In fact, there can be no security for Protestants, except in a total rejection of the traditionary theory. There is the more need of saying this, because there are signs of a leaning to tradition in a branch of the Protestant Church, which has generally been considered as little likely to favor Popery as any other.* Our rebuke of any such leaning cannot be too decidedly given. Whether it be tradition beyond Scripture, or subordinate to Scripture, or blended with Scripture, or explaining Scripture, (that is, authoritatively,) it is still tradition instead of Scripture, and we will have none of it. "Let in but one little finger of tradition, and you will have in the whole monster, horns, tail and all." Tradition, we mean, as authority binding upon any man's conscience or judgment, We do not, must not refuse to listen to the voices of faithful men, whether of the first century or the nineteenth, but we must remember still that they are but the voices of men. We do not despise the testimony of any church, still less of the Universal Church, could it be delivered, but we must recollect, notwithstanding, that God has given no promise of infallibility to the Church. We hold in great value, as an aid to interpretation, the symbols of the early churches, and the creeds which have been held throughout Christendom for ages. But we cannot for a moment admit, without treachery to truth and God, that any testimony, any creed, any symbol, unless expressed in the ipsissima verba of Scripture, is binding upon any man's conscience as the Rule of his faith and practice.

This point is one of such vital importance, that no man ought to rest satisfied with any but the clearest views of it; yet there is much vagueness of conception in regard to it, even among Protestants. The Puseyites, and all who favor the Priestcraft theory, delight in this fog of opinion, and use the most strenuous efforts to make it as dense as that which covered Egypt of yore. It is an easy thing to prate of the authority of the Church, the primitive times, the Fathers, universal consent, and the like, without coming to any precise

* See Schaff on Principle of Protestantism

explanation of the meaning of terms; and the books of the Traditionists are full of this kind of mist. Putting good and bad things together, and offering the medley in the dark, they deceive many who would spurn them and their gifts in open daylight. Their system of Scripture and Tradition, or of Tradition interpreting Scripture, is far more insidious and dangerous than the open claim of Papal infallibility. But, as Dr. Whately has admirably shown, they come to the same result. If there can be no appeal from the interpretation of Tradition or of the Church, it is equally authoritative with Scripture at last.

We ask special attention from those who may read Dr. Peck's book, to his section on the "alleged necessity for Tradition." The principal ground assigned for this is the obscurity of Scripture, and in this point Puseyites, High-Churchmen and Romanists cordially agree. In meeting the whole argument two inquiries are naturally suggested: first, whether there is, in fact, any such obscurity in the Scriptures as is pretended; and secondly, whether Tradition is the appropriate remedy. In regard to the first, Dr. Peck proceeds as follows:

No one in his senses has ever asserted that 'the Scriptures are so clear that private Christians could not err in understanding' them, or that there may not be a variety of opinions in relation to many points of minor importance among Christians. But are the Scriptures consequently so obscure that they do not constitute a perfect rule of faith and practice? Have they therefore no sense in themselves? This consequence by no means follows from the premises. A written rule may certainly be so plain that common minds may, with suitable attention, so far understand its import and application that none of its practical objects will necessarily be thwarted, without being so clear that they could not err' under any circumstances. And we have never alleged that Divine revelation was so plain that there is no hazard through negligence or prejudice of misconceiving its true import. The Author of the Scriptures has so adjusted them that a clear apprehension of their import requires the exercise of our voluntary powers; and has made us accountable to himself for a right under

* Kingdom of Christ, Essay II. § 25.

standing and a proper application of their great principles of faith and rules of duty. There is, indeed, a wide difference between the fact and the allegations of our opponents-between the necessity of careful examination of the Holy Scriptures, aided by all the means within our reach, and the necessity of a traditionary sense handed down from the apostles.”—pp. 125, 6.

4

Of a piece with this doctrine of the obscurity of Scripture is that of its defectiveness, a point in regard to which "Churchmen" quarrel among themselves, although the difference between them is only that between tweedledum and tweedledee. The whole traditionary system tends necessarily to weaken men's confidence in the Scriptures. What could work more effectually into the hands of infidelity than this perpetual ringing of the changes upon the obscurity of the Bible? When we hear one of the ablest of the traditionists declaring that the "private student of the Scriptures would not ordinarily gain a knowledge of the Gospel from them," we know not which should be greater, our indignation at the atrocious ingratitude of the man, or our pity for his blindness and our apprehension for his fate. God has given us a "light for our feet," but these men tell us it burns so dimly that we shall not make our way with it: God has given us a "lamp unto our path," but they declare it to be a dark jack-o'lantern that leads only to bewilder: God has given us a revelation of "his will," but they assert that the Pythoness spoke less ambiguously: God has given us a "sure word of prophecy," but they tell us that tradition is surer. The Scriptures declare themselves "able to furnish a man thoroughly unto every good work;" but we are told many good works are required on which Scripture is silent, and so it must be mended by tradition. "As Argo was patched until there was nothing of the old ship left, so these men have patched up the word of God until there is nothing of the word of God left in it."*

Here, after all, is perhaps the most fearful danger to be apprehended from the insidious teachings of Puseyism and

* Lightfoot, Works VI. 56.

High-Churchism. Their doctrine cannot obtain the slightest hold upon any mind without diminishing its reverence for the Scriptures. The Word of God, like God himself, demands undivided homage; its throne in men's affections cannot be shared with popes, or creeds, or churches. Unless our confidence in it is supreme, its high purpose as God's revelation can never be accomplished. But it is impossible, in the nature of things, for the same mind to believe that the Scriptures are so obscure and imperfect as to need any supplement, and yet to offer them the entire allegiance which they demand. And the end must be a blind superstition or a heartless skepticism. If men can only be brought to believe what the traditionists say,-viz., that there is no more reason for receiving the Bible than for receiving their dogmas,—it will not be long before the drama of French infidelity will be played over again. It becomes us, then, if we would hold the Bible, to reject tradition utterly. We must have nothing to do with men who tell us to "seek unto wizards that peep and mutter. Should not a people seek unto their God? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Dr. Peck devotes a short section, (a long one was not necessary,) to an examination of the few passages of Scripture which are claimed as supports to the traditionary scheme, and shows clearly, what indeed few of the advocates of the scheme will deny, that it must look elsewhere than to the Bible for its authority. Give them their theory of interpretation, and they are willing enough to adopt the Bible, because they can then make what they please of it; but apart from this, they have no love for scriptural arguments. Their chief stronghold is found now, as it always has been, in appeals to the Fathers. Dr. Peck avers his willingness to meet them even on this, their chosen ground, and in his second chapter rebuts the principal evidence claimed for Tradition from the Fathers, while in the fourth, he adduces positive testimony from the same source in favor of the Scriptures as the sole

rule of faith. We certainly hold their testimony in little value, one way or the other; nor does our author appear to have a much higher opinion of them. The ground on which he appeals to them at all may be gathered from the following passage:

"It must not be inferred from my readiness to inquire into the opinions of the Fathers upon the subject of tradition, that I recognize their competency to settle the Divine rule of faith and practice. I acknowledge no authority competent to this but God himself, or those whom he has inspired. So that, if those who are called Fathers should explicitly tell us that oral tradition coming down, as says the Council of Trent, 'from hand to hand,' is to be received to the end of time, as a part of this rule, we should not submit to their decision in the case, unless it could be sustained by God's word."-p. 152. But, after some examinations, having become perfectly satisfied that our opponents derive no support from the most ancient of the Fathers, whose writings have come down to our times, I shall devote a brief space to the consideration of the evidence which is adduced from this source." And again,-"Though we cannot admit the Fathers in matters of faith, yet they are available in a controversy with traditionists as an argumentum ad hominem. And I wish the reader to recollect that it is in this light only that I rely upon the patristic testimony which I adduce in this section. And if it is clearly shown that the chosen witnesses of our opponents bear testimony against them, the weakness of their cause will appear in a very clear and strong light." -p. 321.

With such views of the Fathers, it would be the worst of logic to appeal to them in confirmation of any doctrine, in such a way as to leave the impression that the doctrine would fall to the ground, if not so supported. We do not understand Dr. Peck as denying that the traditionary system can be sustained by quotations from the Fathers, but as asserting that the opposite system can be supported by appeals to them as well and in view of the famous maxim of Vincentius, that we are to receive that and that only as truth, "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est," Dr. Peck's argument is a tremendous one. It is not for him to attempt the impossible task of making out that the Fathers were all wise, learned, or consistent; but to show that they

THIRD SERIES, VOL. II. NO. I.

4