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 4 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. These 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. 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. present possessor of that See be meant. In that case I should have strong reasons for thinking that the inference which you intend us to draw is altogether groundless; for at a meeting of the friends of Scriptural Education, in Ireland, held at Dublin on the 11th of January last, the following letter was read by the Secretary, the Reverend Thomas Kingston: "Elphin, January 9, 1832. "SIR,-I am obliged to inform you that it will be totally out of my power to attend the Meeting of the Friends of Scriptural Education, which is to be held at the Rotunda to-morrow. It is with much regret that I feel myself unable to do so; as the object of it is one which I view with intense interest. "I remain, Sir, your obedient humble servant, Again, in the expressed opinions of the present Bishop of London, I can discover nothing which, being allowed, would shew that Protestants may blamelessly and even laudably assist in giving facilities for the diffusion of Roman Catholic principles. His Lordship, according to your quotation of his words, remarks that service is to be rendered to religion "not by retaliating mistatements, invectives, and calumnies, or crudely asserting an unqualified right of private judgment, but by referring to primitive antiquity." Few, be asssured Sir, if any, in the Church of England, whose opinions are worthy of attention, will refuse to unite in sentiment with the Bishop of London.Where, let me ask, have any of that description asserted the "unqualified right of private judgment?!" The right of judging for ourselves is, like the right of acting for ourselves, an endowment bestowed upon us by the Author of all good; and although the one right be cognizable by human laws, the other not, yet if we use either of them in an "unqualified" manner, that is with |