fundamentally distinct, we must in the next place inquire, whether the foundation, on which the Church of Rome has built, (independently of the foundation common to both Churches) is composed of solid, or of sandy materials. The decision of this question will enable us to judge, whether the Doctrines, which distinguish the Church of Rome from the Church of England, are true or false. When the latter question has been determined, which is of peculiar importance at the present juncture, and has been rendered more so by the attempts to conceal the differences which we are chiefly concerned to know, we may proceed to the examination of the principles, on which the two churches have acted in regard to Church-Ceremonies. And lastly we may consider the principles, on which they have acted in the exercise of Church-Authority; a subject, that will lead to the consideration of other subjects connected with it, which are now of great practical importance.

In the first place then let us endeavour to prove, that the two Churches, in respect to Doctrines, are fundamentally distinct. For this purpose, it is necessary to shew, not only that they differ in many single articles of faith, but that the faith of the one is founded on a different basis from the faith of the other; or (to change the metaphor) that the sources, from which the two Churches derive their Articles of Faith, are not the same. If this be true, there is no agreement, either in Church-Authority, or in Church-Ceremonies, which can remove that inherent distinction. Not, that they do agree in either of these respects, not even, as is pretended, in the exercise of Church-Authority, as will hereafter

be shewn, when we have examined the sources of Faith, and the doctrines, which thence respectively flow.

That there is one source of Christian Faith, which is common to the two Churches may be readily granted for the authority of the Bible, however variously interpreted, is admitted by Christians of every description. But if the Bible is the sole fountain of Christian Faith to the Church of England, and not the sole fountain of Christian Faith to the Church of Rome, the authority admitted by the latter, in addition to the authority of the Bible, must constitute an essential difference between the two churches. Now this essential difference can be removed by no other means, than by shewing, either that the Church of Rome does not add to the Bible an authority considered as equal to the Bible, or that the Church of England agrees in such addition with the Church of Rome. No attempt has been made to demonstrate either of these propositions in clear and express terms. But some authority (it is said) is recognised by both Churches, in addition to the authority of the Bible: and the bare recognition of a second authority is sufficient (as is further said) to place the two Churches on a level. This argument has certainly involved the present question in great confusion; and this very confusion has enabled the advocates of the Church of Rome to draw conclusions in its favour, which they could not have drawn, if the propo-' sition had been stated with precision. For the additional authority, recognised by the Church of Rome, is regarded as something, both equal to,

and independent of, the Bible: whereas the Church of England acknowledges no authority, but such as is wholly and solely dependent on the Bible. When we appeal to our Liturgy and Articles, which is done only in arguing with those who have previously acknowledged them, we do not appeal to them as documents, having validity in themselves, but as documents having no other validity, than what they derive from the Bible ; as documents, which are only so far valid as they agree with the Bible. On the other hand, when ́ a Romanist appeals to Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, he appeals to an authority, neither derived from nor in any way dependent on, the Bible. He regards Tradition as an authority, which existed even before the New Testament: as an authority proceeding equally from Christ and his Apostles, though transmitted through a different channel; as an authority conveying doctrines, delivered orally by the Apostles, and recorded in the works of the Fathers.

That this representation of Romish Tradition, and of the consequent characteristic difference between the two Churches, is perfectly correct, appears from the representations, which have been made on that subject, by the most distinguished among the Romish writers themselves. It will be sufficient however to quote the explanations, which have been given in the works of Cardinal Bellarmine, and in the theological Lectures at the College of Maynooth. We may appeal to Bellarmine, as the most acute, the most methodical, the most comprehensive, and at the same time one of the most candid, among the controversialists of the Church of Rome. And we appeal to

the theological Lectures, now given in the College of Maynooth, as officially expressing (what we are highly concerned to know) the system of Divinity, now taught in the United Kingdom to the Clergy of that Church'. Further when such authorities agree, as they do on the subject of Tradition, they may be considered as expressing the general sentiments of that Church. But neither the works of Bellarmine, nor the Lectures of Maynooth, nor the Exposition of Bossuet (which will not be left unnoticed,) are here quoted, on the subject of Tradition, for any other purpose, than to explain the state of the question. For when the question has been stated and explained, which is the sole object of the present chapter, a further appeal will be made, in the following chapter, to the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, which officially declare the tenets of the Church of Rome.

The explanations of Tradition, which have been given by Cardinal Bellarmine, are contained in his Treatise on "The word of God." (De Verbo Dei.) The three first books of this Treatise, relate to the written Word of God (Verbum Dei scriptum) as contained in the Old and New Testament. But the fourth book, which relates wholly to Tradition, is entitled 'Of the unwritten Word of God (De Verbo Dei non scripto); and declares therefore by its very title, the quality of the Tradition, which is the sub

The substance of the theological Lectures, given in the College of Maynooth, is contained in the following Work, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, ad usum Theologiæ Candidatorum. Accedunt duce Appendices, de Traditione, et Conciliis generali bus. Autore L. Æ. Delahogue. Dubliniï, 1809. Svo.

ject of that book. In the second chapter of this Work, Bellarmine observes that, though the term Tradition, in its most extensive sense, may be applied to written, as well as to unwritten doctrines, it is commonly used in the latter sense. But, as he further observes, such docrines are called unwritten doctrines, in contradistinction to the written doctrines, or Scripture, not because such doctrines are no where written, but because they were not written by the authors themselves. They were written by the Greek and Latin Fathers. Bellarmine then proceeds to describe the kinds of Tradition. The first kind he calls divine Tradition; which relates to doctrines delivered to the Apostles by Christ himself, but which, though taught also by the Apostles, were left by them unrecorded. The second kind he calls apostolical Tradition; which relates to Doctrines, likewise taught by the Apostles, and likewise left unrecorded; yet so far differing from the former kind, that the Apostles received them not from the instructions of Christ, but from the dictates of the Holy Spirit. Now Doctrines, taught by the

2 Nomen traditionis generale est, et significat omnem doctrinam, sive scriptam, sive non scriptam, quæ ab uno communicatur alteri.-Tamesti vero traditionis nomen generale sit, tamen hoc ipsum nomen accommodatum est a Theologis ad significandam tantum doctrinam non scriptam. Lib. iv. cap. 2.

3 Vocatur autem doctrina non scripta, non ea quæ nusquam scripta est, sed quæ non scripta est a primo auctore. Ib. ib.

* A catalogue of the Fathers, who are supposed to be the principal recorders of the unwritten Word is given by Cardinal Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici, Tom. I. p. 412-418.

5 Divinæ dicuntur, quæ acceptæ sunt ab ipso Christo Apostolos docente, et nusquam in divinis literis inveniuntur.—