beyond what is taught in Scripture ; the two as to their contents are one and the same." ^ Nevertheless, he acknowledges that in the Church of Rome many things were handed down from the f Apostles which are not contained in the Scriptures. This fact he // does not deny. He admits that such additional revelations, or/ such revelations in addition to those contained in the written word, are of the highest importance. But he soon dismisses the subject, and devotes his strength to the first-mentioned view of the nature and office of tradition, and holds that up as the peculiar doctrine of Romanism as opposed to the Protestant doctrine. Protestants, however, admit the fact and the authority of a common conscious- ness, and a common faith, or common sense of the Church, while they reject the real and peculiar doctrine of Rome on this subject.
B. Points of Difference between the Romish Doctrine and that of Protestants on Common Consent.
The points of difference between the Protestant doctrine con cerning the common faith of the Church and the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition are : —
First. When Protestants speak of common consent of Christians, they understand by Christians the true peopleof God. Romanists, on the other hand, mean the company of those who profess the true faith, and who are subject to the Pope of Rome. There is the greatest possible difference between the authority due to the com- mon faith of truly regenerated, holy men, the temples of the Holy Ghost, and that due to what a society of nominal Christians profess to believe, the great majority of whom may be worldly, immoral, and irreligious.
Secondly. The common consent for which Protestants plead concerns oidy essential doctrines ; that is, doctrines which enter into the very nature of Christianity as a religion, and which are necessary to its subjective existence in the heart, or which if they do not enter essentially into the religious experience of believers, are so connected with vital doctrines as not to admit of separation from them. Romanists, on the contrary, plead the authority of tradition for all kinds of doctrines and precepts, for rites and cere- monies, and ecclesiastical institutions, which have nothing to do with the life of the Church, and are entirely outside of the sphere of the promised guidance of the Spirit. Our Lord, in promising the Spirit to guide his people into the knowledge of truths neces- sary to their salvation, did not promise to preserve them from error
1 Page 373.
116 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. V. — R. C. R. of Faith.
in subordinate matters, or to give them supernatural knowledge of the organization of the Church, the number of the sacraments, or the power of bishops. The two theories, therefore, differ not only as to the class of persons who are guided by the Spirit, but also as to the class of subjects in relation to which that guidance is promised.
Thirdly. A still more important difference is, that the common faith of the Church for which Protestants contend, is Jaith in doc- trines plainly revealed in Scripture. It does not extend beyond those doctrines. It owes its whole authority to the fact that it is a common understanding of the written Avord, attained and preserved under that teaching of the Spirit, which secui-es to believers a com- petent knowledge of the plan of salvation therein I'evealed. On the other hand, tradition is with the Romanists entirely independ- ent of the Scriptures. They plead for a common consent in doc- trines not contained in the Word of God, or which cannot be proved therefrom.
Fourthly. Protestants do not regard " common consent " either as an informant or as aground of faith. With them the written word is the only source of knowledge of what God has revealed for our salvation, and his testimony therein is the only ground of our faith. Whereas, with Romanists, tradition is not only an inform- ant of what is to be believed, but the wdtness on whose testimony faith is to be yielded. It is one thing to say that the fact that all the true people of God, under the guidance of the Spirit, believe that certain doctrines are taught in Scripture, is an unanswerable argument that they are really taught therein, and quite another thing to say that because an external society, composed of all sorts of men, to whom no promise of divine guidance has been given, agree in holding certain doctrines, therefore we are bound to re- ceive those doctrines as part of the revelation of God.
C. Tradition and Development. The Romish doctrine of tradition is not to be confounded with the modern doctrine of development. All Pi'otestants admit that there has been, in one sense, an uninterrupted development of the- ology in the Church, from the apostolic age to the present time. All the facts, truths, doctrines, and principles, which enter into Christian theology, are in the Bible, They are there as fully and as clearly at one time as at another ; at the beginning as they are now. No addition has been made to their number, and no new explanation has been afforded of their nature or relations. The same is true of the facts of nature. They are now what they