Part 1 – The Status Given to Tradition

MOST of those present here will be aware that a book bearing this title, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History,* has recently been published by the Banner of Truth Trust. The author is William Webster, a business man, living with his wife and children in Battle Ground, Washington, USA. The question at issue is: Does the Church of Rome remain changeless in her message and authority as she claims? The publishers tell us that William Webster answers the question “not by debating texts of Scripture but a straight appeal to the very area where the Church of Rome believes her case is strongest, the facts of history”. He shows that “much which Roman Catholicism now claims as part of her changeless creed was both unknown to the Church Fathers of the early centuries and directly contrary to what they teach.” This paper is based on Webster’s book, draws extensively from it, and constitutes what might loosely be called an extended review.

It is one of the very foundation doctrines of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, infallible and inerrant. The Westminster Divines in framing their Confession deemed it most appropriate and necessary to affirm at the outset that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were of Divine origin, and hence the altogether reliable source of all the doctrines which they subsequently set down in the systematic, orderly manner which makes their finished document the peerless statement of the Christian faith that it is.

It was to be expected that if an Antichristian system was to be devised that the main thrust of its opposition would be directed against the doctrine of inspiration. The discrediting of the Word of God was the aim and policy of Satan from the beginning of history. More subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, he said unto the woman – “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” – with the result that the seeds of doubt in regard to the veracity of God were for the first time sown in the mind of a creature bearing the Divine image. Let us not for a moment forget that the Word of God attributes the very origin of popery and the appearance of the man of sin and son of perdition on the stage of history to Satanic craft; his coming was predicted to be “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders”, and the facts of history bear testimony to this being so.

Principal Cunningham draws attention to the fact that “since the fall of man

*Available from the FP Bookroom, Glasgow, at £7.95 (paperback).

there have been three leading forms of the true religion, all embodying the same fundamental principles – the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian. The great enemy of mankind having secured a most important advantage in man’s fall, has exerted himself to corrupt and pervert each of these forms of the true religion, and to make them subservient to the accomplishment of his own purposes. He has displayed his cunning in this respect, by adapting his measures, not merely to the leading features of man’s depraved nature, but likewise to the particular circumstances in which men in these different periods were placed, the degree of light which they enjoyed, and the character of the dispensation under which they lived. Under his agency the Patriarchal religion degenerated among the mass of mankind into Paganism; the Mosaic into that state of things which is described in the Gospel history, and which, for want of a better word, may be called Pharisaism; and the Christian religion into Popery. . .

“The leading feature of Paganism is idolatry; that is, worshipping those who are no gods, or worshipping God by images. . . Pharisaism was a complete perversion of the true religion as revealed by God through Moses, and had a very striking resemblance to Popery, especially in these important particulars: That it was founded not upon the written Word of God, but upon the traditions of men; that the true ground of a sinner’s hope was obscured, if not overthrown, by a principle of self-righteousness; that personal religion was supposed to consist in the observance of outward rites and ceremonies, rather than in genuine holiness of heart and life; and that to a considerable extent the authority of the divine law was made void by human traditions. The Sadducees may be fitly regarded as representing the Infidelity which, in certain circumstances, has been generally the fruit of the prevalence of Popery; and the union of the Pharisees and Sadducees, in opposing the Lord Jesus Christ, bears a striking resemblance to the combination of Papists and Infidels in the present day in opposing the true Protestantism of the Bible. . . The history of the rise and progress of Popery in the world, independently altogether of its connection with true religion and the salvation of souls, exhibits a very extraordinary series of events, which could not easily be explained, except by means of the information given us upon the subject in Scripture. The most obvious reflections (which must occur even upon a most superficial examination of the history of Popery, and which can only be confirmed by more extensive acquaintance with the subject) are, that the Church of Rome pursued with unwearied zeal and perseverance the grand object of the subjugation of the Christian world to her sway – the possession of an absolute control over the consciences and property of men; that she displayed singular skill and ingenuity in taking advantage of every circumstance which could promote her end, and in accommodating her plans to the situation in which she

found herself placed; and that she never scrupled to trample upon the laws of God and man, whenever this seemed for the time expedient. This view of Popery, which a mere survey of its history obviously suggests, is fully confirmed by an examination of the system itself, which, in all its doctrines, rites, and ceremonies, is plainly intended and admirably adapted to make men the abject slaves of their spiritual superiors, and to elevate the priest to an influence which no human being ought to possess over another.”

Thus did Cunningham identify the Church of Rome. Unlike many in our day, he clearly had no difficulty in subscribing to that section of the Westminster Confession which identifies its pope with that man of sin. In his view all the predictions found in 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2, verses 3 to 13, had been fulfilled in the history of the Church of Rome and he maintained that its future progress would be marked by “all deceivableness of unrighteousness”; that is, by every species of fraud, fitted and intended to deceive men.” Towards the end of the twentieth century, according to Cunningham’s analysis, we would expect to find the Church of Rome, at the bar of history, utterly condemned: and that is what Webster demonstrates very clearly to be the case.

The status given to Tradition

The Church of Rome does not ostensibly deny the authority of Scripture. The effect of doing so would be to set it apart from the true Church of Christ in too plain a manner; it would place too great an extension of clear blue water between it and the rest of what is called Christendom; and Satan was far too subtil a strategist to adopt that approach. In setting up his counterfeit religion, his policy has continued to be that which had been so successful in Eden at the beginning; that being, of course, the undermining of the authority of the Word of God.

To the books which constituted the accepted canon of Scripture up to that time, the Council of Trent was to add the Apocrypha, pronouncing an anathema on all who would not accept its decision to do so. But not resting satisfied with that innovation, which placed writings, some of which consist of childish fables and inculcate questionable morals, side by side with books accepted for centuries as divinely inspired, Tradition was, in addition, to be given a place of equal authority with Scripture, the one complementing the other, and it is on that basis that the Church of Rome claims Divine authority for the introduction of those erroneous doctrines and practices which it now holds, and which mark it out as being no Church of Christ but a synagogue of Satan. Thornwell says, “Determined as the Pope and his legates were to suppress the Reformation, which had then been successfully begun, and to perpetuate the atrocious abuses of the Roman court, they commenced the work of death, by poisoning the waters of life at the fountain. In the sentence

immediately succeeding the anathema, we are given to understand that the preliminary measures in reference to faith were designed to indicate the manner in which the subsequent proceedings of the Council touching questions of doctrine and order should be conducted. That settled the proofs and authorities to which in all their future deliberations they intended to appeal. As Luther was to be crushed, and as the armoury of God’s Word furnished no weapons with which this ‘incorrigible heretic’ could be convicted of error, a stronger bulwark must needs be raised to protect the abuses and cover the corruptions of the Church of Rome. . . Without the Apocrypha and unwritten tradition, the holy Fathers were unable to construct an embankment sufficient to roll back the cleansing tide of life which Luther was endeavouring to pour into the Aegean stable of Papal impurity and filth. The awful plunge was consequently taken, and these spurious books and lying legends were made standards of faith and of equal authority with God’s holy Word.” Even as recently as last October, Cardinal Hume, in issuing a document which has been described as blatantly political and pro-Labour Party, made the assertion that his Church’s teaching and wisdom were based on the Bible and tradition.

It is abundantly clear, as Webster points out, that the Saviour accepted as authentic the Hebrew Old Testament canon, which consisted of the same thirty-nine books that are still found in our Bibles. The Apocrypha were not included, nor did the Lord Jesus ever quote from these books, and neither did the writers of the New Testament Scriptures do so at any time. That is highly significant and so also is the fact that such men as Josephus, the Jewish historian, and all the leading early fathers of the Church, such as Augustine, Athanasius, Origen and Jerome, all regarded the Apocrypha as non-inspired writings and unworthy of a place in the canon of Scripture. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, an authoritative Roman Catholic source, quoted by Webster, affirms that it was not until the sixteenth century that the Roman Catholic Church established the canon of the Old Testament. The same body has the effrontery to claim that the Reformers’ teaching on sola scriptura was unknown before the sixteenth century! “What right,” Webster asks, “does any council or individual have to change the canon received by the Jews, to whom according to the New Testament had been committed the very oracles of God?”

You will remember that Cunningham referred to Pharisaism as descriptive of that form of religion into which the true religion practised in Israel from Sinai onwards had degenerated through Satanic agency. Interpretations of the law as given by the leading teachers of Judaism had come to be of equal authority with the Word of God, and the disciples of Christ were roundly condemned on account of the disregard which they showed towards this body of teaching known as the tradition of the elders. The Pharisees believed that to

disobey the tradition was to disobey God and it was this that brought the Saviour’s severe denunciation upon their heads. Far from commending them, he censured them for teaching as doctrines the precepts of men, for neglecting and setting aside the commandment of God; in short, invalidating the Word of God by their traditions which they handed down. Webster reminds us that the Saviour used Scripture to correct these traditions and teachings which had become corrupted, and that He is to be our exemplar. “To be acceptable to God, both traditions and the teachings which undergird it must at all times conform and be subordinate to his inspired Word. Thus we see that the principle of sola scriptura is a biblical teaching and principle.” Paul’s trenchant denunciation of the Galatian heresy draws our attention to the manner in which Christ’s faithful disciples were to acquit themselves when placed in situations where the denouncing of error and the defending of the truth became imperative. They followed the teaching and example of their Divine Master. “The Church of Rome,” to quote Webster again, “partly defends its tradition under the notion of ‘development of doctrine’. That is, that the apostles left truth in germ in the Scriptures which took centuries to develop fully. Teachings, implicitly recorded in Scripture, are slowly over time more fully revealed by the Spirit of God as he gives deeper understanding. This is a clever theory. No-one denies that there can be a development in understanding the deep truths of Scripture over time, but the theory now under consideration cannot legitimize Roman Catholic tradition for it fails in two very important tests – the test of Scripture and the test of history.”

Applying the test of history, it is discovered that the leading early Fathers held fast to the principle of Sola Scriptura and did not give any place to tradition when it came to determining matters relating to faith and practice. “Irenaeus makes it clear, as does Terullian, that there was no truth left dependent upon oral transmission. The entirety of the message of the faith was committed to writing by the apostles.” A secret oral tradition independent of Scripture and which did not conform to the teaching of Scripture was in their view and at that time a gnostic heresy. The content of the apostolic tradition which had been handed down to them consisted quite simply of a summation of the foundation doctrines of the Old and New Testaments, and what is found on comparing the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholicism to what these early Fathers regarded as apostolic tradition is that the Roman Catholic Church has added to the rule of faith teachings which were not part of the teaching of the early Church. It is clear from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), whose view on these matters may be regarded as representative of the views commonly held by the Fathers

as a whole, that there was no oral tradition independent of Scripture. Webster affirms that “the concept of tradition as being oral in nature and a separate source of revelation independent of Scripture was clearly not the view of the early Church nor that of the Church for centuries after the patristic age. Until as late as the fourteenth century the Church viewed the Scriptures as the only source of revelation and the ultimate authority in all matters related to faith and morals. But late in the Middle Ages the concept of oral tradition being itself a source of revelation developed.” In the middle of the fifth century there began to emerge a body of recognised Church Fathers as interpreters of Scripture and their interpretations were eventually to be accorded the status of authoritative ‘tradition’. Apparently the Word of God was still to be regarded as the final authority, tradition remaining subordinate to it, but the authority of Scripture came to be identified with their supposedly correct consensus of interpretation. “This concept of universal consent is a principle which took root in the Church and influenced all the theological debates which followed throughout the ensuing centuries.” It was later officially adopted by the Council of Trent. The relevant part of its decree reads as follows: “Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.”

Just over three hundred years afterwards, the First Vatican Council in 1869-70 reaffirmed this decree in almost identical terms and this remains the authoritative position of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. What is, however, discovered when the test of “unanimous consent” is applied to the specific teachings of Romanist tradition is that this “unanimous consent of the Fathers” on which the Roman Catholic Church’s authority rests is a complete illusion, because such a consent is historically non-existent.’ The fact is that the early Church adhered to the principle of sola scriptura and the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on tradition is both unbiblical and unhistorical. The inescapable conclusion is that the Council of Trent and subsequent ecumenical Roman Councils have sanctioned teachings, using tradition as a source of revelation, which are contrary to Scripture but the acceptance of which, nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church maintains is necessary for salvation.

To be concluded

A Catechism for the Instruction of Communicants

By Andrew Thomson, D.D. (1779-1831)

Continued from page 275 in the last issue

Questions Nos. 123 to 137 (some of which have been edited)

NOTES: The last instalment dealt with the duty of the communicant to examine himself with regard to having the graces of love and new obedience, prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This instalment deals with preparation by prayer before communicating, and the communicant’s exercise while partaking.

1. Question. Is anything more than the self-examination that we have been considering necessary for you before you partake of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer. Yes: I should be frequently engaged in earnest prayer to God.

1. Q. For what are you to pray on that particular occasion?

A. I should pray that God would enable me to examine and prove myself, and to see the real state of my heart and character; that He would give me further views of divine things; that He would bestow upon me grace for duty, and increase the graces within me; that He would confirm my faith, inflame my love, strengthen my hatred of sin, and my resolutions to be holy; and especially, that He would give me His Holy Spirit, to lead and guide me to the Table of the Lord, and to be with me while I am celebrating the ordinance.

1. Q. In whose name should you put up these prayers?

A. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2: 5).

1. Q. What do you mean by putting up your prayers in the name of Christ?

A. I mean, not merely making use of His name, but trusting at the same time with all my heart to His merits alone, for the acceptance of my prayers, and the obtaining of the blessings that I ask.

1. Q. What encouragement have you for asking these blessings from God?

A. The Holy Spirit is said “to help our infirmities” (Rom 8:26) in this respect. Christ Himself is our “advocate with the Father” (1 John 2: 1). And He expressly declares, “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matthew 21: 22), in so far as they are conducive to the glory of God and for our own good.

1. Q. Is not prayer an exercise in which you should be engaged habitually at all times, as well as before or during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper?

A. Yes: prayer being the communion of the soul with God, I cannot pretend, with any appearance of reason, to have a true sense of religion, unless prayer be my daily and habitual exercise.

1. Q. What does Scripture say on this subject?

A. “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” (Colossians 4:2); “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5: 17); “Men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (Luke 18: 1); “Be careful for nothing: but in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God” (Philippians 4: 6).

1. Q. Are these expressions to be understood literally?

A. No: if they were understood literally, it would be impossible to comply with them, without neglecting every duty but prayer alone: they only mean that we should have constantly in our minds a spirit of devotion and supplication, which shall frequently express itself in addresses to God at the throne of grace.

1. Q. Does not prayer include something more than petition?

A. Yes: it includes also adoration of God, confession of sin, and thanksgiving for mercies received.

1. Q. In what way should these be particularly expressed with a view to your partaking of the Lord’s Supper?

A. I should adore God for the harmonious display of His perfections, especially of His justice and mercy, which He made in our redemption, as represented in this ordinance. I should make a humble and sorrowful confession of my sins, as a part at least of the procuring cause of my Saviour’s sufferings, when “His body was broken and His blood was shed” upon the Cross. And I should acknowledge, with the warmest gratitude, the many great and precious blessings which God communicates through the death of His well-beloved Son, whom I am to remember at His Holy Table.

1. Q. Should your prayers on this occasion be confined to yourself?

A. No: I should also pray particularly for my fellow-communicants, and for the ministers who are to dispense the ordinance.

1. Q. What prayers should you put up in behalf of the ministers?

A. That they may feel the importance of the work in which they are engaged, that they may be strengthened for the performance of their solemn duty, that they may be enabled to speak a word in season for our edification and comfort.

1. Q. Do you trust in the ministers for the efficacy of the Sacrament, that you thus pray for them?

A. No: I trust to the divine blessing, as that which alone can make this or any other ordinance effectual as a mean of salvation: but in the ordinance of the Supper the ministers are appointed to act a very important part; and surely it is my duty to pray earnestly that they may be qualified for doing it with success.

1. Q. What prayers should you put up in behalf of your fellow-communicants?

A. I should pray that they may be prepared according to the preparation of the sanctuary; that they may be acceptable guests at the Table; that all their graces may be in lively exercise when they are engaged in the solemnity; and that they may derive from it all the advantages which it is intended to convey.

1. Q. What should be your conduct when seated at the Lord’s Table, and partaking of the sacramental elements?

A. I should consider that I am not merely in the presence of my fellow-men, who may be imposed upon by the appearance of sanctity, but in the presence of God Himself, who cannot be deceived, to whose eyes the inmost recesses of my heart are open, and who has declared that, “the hope of the hypocrite shall perish.” I should therefore “keep the feast, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5: 8).

I should have a pious and spiritual frame of mind, as well as great decency of outward behaviour: I should study to banish the cares of the world, to repress every sinful thought, and to devote my whole attention to the sacred service that is going on: I should rejoice that I am admitted to such a great privilege, and rejoice “with trembling” when I think how unworthy I am to enjoy it.

I should meditate with the most ardent affection and gratitude on the character, and sufferings, and death, of that gracious Redeemer, who said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” I should have believing views of that great atoning sacrifice which He offered up for sin, and know and feel, that, when I eat the bread and drink the wine, I assent in the most solemn manner, to the merciful and holy covenant that He sealed with His blood.

I should now surrender my soul and my body, my heart and my life, to Him who “loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2: 20). I should resolve, over the memorials of His death, and in the strength of divine grace, to “glory God in my body and in my spirit, which are His” (1 Corinthians 6: 20), by denying myself sinful gratifications; by “perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 7: 1); and by living, as much as lieth in me, in peace and charity with all mankind.

To be concluded

The Day of Deliverance

Thomas Halyburton’s account of his obtaining salvation

I CANNOT be positive about the day or hour of my deliverance, nor can I satisfy many other questions about the way and manner of it. But this is of no consequence if the work is in substance sound, for “the wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). Many things about the way and manner we may be ignorant of, while we are sufficiently sure of the effects. As to these things, I must say with the blind man, “I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). . . .

That which yielded me this relief was a discovery of the Lord, as manifested in the Word. He said to me, “Thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help” (Hos. 13:9). Now the Lord discovered to me, in the manner afterwards to be mentioned, several things, which I shall here take notice of.

1. He let me see that “there are forgivenesses with Him” – that with Him “there is mercy, and plenteous redemption” (Psl. 130:4, 7). He made all His goodness pass before me, and He proclaimed His name: “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, who will be gracious to whom He will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom He will show mercy” (Exod. 33:19; 34:5). This was a strange sight to one, who before looked on God only as “a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29), which I could not “see and live” (Exod. 33:20).

2. He brought me from Sinai and its thunderings to Mount Zion, to the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that cleanseth from all sin, and speaks better things than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:22, 24). He revealed Christ in His glory. I now, with wonder, “beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). And I was made to say: “Thou art fairer than the sons of men.”

3. Hereon He let me see that He who had before rejected all that I could offer was well-pleased in the Beloved: “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast Thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O my God” (Ps. 40:6-8)

4. Hereby I was further fully satisfied that not only there was forgiveness of sins and justification by free grace, “through the redemption that is in Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,

through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3: 24), but I also saw with wonder and delight in some measure, how God by this means might be just in justifying even the ungodly who believe in Jesus (Romans 4:5). How was I ravished with delight, when made to see that the God in whom, a little before, I thought there was no hope for me or any sinner in my case, if there were any such, notwithstanding His spotless purity, His deep hatred of sin, His inflexible justice and righteousness, and His untainted faithfulness pledged in the threatening of the law, might not only pardon, but, without prejudice to His justice or other attributes, be just in justifying even the ungodly! The reconciliation of those seemingly inconsistent attributes with one another and with the salvation of sinners, quite surprised and astonished me.

1. The Lord further opened the gospel call to me, and let me see that to me, even to me, was the “word of this salvation sent” (Acts 13:26). All this was offered to me; I was invited secretly to come and “take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17), and to come in my distress unto this blessed rest: “Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28).

2. He, to my great satisfaction, gave me a pleasant discovery of His design in the whole – that it was that no flesh might glory in His sight (1 Corinthians 1:29, 31), but that he who glories should have occasion only to glory in the Lord; that He might manifest the riches of His grace, and be exalted in showing mercy; and that we in the end might be saved, to the praise of the glory of His grace, who made us accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians. 1:6, 7; Isaiah. 30:18).

3. The Lord revealed to my soul that full and suitable provision made in this way against the power of sin; that as there is righteousness in Him, so there is strength, even everlasting strength, in the Lord Jehovah, to secure against all enemies (Isaiah 45:24). In Him there is sweet provision made against the guilt of sins, that through the power of temptation His people may be inveigled into: “These things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2).

4. When this strange discovery was made of a relief, wherein full provision was made for all the concerns of God’s glory and my salvation in subordination thereto, my soul was by a glorious and sweet power carried out to rest in it as worthy of God, and every way suitable and satisfying in my case: “They that know His name, will put their trust in Him” (Psalm 9:10; 119:93).

From the Memoirs of the Life of Thomas Halyburton – See review on page 344