!

period, so many divine traditions. And divine
traditions they remained, till they were recorded in
the Gospels. Again, as several years probably
elapsed, after the Apostles had begun to teach under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, before they com-
mitted their doctrines to writing, the doctrines,
which they taught during that period, were so
many apostolical traditions. And apostolical tra-
ditions they remained, till they were recorded in
the apostolical epistles.
epistles. We may safely admit
therefore, that Tradition, or the unwritten Word,
was the first Rule of Christianity. The argument
proceeds, that "when the writings of the New
"Testament were added to it, its authority was not
"forfeited on that account."
Now this argument,
which is employed also by other writers on the same
subject, is supposed to establish the authority,
ascribed by the Church of Rome to the unwritten
Word. For since it cannot be denied, that this
was the first Rule of Christianity, the authority,
which is acknowledged to have been then due to it,
does not immediately appear to have been actually
cancelled by the circumstance, that another authority
was placed by the side of it. Yet, if we examine the
argument a little more closely, we shall find, that it
carries with it its own confutation. For it secretly
implies a point to be proved, and is therefore no-
thing better than a petitio principii. When they
say, that the writings of the New Testament were
added to the unwritten Word, the very term 'added'
implies such a difference between the things them-
selves, as tacitly affords a foundation for their future
superstructure. On the supposition, that the whole

of the then-unwritten Word was afterwards recorded in the New Testament, there would be an absurdity in saying, that the New Testament was added to it. This very term therefore most artfully implies, that a part at least of God's Word, as delivered by Christ and his Apostles, was not recorded in the New Testament. But this is a point, which the Romanists cannot take for granted, when they are arguing with those, who invariably deny it. At the very dawn of the Reformation, both Luther and Melancthon rejected Tradition as a Rule of Faith, because they were convinced, that the whole of God's Word was contained in Scripture, or the written Word.

But if the whole of God's Word is contained in Scripture, or the written Word, how happened it, (as is further argued) that St. Paul himself recommended apostolical traditions to the Thessalonians? In a Note to the passage just quoted, we are referred by Bossuet to 2 Thessalonians ii. 15. where the Apostle (in the words namely of the Latin Vulgate) says, Tenete traditiones quas didicistis, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam nostram; and in the words of our own authorised version, "Hold the traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." This passage the Romish writers in general consider as decisive and accordingly, the Note to it in the modern editions of the Rhemish Testament, exclaims, "See here, that the unwritten traditions of the Apostles are no less to be received, than their Epistles."

But let us inquire what St. Paul meant by these

traditions, as they are called. Did he intend to include in them any portion of those traditions, which are ingredients in the Romish Rule of Faith? If it cannot be shewn that he did, the passage affords no proof whatever, that those things exist, of which it is designed to prove the existence. Now, if laying aside the words of a translation, and foregoing the advantage, which the term 'tradition' affords by its very name, we examine the words of the original, we shall find that the term wapadoris does not afford so easy a proof, as the Traditio of the Vulgate. When St. Paul said to the Thessalonians κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις, the expression was so comprehensive, that it might signify generally "observe the directions which have been delivered to you." And these directions, delivered to them partly in writing, partly in person, might have related to discipline, as well as to doctrine. The Church of Thessalonica was founded by St. Paul himself, who of course therefore must be supposed to have give various directions, relative both to the administration of the community at large, and to the personal conduct of individual members. And that he really had in contemplation the personal conduct of individual members, when he used the term, which we translate by tradition,' is evident from the explanation, which he himself has given of this very term, after an interval of only seven verses. For he there proceeds in the following words, "We command you, brethren, in the name of the "Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves "from every brother, that walketh disorderly, and "not after the TRADITION, which ye received of us.

"For yourselves know, how ye ought to follow us: "for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; "neither did we eat any man's bread for nought: but "wrought with labour and travail night and day, "that we might not be chargeable to any of you; "not because we have not power, but to make our "selves an ensample unto you, to follow us. For

even when we were with you, this we commanded 66 you, that if any would not work, neither should he "eat." From this explanation, given by the Apostle himself, we see that those ragadórs, or traditions, as they are translated, were nothing more, than directions, which he gave to the Thessalonians, not to walk disorderly, not to eat the bread of others, but to follow his example, and work for their own bread. As soon therefore as the whole passage is analysed, we discover, that it is altogether irrelevant and foreign to the purpose, for which the Romanists produce it. But nothing is more common with writers on the subject of Tradition, than to avail themselves of the multifarious senses, in which the term may be used. And since it may denote any thing whatever, which is delivered from one person to another; since therefore it may be applied as variously, as the things delivered are various, the advocates of the Church of Rome can prove just whatever they please, by arguing that, as Tradition is Tradition, so Tradition in one sense is Tradition in another. In this manner the Jewish Masora might serve as an argument for Romish Tradition. The Term Masora' itself denotes Tradition, and it contains, among other things, various readings to the Hebrew Bible, which, according to

E

the account of the Jews, had been transmitted orally through many generations, before they were committed to writing. If then we set aside all distinction, in respect to the quality of the things delivered, we may obtain, even from the Masora, as good an argument for Romish Tradition, as the Romanists obtain from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

Let us suppose however, that, when the Apostlet used the term ragadórs, he had Doctrines in contemplation. And let us examine, whether, even on that supposition, the passage proves the point, which it is designed to prove, and, which if it does not prove, it proves nothing to the present purpose. On that supposition then, St. Paul had delivered Doctrines to the Thessalonians, which are not contained in his Epistles to the Thessalonians. But. does it further follow, that they are contained in none other of St. Paul's Epistles? His Epistles to the Thessalonians were among the earliest, if not the very earliest, which he composed. And who will undertake to prove, that Doctrines, unrecorded in the two comparatively short Epistles to the Thessalonians, were not afterwards recorded, either in the Epistle to the Romans, or in the Epistles to the Corinthians, or in the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Philippians, or the Epistles to Timothy and Titus? Now the bare possibility, that they were afterwards recorded, is sufficient to defeat the object of the appeal. For the present existence of apostolical traditions must be proved, as well as their past existence; or the claims of the Church of Rome will not be established. And, for that purpose, it is necessary to shew, not merely that St. Paul