indeed deep blindness and ignorance of the truth, a false brag of the Catholic Church, and a counterfeit boasting of Apostolic tradition, where they have nothing but new vanities and profane novelties not of words only, but of matters inspired by the devil, maintained by Antichrist, and upholden by tyranny or sophistry, without authority of the holy Scriptures."—Vid. Rhemish Annotations, with Dr. Fulke's Confutation in loco.

In opposition to such views on the subject of tradition, whether adopted by Talmudists, Gnostics, Romanists, or the authors of the Oxford Tracts; I will cite the opinions of Peter Martyr and of Whitby. It is a curious circumstance, deserving of notice, that the former adduces two of the usages recorded by Tertullian and Basil respectively, which appear to meet with the approbation of the writer of the 34th. Tract.--" Porro taxantur a Paulo Pseudo-apostoli, quod mores et doctrinam prorsus extra Christum inducerent. Videant igitur quam aberrent, qui traditiones contendunt inculcandas, cum eædem neque doceantur ubique in Ecclesíâ, neque semper receptæ fuerint, et tamen Apostolicæ vocantur. Traditio fuit apud Tertullianum, ut baptizatis illico lac et mel darentur, quo sic, ut ipse loquitur, infantarentur. Traditio item fuit ut Eucharistia, et quidem, sub utrâque specie, daretur infantibus tempore Augustini et Cypriani, atque ita daretur ut ad salutem necessaria. Epiphanius in doctrinâ compendiariâ adversus hæreses, traditionem Apostolicam fuisse dicit, ut jejunetur die pro-sabbato, qui dicitur Veneris, quia Christus eo die passus est. Item quartâ feriâ quod Christus eo die in cœlum fuerit assumptus, et cum ageret in terris dixit, Apostolos non debere jejunare, quandiu secum sponsum haberent. Additur ibidem et confirmatur ab Augustino in epistolâ ad Cassulanum, traditionem esse ut non jejunetur a Paschâ ad Pentecosten. Est enim traditio, ut confirmat Basilius in libro de Spiritu Sancto, ut per omnes illos dies genubus flexis non adoretur, quod idem asseritur de dominicis diebus. Traditio fuit Apostolica Ephesi

atque in Asiâ, ut Pascha more judæorum servaretur. In Ecclesia Romana traditio Apostolica secus haberi dicebatur Cum igitur tam variæ sint, et inter se pugnent, non possunt esse viæ Pauli aut Apostolorum; nam inquit se ubique ac in omni Ecclesiâ idem docuisse. Unde Cyprianus ad Pompeium scribit se non admittere traditiones, nisi quæ in Evangeliis, Epistolis Apostolicis, vel Apostolorum Actis haberentur: quibus ego addo eas, quæ necessariò inferuntur ex sacris literis. Alia, quæcunque afferuntur, incerta sunt, et non ubique recepta. Unde si justus consensus in Ecclesia servari debeat, necessarium est ut in unis sacris literis firmiter ac constanter inhaereamus."-Petri Martyris Loci Communes, p. 772.

Upon 2 Thess. ii. 15. Whitby gives the following annotation, "This passage proves not in the least, that in the judgment of St. Paul there were any traditions wholly extra scriptural; that is, such as were neither then committed, nor after to be committed to writing, by himself or any other inspired person; but only, that he himself had not writ all things to them by epistle, being absent, but had preached many things to them being present.

Now that the word which St. Paul preached orally, was after written by St. Luke, his amanuensis and companion, we learn from the tradition of the Church of Christ, recorded by Irenæus and Eusebius.

2. All that the Apostle here exhorts his Thessalonians to do, is to retain the traditions they had immediately received from the mouth of an Apostle, and which he personally had delivered to them; which traditions, when we know them to be such, there is no doubt, but they ought with all reverence to be received. When, therefore, the Church of Rome hath proved, that the traditions which she obtrudes upon us, were immediately received from the mouth of an Apostle, then, and not till then, will this text oblige us to receive them.

3. This text is so far from being an argument for receiving

doctrinal traditions no where writ in Scripture, upon the sole authority of the Church of Rome, or even of the Church Catholic, that it is rather a demonstration, that she is no sure preserver of them, she having actually lost those very traditions touching the man of sin, which are mentioned in this chapter, and particularly referred to in this text.-I told you these things when I was with you (v. 8.) now ye know what letteth, wherefore stand fast, holding the traditions (touching his coming, which when I was with you, I delivered by words, and now hint to you by epistle) and which, as it appeareth by this epistle, and his exhortation, were of great moment to be known. Now, hath this tradition been preserved by the Roman, or by the Catholic Church? Or, must we not confess with Anselm, and their own Estius on the place—' Truly the Thessalonians knew what letted, but we know it not?' So that the tradition which the Church received from the Apostles on this matter, is wholly lost. How, therefore, can she be relied on as a sure preserver, and a true teacher of traditions, which hath confessedly lost one of great moment, deposited with the Thessalonians, and the Primitive Church?"—Vid. Whitby in loco.

The conclusion which may be drawn from all that has been here said on the subject of tradition cannot be better expressed than in the words of Bishop Marsh.-" Upon the whole, then, we may safely infer, that there is no foundation whatever for the alleged existence of those divine and Apostolical traditions which are made to constitute an unwritten word, or tradition as a rule of faith. The Church of England, therefore, acted wisely in rejecting that rule. AND WHEN WE FURTHER CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT REJECTION, WHEN WE CONSIDER THE LOAD OF SUPERSTITION, FROM WHICH WE WERE FREED BY MEANS OF THAT REJECTION, WE MAY WELL ASSERT, THAT THE REJECTION OF TRADITION, AS A RULE OF FAITH, WAS THE VITAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMATION."

-A comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome. By Herbert Marsh, D.D. Bishop of Peterborough, p. 74.

On the supremacy and paramount authority of Scripture, the two following extracts from the incomparable works of Bishop Jewel, together with a third taken from a scarce and valuable publication entitled "A Collection of Cases and other Discourses, lately written to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England," may possibly recommend themselves to the reader by the circumstance of their not having before fallen in his way. The latter is borrowed from a treatise written by Dr. Fowler, who was made Bishop of Gloucester in the year 1691. The treatise forms one of the "Collection of Cases," and was written in order to vindicate the Church of England from the charge of symbolizing with the Church of Rome.

"Certainly the learned fathers haue euermore thought, that in such perillous times of dissension in iudgement, it is most behoouefull for the people, to haue recourse vnto the Scriptures. When Paul, and Silas preached at Berrhoea, the people there daily searched and considered the Scriptures, to know, whether that they preached were true, or no. Chrysostome expounding these words, 'When ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,' writeth thus: 'Therefore he commandeth, that Christian men, that will be assured of the true faith, resort vnto nothing else, but onely vnto the Scriptures: FOR ELSE IF THEY HAUE REGARD TO ANY OTHER THING, THEY SHALL BE Offended, anD SHALL PERISH, NOT KNOWING WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH: and by meane thereof they shall fall into the abomination of desolation, that standeth in the holy places of the Church.' In like sort writeth Origen vpon the same place: 'The soules that be vnskilfull of the word of iustice, because they are easily deceiued, cannot stand without errour in the sight of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.' St.

Hierome saith, At the comming of Christ, the people that was laid asleepe vnder their teachers, shall go to the mountaines of the Scriptures: there shall they finde these mountaines, Moses, the Prophets, and the New Testament. And being occupied in the reading of these mountaines, notwithstanding they finde no man to teach them, yet shall their good will be well allowed, for that they haue fled vnto the mountaines.' So St. Basil, 'The holy Scriptures are able both to confirme the godly, and also to confound the vngodly.' So Chrysostome, 'WE MAY IN NO WISE BELIEUE THE CHURCHES THEMSELUES, VNLESSE THEY SAY AND DOE SUCH

THINGS AS BE AGREEABLE TO THE SCRIPTURES.'"- -A Reply unto Mr. Harding's Answer, p. 396. Bishop Jewel's Works. 'But what say we of the fathers: Augustine, Ambrose, Hierome, Cyprian, &c.? What shall we thinke of them, or what account may we make of them? They be interpretors of the Word of God. They were learned men, and learned fathers; the instruments of the mercy of God, and vessels full of grace. We despise them not, we read them, we reuerence them, and giue thankes vnto God for them. They were witnesses vnto the truth, they were worthy pillars and ornaments in the Church of God. Yet may they not be compared with the Word of God. We may not build vpon them, we may not make them the foundation and warrant of our conscience, we may not put our trust in them. Our trust is in the name of the Lord.

And thus are we taught to esteeme of the learned fathers of the Church, by their owne iudgement: by that which they haue written, either for the credit of their owne doings, or of the authority which they haue thought due to the writings of others. St. Augustine said of the doctors and fathers in his time, 'Neither weigh we the writings of all men, be they neuer so worthy and Catholike, as we weigh the Canonicall Scriptures: but that sauing the reuerence that is due vnto them, we may