LECTURE IV.

MATT. xxviii. 18, 19, 20.—And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

THERE are few things, my beloved brethren, more difficult in the management of a theological discussion, than to simplify the argument so as to render it at all acceptable to ordinary minds, however intelligent; the majority of whom, most probably, have never reflected upon the subject before. And this difficulty belongs, more especially, to the topic introduced in our last, and continued in the present lecture; namely, the rule of faith; because, in its nature, it is abstruse and uninviting; and it is seldom that we can hope to see so close an application to a series of discourses on a dry and complicated point, as is necessary for those who would become familiar with the whole chain of reasoning and evidence belonging to it.

Under such circumstances, our only reliance must be placed upon the strength of that religious sense of duty, which impels every conscientious mind to search for truth, without regard to the unattractive character of the argument. But should you, my brethren, belong to that privileged, though not numerous class, who prefer instruction to mere entertainment, I

can at least promise that your interest will not lessen as we advance; since I feel perfectly safe in asserting, that the subject of the present, and a few of the ensuing lectures, is the least inviting of the course, although, perhaps, the most important to be fully understood.

You probably recollect, that our last lecture set forth the rule of faith professed in the Church of Rome, according to the statement of Dr. Wiseman, in which he admitted that the Scriptures alone must yield the proof of the infallibility claimed for the doctrines of their Church, by virtue of which infallibility they assert an equal certainty of divine truth in their traditions and in the Bible; the one being, indeed, written, and the other unwritten; but both, as they say, being alike the WORD OF GOD. The proofs alleged on behalf of the traditions thus exalted by the Roman doctrine to an equality with Scripture, and the infallibility of their Church, form the topics which we promised to discuss in the ensuing lecture. We proceed, accordingly, to consider the arguments which they advance in favour of tradition, and shall then take up their doctrine of infallibility.

They usually commence their defence of tradition by showing, that the first communications of divine truth were delivered orally to the Patriarchs, beginning with Adam; and that from his time down to the deluge, the same truth could only have been transmitted by tradition from generation to generation. And this is undoubtedly correct; but it should always be added, that the result yields us an awful proof of the insufficiency of tradition alone for the preservation of religion, since the whole race of mankind became utterly corrupt, and was destroyed, in consequence, by a universal deluge, which spared none but Noah and his family. It may be said, indeed, that the knowledge of Noah, at least, was pure; and therefore that his case demonstrates the unalloyed transmission of the patriarchal doctrines through a period of more

than two thousand years; but this inference we utterly deny for a double reason. First, because it cannot be shown that Noah had no other basis for his faith than that of tradition. And, secondly, because the contrary may well be presumed from the brief outline of the sacred history, since it is certain that this eminent patriarch had many particular revelations of the divine will vouchsafed to him, some before the flood, and some after it. It is surely unnecessary for me to prove, that he to whom the Almighty condescends to commit his truth by direct communication, must be quite above the necessity of depending upon human tradition.

The advocates of the Church of Rome resume their argument by telling us, that after the flood, the truth was again handed down from Noah to Abraham in the same way; thus demonstrating again the principle, that the transmission of religious doctrines by oral tradition is agreeable to the will of God. And to this, likewise, we willingly assent, if it be added -as it must be, in accordance with the sacred history—that again, and in the comparatively short period of five hundred years, the posterity of Noah had corrupted their traditionary faith, and had become worshippers of idols: so that the Lord, in mercy to mankind, raised up a new man, Abraham, to be the father of the faithful; and sent him away from his kindred and his home, to be a pilgrim and a stranger in the land of Canaan. Here, then, we behold a second proof of the small dependence to be placed upon tradition.

A little further on, in the record of the Scripture history, we find the sons of Jacob, with Jacob himself, settled in Egypt, where their posterity increase and multiply for another period of four hundred years, the latter portion being passed under a bitter bondage, from which Moses is commissioned to deliver them. And how did their traditionary faith stand during all this time, notwithstanding they had a separate part of the country, called the land of Goshen, assigned to them;

and were in a great measure kept distinct from the Egyptians, as well by the rite of circumcision, as by the antipathy of the Egyptians themselves? Why truly, it had become so corrupted, that even after they were delivered from bondage, by signs and wonders of the most astonishing sublimity and grandeur, they forced Aaron to make them a golden calf, and danced and shouted before the idol. Here, then, we have a third proof of the insecurity of tradition.

But now a new dispensation is ushered in, by the establishment of a written record to be the future depository of religious truth. The Deity himself vouchsafes to exemplify the important principle, which was henceforth to be the safeguard of the faith. He pronounces the words of the decalogue from Mount Sinai, in the hearing of the multitude, and then writes them on two tables of stone. In pursuance of the new decree, Moses records every communication of the divine Word, along with every remarkable circumstance in the wonderful history of Israel, during the forty years spent in the wilderness; and the whole of his five books are laid up in the Ark, to be a memorial for ever.

It is worthy of great observation, my brethren, that the committing the precepts of religion, along with the history of the Creation, the fall, the deluge, and all that had previously taken place from the beginning, to the written record of the Word of God, was simultaneous with the establishment of the priesthood, to be the official interpreters and instructors of the people. Before this, there were priests, and there were revelations from time to time. The revelations were committed to no one form of preservation, and the priesthood was committed. to no one class, tribe or family. But now, a new principle is introduced in both respects. The revelations of the Deity are committed to writing by his appointed instrument, and the sacred books, together with the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and the whole order of religion, are committed to a peculiar class

of men, the priesthood; whose office is no longer to be exercised at every man's pleasure, but only according to that order which the voice of the Most High commands. We perceive, therefore, that the authority which established the written. Word, and that which established the peculiar priesthood to be its guardians, judges and interpreters, are one and the same, namely, the authority of the Lord God of Israel.

But here we meet with a bold assertion on the part of our learned advocate, Dr. Wiseman, and his brethren of the Church of Rome, that "although in the Mosaic law, we haye the characteristics of a written code, and although we have an express injunction to note down whatever was to be taught, yet there is no doubt whatever," saith our author, "that by far the most important doctrines were not committed to writing: that among the Jews there was a train of sacred tradition, containing within itself more vital dogmas than are written in the inspired volume.”—“The few," continues Dr. Wiseman, "who take the requisite pains to trace the doctrine of the Jews in this regard, will find, that from the very beginning, from the delivery of the law to Moses, there was a great mass of precepts, not written, but committed to the keeping of the priesthood, and by them gradually communicated or diffused among the people, but yet hardly alluded to in the writings of the Sacred Books." This statement, it must be confessed, is somewhat startling; and since the learned advocate of tradition undertakes to give examples in proof of its truth, we are bound in justice to examine them.

His first reference is to the work of the celebrated Warburton, who, in his learned treatise called "The Divine Legation," maintained that there was no sufficient evidence in the books of Moses, or of the earlier Jews, either of the soul's immortality, or of a future state. Now it is very true that Warburton maintained this notion, and it is equally true, as Dr. Wiseman takes care to inform his readers, that Warbur