should be written.

We know that St. Peter testified with very many other words than those which were committed to writing; and St. John also informs his disciples that, having more things to write to them, he would not by paper and ink, for he hoped he should soon be with them, and speak face to face.()

What

Though numerous other instances of similar declarations (*) are to be found in the sacred writings, yet with such a knowledge of the rich treasures which fell from the lips of our Saviour and his Apostles, Protestants argue as if they considered that nothing more was worthy of preservation but what was recorded, at a considerable distance of time, in the New Testament. reason have we to suppose, that the doctrines which we hold by tradition, were not those which were preached by our Saviour, but omitted by the sacred penmen? Because the Scriptures are silent, are we to conclude that Christ was so too? It is no where said that those Scriptures were composed for the purpose of containing a regular code of faith: they were written to edify, instruct, and exhort-not to be a sole and independent guide in

(e) St. John xxi. 25. () Acts, ii. 40. (8) 2 St. John, 12. (h) Christ shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them [his apostles and disciples], and Speaking of the kingdom of God.— Acts, i. 3.

matters of doctrine: to confirm, rather than to define, our faith. There are clearly other sources of historical evidence than written documents. If it pleased our Saviour to inspire the writers of the New Testament, (and which we do not know to have been the case from the Scriptures themselves, save in regard to the Apocalypse, though, indeed, many parts may be said to bear internal evidence of the hand of God,) so it has pleased him to guard uninjured and unbroken, by his particular providence, a chain of traditionary evidence. Is it not as easy for the Almighty, by a peculiar superintendance of his Providence, to preserve the purity of his doctrine inviolate through the lapse of ages, as it was to inspire illiterate fishermen to preach that doctrine in the first instance? If Christ could inspire men to write and to preach, can he not equally inspire them, when sitting in judgment, relative to the verdict which they are to pronounce? It is this superintendance of his Providence which has transmitted to us that part of his holy law which was not written, and which we reverence and obey equally with that which was, because both proceed from the same authority-the authority of God.

Though the Protestant Church rejects the doctrine of tradition, yet, amongst her numberless inconsistencies, she grounds a part of her creed upon it; namely, the sanctification of the Sunday,

the validity of infant baptism, and indeed, the ground-work of all her belief, the authenticity and inspiration of her sole, independent rule of faith, the canonical books of the New Testament." For it is traditionary evidence alone that can possibly prove, in most cases, the inspiration, and, in all parts, the authenticity and integrity of the Scriptures. At one period, the Gospels according to Peter, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthias, the twelve Apostles, and a variety of other spurious works, were in circulation among Christians, and how, but by the authority of the Church, and the evidence of tradition, were they to be detected amongst the genuine productions of the inspired disciples of Christ? In her xxixth article, the Church of England quotes St. Augustine for his opinion, and yet she rejects his evidence on other

(See Strictures on Dr. Marsh's Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome, by Dr. Lingard.— Booker, 1815. If you refer to the testimony of history for the inspiration of the New Testament, you must also refer to history for a proof of your independent rule of faith, for that certainly is not to be found in Scripture. Where are we to look for the evidence of the Fathers on this point, or to substantiate any other of the novelties of Protestantism? Have we ever seen a work entitled, "The Faith of Protestants proved by Scripture, and confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers, and the evidence of the first five centuries of the Church?"

points.(*) If he be worthy of belief in one case, the circumstances being the same, equal credit is due to him in others. But this she refuses, and not only to him, but to all who, like him, are the most fit to guide us in such inquiries, and to make us most intimately acquainted with the belief and doctrines of the Catholic Church, during the first ages of Christianity. Yet do we find men who, in the nineteenth century, would know the feelings and opinions of the Apostles better than their

(*) In the Book of Homilies, St. Augustine is styled "the best learned of all ancient doctors," and in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the sworn Articles of the Church of England, he is enrolled among the Saints! Yet this St. Augustine not only upheld the primacy of St. Peter, but declared schism to be the greatest of all crimes, as it was the greatest of all evils, and the most diametrically opposed to the great and essential attribute of God, unity: yet St. Augustine is the saint of schismatics, and is cited as the best learned of all ancient doctors, by a Church which calls heaven to witness that schism is no crime, and the primacy of St. Peter but a fable! St. Augustine was also a believer in Transubstantiation; he offered the sacrifice of the mass; he honoured and invoked the Virgin Mary and the Saints; he prayed for the souls of his departed brethren; he did all that the Head of the Church of England, together with her clergy and her people, now swear to be superstitious and idolatrous;-yet does he rank among them as a Saint, enjoying the honourable appellation of the "best learned of all ancient doctors!!" Was ever folly and imposture like this?

companions and contemporaries; and who, at this remote period, would have us take their word in preference to those who were living witnesses of the faith and practice of primitive times. It is, indeed, not to be imagined with what reason, or justice, the evidence of such a constellation of the brightest luminaries of the Christian world, as the Fathers of the first ages of the Church is refused. How is it possible that any deception can be practised, when we rely on the testimony of men the most virtuous and the most learned, of every age, and of every country, not only divided by distance of space, but by distance of time, yet all concurring in the same opinions; men who could have no object in deceiving, but whose only aim was the elucidation of truth, and the maintenance of the Christian religion in its native purity? They could have no object in deceiving, for, unlike the Reformers of the sixteenth century, they inculcated a just obedience to authority, instead of an emancipation from it. They preached penance and mortification, instead of laxity of morals and criminal indulgence. Their very unanimity is a proof of the rule they followed, and of the protection of heaven in thereby exempting them from the errors and contradictions inseparable from the human mind, when endeavouring to judge for itself upon points above the ordinary capacity and comprehension of man. In rejecting tradition, a train of