Remark.—This doctrine respecting the insufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is evidently intended to give greater importance to human traditions. But as there is no article of faith which is not revealed in “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15), therefore its silence respecting any tradition proves that it is no article of faith.

Remark.—And even the ancient Romish Church, according to the testimony of Jerome, made a distinction betwixt the Canonical and the Uncanonical Books: therefore the undoubted testimony now-a-days, respecting their divinity, is a partial and novel opinion.

Remark.—An enlightened interpreter of Holy Scripture is doubtless very desirable for Christians less instructed; but the idea that, in order to draw from it the Articles of Faith, a certain kind of despotic interpreter is necessary, lowers the dignity of the word of God, and subjects faith to the will of man.

Remark.—The text of the Vulgate was acknowledged by the Council of Trent as the most authentic; for this, among other reasons, that the Clergy might not have need to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages (Sarp. Hist. Conc. Trid. 1.11). But this decision of the Council ought not to be received, because it hinders the needful and useful searching the Scriptures (John 5:39).

Remark.—This principle of the Romish Church, under the pretence of precaution against error, shuts up the most hopeful way to soundness in the faith. However, in the present day, many of the Romanists do not strictly attend to this rule.

Remark.—As an infallible judge in matters of faith would render the Holy Scriptures unnecessary, so this infallibility, even if granted to any one, would be rendered unnecessary by the Holy Scriptures. However, even in the Romish Church itself this infallibility is a matter of dispute.

Remark.—Jesus Christ only, as the searcher of hearts, knows which assembly is truly met in His name; for we can only judge of them by the revealed word of God. Without this precaution, we might be subjected to the decisions of such Councils as, under the name of Christianity, might impose upon us will-worship and absolute rule.

Remark.—The most ancient and original instrument for spreading Divine Revelation is Holy Tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself delivered His divine doctrine and ordinances to His disciples by word and example, but not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles also at first, when they spread abroad the faith, and established the Church of Christ. Holy Scripture was given, that Divine Revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, though not co-equal, are co-ordinate and concurrent sources of authority; by Holy Scripture [the] Holy Tradition is to be tested, while Holy Tradition bears witness to the Inspiration, genuineness, and Canon of Holy Scripture. Tradition is further necessary as a guide to the right understanding of Holy Scripture, for the right administration of the Sacraments, and the preservation of the Sacred Rites and Ceremonies in the purity of their original institution. The necessity of Tradition is further evident from this, that books can be available only to a small part of mankind, while tradition is available to all.

Remark.—The words of Jesus Christ, “All things that the Father hath are mine,” are of the same import with the following: “All mine are thine, and thine are mine” (John 17:10). Most evidently they refer to the general attributes and operations of the Godhead; but not to the special attributes of each Person of the Holy Trinity. The words, “He shall take of mine,” when compared with the following, “And shall show it unto you,” signify that the Holy Spirit would instruct believers in the same truths that had been revealed to them in Jesus Christ; therefore, these words do not prove the procession of the Holy Ghost [from the Son]. The words, “I will send also,” do not belong to the eternal procession of the holy Ghost; because “to send” cannot signify “to give beginning of being.” But in contrast with this, the inserted words, “which proceedeth from the Father,” so clearly point out the eternal beginning of the Person of the Holy Ghost, that no doubt is left upon it. And by the Second General Council, held in Constantinople in 381, against Macedonius, these very words are used in the Symbol of Faith, in order to express the article respecting the Holy Spirit; viz., “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father.” And thus also we read in the Creed of the Romish Church, up to the ninth century: and when it was proposed to Pope Leo III to insert in the Creed the new opinion respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, he not only refused to agree to it, but he commanded the Creed to be engraven, in Greek and Latin, on two silver tables, without the additional words “and the Son;” and he put the following superscription upon them: Leo founded these, out of love to, and for the preservation of, the orthodox faith. But still, notwithstanding this precaution, that addition, without any lawful examination in a General Council, has been propagated in the Western Church. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, exposed the same, in a Circular Epistle to the Patriarchs and Bishops in 866; and in the 880, the Council of Constantinople, in which the Pope’s Legates were present, in opposition to the same opinion decreed, “that nothing should be changed in the Creed.” A similar decree had also before that been passed by the Third General Council in Ephesus. Nevertheless, the Popes of this time took the new dogma under their protection; and thus it became, even until now, a principal barrier or division betwixt the Western and Eastern Churches.

Remark.—The Law is proclaimed to man in order that he might know through it his own weakness, and unconditionally give himself up to grace. “The Law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24).

Remark.—Evil desires beget actual sin, they being the very source of sin. An opposite opinion does not promote the purity of Christian morality.

Remark.—We ought to be conformed to the image of Christ, in love, meekness, benevolence, and patience; but we cannot imitate Him in His personal acts of redemption, such as making atonement for sins. To speak of our making satisfaction, is to lessen the value of His merits.

Remark.—Justification by faith, being a mystery of grace, was perversely understood by certain fleshly-minded men, even in the days of the Apostles. They wished to remain satisfied with a cold, abstract kind of faith; and thought, that, as it redeems them from condemnation on account of their iniquities, so also it frees them from the necessity of walking according to the Law of God. It is this barren, dead, false faith which the Apostle James condemns; and, by the example of Abraham, shows that the true faith which justifieth “by works is made perfect.” Otherwise, he shows justification in faith and works like the life in the root and fruit of the tree: so faith represents the root of justification. This idea is very clearly traced in his words immediately following those above quoted: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” The present difference of opinion between the Eastern and Western Churches on this subject refers more to the abstract principle than to active Christianity; because they are both agreed as to the obligation to good works; but those who find merit in their good works stand on Pharisaical ground.

Remark.—If one symbol in this Sacrament had been sufficient, and the other unnecessary, the Saviour would not have instituted it in two kinds. The first inventors of the communion in one kind were the Manicheans, whom Pope Gelasius, in the end of the fifth century, condemned by an interdict. But in the beginning of the fifteenth, the Council of Florence, which the Roman church reckons the Seventeenth General Council, interdicted the communion in both kinds.

Remark.—Though the Eastern Church has made it a rule that those who are intrusted with the higher degrees of spiritual power should be unencumbered with the duties of the married state and of a family, in order that they might completely and unreservedly devote themselves to the service of the Church, because “he that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:32-33);—nevertheless, she does not reckon celibacy absolutely necessary for all the ministers of the Church; because Christ Himself has placed the restriction as only belonging to some. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matt. 19:11-12). To separate the Clergy from the married state, under the penalties of law, is to exalt one Mystery at the expense of another.

Remark.—The stone on which the Church is founded is not Peter himself, but the confession of faith boldly made by Peter—“Though art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). Because another stable foundation of the Church “can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). If we are to call the instruments which the Lord is please (so to speak) to make use of in His own hand for the establishment and extension of His Church, the foundation of it, then, in this sense, it is built not merely upon Peter, but “upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20);—and not upon the foundation of the Bishops of Rome, who cannot stand in the same rank with the Apostles and Prophets. But the claim of the Romish Bishop to be the successor of S. Peter is not so worthy of credit as the following, that the Antiochian Apostle Paul, the Jerusalem Apostle James, and even Peter himself, were all of them nothing more than “servants of Jesus Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). Christ has no need of assistants, and the Church cannot have two Heads; and as in no sense whatever is it ever termed the body of the Bishop of Rome, but the body of Christ; therefore in no sense whatever can the Bishop of Rome have any right to call himself its head.

Remark.—At the end of the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great wrote to the Emperor Maurice, “That he who calls himself, or suffers himself to be called, Universal Bishop, he, by his pride, becomes the forerunner of Antichrist” (Regist. 7.33). But, in the ninth century, Pope Nicholas the Great wrote to the Emperor Michael, “That the civil power can neither justify nor condemn the Pope; because he has been called God by the pious Emperor Constantine; and no man can take upon himself to judge God!” These contradictions show sufficiently how one ought to judge of this supreme judge. The succeeding ages did show, that in proportion as the Romish Church gained in worldly power, she lost in spirituality.

Remark.—The above words of truth, addressed to the Corinthians, have not a reference to sinners, but to the preachers of the Gospel, of whom the Apostle speaks in this place. The sense they contain is the following:—The qualities of all doctrines shall at last be made manifest: time will reveal them in the fire of temptation and suffering. True and stable doctrine is distinguished from that which is unfounded and false: if any one’s doctrine does not endure this trial, his labor will prove to have been in vain; yet he himself, if he lose not the faith, may be saved in the same trial, like a brand plucked from the burning. Here, as in the whole Word of God, there is not a word about Purgatory.

Remark.—The doctrines of Purgatory and of Indulgences make the narrow path of salvation too broad. It is not difficult for sinners to give gold and receive heaven, and for the pastor to give heaven and get gold. But it is not so easy to get to the real kingdom of God: it is taken by force (Matt. 11:12).