"finished; but we are thankful to have, and content "to use, what has come down to us; and even where

66

any thing has had an unsatisfactory origin, we will "make the best of it, and receive it into, and assimi“late it to, the glorious deposit which we inherit "from the Apostles."

But setting aside these vague suspicions, I would now proceed to lay before your Lordship, in connection with the Articles of our Church, what we (following, as we are assured, those who have been ever accounted the great lights of our Church) believe to be her doctrine, on the points whereon we are accused; and that (wherever the case admits) in contrast with Romanism on the one hand, and UltraProtestantism on the other. Thus it will appear, I trust, that the" via media," along which we, with our Church, would fain tread, though distinct from the bye ways of Ultra-Protestantism, is a broad and tangible line, not verging towards, or losing itself in Romanism. Rather is it the "old path" of the Primitive Church, after whose model our own was reformed, and which, amid the entanglements of the modern deviations of Rome, our reformers wished, I believe, to trace out.

On the first five articles of our Church, those which relate to the Holy Trinity, happily no imputation has been cast against us; and on these, even the Church of Rome is allowed to have transmitted faithfully the doctrine of the primitive Church. Would my Lord, that there were no signs of unsoundness on any other side! But, whereas a traditionary faith would be

safe with regard to these essential articles, in that it would depart neither to the right nor to the left from that which the Universal Church had attested to be the Apostolic and Scriptural creed, the greater, because unsuspected, danger will beset those who profess to draw their faith, unaided, from Holy Scripture. If it overtake them not, it is because their faith is better than the principles which they profess; they are sound and orthodox, not in consequence of their principles, but in despight of their natural tendency. The natural bias of what terms itself a "Scriptural Theology" is to a naked Creed; it would cast aside all but Scriptural terms; confine itself to Scriptural phrases; reject as "scholastic distinctions" the fuller declarations, which have been committed to the Church; boasts of contenting itself with what it terms practical truths, or what it decides to be such; takes further statements, first as simply negative, then supersedes them as having been useful formerly, but not needed now, dwells not upon them, drops them

1

"The like may be said of the Gloria Patri and the Athana"sian Creed. It was first brought into the Church to the end "that men thereby should make an open profession in the Church "of the Divinity of the Son of God against the detestable opinion "of Arius and his disciples, wherewith at that time marvellously "swarmed almost the whole of Christendom. Now that it has pleased the Lord to quench that fire, there is no such cause

66

66

why these things should be in the Church, at the least why "that Gloria Patri should be so often repeated."-Cartwright ap. Hooker, E. P. V. xlii. 1. ed. Keble, and Hooker's answer, especially § 11 sqq.

66

from its Creed, takes an attitude of hostility against them, generalizes its faith; and then, since the mind must think one way or other, whenever subjects are brought before it in detail, falls an easy prey to the heresies, from which the Church would have rescued them All true Theology must of necessity be Scriptural; but that which terms itself a "Scriptural Theology," has always been a stepping-stone to Socinianism or Rationalism. It begins in an ungrateful spirit, setting at nought the teaching of the Church, and "leaning upon its own understanding;" and it ends in being left to its own understanding, and being "given over "to an undistinguishing mind." Such has been the case with every Protestant body, except those connected with our own Church, though not of it; such is the course, which America, as far as it is not Anglican or Romanist, is now taking; and no one can observe the way in which unsound' American publications are creeping into this country, by whom introduced, with what apologies in one instance, for Socinianism; without being convinced that the UltraProtestant sects in this country, so far as they do not return to the Church or relapse into Romanism, will take the same course. Those in our Church, who have fraternized with them, are upheld by a traditionary instruction, of which they are unaware, in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds; and while they de

1 See Tracts for the Times, Vol. iii. No. 73. "On the intro"duction of rationalistic principles into religion."

claim against tradition, are probably upheld by tradition against heresies which destroy the soul. And so, we trust, they will continue; but though there is all hope that they will be protected against the grosser forms of heresy, the subtler form of Sabellianism creeps over the mind almost unperceived; and the objections against the title EоTÓKOÇ, with which we have been assailed, imply that some have sadly forgotten, what was the origin of the Nestorian heresy 1.

This instance may illustrate the danger of an overanxiety to recede from Rome, or of sacrificing truths which that corrupt Church has abused; it would lead to too long and involved a discussion to point out, article by article, wherein we, with our Church, differ from that of Rome; I will therefore trespass no longer upon your Lordship's time than the occasion requires, and will confine myself to those articles upon which we have been rumoured to approach nearer to Rome, than the limits of our Church allow. In so doing, I must make many statements, which to your Lordship are trite and familiar; but my object is to lay before your Lordship an explicit confes

"The Christian Knowledge Society has latterly erased from "one of its publications the phrase, 'The mother of God,' rightly "judging it to be Popish. The British Critic demands its re"instatement, observing, 'As to styling the Blessed Virgin the "mother of God, did the Essex ministers ever chance to hear of "the council of Ephesus?'"-Essays on the Church, p. 288.; also p. 304. Yet the State, by advice of our Church, acknowledged that what the Council of Ephesus "ordered, judged, or "determined to be heresy," is such, 1 Eliz. 1. 36.

sion, not to say anything new upon subjects so often handled.

Art. VI. and XX.-On the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; and Of the authority of the Church.

These two articles must necessarily be taken together, in order to understand fully the meaning of our Church, on the relation of the authority of the Church to that of Holy Scripture. In the first she declares that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read

66

66

66

therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of "the Faith; or be thought requisite or necessary to "salvation." The article is manifestly directed against the Church of Rome, which has made new articles of faith, and so does "require to be believed as necessary "to salvation," things which are not contained in Holy Scripture. But the article, though it states, that Holy Scripture" contains all things necessary to sal

66

vation," does not say that it teaches them in such wise, that every one may collect them thence for himself nor does it even say, that things may not be believed or practised, which are not contained in Holy Scripture (so that of course, they be not contrary to it) but only that they must not be “ required to be believed as necessary to salvation." It is remarkable that this limitation, which is so singularly