands of his saints, called Quakers, who tremble at his word; for they are the people that shall spring up, and spread from the root of Jesse over the face of the whole earth." It is seldom that we read of prophets laying a bolder claim to Divine inspiration than these people did for their awful delusions; and it would be difficult to imagine a more remarkable failure in the fulfilment of these pretended prophecies than that which the present declining state of the Quakers everywhere presents. And yet these false prophecies remain amongst the Traditions of the Quakers.

It is also a fact, that in the late dissensions which have occurred amongst these people, although some of them have appealed to Scripture in so many words, yet the Traditions of Quakerism have been the real standard by which the delinquents have been tried and condemned. And the separatists from the main body, consisting of Isaac Crewdson, William Boulton, of Manchester, and some others, have now adopted a new set of Traditions quite unscriptural, but still less objectionable than the Traditions of the older body. And, in short, notwithstanding the objections made to the sound and wholesome Traditions of the Church of England, all the sects of Brownists, Irvingites, Papists, Presbyterians, Moravians, Ranters, Wesleyans, Kilhamites, Bryanites, Sandemanians, Socinians, and others almost without end, adhere to the Traditions of their respective founders-Traditions which, had we room and time, we could prove seriatim to be utterly "repugnant of the Word of God."

The question, as we before stated, is not about the authority of the Holy Scriptures for all agree that they contain every thing necessary to salvation --but about the meaning or the interpretation of the Scriptures. And then, again, the controversy is not alone between the Church and the sects, but also between the various sects themselves, who differ as widely from each other about the interpretation of the Word of God, as they all do from the Church. Indeed, there has lately been terminated a controversy between Dr. Pye Smith, quite an oracle amongst the dissenters, and a Mr. Walford, a minister and tutor of the same sect, about the meaning of the first words of 2 Tim. iii. 16. And in reply to his opponent, Dr. Pye Smith uses this remarkable language:-" No person is competent to ex-cogitate for himself a religion out of the Bible, or out of any other book, without the assistance of all those various means which, in the Bible, as in every other book, are indispensable to his reading, understanding, feeling, analysing, and judging of its multifarious contents. Our appeal should be to the Bible, with every note and comment, from every quarter; from all those legitimate [who is to judge of