OBSERVATIONS.

(1.) By the 1st Article, Traditions, and Papal Decrees must be "stedfastly admitted and embraced" too; but by the second, the Holy Scripture is coldly "to be received," and not embraced, and even that under most severe and cautious restrictions. From the decree in Sess. IV. Conc. Trident. it is obvious that their dread of the Sacred Volume cannot be concealed. See under Article Rule of Faith.

Bellarmine De Verb. Dei. Lib. IV. c. 2. describes the kinds of TRADITION recognised by the Roman Church. The first he calls divine Tradition; which relates the doctrines delivered to the Apostles, by Christ himself, but which, though taught also by the Apostles, were left by them unrecorded. The second kind are Apostolical Traditions; which relate 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 personal instructions of Christ, but from the dictates of the Holy Spirit. Now, Doctrines taught by the Apostles, whether originally received from Christ himself, or afterwards suggested to them by the Holy Spirit, were, in either case, doctrines Apostolical; and hence the term 'Apostolical,' though used as an epithet descriptive of the second kind, is frequently applied also to Tradition of the first kind. On the other hand, the term 'divine,' though used as a term descriptive of the first kind, is applied also to Tradition of the second kind. For doctrines, suggested to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, were no less divine than the doctrines which they had received from Christ himself. It appears, then, that both kinds may be referred to one and the same class; and they frequently are so referred. Indeed they are always comprehended in the term Tradition,' when Tradition is used, as at present, to denote the unwritten word of God: for they are nothing less than the constituent parts of that unwritten Word.

But beside the two kinds of Tradition which are thus supposed to constitute the unwritten word of God, there is a third kind of Tradition which must be carefully distinguished from the two former, both in origin, and in quality. The two former claim a divine origin, as being a part of God's Word: but the third part of Tradition is confessedly of human origin; and it is described as such by the Romish Writers them

selves. Nor is it less different in quality than in origin; relating merely to Church Ceremonies, and is called, therefore, the Tradition of the Church, or Ecclesiastical Tradition: consisting of certain ancient customs, which, having originated partly in the practice of the Bishops, partly in the practice of the people, have, gradually and by tacit consent, acquired the force of a Law.

(2.) There is indeed among them a visible and external communion; and the authority of the See of Rome, like the key-stone of an arch, binds the whole mass together. It is the "seat and centre of their unity" -but what kind of unity? A unity that is merely artificial and mechanical-a unity secured by the observance of the same ceremonies, and the use of the same ritual-a unity resulting, in innumerable instances, from accident, custom, and authority-the unity of a military corps who perform the same evolutions, go through the same manœuvres, and move together with admirable order. But is this "the unity of the spirit ?” Who does not perceive that in religious matters, that unity alone deserves the name, which is the result of inquiry and conviction? The unity of which inspired writers speak is, essentially, an agreement in principle— in dispostion-in sentiment-in character:-the fellowship of kindred minds-the coincidence of thought and feeling on matters of infinite interest and importance. It is an intellectual—a moral-a spiritual unity. To secure its operation, an absolute uniformity is by no means essentially requisite: and if our opponents avail themselves of this remark to account for, and explain their own differences, we reply that if the divisions obtaining amongst Protestants, are no more effectual barriers to true unity than the divisions obtaining in the Church of Rome, then no superior advantage in point of unity is possessed by those in its communion. That there are divisions amongst them is most notorious. They are divided on the question of infallibility: and if any question might be termed fundamental, one would think, it must be that, concerning the authority which is to determine what is fundamental. But so far from being united, they differ materially on this primary question; and many of the controversies which, under other names, have divided Protestant Churches, have been for ages discussed in the Church of Rome, and have formed the barriers of separation between opposite and contending parties.

k

(3.) These Articles, are terms of communion, and none can be a member of the Church, (meaning that of Rome) who does not positively assent to them, either by an explicit or implicit faith. The reason is, because not only to doubt of, but even to suspend an assent as to, any one point, which the church has declared to be of faith, is to question the authority, the commission, and the truth of the church; since these are involved in every such declaration she makes, and every article, in this sense, is equally fundamental, there being not any one, though seemingly of an inferior concern, but upon its being questioned, the authority and whole constitution of the Church is, upon this, as much overthrown, as if the truth of its declarations were questioned in the highest mysteries of the Christian faith; since though the subject or matter of the declarations may be very different, yet her authority and truth are alike concerned in all."

The Church of Rome further declares, that every baptized person is, by virtue of such Baptism, obliged "to obey all the precepts of the Holy Church, either written or delivered by Tradition; and that whoever denies that such baptized persons should not be forced to obey those precepts by any other punishment than that of excommunication, is to be accursed." Such is the declaration of the Council of Trent, (Sess. VII. Can. 4, and 14.) whose infallibility no Roman Catholic can disbelieve.

This most solemn declaration of the Roman Catholic Faith, ends thus: "This true Catholic Faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I promise, vow, and swear, to retain (with God's assistance,) whole and entire, to my latest breath, and to procure to the extent of my power, that all my subjects, or those who, by virtue of my office, may be under my care, shall hold, teach, and preach the same." This oath was framed by the Council of Trent, with a determination to tender it to all persons in power; and is taken, even in England, by all Romanist Bishops and Dignitaries.

There is indeed no mention here made of the means whereby the Romanist Faith is to be promoted; but there is in the Roman Decretals, all things delivered and declared in which, are received in this comprehensive Creed. In those Decretals it is declared "that Heretics, however unwilling, are to be brought to salvation by force;" that "the Church justly may persecute them ;" and "that the enemies of the Church are to be coerced by arms."

The exclusive spirit of the Roman Catholic Church as contrasted with the tolerant and christian temper of Protestantism, may be accepted as no unequivocal testimony to the value of their respective claims to be considered as the pure religion of heaven. The Principles of Toleration, it has been well observed, which allow various sentiments, and modes of faith, are necessarily inherent in Protestantism, and every instance of coercion or persecution in a Protestant, is a departure from his own legitimate principles; while all toleration exercised by a Roman Catholic, is a departure from the principles of his own Church, which admits no other interpretation of Scripture than her own; denies the right of all other ministers to officiate in religious offices; and declares that there is no salvation out of her own pale.

We know whence the persecutions of the Church of Rome proceed, because we know that she does not, and, to be consistent with herself, cannot, tolerate other modes of faith. She considers her mode of faith to be perfect, her spiritual dominion to be universal, and her interpretation of the Oracles of God to be unquestionable. She cannot err, and, therefore, will make the opinions of her sons bend to her authority, and all who dispute that authority she treats as enemies. If to day were the first of giving birth to such principles, it would require no great offort of sagacity to predict that coercion and persecution would as necessarily flow from them as light from the sun. The practice of persecution would naturally follow intolerance of principle.

On the other hand, Protestantism is the religion of the Bible. It allows that Book to be the standard of faith and practice, and it imposes no specific interpretation of that Divine and illuminating volume. Protestantism allows its votaries to bring human creeds to that great touchstone of all truth; but compels none to reduce their interpretation of it to the imperfect and erring standard of human creeds. Whatever Creeds or Articles may be adopted by Protestant Churches, it is quite clear that the distinguishing spirit of Protestantism, and which all Protestants admit, is the right of private judgment in matters of religion; which is the natural result of making the Scriptures, unmixed by human comments and opinions, the only infallible rule of christian faith and practice. Where this right is admitted to be the general and indefeasible property of man, as it must be by every legitimate Protestant, the principle of coercion or persecution cannot exist. Therefore, if persecution be maintained or

exercised by a Protestant of any denomination, it is in contravention of the principles of Protestantism. You may censure the man, but you cannot blame the principle of Protestantism which he has thus abandoned.

The very principle of the Church of Rome, as evidenced in the oath taken by her Bishops, is persecution. The words are, Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our Lord the Pope, or his successors, I will, to my power, persecute and oppose." Persecution, or coercion, being thus a principle of the Church of Rome, to be exercised as occasion may require, the circumstances were not accidental which have occasioned the destruction of millions of lives, at her instigation, in different ages of the world, for alleged offences which were merely of a religious nature. The Church of Rome, admitting no right of toleration, or religious liberty, must, of necessity, maintain coercion in matters of religion, as a principle. This she has done, and will continue to do, till she recognises the right of others to follow their own opinions and sentiments. The late Pope's (Pius VII.) Circular Rescript, of the 5th February, 1808, sets this matter in the clearest light, for he there states, that he has rejected the Article proposed by Bonaparte, for granting the free and public exercise of religious worship to those who should dissent from the Roman Catholic Communion. Now it is only upon a principle of coercion, or, in other words, of persecution, that the Pope would have rejected that Article. But we need not rely upon a single act of the Pope, since it is notorious that nothing is more repugnant to the Principles of the Church of Rome than the toleration of other modes of faith.