had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."* In this passage there is a plain reference to tradition; to a statement set forth" as they delivered, who were, from the beginning, eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." It is very plain also that errors had crept into the "declaration" or digest so set forth; otherwise the circumstance of its having been given to the world, could not reasonably have caused St. Luke to think it incumbent on him also to write. You will say probably that he still does not object to the oral account itself, as delivered by the eyewitnesses from the beginning; but only to those written accounts which, professing to be derived from them, conveyed an erroneous representation. It is true. Nevertheless the inference is unavoidable-that St. Luke thought the fidelity and certainty of the oral accounts might be impaired by the emission of such inaccurate written accounts; and that to restrain the consequent growth of uncertainties, it was necesssary for him to investigate all things from the beginning, and commit them to writing.If then, during the life time of the Apostles, a danger of this kind is proved to have existed, and could thus only be guarded against, what assurance or safety can we have in building our faith upon traditions which remained for an indefinite period unwritten, and until long after all opportunity and possibility of tracing them to their origin had passed away? It is worthy of observation, that very many of the Books of the New Testament were written for the express purpose of determining and protecting the purity of particular doctrines, as they came to be successively controverted. The Gospel of St. John was designed to assert the Divinity of Christ against the errors of Cerinthus ;

Luke I, 1.

the epistles to the Romans and Galatians were meant to settle the controversies concerning the abolition of the Mosaic Law, and the doctrine of justification; the epistle to the Hebrews is a formal vindication of the atonement; and in like manner St. Luke's intention was to set down such an account of the words and actions of Christ, as should be sufficient to clear away the misrepresentations to which they had been exposed. Now, if it be true that all those doctrines, which you maintain upon the credit of tradition, were received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ, how is it to be accounted for that his declarations relating to these doctrines were not perverted in common with his other discourses, as from the absence of all recorded attempts to vindicate and explain them, we must conclude they were not? If he communicated to his Apostles, and they taught their converts, the doctrines of transubstantiation and purgatory for example, it is very singular, assuredly, that these should not have given rise to difference of opinion, so as in some part or other of the writings of the Apostles to be brought into discussion, as well as the atonement and justification. It is highly remarkable, that when St. Luke found it necessary to write a corrected statement of those discourses of Christ, which might confirm Theophilus in the things which he had learned, there should not be contained in any one of the discourses which he records a single allusion to any of the peculiar or traditionary dogmas of your Church. The only way in which this can be accounted for, is by admitting the Protestant conclusion, that no such doctrines were taught by Christ, or known to his Apostles. And moreover if the authority of the Church be sufficient, as you maintain, to define infallibly what traditions are divine and genuine, would it not have been incumbent on Theophilus to admit on the sole autho

rity of his instructors the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed?, and how then, for the purpose of confirming him in them, could it have been necessary for St. Luke to investigate ? It is evident that those instructors, whoever they may have been, dealt with him as with a person having the right of private judgment, They did not say to him, "the traditions, which we deliver to you are such as we have received; you cannot, it is true, trace them with certainty to their first derivation; but nevertheless be contented to admit them on our authority." Instead of this St. Luke undertakes for his satisfaction to trace back every thing to the original witnesses. And yet we find your principal champion maintaining against the Protestants, that the most unquestionable token by which any doctrine, can be proved to have proceeded from the Apostles is that "it is not in the power of any one to shew where it had a beginning."* There is an evident fallacy in his attempt to limit this remark to such doctrines as are embraced by all Christian Churches; because there are in fact no such doctrines. If there be any tenet received by all Churches, that is as universally as the Scriptures themselves, it is undertaking little to affirm that plain and satisfactory evidence of it will be found in the Scriptures; and then all men can shew where it had a beginning. In reality the only doctrines which advance a claim to be received without that description of proof which St. Luke afforded to Theophilus, are the doctrines which the Roman Catholics build upon tradition. extra-scriptural opinions the Protestant is satisfied, rest upon an insecure and inadmissible foundation; because although they are said to have a particular origin it is impossible to trace them to it. Both the dispensations of God began with the employment of tradition; but we have the auBossuet. Expos. of the Cath. Faith, chap. xvii.

These

thority of our Lord for asserting that the patriarchal traditions, which all had reference to him, were rendered unnecessary by the written word into which they were incorporated. He condemns all appeal to tradition, by the possessors of that word, because it made the word of none effect and therefore when he would fully instruct his own disciples," he began at Moses and all the prophets, and expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."* The more attentively indeed we examine this matter of tradition, the firmer is our persuasion, that whether under the old or the new covenant, it was a temporary expedient; designed from the outset to be superseded by the introduction of Scripture; the only infallible rule; the only unchangeable witness. We know it is the practice of artists in the first instance to prepare a mould, upon which all the lines and lineaments of their design are accurately laid down. But this is a mere archetype of the intended work. It is in the cast, which is obtained from that mould, that the features are exhibited in permanency and perfection. The mould itself having accomplished its purpose, is thrown aside and no longer thought of.

Earnestly do I hope that such Roman Catholics as may peruse these arguments will have the candour to consider whether they are just; and if so whether the Sixth Article of the Church of England must not be a safer foundation for a Christian to rest upon, than the Decree of the Council of Trent. The Jews were warned and exhorted to "Search the Scriptures;" and when they refused to do this, preferring to follow guides of their own, they were abandoned to crucify their King. Thus be assured, Sir, it will ever prove. Wherever tradition is set, as it was by the Jews, upon an equality with the Scripture, there is reason

• Luke xxiv, 27.

379568b

to dread a manifestation of the spirit of Antichrist; which, either directly or indirectly, "denieth the Father and the Son." Against what other spirit indeed is that terrible anathema directed, which causes us to tremble while it "testifieth unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book."*

You make, I observe, an attempt to derive support to your cause from the sentiments of some among our own hierarchy. "The Protestant Bishop of Elphin," you are reported to have said, "writes thus-By far the greatest part of the population of my Diocese consists of (Roman) Catholics. I cannot make them good Protestants; I therefore wish to make good (Roman) Catholics of them; and with this intention I put into their hands the works of Gother. It is not that I have any such objections to urge against the (practical not controversal) works of Gother as to desire that they should not be read. But if these works, which it is presumed would have the effect of making them "good Roman Catholics," were to be put into the hands of any persons for this sole reason, that such persons would not receive an unadulterated representation of the truth, I dissent from and abhor the suggestion from the bottom of my heart. According to this principle the Apostles might have said both to Jews and Greeks, Since you will not receive our preaching according to the import of God's word, and we cannot make you good Christians, we will preach to you such doctrines as are more agreeable to you, and will fix you more strongly in your present persuasions. I know not, Sir, from what source you derive the above sentiment, nor upon what authority you attribute it to the Bishop of Elphin; nor whether the

* Rev. xxii. 18.