pure

preferred by the Romish clergy-whether or not for the charity of its Annotations we will not pretend to say. From these we extract the following:

Note on Heb. v. v.7. "That the translators of the English Protestant Bible ought to be abhorred to the depths of hell.” Note on Gal. i. 8. "Christians should have such zeal towards all Protestants and their doctrines, though never so dear to them, as to give them the anathema, nor spare even their own parents.'

Luke ix. v. 55. "As the fate of Elias was not reprehended, neither is the Church nor Christian princes blamed by God for putting heretics to death."

Note on Heb. xiii. v. 16; and Rev. xvii. v. 7. "When Rome puts heretics to death, and allows their punishment in other countries, their blood is no more than that of thieves or man-killers."

John x. v. 1; and Heb. v. v. 1. "All Protestant clergy are thieves and ministers of the devil."

Note on Rev. xi. v. 6, 20. "Christian people, bishops especially, should have great zeal against heretics and hate them, even as God hateth them; and be thus zealous against all false prophets and heretics of what sort soever, after the example of holy Elias, that in zeal killed 450 false prophets."

Without entering into an inquiry of the virtues of the respective Popish Saints whose sentiments we have recorded above, it is quite sufficient for Protestants to know that such are the sentiments of pure Popery; many thousands who call themselves Roman Catholics-(since good Romanists must not object to anything recommended by their "church") -have objected to them*, and thousands more know not

*On the 17th of March, Resolutions, signed by 375 Roman Catholic Teachers, &c., expressive of the wishes of 5000 grown up people,were presented by the Schoolmasters of the Kings-court district to the Irish Bible Society, declaring the Scriptures supplied to them by that Society, in their native language, to be "the greatest boon Ireland had ever received ;" and which they could not "give up," &c. The consequence of

that they ought to believe in them:-of a clergy who do so we will only say, it is not to be wondered at that they "prefer" the book which contains them.

SECT. II.-Of apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions.

What do you mean by apostolical traditions?

All such points of faith or church discipline which were taught or established by the apostles, and have carefully been preserved in the church ever since.

What difference is there between apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions?

The difference is this, that Apostolical traditions are those which had their origin or institution from the apostles: such as infant baptism, the Lord's Day, receiving the sacrament, fasting, &c. Ecclesiastical traditions are such as had their institution from the Church, as holidays and fasts ordained by the church.

How are we to know what traditions are truly apostolical and what not?

In the same manner and by the same authority by which we know what scriptures are apostolical, and what are not: that is, by the authority of the Apostolic Church, guided by the unerring Spirit of God.

But why should not the scripture alone be the rule of our faith, without having recourse to apostolical traditions ?

1. Because, without the help of apostolical tradition, we cannot so much as tell what is scripture and what is not. 2. Because Infant Baptism and several other necessary articles are either not at all contained in scripture, or at least are not plain in the scripture without the help of tradition.

What scripture can you bring in favour of tradition ?

"Therefore brethren stand fast, and hold the tradition, which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle," 2 Thess. ii. 15. "Ask thy father, and he will show thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee," Deut. xxxii. 7. See Psalm xix. 5, 6, 7. 1 Cor. xi. 2. 2 Thess. iii. 6. 2 Tim. i. 13., ch. ii. 2., ch. iii. 14.

The doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ, as taught by Him and his Apostles, was written by the Apostles and Evangelists, who also baptized. Christ himself says, (Matt. xviii. v. 5,) "Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.” And (Matt. xxviii. 19)

66

this was, that the Roman Catholic clergy obliged all the poor schoolmasters, where they had sufficient influence to do so, to 'give up" their schools!—And, no wonder the fourth Resolve declared "notes or comments not essentially necessary for understanding the morality and plain truths of the Gospel.”

canon*; and from the Jews we received it, who must have been the best informed upon the subject of their own laws. As to any "traditional" evidence of the New Testament, it is altogether unnecessary. The gospels and epistles were all (with the exception of those by St. John) written from about sixty to forty years previous to the death of that saint. We have shown from the Scriptures (page 38) the certain means adopted by the apostles for their preservation; and when we consider the numerous copies and impressions taken of them, unless we are to suppose transcribers and printers are infallible, as well as cardinals (after they are elected Popes), it must appear a matter of surprise that no difference is found in the various readings relating to Faith.

We should have felt ourselves much obliged to the Pope or Dr. Challoner, if either of these gentlemen had informed us why we cannot "tell what is scripture and what is not,"† without their traditions. We readily admit that a fact would not be less true, were there no other authority upon which it rested but tradition, although it would be much more liable to be disputed; but a generally received tradition may, in profane matters, be preferred to the writings of fabulous historians. Had not Julius Cæsar written an account *See Dr. Cosin's Schol. Hist. of the Can. of Holy Scripture.

The Church of Rome, by a somewhat strange fatality, is ever labouring to mystify and cast doubt and discredit upon the genuineness and authenticity of the very scriptures which she professes to believe are "the infallible word of God." Romanists believe Homer and Hesiod not only wrote, but that their own writings were really written by themselves (a), although these men lived nearly 1000 years before our Saviour was born. But, if in the teeth of all the precautions evidently taken by the inspired penmen to preserve the written doctrines which they had taught, Popery will have them to be doubted, she will surely believe in profane history which tells us of such emperors as Antoninus and Severus? Now, to these emperors it was to whom Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, wrote their "Apologies for the Christians;" the one by Justin (who became a convert to christianity A. D. 132.) to Antoninus quotes from all the four Gospels; and in this "Apology" he expressly says, that on the day called Sunday, portions of these gospels were read in the public assemblies of the Christians. If further proof had been necessary, would this fact have proved nothing as to the genuineness of the gospels, and of their being read by the earliest Christians.

(a) Mr. Charles Butler, in his ingenious essay on the "Literature of Greece," suggests that a civilized and powerful nation of Bramins existed, from whom Homer caught the "celestial fire;" but that the writings of his predecessors were lost. We must confess that this appears to us of a more doubtful nature than the Scriptures.

of his conquest of Britain, and it had been known to the present age but through the imperfect medium of oral tradition, yet such a tradition would have, no doubt, been preferred to the fables of the kings Brute, Lear, Bladud, &c. as they are told by Geoffrey of Monmouth. But how very different is the case with the inspired apostles, who received the Holy Ghost to enable them to perform miracles,—that, in the infancy of the Christian Church, the unbeliever might be convinced; and to leave as the unerring guide to truth, that sacred volume upon which Popery-in the conscious fear of its influence upon her passive votaries—has stamped her denying seal? For whatever is urged, contrary to the Scriptures*, by the Romish Church, a traditional authority is supplied, and as Christ himself says (Matt. xv. 6), "Thus have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." St. Paul says, (Col. ii. v. 8.) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men." The quotation in the Romish text (from 2 Thess. ii. v. 15) is misapplied, as usual. As the Gospel of Christ was taught before it was written, of course, it was then delivered by word of mouth, and was consequently traditional. The first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians were written (as the Romish Church admits) before any of

ye

"The Popes permitted their champions to indulge themselves openly in reflections injurious to the dignity of the Scriptures, and by an excess of blasphemy almost incredible, to declare publicly, that the edicts of the pontiffs, and the records of oral tradition, were superior, in point of authority, to the express language of scripture." Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 213.-"Owing to the early corruptions introduced into christianity by philosophy, and of the attempts afterwards to conceal and vilify the scriptures, when the Lutheran controversy had been carried on for some time, many of the monks in Scotland were so ignorant of their contents, as to charge Luther with being the author of that wicked book called the New Testament." Jortin's Life of Eras., vol. i. p. 126.-This hostility to the scriptures is still persisted in by the Popish clergy, if we are to credit the most useful records of our own times, with the same rabid hatred. "About a fortnight ago, while the Roman Catholic curate of Dungiven was holding a Station in one of his parishioners' houses, whose wife was, we understand, a Protestant, and where there happened to be a Protestant Testament, he seized the sacred volume, and condemning it with vehemence, as unfit for the public eye, he committed it to the flames, before the family, and heaped coals upon it lest it should escape his fury. We pledge ourselves to the truth of this statement, and we defy Mr. Fto contradict it." Londonderry Journal, April, 1825.

the other of the epistles or gospels, with the exception of that by St. Matthew, which was written about A. D. 41,Mark, A. D. 61,-Luke, A. D. 63.-Thessalonians, A. D. 52, and the twelve other Epistles of Paul, between the latter date and 65-6; the Epistles of Peter, &c. about the year 60. How then could Paul, in his first epistles, call the doctrines taught by himself and the other apostles by any other term than tradition until they were written? The references to the other texts of scripture are equally unfortunate. The law had been written of which Moses said, "ask thy father and he will shew thee, and thy elders and they will tell thee." This passage is taken from the thirty-second chapter of Deute→ ronomy; but the preceding one (ch.xxxi. ver. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) informs us that Moses delivered the written law to the priests, that it might be read to all Israel, that the men, women, children, and the stranger might learn to fear the Lord. The versicles in the xix. Psalm (ver. 5, 6, 7), to which we are referred, are these, speaking of the heavens: "In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run his course. It goeth forth from the uttermost part of the heaven, and runneth about unto the end of it again; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the Lord is an undefiled law, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure and giveth wisdom unto the simple.' 1 Cor. xi. 2. "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." We have already shown why Paul speaks of tradition in his Epistles to the Thessalonians; of Timothy (ii. Epist. i. 13.) he requests that he will hold fast the sound words which he (Paul) had taught him, and teach others (ii. ver. 2.) ; and (chap. iii. ver. 13) desiring him to remember of whom he had learned them." Such are the texts of scripture referred to in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of papal tradition! Comment upon their application, or misapplication,