Council of Trent had, in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, decreed as a law, what the Council itself acknowledged to be in opposition to the Doctrine received from the commencement of Christianity". And, if he had applied his observation to various other Doctrines, of which the Council of Trent made no such acknowledgement, but for which it pretended to have the authority of apostolical Tradition, he would have been utterly unable to trace such Doctrines to the Apostles. Even were it possible, to trace them to the Apostolic age, there would still be wanting the additional proof, that they came from the Apostles. We know, that heresies crept into the Church even in their days; and that the apostolical Epistles were designed, in many places, to point out such heresies, and to declare what was the genuine apostolical Doctrine. If then those Doctrines, for which there is no foundation in Scripture, could be traced to the very age of the Apostles, the only alteration in the inference would respect the date of the heresy. When Bossuet therefore concludes, by commending the endeavours of the Church of Rome to collect all that the Fathers have left us, and to preserve "the deposit of Tradition as carefully, as that of the Scriptures," he commends the preservation of a deposit, on which there is no reliance.

But in the theological Lectures at Maynooth we find another criterion, by which apostolical traditions may be known. This criterion is the unanimity of the Fathers in regard to any particular doctrine. The proposition is delivered in the follow"See Chap. III. Note 1.

ing words, "Unanimis Patrum, ad doctrinam

aliquam asserendam, consensio certissimum est "veritatis argumentum"." But unfortunately this criterion is wholly inapplicable to the cases, where the application is wanted. For though the Fathers, in general, maintain the Doctrines, which the Church of England has in common with the Church of Rome, such for instance as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement, yet the Doctrines, in which the Church of England differs from the Church of Rome, are precisely the doctrines, in which the Fathers are not unanimous. Indeed the Doctrines, maintained by the early Fathers, are quite at variance with the Doctrines, which distinguish the Church of Rome.

There is one more argument for the apostolical traditions, which I have reserved for the last, because, on the principles of the Church of Rome, it is quite unanswerable. We are told, that not merely the Works of the Fathers, but that the Decrees of General Councils form a repository of these traditions. Indeed the theological Lectures at Maynooth place this repository in the foremost rank. We are not referred to the Works of the Fathers in the first instance, and to the Decrees of Councils in the second instance, as having borrowed from the Works of the Fathers. The Decrees of Councils there take precedence. For the repositories of Tradition are thus stated in thr following sentence. "Traditionis nomine intelligitur doctrina, in libris "canonicis non scripta, quamvis in Conciliorum

12 De Ecclesiâ Christi, p. 416.

canonibus, et sanctorum Patrum operibus legatur "3." This precedence is attended with incalculable advantage. For since General Councils are declared in the same Lectures to be absolutely infallible in points of faith 14, it follows of course, that whatever Doctrine such authority has pronounced an apostolical tradition, must be received as apostolical. But it is quite superfluous for an infallible Council, acting under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, to take the trouble of searching for apostolical traditions in the Works of the Fathers. The easiest, and indeed the most consistent mode would be, to use in every Decree the language which was holden by the Council of Trent in a Decree on the Eucharist, and to proclaim that, "Holy mother Church acknowledges its own authority"." But as no Protestant can ascribe infallibility to any Church, and least of all to a Church, which has exhibited so many proofs of error, the admission of Doctrines by the Council of Trent, under the name of apostolical traditions, must be considered as insufficient evidence, that the doctrines, so received, had an apostolical origin.

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 con

sequences of that rejection, when we consider the load of superstition, from which we were freed by the 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.

CHAP. V.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND ROME IN RESPECT TO THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE- -THE LATTER ADMITS, AS CANONICAL, VARIOUS BOOKS AND PARTS OF BOOKS, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH THE FORMER CONSIDERS AS APOCRYPHAL.- -HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AS CONTAINED IN THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE VULGATE.

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS SANCTIONED BY OUR SAVIOUR, THE SOLE CANON TO BE RECEIVED BY CHRISTIANS.PROOF, THAT THIS CANON, IS THE CANON OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ADOPTED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME, RECEIVED THE SANCTION, NEITHER OF CHRIST, NOR OF HIS APOSTLES.

THE fundamental difference between the Churches of England and Rome, in respect to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, having been fully explained, let us now consider the difference between them, in respect to Scripture itself. And, as Scripture is to both Churches a foundation of Faith, though not the sole foundation to the Church of Rome, it necessarily follows, that whatever difference subsists between them, in regard to the Canon of Scripture, is again a fundamental difference.