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 an epithet 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 properly be referred to one and and they frequently are so referred. always comprehended in the term 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 7.

the same class:

Indeed they are Tradition,' when

But beside the two kinds of Tradition, which thus constitute (or are supposed to constitute) the unwritten Word of God, there is a third kind of Tradition mentioned by Bellarmine, which must be carefully distinguished from the two former, as it is totally different from them, both in origin, and in

Apostolica traditiones proprie dicuntur illæ, quæ ab Apostolis institutæ sunt, non tamen sine assistentiâ Spiritus Sancti, et nihilominus non extant scriptæ in eorum epistolis. Ib. ib.

Hence Bellarmine in the same chapter observes, Soleut tamen interdum etiam divinæ traditiones dici apostolicæ, et apostolicæ dicuntur divinæ.

7 This will further appear from another quotation about the unwritten Word, where Bellarmine describes it as consisting of the divine and apostolical traditions. See the following Note 11.

quality. The two former, as we have already seen, claim a divine origin: and indeed, unless a divine origin were ascribed to them, they could not be at all considered as a part of God's Word. But the third kind of Tradition is confessedly of human origin; and it is described as such by the Romish writers themselves. Nor is the third kind of Tradition less different in quality than in origin. The two former relate to Doctrines, or Articles of Faith; and are received by the Church of Rome as a Rule of Faith. But the third kind relates merely to Church Ceremonies, and is called therefore the Tradition of the Church, or Ecclesiastical Tradition. Now this Ecclesiastical Tradition Bellarmine describes as consisting of certain ancient custems (consuetudines quædam antique,) 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 3.

The same threefold division, which is made by Cardinal Bellarmine, is made also in the theological Lectures at Maynooth, as appears from the treatise De Ecclesiâ Christi, where Tradition is likewise divided into the three kinds of divine, apostolical, and ecclesiastical. But, as the explanations, which are there given on the subject of Tradition, accord exactly with those of Bellarmine, it is unnecessary to repeat them, though the coincidence itself is worthy of our notice. Supported therefore by these

Eeclesiastica traditiones proprie dicuntur consuetudines quædam antiquæ, vel a prælatis vel a populis inchoatæ, quæ paulatim, tacito consensu populorum, vim legis obtinuerunt, Ib. ib. 9 P. 398.

CHAP. I. Churches of England and Rome. authorities, I will proceed to a further investigation of the Tradition, which the Church of Rome re ceives as the unwritten Word of God, and which it regards as a Rule of Faith, equally with the written Word.

In this investigation we have manifestly no concern with any other kinds of Tradition than those which constitute (or are supposed to constitute) the unwritten Word of God. We are concerned then wholly and solely with what are called divine and apostolical Traditions. This indeed is very clearly stated in the Treatise, De Ecclesiâ Christi "°. “Quæ nunc movetur controversia (says the author of that Treatise) est tantum de divinis et apostolicis traditionibus." Whether any such traditions can be proved to exist, that is, whether any doctrines recorded by the Fathers, but not recorded in the New Testament, can be shewn to be really of divine and apostolical origin, is a question which will be examined hereafter. Our present object is to ascertain, what the tenets of the Church of Rome, in respect to Tradition, really are: for till the subject of discussion is understood, it is useless to argue about its truth, or falsehood. Now the subject of Tradition, which. to the Church of Rome, is a Rule of Faith, how-. ever intelligible it may be thought by those, who have not examined it in all its bearings, is really one of the most intricate subjects in dogmatic theology. And it will be absolutely impossible to conduct with precision our present inquiry, unless this Rule of Faith be kept free from intermixture with any other kinds of Tradition, than those, of which

it is composed. We must be careful then to avoid the confusion, which whould now arise, from a reference to the thirty-fourth Article of our Church; though that Article relates expressly to Tradition. And it is the more necessary to guard against this confusion, because the danger of falling into it is so much the greater, as the thirty-fourth Article is the only one, among the thirty-nine, in which the term Tradition,' occurs. " But it is

evident, that the term is there used in no other sense, than that, which is affixed by Bellarmine to the third kind of Tradition. This kind of Tradition is called, as we have seen, ecclesiastical Tradition. Now the very title of the thirty-fourth Article is, 'Of the Traditions of the Church;' an expression evidently synonymous with ecclesiastical Traditions. And if any doubt remained about the similarity of their meaning, that doubt would be removed by the contents of the Article. "It is not necessary (says this article)" that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places "one or utterly like." Again, says this Article, "Whosoever, through his private judgement, willingly and purposely doth openly break "the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, "&c." Since then in this Article traditions and ceremonies are thus mentioned together, they must necessarily be understood as having a similar meaning. And this meaning exactly corresponds with the description given by Bellarmine of ecclesiastical Tradition; or Tradition, which relates, as he says, to certain ancient customs (consuetudines quædam antiquæ.) This Article therefore was merely intended to oppose the tenet of the Church of Rome, that customs,

or ceremonies of the Church, sanctioned by traditional and immemorial usage, had the force of a law, and could not be changed. It is in the sixth Article, as also in the twentieth, and the twenty-first, that our Church opposes Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, though the term Tradition' is not used in them.

The subject of inquiry being now explained, let us proceed to the state of the question, as it affects the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the Church of England on the other. Now the state of the question, in reference to the two Churches, is delivered by Bellarmine in the following words. "We (says Bellarmine) assert, that the necessary 66 doctrine, whether relating to FAITH, or to MORALS, "is not all expressly contained in Scripture; and "therefore, that beside the written Word of God, "there is a necessity for an unwritten Word, that "is the divine and apostolical traditions. But they (namely the Protestants) teach, that all things necessary to FAITH and MORALS are contained in "the Scriptures, and therefore that there is no need any unwritten Word"."

46 of

Having thus explained the characteristic difference between the Church of Rome, and all

"Nos asserimus in Scripturis non contineri expresse totam doctrinam necessariam, sive de FIDE, sive de MORIBUS; et proinde, præter Verbum Dei scriptum, requiri etiam Verbum Dei non scrip tum, id est, divinas et apostolicas traditiones. At ipsi docent in Scripturis omnia contineri ad FIDEM et MOREs necessaria, et proinde non esse opus ullo verbo non scripto. Likewise Dr. Delahogue (de Ecclesiâ Christi, p. 403.) says, "In principiis Protestantium, qui traditiones divinas et apostolicas non agnoscunt, hæc duo sunt admittenda, scripturas et necessarias esse, et sufficere ad complendam fidem. Atqui hæc duo falsissima sunt.