would have done, if the Jews had been guilty of any such crime. But our Saviour does blame them for "making the Word of God of none effect by their traditions," and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Might not the Jews argue, in their turn, that if we receive the Old Testament from them, we should also receive their traditions? the oral law (as they call it) no less than the written law? But our Saviour always teaches the people to bring the traditions of the elders to the test of the written word.

But besides the uncertainty of traditions which are received in the Church of Rome, there is an additional uncertainty to each individual Roman-catholic, what are so received. If he asks his Priest why such or such a point is believed, or thing done, and is told, "such is the tradition of the church;" let him ask again, "how did you learn that?" It will be found, by pushing such inquiries, that the Priest learnt it from a book, which reports that something has been reported by one of the ancient Fathers, as having been reported to him, as believed by those who had heard it reported that the Apostles taught it!

Are we then to reject Tradition altogether?

The question

is as foolish as if you were to ask, whether books or whether witnesses are to be believed or not. Some things said by them are true, some are false, and many mixed. It is just the same with Traditions. The test is Scripture; not only because written accounts are, in their nature, more to be relied upon than reports by word of mouth, but also because it is plain that the Apostles and Evangelists wrote their books to guard against the uncertainties of mere tradition. Thus Luke tells Theophilus* that he had written an account of our Lord's life and teaching, that Theophilus "might know the certainty [the exact state of the case] of those things wherein he had been instructed." And John and Paul, upon two occasions,† correct false reports (that is, traditions) which had gone abroad among Christians even in their own day.

It is a foolish thing to say that Tradition is to be held to rather than Scripture, because Tradition was before Scripture: since Scripture [i. e. written records] was used on purpose, after tradition had been tried, to guard against the dangers of Tradition. Thus to prefer, therefore, the imperfect thing [tradition] * Luke, i. 3, 4. + John, xxi. 23. 2 Thess. ii. 1-5.

to the more perfect improvement on it,―scripture-reminds one of the excuse made by dirty feeders, that "fingers were made before forks."

Tradition, then, is not the Interpreter of Scripture, but Scripture is the Interpreter of Tradition. What has come down to us for tradition, if agreeable to Scripture, is to be received; if opposed to it, to be rejected; if neither, is to be left in uncertainty.

But the Roman-catholic traditions have partly contradicted, and partly gone beyond Scripture, and partly perverted its obvious sense, as we shall point out in our next address to you.

7. The Roman-catholics are fond of boasting that their Church is unchangeable; and you will sometimes meet this same assertion respecting the Church of Rome not only admitted, but even put forward by Protestants, when they wish to fasten upon the Roman-catholics of the present day some charge that might have been truly brought against persons of that communion long ago. But Roman-catholics act much more wisely than Protestants in making this assertion; for the Roman Church was certainly a pure one in the Apostles' times; and, if it has never changed since then, how can it be corrupt now? The Protestants, indeed, will answer, "Oh yes, it has; only not since it became corrupt; nor ever can." But this also gives an advantage to the Roman-catholic. For, if all the monstrous list of (alleged) corruptions came in at once, and have never altered since, surely one should be able to point out when this mighty change took place; or, if not (which is clearly impossible), it will follow that it never did take place at all.

The truth is, however, that the Church of Rome has been frequently changing, and the corruptions crept in gradually, and a few at a time; and thence, no one can say when they began, any more than one can say when a man or a garment begins to be old. Only, on comparing the present Church of Rome with Scripture, it becomes plain that vast alterations have taken place.

When you meet with a Roman-catholic who boasts of his Church as unchangeable, you may ask him, What Church translated the Scriptures into Latin? and for what purpose ? He will (if he knows anything at all about the matter) be forced to confess that the Scriptures were translated into Latin by the

Church of Rome (or persons in communion with it), for the purpose of being read, both privately and in the public meetings of the Church, in a language understood by the people; Latin being then the language commonly spoken in the West of Europe and North Africa. Yet the Church of Rome now reads the Lessons in the public Service in Latin, though it is not understood by the people; and it is only since the Reformation that Roman-catholics have been at all diligent to translate the Bible into languages understood by the common people, or to circulate such translations.

You might ask him, too, if there was not a time when all the chief teachers of his Church-from the Pope down to the Parish Priest-taught men that it was the duty of true believers to persecute heretics? and he will be forced to own that there was. You may observe to him, therefore, that if any one then found out the duty of toleration, it must have been by private judgment in opposition to the guides of the Church; and that, if the duty of toleration is now owned by the Roman-catholics (as it has been owned by many of them since the Reformation), that is a great change, and a change made by private judgment entirely; since the Popes and Councils of the Church of Rome have never declared that persecuting heretics is not a duty, and that tolerating them is.

8. Roman-catholics are also apt to boast of their Church's freedom from divisions and dissension. But in this they manifestly contradict their own claim to be the Catholic (Universal) Church. For, if they regard Protestants as members-though revolted members-of their Church, then the very existence of Protestants (to say nothing of the Greek, the Armenian, and other Churches) proves that their Church is not exempt from divisions and dissensions. If they say that the doctrine and proceedings of Protestants &c. are condemned by the authorities of the Church of Rome, and all its sound members, that is no answer to the objection. For, exemption from a certain evil must consist, not in its being censured when it arises, but in its not arising at all. Indeed, it would be very easy, and also quite trifling, for any Church whatever to set up the boast that its doctrines are received by all,-except those who dissent from them; and that all submit to its authority, except those who refuse submission. Doubtless, if all mankind, or any number of

men, would but come to a perfect agreement in any one religion -be it true or false—they could not but be exempt from religious dissension, and if not from error, at least from anything that they themselves would account an error.

What would be thought if an Englishman were to boast to a Hindoo or a Chinese, that London enjoys the happiness of being exempt from all crimes, and also from conflagrations; and should afterwards explain his meaning to be, that all crimes are forbidden by law; the person offending being liable when detected and taken up, to be punished as the law directs; and that, though fires do break out from time to time, there are fire-engines ready to be called out on such occasions ?

However, it is not true that the Church of Rome is, even in their own sense of the word, exempt from divisions and dissensions. The great means of unity, according to most of them, is the authority of the Pope; yet they are not agreed among themselves about the extent of the Pope's authority; some thinking the Pope infallible, others denying that he is,-some making him superior to a General Council, others inferior, &c. Nay, learned men have reckoned up at least twenty-four fierce schisms and dissensions (some of them very bloody) about who was Pope; when several rivals each claimed to be the true Pope, and condemned all others as impostors. Again, they are divided among themselves about many of the same things as Protestants are divided about; as free will, pedestination, &c.; besides many disputes which have no place among us.

Lately there has appeared in Ireland a remarkable division among the Bishops of the Roman-catholic Church there; a Tract on the Evidences of Christianity, which merely sets forth some strong reasons for believing the Christian religion to be true, being sanctioned by one Prelate, and denounced by another. The fact is that, besides other differences, there are some Roman-catholics who are sincere believers in the truth (at least) of Christianity; and these think it a good thing to set before men the proofs of it; others of them either believe or

* One of these lasted from 1378 to 1429, more than half a century.

+ It was submitted, by the late Roman-catholic Archbishop Murray, as a book to be used in the Irish National Schools, to the late Pope, who had it read to him into Italian, and gave it his approval. Since then, it has appeared in an Italian translation (which is to be had at Messrs. Parker's) by a Roman-catholic Priest at Florence. But it has been denounced by persons holding high stations in the Church of Rome, as heterodox and dangerous. "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?"

strongly suspect that it is a fable of man's devising, though a very useful delusion; and these are afraid of inquiry and reasoning, which they think would shake men's faith; and so prefer basing the truth of Christianity on the authority of the Church; and trusting that men will never think of asking, “If the authority of the Church does not rest on the truth of Christianity, on what does it?"

January, 1851.