"Some supporters of tradition and church authority," he says, (pp. 19, 20,)“ have upheld it, not as independent, but only as having its claims distinctly proved from scripture, for which they allege certain passages; but if the sense be disputed, then they are driven to allege further that what they mean is, those passages when understood agreeably to their true and orthodox interpretation; but this is established by the authority of tradition and the sentence of the church. Yet this authority again in its turn is derived from those passages so understood. The perpetual circle, in

which we thus get involved, is too palpable to need further remark.”

This is a celebrated argument, and it is stated in this passage dexterously indeed, and in a manner well calculated to mislead an inexperienced reader; but let us see how it will bear a closer inspection. It is to be considered, then,

I. That even if the author succeeded fully in making out his case, it would still be wholly insufficient to support the conclusion which he builds upon it. The smallest consideration will shew this. He begins, we see, by putting a particular case; which is that of some persons who, from arguing, he thinks, wrongly, fail to prove tradition from scripture. Be it so; but because some persons fail, can it be concluded that therefore generally none can succeed in proving it? Yet this is the conclusion which the reader is evidently intended to draw, as the author nowhere afterwards alludes to the scripture proofs of tradition as things totally out of the question, and as if by this one blow he had put an end to them for ever. And, to put his meaning beyond doubt, we have this inference expressly drawn in the "argument" which says, "church authority" and "tradition," of course, (as they go together all through the argument,*) not proved from "scripture." But he must be reminded that he has yet to prove this general negative. In the meantime, it will be my endeavour to shew the contrary.

II. Upon examining the particular case itself, which he states somewhat more closely, it will be found to contain assumptions which themselves admit of dispute, and which, in truth, he would find great difficulty in substantiating. What is the case which he assumes ? It is that of "some supporters of tradition and church authority who uphold it, not as independent, but" &c.; we stop to observe that many may not express its independence, which yet they understand; so that, if there is any force in his designation, he must mean those who expressly deny that independence. But does he suppose that any persons do deny this? Any, I mean, of those who confess themselves guided in the sense of scripture by tradition-(which, observe, is part of the case supposed)—that is, any churchman? I will tell him, none at all events, the number must be so small, and the existence of them such a

Without considering church authority and tradition as nearly one and the same thing, there is not even the semblance of a circle. If he had said, (as he might more truly have done,) "The church's interpretation makes certain passages of scripture to prove the church's authority in general; her power to interpret-i.e., her traditionary power, кár' εoxǹv — being proved from certain other passages," this would have been a statement far nearer to the truth. But then, doubtless, the introducing of two sets of passages and two kinds of authority in the church, (the one general, the other a more express power to interpret only,) though more correct, would have been less convenient and plausible.

secret to the world, that the refuting of them is very little gained to his general conclusion. Or if he rather supposes that the independence of tradition if not expressly, yet virtually, is denied by all who allege it to be proved from scripture, this again is an assumption no less difficult to substantiate than the other. The scripture proofs of tradition are, in fact, numerous; they may even be its best and weightiest; yet so long as any others, however less cogent and convincing, are understood to remain behind, it is enough for our purpose, and to shew that the argument may proceed without a circle. But this will require,

III. To be more particularly considered. It is insinuated, then, that if tradition be alleged by any persons (as, I repeat, by all churchmen it is) to be distinctly proved from scripture, such persons necessarily make it dependent on scripture, and cannot therefore at once take the authority of tradition from scripture, and the sense of scripture from tradition. Now I shall endeavour to prove that this insi nuation is untrue, and to shew that these uses may safely be made both of tradition and scripture interchangeably, without being guilty of any fallacy whatever.

If scripture, then, was expressly adduced as the only proof of the authority of tradition, then those who appealed to tradition back again for the sense of scripture might very properly be said to reason in a circle. But it is quite otherwise with those who only appeal to scripture as a distinct proof of tradition. It is a well-understood fact that scripture is not the only, that from its nature it could not have been the primary, proof of tradition. Scarcely any one in his senses, or that had the smallest acquaintance with history, could affirm that it was. I do not deny, indeed, that tradition is "distinctly proved" from scripture, or, if the author pleases, "derived from certain passages interpreted in a certain sense" so as to suit this doctrine; but these being not its only distinct proofs, the two are sufficiently independent of one another for all purposes of arguing from one to the other.

This will be seen if we take a parallel case, and suppose it argued that because John the Baptist bore witness to the Messias, and the Messias to John the Baptist, therefore neither were to be believed without arguing in a circle. Why, the plain answer would be, that, suppose a man first convinced by any means that John was a true prophet, he might then reasonably, upon the testimony of John, have believed in Jesus; or, on the like supposition, upon the testimony of Jesus have believed in John. Or, to return to the example before alluded to, and which comes nearer to the case under consideration— viz., that of the Old Testament and the New: if a man be in any way convinced, without reference to the Old, that the New Testament is true, he may lawfully by the light of the New interpret the Old; and yet, again, may derive from the Old fresh and even stronger proofs in confirmation of the New. BOTH WHICH THINGS, IN FACT,

THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES WERE WONT OFTEN TO DO.

Substitute the word tradition for New Testament, and the word scripture for Old Testament, and this description of the mutual in

fluence of the Old and New Testaments upon each other, in the way of argument, will be just as proper a description of the particular case before us. Or (with a little variation) if any candid inquirer be in any degree convinced, independently of scripture, that tradition is true, and if, led by tradition to consult scripture he there finds, not only fresh internal indications of its own divine character, but fresh proofs in favour of tradition also; why, these last, so far from inducing him to reject the authority of tradition, would only tend to strengthen that regard to it with which he set out. And thus, to such a man, though scripture proved tradition, tradition might also interpret scripture. But observe, it is by no means necessary that the first conviction should have been as strong in degree as the last. In moral and metaphysical evidence there are many shades that have no place in subjects of mere physical science.

If two witnesses, of known respectability, were examined in a court of justice, the one upon oath, the other not, but the former, we will suppose, giving evidence to the competency of the latter, this would be moral evidence for the truth of whatever the latter might depose. The evidence might indeed be stronger if both witnesses were sworn, and thereby each was independent of the other; but the first would remain good moral evidence still. We repeat, then, the best proofs of tradition might be in scripture; but these might not be its only nor its first proofs. And this simple circumstance (overlooked or suppressed in the author's hypothesis) supplies us with the true key to open the circle in which the author would entrap us. Tradition, then, may at once prove scripture and be proved by it; scripture may, in a measure, be subject to its authority, and yet its authority be derived from scripture.

I have hitherto supposed a person convinced by some means, without reference to scripture, that tradition is true. Whether any and what such means there are, is another and a distinct question. And this remains to be considered

IV. Viz., what the primary and independent proofs of tradition are? If they amounted only to a slight presumption, as has been shewn, it would be enough. The scriptural proofs would come in afterwards, and complete the evidence. Men may be differently impressed with the force of the primary evidence, but they can hardly escape from having some degree of conviction forced upon them that before scripture was written or divulged there was an original fund

(Luke, i. 2-4.) St. Luke, to whom we are indebted for one gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, tells us himself that he got his information from some such sources as we are describing. It is observable in this passage that, for once that he alludes to the benefit of a written document, he owns the existence and even accuracy of the former unwritten sources twice. "Even AS THEY DELIVERED them unto us, which...were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,...it seemed good to me also to write......that thou mightest know the certainty of those things WHEREIN thou HAST BEEN INSTRUCTED." It may not be generally recollected that the epistle to the Thessalonians was written before any of the four Greek gospels, which makes it plain that the tradition frequently alluded to in that epistle could have had reference only to the unwritten apostolic teaching. "Hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our epistle."-See 2 Thes. ii. 15. "Now we com

of traditionary and apostolical doctrine, coeval with the first plantation of churches throughout the world. The fact is manifest, that there must have been some original sources from which much of the doctrine, and still more perhaps of the practice, of the church in all succeeding ages has been derived. How else can we account for the almost universal adoption, in all apostolic churches, of infant baptism, or for the general use of the other sacrament among the laity, not to instance in other usages? If I am told that these might have been derived from holy scripture itself, without the help of tradition, I answer, they might, but it is probable they never would have been. Tradition first led the way; and that, be it observed, prior to the very composing, much more to the general collection and promulgation, of the inspired volume. Destitute of many advantages belonging to the written word, tradition claimed, at least, the priority in point of time; and hence it possesses that independence in authority which our adversaries challenge us to shew. Nay, though it contained nothing but what may be "read in* scripture, or may be proved thereby," it would still, by virtue of its origin, be available to interpret and explain, to convey the sense as it was understood by those to whom the revelation was made, and to fill up outlines where manifestly left imperfect. In consideration of these uses it was that the church began early to embody portions of this tradition in creedst and other formularies; and according to these she has ever maintained her right to interpret the sacred volume.

But, without going further, we have materials enough to substantiate the required independence of tradition in the plain admissions of the author himself. For when he says (p. 14), "Declarations of doctrine and practice" in the New Testament "appear nowhere formally and systematically delivered, but rather alluded to as things already known;" and observes, that "in this as a matter of fact both parties coincide;" what is all this but to admit upon his own shewing the actual existence of an independent origin, from which doctrines not explicitly drawn out in scripture may have been derived ?+

If the author believes himself, I need say no more to convince him that the whole doctrine of tradition is founded on plain matter of fact, and here for the present take my leave.

I am, Sir, &c.

VINCENTIUS.

mand you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which ye received of us."-2 Thes. iii. 6.

* Sixth Article.

+ It should at the same time be borne in mind by those who are scrupulous about the slightest departure from scripture, that the apostles' creed may, article by article, be proved out of the very text of scripture. The "Acts of the Apostles" alone afford the materials for this, except one article, which is from St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Acts, xvii. 23; viii. 37; Gal. iv. 4; Acts, xxv.; xxvi. 22, 23; Acts, ii. 23, 31, 32, 34; xvii. 31; ii. 33; xx. 28; ii. 42; ii. 38; xvii. 32; xiii. 46. For this remark I am indebted to the "Rule of Faith," by H. E. Manning, M. A., a most valuable work.

See again Manning's "Rule of Faith, "Append. ch. III.

BISHOP JOLLY'S WORKS.

"God's Providence is our inheritance."

SIR, I cannot help thinking that we generally take too little heed of the hand of Providence as guiding things in this world; whereas, if we watch and reflect, we may often trace the deep wisdom of its acts. And these thoughts have frequently arisen within me on the removal from us of some one, with circumstances unusual, or at the very time that, humanly speaking, his presence would be most required. As an instance, I will notice the loss of Mr. Froude, just when his own writings and those of his friends were attracting attention-a moment one might fancy when his aid would be most essential; but what has been the consequence ?-the publication of his journal, &c. (which might otherwise have been delayed for years); thence a further development of his own and friends' principles. So also, at a time when the spirit of the church was awakening throughout the kingdom, we have circulated the affecting death of Bishop Jolly, a name before unknown to many of us. The brief narrative of his latter days created an interest about him, and brought to sale his little but truly precious works. I feel very thankful for having had them thrown in my way; and as some of your country readers may be glad to learn more of that primitive saint, I will take the liberty of mentioning in your pages the titles of his publications, all of which may be had of Messrs. Rivington.

An Address to the Episcopalians of Scotland on Regeneration. Observations on the Liturgical Sunday Services, with a Memoir by Bishop Walker.

The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

To which may be added, Two Sermons occasioned by his death. By the Rev. C. Pressly, and the Rev. W. C. A. Maclaurin. Now, had the good bishop fallen asleep with circumstances less extraordinary, many years might have elapsed before his writings became generally known; but I cannot but think that it pleased providence to raise from his tomb another voice in favour of the truth, and that it might have the greater weight to engage our sympathies in the bishop's favour before we read his works; and this, too, out of mercy; for, alas! some will not receive the truth, out of prejudice against the teachers. In a remote part of the kingdom, where the church is in sackcloth, we have doctrines published, fully supporting, as far as they go, those in the Oxford Tracts, and sent into the world years before the latter were thought of. It was as a voice in the wilderness; but the account of the good bishop's passage from it has been current throughout the empire, and so striking was it, that I fancy that most who have read it will be glad to learn more of one who so learnt to die; and perhaps they will agree with me, that the hand of Providence is more frequently to be traced in this world if we will with obedient hearts more patiently look for it.

I am, Sir,

A LAYMAN, BUT NOT AN OXFORD MAN.