.

booths; for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness" (Neh. viii. 14, 17). Now here is a case in which the word of God was obeyed, although "authority" was altogether against it; the custom of a thousand years would, in the minds of many, have been quite sufficient to settle the question; and to such it would seem presumption to seek to obey the word of God more perfectly. Were not Samuel, David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, all holy men? and had any of them seen that there was a command concerning booths? This, and much more, might have been said, and in the minds of traditionists (Romish, Anglican, or Dissenting) it would have been a very plain case. But the poor weak remnant who had returned from the captivity, OBEYED the word of God concerning the booths, and the Holy Ghost has been pleased to record this : "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning."

Traditional custom has introduced official priesthood into the church; Rome is consistent in this, for she has changed the Supper of the Lord into a sacrifice, and thus there is given to the priests a seeming work of sacrificing. But the ramifications of Rome have not retained the sacrifice, although more or less they still acknowledge the priests (call them what name you please) as between God and the people. Now there are priests under the new covenant: Jesus is our High Priest, and we all (as believers) are priests through Him; but the tradition of official priesthood virtually denies this, as well as many other of the common blessings of the children of God.

The Lord's Supper, even when the idea of a sacrifice has been excluded, is one of those things in which the semblance of official priesthood is most manifest. Nothing can be more discrepant than the tradition of man and the word of God. The Lord's Supper has become something officially consecrated, and then "administered;" an official person being judged needful to be present: but what saith the word of God? "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread" (1 Cor. x. 16, 17). How different is this joint participation, of which the Holy Ghost makes mention, to which all believers, and none but they were welcome, to the ritual administration of a priest, to saints and sinners alike, or to the form of the same service which is exhibited amongst the limited and defined members of a church; the one departs from the word, by admitting those who are not of the body of Christ, the other by practically excluding from the one bread, those who belong to the one body. The word of God meets both, but both savour of the tradition of Rome, and not of the word of God. Both introduce official Priesthood.

I know that much has been said of late about antiquity, authority, tradition, and the "Fathers." But what antiquity has the Christian church prior to what we read in the New Testament? What authority is there better than that of those who wrote by the Holy Ghost? even the Apostles of the Lord. The word tells me often about submission to them, but not one word about their successors. Who is right in this? The Holy Ghost or men? Has the Holy Ghost committed an oversight, or have men added something to the word of God? One or the other must have taken place.

But I am glad to have a statement of the qualities of the tradition, which is to be looked at as genuine, “Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est." Well then," semper must include the days of the Apostles; "ubique" must include the churches planted by them; " ab omnibus" must include the Apostles themselves: so that if any thing were delivered by the Apostles (the only proof of which would be their own writings), by the churches which they planted, and from their days and onward, it is to be regarded as authentic; but Řome would not wish to test her traditions by this definition, strictly taken, any more than would her ramifications great and small; for, strange to say, this boasted definition would unintentionally exclude all "tradition" which is not in the Scripture.

And as to the "Fathers" I would say, "Ye that desire to be under the Fathers, why do ye not hear the Fathers ?" If the extravagance and folly, and false doctrine of some of the men called Apostolical Fathers is to be credited as truth, whither shall we turn next? Let the Fathers" be either received as authoritative teachers, or let them be tested by the word of God; for those who press them forward so much, do neither the one nor the other.

The "Fathers" often contradict the Scripture,—one another,—and themselves; they give us nothing which can be trusted as authority for understanding the Scripture, and many of the things which they state as Apostolic traditions, are grossly puerile, and some of these are not enforced by those who speak of the "authority of the Fathers." Consistency is desirable in all things, let the "Fathers" Apostolic, and post-Apostolic, be either looked upon as the authoritative teachers of the church of God, and as the expounders of His word; or let them be acknowledged to be fallible men, whose writings are to be judged by the word, and whose superstition and error are not to be upheld on the ground of their antiquity, and the reverence which many have attached to their names. If any one wishes to lose his veneration for the "Fathers," let him read the "Fathers;" and then let him judge, whether they really possess that glory which seems so much to dazzle the eyes of some, or whether this halo of light does not really proceed from the medium through which they are viewed. Let them be looked at in contrast with the word, and they will shew how different is the work of man from the work of God. We may fill our minds with great thoughts about" antiquity," and then come to the "Fathers," and prostrate our souls to their "authority," as to points in debate about external observances, &c.; but this would only shew, how entirely we must have forgotten, that the church is not based on ordinances of external observance, but is set in life; and we have to be diligent, not in building up a curious frame-work, but in manifesting the power of that life which we have through Jesus our risen Lord.

The "Fathers" and their upholders, continually lead away from the risen life and blessing of the church in her Head, to ordinances of "touch not, taste not, handle not, after the commandments and doctrines of men.' Indeed, if there were not in the mind a predisposition to multiply observances, no one would look on the Fathers as intelligent expounders of the Scripture, but as guilty of adding thereto. The ordinances which belong to the church of God, point to blessings known and apprehended. The believer shews in baptism, how he has newness of life, even through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and in the Lord's Supper, we unitedly shew our oneness in Him, whose body was broken, and whose blood was shed for us, and for whose return the church has been called to wait. The encompassing of the saints of God by observances, practically becomes a denial of our being "children;" it makes the heirs into servants, and it is plainly a working of the leaven of Rome.

But if the authority of tradition, and the "Fathers" be set aside, how, it may be asked, shall we be satisfied as to the transmission of the New Testament? It is true, that it is received by the whole of the professing church; but is their common consent in itself an evidence, which ought to approve itself to the conscience? Such are the questionings which may arise, when the word of God, and that alone, is set forth as being of authority in the church.

But if these questionings be patiently examined, instead of their being found to uphold the "authority" of "the church," or the testimony of the "Fathers," it will be found that the reception of the New Testament, and its transmission, are of themselves a conclusive argument against these things.

We have a parallel case in the transmission of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. These were given by God to the Jews; "Unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. iii. 2). Now the very subject-matter of these oracles, and the present state of the Jews, afford a conclusive evidence of the fidelity of their transmission. They testify of a people whom God chose of old; whom He blessed with all earthly blessings in the promised land, according as He had chosen them in their father Abraham; this people was there set upon terms of obedience, terms which they had undertaken at Mount Sinai; the conditions being that they should receive the blessing, if they were obedient, the curse if they were disobedient. And God, before He brought them into the land, declares through Moses His knowledge, that they would corrupt themselves, and thus would bring the curse of God upon them; and we read that the Lord, after stating this, gives a portion of Scripture, that it may be a witness against Israel; "Now therefore, write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other

gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a winess; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware," (Deut. xxxi. 19—21).

I need not here go through all the Old Testament to prove how fully Israel has been unfaithful to God. I need not treat at length upon the threatened judgments, and their accomplishment: these things have taken place; and yet, through all, that scattered nation holds fast the Scriptures given to it, and boldly asserts their divine authority. These books throughout are the evidence against those to whom they were given in charge; and this is God's way of confirming a witness for Himself. Israel still holds fast his record, although they see not how the great object of hope which has been proposed to them, has been by them overlooked; Jehovah of Hosts has become to them a stone of stumbling; and on Him they have fallen, and are broken (Isa. viii.); even when He came as their incarnate Messiah, from whom they hid their faces, and whom they despised and esteemed not. (Isa. liii.) Meanwhile He has certain of whom He says, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples; and I will wait upon the Lord that hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him” (Isa. viii).

While Israel gives me the record of evidence of their own unfaithfulness to God, and of their rejection of their Messiah, and ever asserts that the authority of God is upon this record, I have the strongest moral proof that in this I have before me an unimpeachable witness: for the evidence leads so completely to the condemnation of those who produce it, that they could have no possible reason for imposition in this. We might have supposed that the Jews would not like to remember the law which condemns them, the testimony which shews that it has been for their sin that they were driven from their own land; which shews also that they are still unrepentant (for it is written, that if they repent they shall be restored (Lev. xxvi), but it is not so;—many as are their human traditions, which practically nullify the word of God, they still assert the authority of their Scriptures, and thus we have in this an evidence which nothing can surmount.*—“ Ye are my witnesses,” said God.

Just as conclusive is the transmission of the New Testament through the professing Church. It is on the evidence which it gives against the professing body that I must rest awhile, for it amply meets the objection of any who would make its authenticity to rest upon the authority of the "Fathers" or of the “Church.”

Whatever be a man's character in other respects, if he produce a document and assert its authority, and it be found on examination that it bears explicit testimony that he who produces it is utterly untrustworthy, then I do not rest upon the allthority of the producer as shewing that the document is valid; but I argue its validity from the nature of its testimony, and I expect that in this particular the man has been honest, however ignorant. It would be no use for such an one to plead that he had authority to interpret, or to add to the document; if he stood condemned by it as to credit, his assertion of personal authority would avail nothing, he would * stand as previously condemned by his own evidence. It would be in vain to plead, when this authority might be objected to, that the document rested on his testimony as to authenticity, and that therefore he must be the expounder, and that his additions were also of authority in the same way; for it would be self-evident that the conclusion could not be drawn from the premises.

I wish to be explicit with this illustration, because the objection has been often made.

Now as to the transmission of the New Testament, I fully admit that it was given

The Jews still make their boast in the law, as though they were quite unconscious how it condemns them: to take one instance as an example; they read in the morning service for the Sabbath—“ Rabbi Chanania, the son of Akashia says, 'The Holy One (blessed be He has been pleased to clear [or purify] Israel; therefore He has increased for them law and precepts; for it is said, 'Jehovah delighted on account of his [i. e. Israel's] righteousness, he makes the law great, and enlarges it." Thus strangely do they interpret and apply Isa. xlii. 21. to themselves; as though the many commands of the law shewed them to be very righteous.

to the Church as a body, and that by the professing Church it is held, just as the Old Testament was given to Israel, and was held by them.

This record, entrusted by God to the visible Church, is the witness of the failure and unfaithfulness of the professing body; and they by upholding its authority, are asserting that which bears the most condemnatory evidence against themselves.

I will refer briefly to some of those things which the New Testament teaches, and which are more or less contradicted by the doctrine or practice of the great trunk of apostate Christendom-Rome.

The great basis of all Christian doctrine in the New Testament, is, that a sinner by believing in the work which the Son of God has performed, is a justified person, and that works have no part whatever in giving the sinner acceptance; thus we read -“I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Rom. i. 16, 17).-" To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," &c. (Rom. iv. 5).—(Rom. v. 1.—x. 4—13). "The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe" (Gal. iii. 22). "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast," &c. (Eph. ii. 8, 9). “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.........He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John iii. 14—18). “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all things.” (Acts xiii. 38, 39).

I might multiply quotations greatly on this subject—I might transcribe the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians,—and yet I should bring but a portion forward of that which the New Testament declares as to the doctrine of "Justification by Faith." Rome denies this doctrine, and substitutes her own traditions, which make a man's salvation to depend upon something very different from the simple resting upon that blood which Jesus once shed; and thus, as I have before said, puts herself in direct collision with the word of God.

66

The New Testament is as explicit in setting forth the security of the believer; "eternal life" is mentioned in the passages already cited, now this "eternal life” cannot, without a contradiction in terms, be looked on as that which can have an end; but on this point I will refer, also, to a few other passages. "I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John x. 28). Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. i. 6). “I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it" (1 Thess. v. 23, 24). “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb. x. 14). "Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (1 Pet. i. 5). Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John iii. 2). "Preserved in Jesus Christ" (Jude 1). The common privileges of believers are intimately connected with their secure standing, and their complete forgiveness; thus:-" Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God" (Rom. viii. 15, 16). “ Saints" is the common name which belongs to all believers (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1; Eph. i..1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 2;—1 Thess. v. 27; “holy brethren,” i. e. “brother saints," &c. &c.) I need not say how fully Rome has denied the security, and the privileges of believers; insomuch that her teaching leaves all in uncertainty, as to whether salvation be ours or not; our completeness in Christ (Col. ii. 10) being denied, we are thrown upon something to be done or suffered by ourselves, instead of wholly resting upon the work of Christ : hence the fictions of penance, purgatory, prayers for the dead, &c.; as to which the Scripture says not a word.

66

Works are in the New Testament pressed on us as springing from love, because we

are saved persons (Col. i. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 9, v. 15; Rom. xii. 1, xv. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 10; Tit. iii. 14; Philemon 6, &c.; Gal. vi. 10; Eph. ii. 10, &c. &c.) Rome has blended works with faith.

Next, as to union, the Scripture teaches that its ground is, that we are all one in Christ with all that believe in his name; and that this it is that gives the Church its true character" One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren" (Mat. xxiii. 8; Mark x. 42—45; Luke xxii. 25, 26; John xvii.; Eph. i. 22, 23; ii. 20, 21; Phil. iii. 15, 16; Col. i. 18, &c. &c). Rome has substituted for this the acknowledgment of herself as the centre of earthly unity, and thus the mind is brought down from heaven to earth, from Jesus to him who boldly sets himself as his "Vicar upon earth." Thus every thing has been done, with reference to earth, in utter contradiction to the Scripture: earthly ease, earthly greatness, wealth, and honor, instead of being, like Jesus, without a place to lay his head. Not so does the Scripture teach concerning the true Church (2 Tim. iii. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 24-28; James v. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 21; iv. 12—16; v. 10; 1 Thes. iii. 3; 2 Thes. i. 4—6; Phil. i. 29; Rev. i. 9; Mat. v. 3-12, 38-42; x. 24; xxiv. 9; Mark xiii. 9—13, Luke xxi. 12, &c. &c).

Instead of the "Holy Ghost dividing to every man severally as he will,” human authority has sent forth those who shall minister and rule; and thus the order of the Church contained in 1 Cor. xii. xiv.; Rom. xii.; Heb. x. 25; 1 Thes. v. 11, &c. &c., is wholly set aside. Teachers are to be received, because their "mission" has the sanction of Rome; whereas, the apostles, by the Holy Ghost, directed otherwise ; thus, in 2 John, a Christian woman has to judge of teachers, who come to her, by their doctrine, and not by any human credentials which they bring; while, in 3 John, teachers are to be received, "because that for His name's sake they went forth." This was their warrant; and not that ordination of which the professing Church now makes so very much; also, in 2 Pet. ii., he distinctly warns against teachers, as being those who "privily would bring in damnable heresies," &c.; and their doctrine, and condemns them, not their want of human authority; there might be that which men like so much, but it would give no sanction to the teaching of error (Jude 4).

Apostolical succession has been, and is, rested on, and much is made to depend on this claim. Thus a priest of Rome (Milner) has said, "The word of God which I announce to you, and the Holy Sacraments which I dispense to you, I am QUALIFIED to announce and dispense by such a Catholic Bishop, who was consecrated by such another Catholic Bishop, and so on, in a series, which reaches the Apostles themselves; and I am AUTHORISED to preach and minister to you by such a Prelate, who received authority for this purpose, from the successor of St. Peter, in the apostolic see of Rome." the Scripture at once disproves the claim of all successionists (see Acts xx. 30). Peter knew nothing about succession (2 Pet. i. 15); and yet he has been made the root whence it springs!

But

In offices in the Church the exact direction of the Scripture, in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, have been utterly disregarded by Rome; she appoints those to the office who have not even the external qualification; and by her enforced celibacy she absolutely sets aside the direction that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. The making of the "Church" the authorised expounder of the word, has put her into a place in which the Scripture never recognises her; for the Spirit of truth is given to all believers to lead them into all truth: and it is the responsibility of every individual saint (2 John) to act and to judge in obedience to God. It is really selfwill for us to throw the responsibility of judgment upon others, whatever their character or standing may be. True humility bows in subjection to God, even though man should forbid this.

The infallibility of the Pope is one of the most marvellous of the fictions of man ; he claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, and that he is his successor; now we know from the direct testimony of Scripture (Gal. ii. 11) that Peter was not infallible, and thus this doctrine must be an addition, even if it were conceded that the Pope is the successor of Peter.

Of tradition of men" (Col. ii. 8) I have already spoken.

Rome has settled in the earth, as though the church and the world were not utterly distinct things in the mind of God. She has practically forgot the return of the Lord; "But, and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, my Lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with