it were, of Divinity? Ancient testimony in its proper place, who had undervalued? The dignity and grace of the Sacraments, who had denied? The study of primitive antiquity, who had renounced? The witness of the early Fathers, who had disparaged? Wherefore weaken, then, by pushing beyond its due bearing, the argument which all writers of credit in our Church had delighted to acknowledge?

The testimony of the Apostolical and primitive ages, for example, to the genuineness, and authenticity, and Divine inspiration of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, as of the Jewish Church to those of the Old, who had called in question? Or who had doubted the incalculable importance of the universal ancient Church at the Council of Nice, to the broad fact of the faith of the whole Christian world, from the days of the Apostles to that hour, in the mysteries of the adorable Trinity and of the Incarnation, as there rehearsed and recognized. Or who called in question the other matters of fact, which are strengthened by Christian antiquity, as the Divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Lord's Day-the institution and perpetuity of the two, and only two Christian Sacraments-the right of the infants of the faithful to the blessings of holy Baptism-the Apostolical usage of Confirmationthe permanent separation of a body of men for sacred servicesthe duty of willing reverence from the people for themthe threefold rank of Ministers in Christ's Church—the use of Liturgies-the observation of the festivals of our Lord's birth, resurrection, ascension, and gift of the Holy Ghost-with similar points; to which may be added, their important negative testimony to the non-existence of any one of the peculiar doctrines and claims of the modern Court and Church of Rome. These and similar facts we rejoice to acknowledge, as fortified by pure and uncorrupted primitive tradition or testimony.

"We rejoice also to receive, with our own Protestant Reformed Church, the universal witness of the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops, expressed in the three Creeds, as a most important method of guarding the words of revelation from the artful ambiguities of heretics, and as rules and terms of communion; just as we acknowledge our modern Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies for the same pur pose. We rejoice again in tracing back almost the whole of our sublime and Scriptural Liturgy to a far higher period than the rise of Popery to the Primitive ages of the Church in our own and every other Christian country. We thus admit, in its fullest sense, for its

proper ends, the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis-Quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique traditum est.

"And we receive such tradition for this one reason-because it deserves the name of JUST AND PROPER EVIDENCE. It is authentic testimony. It is a part of the materials from which even the external evidences of Christianity itself are derived. It furnishes the most powerful historical arguments in support of our faith. It is amongst the proofs of our holy religion.

“But evidence is one thing; the rule of belief another. Not for one moment do we, on any or all these grounds, confound the history and evidences of the divinely inspired rule of faith, with that Rule itself. Not for one moment do we place Tradition on the same level with the all-perfect Word of God. Not for one moment do we allow it any share in the standard of revealed truth. Scripturę and Tradition taken together are NOT-we venture to assert-'the joint rule of faith;' but 'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man; that it should be believed as an article of faith.' And Tradition is so far from being of co-ordinate authority, that even the ecclesiastical writers who approach the nearest to them, and are read in our Churches-which not one of the Fathers is-for example of life, and instruction of manners;' are still, as being uninspired, not to be applied to establish any one doctrine of our religion.

"Against this whole system, then, as proceeding upon a MOST FALSE AND DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE, and differing from the generally received Protestant doctrine, I beg, Reverend Brethren, most respectfully to caution you. I enter my most solemn protest against the testimony of the Fathers to any number of facts, being constituted a 'joint rule of faith.' I protest against their witness to the meaning of certain capital series of texts on the fundamental truths of the Gospel, being entitled to the reverence only due to the authoritative Revelation itself. I protest against the salutary use made of the testimony of primitive writers by our Church, as a safeguard against heresy and an expression of her view of the sense of the Holy Scriptures, being placed on a level with the blessed Scriptures themselves—that is, I PROTEST

AGAINST A MERE RULE OF COMMUNION BEING MADE A RULE OF FAITH.*

* In the Appendix to his charge, Bishop Wilson thus accurately and succinctly states the precise question between this Divinity and its opposers, on the subject of Tradition:

"Yes, you may rely upon it, Reverend Brethren, that this 'joint rule of faith' will never long consist with the simplicity of the Gospel. I speak with fear and apprehension, lest I should in the least degree overstate the case. I suspect not-I repeat, I suspect not the Reverend and learned Leaders of the least intention or idea of forwarding the process which I think is in fact going on. But the plague is begun. A FALSE PRINCIPLE IS ADMITTED IN THE RULE OF FAITH, AND IS ALREADY AT WORK.

Already an amplitude is given, as we have seen, to the word Tradition, which may include any thing and every thing, and therefore justly awakens our increased alarm. Already texts of inspired Scripture are weakened or contracted to the narrowest and most doubtful sense. Already are appeals made to documents which were superseded by the more purely evangelical formularies of our present Book of Common Prayer, with its Articles and Homilies, at the definite settlement of our reformed Church; and a desire not obscurely expressed that our Reformation had retained more of the Traditionary model.

"All this is but too natural. The false principle will go on 'eating as doth a canker,' if things proceed as they now do. The inspired Word of God will be imperceptibly neglected; and the Traditions of men will take its place. The Church will supersede the Bible. The Sacraments will hide the glory of Christ. Selfrighteousness will conceal the righteousness of God. Traditions and Fathers will occupy the first place, as we see in the sermons of the chief Roman Catholic authors of every age, and Christ come

"The question to be determined, is not whether the witness of the early Fathers to the facts of Christianity, is of the greatest importance-this is admitted. Nor is it the question, whether their testimony to the broad matter of fact, as to the faith of the universal Church at the Council of Nice, in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord, strengthens and sustains the inNor terpretation of the orthordox Church in subsequent ages-all this we admit. is it the question, whether our Church in her authorized formularies, especially in the three Creeds, makes this testimony a rule and term of Communion—this is most fully conceded. Nor is it the question, whether all the weight and influence which a sound criticism will ever give to writers situated like the Fathers, should be constantly granted them, especially where a consent of them can be shownthat is, where the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est, applies-this is cheerfully allowed..

"But the question is, Whether Scripture and Tradition, written and unwritten, taken together, are the joint rule of faith ?-Whether Catholic Tradition comes first as the teacher of revealed truth, and Scripture comes next, to prove it?-Whether the true Creed is Scripturally-proved Tradition, or Catholic tradition supported by the Scriptures ?''

next or not at all; and a lowered tone of practical religion will come in.

"The whole system, indeed, goes to generate, as I cannot but think, an inadequate and superficial, and superstitious religion. The mere admissions of the inspiration and paramount authority of holy Scripture will soon become a dead letter; due humiliation before God under a sense of the unutterable evil of sin, will be less and less understood; a conviction of the need of the meritorious righteousness of the incarnate Saviour, as the alone ground of justification, will be only faintly inculcated; the operations of the Holy Ghost in creating man anew will be more and more forgotten; the nature of those good works, which are acceptable to God in Christ, will be lost sight of; and 'another Gospel' framed on the traditions of men, will make way for an apostasy in our own Church, as in that of Rome-unless, indeed, the evangelical piety, the reverence for Holy Scripture, the theological learning, and the forethought and fidelity of our Divines of dignified station and established repute at home INTERPOSE BY DISTINCT CAUTIONS TO PREVENT IT—as they are beginning to interpose, and as I humbly trust they will still more decisively do." Bishop Wilson's Charge, 1838, pp. 58-76.

CHAPTER IX.

THE DOCTRINE OF THIS DIVINITY, AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JUSTIFICATION, AND THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

Matter of mortification that such comparison is necessary-A general account of the doctrinal standards of the Anglican Church-Statement of the questions investigated in this Chapter-Arguments from the assertion of Dr. Pusey that the Article, of Justification says nothing of what Justification consists in-The Articles xi., xii., and xiii.-Exposition of the xi. from the language of its Authors elsewhere-From its own peculiar precision as to the office of faith-Homilies quoted and expounded-Seven difficulties into which the Oxford doctrines are brought by the language of the Articles and Homilies-Each made use of as an evidence against the consistency of that Divinity with that of the Anglican Church.

It is indeed a matter of deep mortification that, at this late age of the Reformed Church of England, we are called upon to show that her doctrine of justification, so prominent in the controversies waged in the time of her emancipation from Romanism, so carefully defined and guarded against all possibility of mistake in her standard writings, is not substantially the same with the main doctrine of that very system of Romish error against which she so earnestly protests.

But so it is. The doctrine of this divinity, which we have seen to be just the Romish, boldly claims to be also the Anglican; the very doctrine of the standards and standard divines, of the Anglican Church.

On this singular pretension, issue is now joined.

On no point of doctrinal confession are the declarations of our Church more full, more reiterated, or more earnest, than on that of Justification.

There is first, an Article entitled "Of the Justification of Man," in which the doctrine is summarily declared in these words: “We are accounted righteous before God, .only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works and deservings."