opposed to Scripture, in defiance of the doctrine handed down in the church from the times of the Apostles with such clearness and unanimity, that even in the absence of Scripture no man in his senses could doubt, that the heretical notions were inventions of a later date, wholly at variance with what had always been held and taught in the church. Just in the same way might we, in our day, appeal to the Creeds, or to our Catechism, or our Articles; but it would be most unfair thence to conclude, that we held those formularies to be indispensable concomitants of Scripture, and Scripture without them insufficient, for a complete and perfect rule of faith. As regards Irenæus, it is quite clear, that he introduces tradition in his work, not by way of drawing upon it for the rule or evidence of the church's faith; but by way of a digression, to which he is led by his own remarks on the evasive conduct of heretics, in endeavouring to represent Scripture as insufficient for the guidance of our faith, without the aid of an unwritten tradition. With this pretended tradition he contrasts the tradition really existing in the church from the Apostles' time, that is to say, the sum of Christian doctrine, handed down in the church; but no sooner has he shown, that the heretics gain nothing really by their appeal from Scripture to tradition, before he again resumes the course of argument originally proposed. "This then being the case in regard to the tradition in the church, derived from the Apostles, and preserved amongst us, let us turn back to the evidence, deducible from Scripture, of those Apostles who have written the Gospel."

g

g Iren. adv. Hær. iii. 5.

h

In like manner, in matters of ritual observance also, Cyprian vindicates the authority of "the Lord's tradition," (i. e. of the things which our Lord did and said, as recorded in the Gospel,) against the inroads of tradition: "No one is to suppose, that the practice of any is to be followed, who in times past have thought that water alone is to be offered in the Lord's cup: for the question is, whose precedent did they themselves follow? For if in the sacrifice which Christ made, Christ alone is to be followed, we are certainly bound to obey and to do that which Christ did and commanded to be done, since he himself says in the Gospel, 'If ye do whatsoever I command you, I call ye no longer servants but friends.' And that Christ alone is to be obeyed, the Father himself attests from heaven, saying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him: Wherefore if Christ alone is to be obeyed, we must pay no attention to what another before us may have supposed ought to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, did in the first instance;" (and which, in the present case, is indisputably ascertainable from the written word ;)" for we ought not to follow human customs, but God's truth, since God speaks by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;' and since the Lord again repeats this in the Gospel, saying, 'Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' And in another place likewise he saith; 'Whosoever shall break one of these least

k

h John xv. 14, 15.

i

Matt. xvii. 5.

i Isa. xxix. 13; cf. Matth. xv. 9.

Mark vii. 9.

commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." If therefore it is not lawful to break the least of the Lord's commandments, how much more is it unlawful to infringe such great and important ones, so immediately connected with the very mystery of the Lord's passion and of our redemption; or to alter by human tradition the original character of a divine institution ?" m

Nor was this appeal to Scripture, as the sufficient document of our faith, confined to individuals at that period of the church; but we learn from Cyprian, that in the council held at Carthage in reference to the case of the lapsed, the decision was come to upon scriptural grounds, "the Scriptures having been alleged for a considerable time, on both sides of the question."

We would, in conclusion, ask the advocates of tradition, to give their own favourite rule, "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus," a fair trial in regard to the meaning of "tradition;" and when they shall by that rule, rigidly applied, have ascertained "the catholic sense" of "tradition," they will be entitled to call upon their brethren to entertain with them the question of the degree of authority which ought to attach to it; but till they have done so, let them not "trouble the church with words." •

APPENDIX, No. V.

"A few passages in the Fathers, enumerating the leading heads of Christian doctrine, much in the same manner as they are now enumerated in the Apostles' Creed,' have been caught at, and represented as the clear traces of an 'apostolic tradition,' which formed part of the deposit' committed by the Apostles to their successors." p. 147.

That there was, in the primitive churches, some particular formula of faith in use in the baptismal service, is placed beyond all doubt from the direct allusions made to it in several passages of the early Fathers. Irenæus, for instance, refers to a "canon of truth, (kavŵy tñs àλnbelas) received in baptism ;" Cyprian speaks of "baptism in a certain symbol" or creed, and “interrogation" in regard to it, and asserts, that "that very interrogation, is a witness of the truth." But beyond the mere fact of the existence of such a formula, we are wholly in the dark; the assertions of later writers being

T

Irenæus adv. Hær. i. 9.

Eodem symbolo, quo et nos, baptizare.-Cyprian. Ep. lxix.

Ipsa interrogatio quæ fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Cypr. Epist. lxx.

necessarily of little weight in reference to this subject. Two points, however, may be considered tolerably certain: first, that the formula was not one and the same in all the churches, as in that case it could hardly have been lost altogether, or have been supplanted by the different creeds of early churches, which have been preserved to our days; secondly, that it was not, in any case, the work of the Apostles themselves, as it is not to be supposed, that a formula derived from such authority, and withal so easily preserved, would have been suffered to fall into disuse and oblivion. Still less can the summaries of faith, occasionally given in the Fathers, be considered as transcripts of such a formula; as not only the different Fathers give different summaries, but in one and the same Father even, they are not uniform. On the contrary it is easy to perceive, that those summaries were drawn up by those Fathers in particular reference to their argument; and although the essential sameness of the doctrines to be embodied in each, could hardly fail to produce a general resemblance amongst them, yet it is clear on the other hand, that if they had been transcripts of one general formula, they must, even if modified occasionally, bear a much closer resemblance to each other, than they actually do. The following specimens, taken from Irenæus and Tertullian, will serve to illustrate the real character of those summaries.

Irenæus, in the course of his argument against the heretics, reproaches them with the endless variety and inconsistency of their speculations, and contrasts with this the unity and consistency of the doctrine held by the orthodox church in all parts of the world, which he de