Protestant Churches, in respect to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, he proceeds in a subsequent chapter to assign a reason (such as it is) why the Church of Rome acknowledges a second Rule of Faith in Tradition. "The total Rule of Faith "(he says) is the Word of God, or his Revelation to "the Church; which is divided into two partial rules, (( SCRIPTURE and TRADITION. Scripture indeed, "inasmuch as it is a rule, hath this quality, that "whatever it contains is necessarily true, and to be "believed; and that whatever is repugnant to it, is

66

necessarily false, and to be rejected. Since however "it is not a total, but a partial rule, the con"C sequence is, that it does not comprise all things, "and therefore that there are some things relating to FAITH, which are not contained in it 12"

The equal authority, here ascribed to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, is ascribed to it also in the theological Lectures at Maynooth. The proposition announced at the head of the chapter on this subject is, that "there are divine and apostolical tra"ditions, which, though they were not written, "have the force of the written law 13" I will quote

12 Totalis regula fidei est Verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei Ecclesiæ facta, quæ dividitur in duas regulas partiales, SCRIPTURAM et TRADITIONEM. Et quidem Scriptura, quia est regula, inde habet, ut quicquid continet sit necessario verum et credendum, et quicquid ei repugnat sit necessario falsum et repudiandum. Quia vero non est regula totalis, sed partialis, inde illi accidit, quod non omnia mensuret, et propterea aliquid sit de FIDE, quod in ipsa non continetur. Bellarminus de Verbo Dei. Lib. IV. cap. 12.

13 Existunt traditiones divina et apostolicæ, quæ, licet non scriptæ vim legis scriptæ habent. Ib. p. 399.

therefore at present only one more passage on this subject, which shall be taken from the "Exposition "of the doctrine of the Catholic Church in matters "of controversy, by Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux ;" a Work, to which very great deference is paid by the members of the Church of Rome, and of which they have lately published an English translation. In the seventeenth chapter of this Work, which is entitled, 'Scripture and Tradition.' Bossuet says, "Jesus Christ having laid the foundation of his "Church by preaching, the unwritten Word was "consequently the first Rule of Christianity. And "when the writings of the New Testament were "added to it, its authority was not forfeited on that

account: which makes us receive, with equal " veneration, all that has been taught by the Apostles, "whether in writing, or by word of mouth." And he concludes by saying, "Our adversaries should "not be surprised, if we, who are so earnest in collecting all that our Fathers have left us, do pre"serve the deposit of TRADITION as carefully, as "that of the SCRIPTURES."

It appears then from the representations, which the most distinguished among the Romish writers have given of Tradition as a Rule of Faith, that they regard it as an authority, both independent of Scripture, and in all respects equal with Scripture. Indeed whatever can be proved to be the Word of God (for all depends on the proof) must of necessity, whether written, or unwritten, whether preserved by Scripture, or preserved by Tradition, have the same divine authority.

There is one point more, which requires ex

planation, and that indeed a point of no less difficulty, than importance. Though Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, has been fully explained in theory, yet the practical part, or the application of the Rule, may still be attended with various embarrassments. Nothing indeed can be more precise, as far as theory goes, than the statement of Bellarmine, on the respective provinces of Scripture and Tradition. He admits, as we have already seen, that some things relating even to Faith are not contained in Scripture; and hence we might infer, that these are the things relating to Faith, which our Church has rejected, because they are not contained in Scripture. And so indeed we shall find them to be, when we have analysed the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and compared them with the thirty-nine Articles. But the line of demarcation between Doctrines founded on Scripture, and Doctrines founded on Tradition, was not drawn by the Council itself. For, the name at least of Scripture is often joined with the name of Tradition, when the Doctrine to be proved derives, in reality, no support from Scripture. It is true, that where Scripture is too notoriously adverse, there is an appeal to Tra dition, and none to Scripture. But, in other cases, the Decrees of that Council which relate to Doctrines, even to those which Protestants reject, are prefaced by an appeal as well to Scripture, as to Tradition. This two-fold appeal had a two-fold advantage. It covered the distinction which might otherwise have been observed in respect to the foundation of doctrines. And it served to silence, if not to satisfy the followers of Luther, who had already

rejected Tradition as a Rule of Faith, and of course would reject all Doctrines, which were acknowledged to have no other support.

But according to the principles, which the Church of Rome maintains, the authority of Tradition is so far from wanting any aid from Scripture, that the contrary is supposed to be the truth. For that Church represents the written Word, not merely as requiring explanation, which in many places it certainly does, but as being so ambiguous and so perplexed, that in itself it is often unintelligible. On the other hand, it considers the unwritten Word as containing fully and clearly what the written Word contains imperfectly and obscurely. To remedy therefore the supposed deficiencies of the written Word, it applies the aid of the unwritten Word. In this manner is Tradition made a rule for the interpretation of Scripture and the imputed ambiguity of the text gives ample scope for the operation of the comment. Thus is Scripture brought under the tutelage of Tradition and this tutelage is soon converted into a state of vassalage. For since the comment claims the same divine origin as the text itself, that comment, if supposed to be full and clear, in proportion as the text is supposed imperfect and obscure, has in fact an authority superior to that of the text. Hence Tradition, which in theory is made a Rule of Faith only equal to Scripture, becomes in practice a Rule of Faith paramount to Scripture.

The ambiguity, and perplexity ascribed to Scripture by the Church of Rome, for the purpose of bringing it under the tutelage of Tradition, is too notorious to require many quotations for that purpose.

Be it sufficient then to produce the evidence of Cardinal Bellarmine, who has fully stated the sentiments of his Church in the fourth book of his treatise, 'On the Word of God.' In the fourth Chapter of this Book, he declares that Scripture is very often so ambiguous and perplexed, (ambigua et perplexa,) that it is unintelligible, unless explained by some infallible authority 14. He adds, that in very many places we cannot be certain of its meaning, unless we call in the aid of Tradition". And he concludes with the following observation (founded partly on the authority of a former writer) that the Gospel, without unwritten Tradition, is an empty name, or words without sense 16

The state of the question therefore being now explained, we may proceed in the next chapter to a confirmation of it, by an appeal to the Council of Trent.

14 Sæpissime Scriptura ambigua et perplexa est, ut nisi ab aliquo, qui errare non possit, explicetur, non possit intelligi.

"After considering the words of Scripture in the first place, and the sense in the second, he adds, "Nec possumus, plurimis in locis certi esse de secundo, nisi accedat Traditio.

16 Sine traditionibus non scriptis Evangelium esse purum nomen, id est, esse tantum voces et verba sine sensu.