All those meetings which have been supposed to have had the power to set forth authoritatively the sentiments of the universal Church on any disputed matter of doctrine, have been nothing more than assemblies of the clerical order. The entire body of believers has never had a voice in the matter. It has been taken for granted that the clergy were especially favoured by Divine superintendence; and it would have been considered as a lowering of the sacred function to have admitted laymen to a participation in the ministerial debates and decrees. It is true that the lay members of the Church had generally a voice in the election of the Bishops; but this by no means shows that they would have chosen the same men for their representatives in an assembly which met to decide on controverted doctrines. The Bishops might have embraced new opinions after being elected to their office, or the laity might have changed their sentiments; a body of spiritual superintendents, selected without reference to any particular Council, and without especial regard to any one disputed article of faith, could not possibly be considered as really representing the views of the whole Christian Church on agitated questions. If we suppose that any weight is to be attached to the

decision of the entire community of professing Christians, such decision has never yet been expressed; the world must see the Councils of the Church constituted after a manner as yet unknown, before we pay regard to their decrees as truly expressive of the mind of the body of Christ.

A question is often raised concerning the real intention of the divines who framed the thirtynine Articles, when they declare that "General Councils sometimes have erred." It is not easy to settle the particular error or errors which they had in view. And to assert that when they used the phrase "general councils," they meant to signify pretended general councils," is almost an absurdity. The fact related by the historians Socrates and Sozomen, concerning Paphnutius at the Council of Nice, furnishes us with ample proof, that in subscribing the Article in question, we are not putting our hands to what is false. Those writers plainly state, that the Council gave its final sanction to the pretended Apostolic ordinance, which forbade those who were unmarried when they received ordination, to enter into wedlock at any future period. Socrates, i. 11; Sozomen, i. 23.

a

CHAP. IX.

OF THE RIGHT USE OF TRADITION.

It is of great importance, that while we reject all the claims of tradition to a divine authority, we see distinctly the real use of traditionary teaching in the course of God's government of the world and of the Church. Theoretically, perhaps, it is of more importance than practically. For such is the case, that with all the ignorance with which some persons, in their zeal against authoritative tradition, deny that any purpose is subserved by the instruction of those who have preceded us in life, in practice all are agreed. With all the Bibliolatry, as it has been termed, of some uninformed men, we all concur in making that very use of tradition which such persons look upon as imaginary. In this case, as in so many others, the necessities of every day life compel the most erroneous theorists to a course of action, as correct and sound, as it is contrary to the tenor of their speculations.

We can

It cannot be denied then, that, from the earliest preaching of Christianity, the inquiring believer in the religion of Christ has derived great assistance from the instruction, the creeds, and the formularies of his predecessors, in his study of the sacred volume. The Bible has rarely been left to be its own sole interpreter; but from age to age, the student of its pages has been enlightened in his investigation by the labours and the teaching of those who have gone before him. Nor can we readily estimate the amount of the advantage which has thus been gained. scarcely picture to ourselves the precise condition and the actual difficulties of the mind, which should be brought to the study of the Scriptures, wholly unaided by other believers in the Gospel. The traditionary knowledge of Christian truth which our forefathers have preserved, and which has ever been the patrimony of the true Catholic Church, is an instrument of no little value and power in the hands of the inquirer. It is in all probability the grand means appointed by God for the purpose of clearing up the obscurities in the written word, and to enable the student of its pages to draw from it clear and definite conceptions of the articles of faith which he is called upon to believe. There are few Christians who

S

have not, perhaps unconsciously to themselves, found such tradition to be the means of throwing light upon the dark mysteries, and reconciling the apparent contradictions, and bringing together the unconnected revelations, which abound in the inspired writings. We all come to the Bible with these traditionary expositions in our hands and there are probably few among us, who, but for the help of this guide, would in all things have attained to such a satisfactory knowledge of the Christian doctrines, as that which is now our great blessing.

Let us, however, distinctly see the real nature of the assistance thus afforded by tradition, that we may not ignorantly attribute to it a power and right to which it has no claim.

It is, then, an indisputable fact, that in every period of the Christian dispensation there have been bodies of men in the world, who have not only received the book of the New Testament as the inspired word of God, but have maintained, or professed to maintain, certain positive creeds or codes of doctrines, as truly representing the revelations made to mankind in the Bible itself. Men have ever upheld articles of religious faith, not set forth in the precise words of Scripture, but claiming to be faithfully drawn from its