ceive the new revelation, which had its beginning in the miniftry of John Baptift, that introduced his own miniftry among them, which they were oppofing by their tradition. And the apoftles and infpired writers of the New Teftament who alledge the Old teftament fcripture against the Jews oppofing them by the traditionary glofs, take fpecial notice of thofe Jews who were induced to believe the gofpel by fearching the fcriptures. See Acts xvii. 2. 3. 11. & 12. The New Teftament revelation was at firft published, as the Old had been before, by word of mouth, and not all at once. For, even after the Lord's afcenfion, the Holy Ghoft fent down from heaven, led the apoftles as it were ftep by step into the whole truth, or into the whole of that counfel of God which they declared. They did not prefently begin to write when they declared the truth concerning Chrift's refurrection, whereof they were witneffes, and when they delivered the ordinances of the Lord Jefus to the difciples. Nor did every one who believed the gofpel, receive it from the mouth of an apoftle: the Coloffians learned it of Epaphras, one of the apoftle's companions; and even fome of the infpired writers, as Luke and Mark, were not themselves apoftles, or chofen witneffes fent to teftify Chrift's refurrection; but received what they wrote, the one probably from Paul, and the other from Peter."

The occafion of their beginning to write the New-teftament revelation is remarkable. The difciples at Antioch were impofed on by teachers who came from Jerufalem, as from the apostles who were there, and from the elders of that church, delivering this doctrine and commandment to them, That it was neceffary for them to be circumcifed, and to keep the law of Mofes; and when inquiry was made, if these apoftles, or the elders of the church in Jerufalem, had given thefe teachers any fuch commandment as a part of the New-teftament revelation that should go forth from Jerufalem, the apostles found it neceffary to write to them in Antioch on the fubject, upon which a falfe tradition had been delivered there, even while they were living, and capable to give it exprefs contradiction; that, fo as Mofes and the prophets were read in the Jewish fynagogues, this apoftolic writing might be read in the churches to which it was delivered, to guard them against that falfe tradition. See Acts xv, and xvi. 4,

Thus the New-teftament revelation began to be committed to writing, and delivered to the churches to keep; and as in thefe churches they attended to the reading of

the

the fcriptures of the Old Teftament, fo they were ordered and encouraged to read the New-teftament fcripture, as foon as they came forth to them, Col. iv. 16. 1 Theff. v. 27. Rev. i. 3. And from this beginning of writing the New-teftament fcripture till the time when it was completed, Chriftians had part of the New-teftament revelation by word of mouth, and part of it by writing; as, when Paul wrote to the Theffalonians, forewarning them of the great corruption of the Chriftian religion, the great apoftafy from the apoftolic rule that was to take place before the Lord's coming: against which apoftafy he gives them this guard, 2 Theff. ii. 15. Therefore, brethren, ftand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epiftle. They were to hold the whole gofpel which they had heard, as well as that part of it which they had already written to them. But when the New-tefta ment fcripture is finished, it no lefs contains the whole traditions of the apoftles, than the Old-teftament fcripture contained all the traditions of Mofes and the prophets, as the only rule of religious belief and practice to the Jewish. church in the time of our Lord. You fee how the New teftament fcripture concludes with refpect to them that add to it or take away from it; and Paul takes notice of fome in his time that would pervert the gofpel, pronouncing a curfe on any that fhould preach it otherwife than as the firft. Chriftians received and heard it from the apoftles: and how they received it from them, is as hard to know, any other way but by their writings, as it was, in the days of our Lord's flesh, to know what Mofes and the prophets faid but from their writings, or from the new revelation that was promifed in the conclufion of them, Mal. iv. 5. 6. But there is no new revelation to come for explaining or apply. ing the New-teftament fcripture, as appears from the conclufion of it.

As the Old-teftament fcriptures, the oracles of God, were committed to the church of the Old Teftament, so are the New teftament fcriptures to the Chriftian churches.

The Jewith church was greatly corrupted, when they fulfilled the fcriptures against themfelves, by condemning and killing the Meffiah, out of their zeal for the tradition of their elders; yet they are not found fault with by our Lord or his apoftles for corrupting the fcriptures, or for being unfaithful in keeping the oracles of God pure and entire that were committed to them, but for corrupting their re

ligion,

ligion, by the tradition of their elders, added to the fcriptures, as their rule at leaft of interpretation, even as they have to this day their tradition as the rule of religion together with the fcriptures: and therefore we cannot by any means infer, from their being intrufted with the oracles of God, and true to that truft, that therefore we ought to receive the traditions of the Talmud as the rule to the church of the Jews, together with the Old-teftament fcripture that we received from that church, or that we ought to receive the Jewish interpretation of thofe oracles of God that were committed to them.

And though the Chriftian churches fhould become as corrupt as ever the Jewish church was, even fo as to become fynagogues of Satan, there 'could no inference be drawn from thence to fhew, that they were unfaithful in the truft of the oracles of God, the New-teftament fcripture, committed to them; nor can any inference be made, from their being faithful in that truft, to fhew them faithful in any thing elfe, any more than the Jews, whofe fall is fet as an example to the Roman church to fhew them their fallibility. See Rom. xi. 20. 21. & 22.

For, when we confider the defign of writing the revealed will of God to Jews or to Chriftians, we must think the providence of God became engaged to watch over that writing and you fee that fo it did in fact as to the Jews, who had it in their power to corrupt their religion, but not their infpired writings, by which they are condemned. And the fame can be faid of the church of Rome itfelf; for I would feek no other New-teftament fcripture, to fatisfy me of the great corruption and apoftafy of that church, but its own Latin tranflation. And it belongs not to any Chriftian church to tell us what books of the Old Teftament are canonical or not: for Chriftians must hold the Oldteftament fcripture as the Lord and his apoftles took it from the Jews, even as the Jews themfelves hold it to this day.

The pure Hebrew, wherein the Old Teftament was originally written, except a few paffages in Chaldee, was a dead language in the time of our Lord and his apostles; when the Jews read a Chaldee or Syriac tranflation in their fynagogues, or in places where they understood the Greek better, the Septuagint. And though they took the exactest care of every word and letter of the original Hebrew text, yet there were various readings, as appears from the Keri

and

and Cethib. Nor had they the original manufcripts, but copies from them, or from other copies. Notwithstanding this, our Lord appealed to thefe fcriptures as the Jews had them, as the only rule of their religious belief and practice; and he read the 61ft chapter of Ifaiah from the Chaldee translation in the fynagogue, and applied it to himself even as it ftands there, though not in the very fame words with the pure Hebrew text, which is more exactly tranflated in our English Bible. The application of this to the New-teftament fcripture is very plain and obvious, as it is evidently founded in the nature of the thing.

And it is no lefs natural and easy to apply what our Lord fays of the Old-teftament fcripture to the Jews as their only rule, unto the New-teftament fcripture and to Christians. And when you confider all the parts of the plain fimple story I have told, you will be obliged to join me in the application for the objections to what is alledged for tradition, will arife naturally in your mind; and I might state them at large, if it were not for this, that verbum fapienti fat eft. I am, &c.

TRADITION

368

TRADITION by the SUCCESSION of BISHOPS, confidered from its Source in the fecond Century.

Forafmuch as we have beard, that fome proceeding from us, have troubled you words, fubverting your fouls, with -to whom we gave no fuch commandment. Acts

XV. 24.

-As ye have beard that antichrift fhall come, even now are there many antichrifts. They proceeded from us, but they were not of us for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they continued not, that they might be made manifeft, that they were not all of us. 1 John ii. 18. 19.

I'

[First published in the year 1752.]

Renaeus, writing in the time of Eleutherius, who prefided in the Roman church from A. D. 177 to 192, teftifies, that Polycarp, whom he had feen in his youth, was not only taught by the apoftles, and converfant with many who had feen Chrift, but alfo conftituted bishop in Smyrna by the apostles.

And Tertullian, in his book of prefcriptions against heretics, writ not long, probably not twenty years after, reports, that the apoftolic church of the Smyrnæans fet forth Polycarp as placed firft bishop there by John, even as the apoftolic church of the Romans produced Clement ordained by Peter.

Both thefe ancient writers infift on the tradition of the churches planted by the apoftles, handed down by the fucceffion of bishops in them from the apoftles, as a demonftration of the truth that they delivered againft all heretics. And this great argument, in which thofe fathers had much confidence, in oppofition to every heretic, holds to this day in the Roman church, the only remaining apoftolic church that can produce a fucceffion of bishops from the apostles. Irenæus, who gives a lift of the bishops of that fame church from the apostles down to Eleutherius, infifts chiefly on

the