quiring explanation, which in many places it certainly does, but as being so ambiguous and so perplexed, that in itself it is often unintelligible. On the other hand, it considers the unwritten word as containing fully and clearly what the written word contains imperfectly and obscurely. To remedy, therefore, the supposed deficiencies of the written word, it applies the aid of the unwritten word. In this manner is tradition made a rule for the interpretation of Scripture and the imputed ambiguity of the text gives ample scope for the operation of the comment. Thus is Scripture brought under the tutelage of tradition: and this tutelage is soon converted into a state of vassalage. For since the comment claims the same divine origin as the text itself, that comment, if supposed to be full and clear, in proportion as the text is supposed imperfect and obscure, has in fact an authority superior to that of the text. Hence tradition, which in theory is made a rule of faith only equal to Scripture, becomes in practice a rule of faith paramount to Scripture.

"The ambiguity and perplexity ascribed to Scripture by the church of Rome, for the purpose of bringing it under the tutelage of tradition, is too notorious to require many quotations for that purpose. Be it sufficient, then, to produce the evidence of Cardinal Bellarmine, who has fully stated the sentiments of his church in the fourth book of his treatise, "On the Word of God." In the fourth chapter of this book, he declares that Scripture is very often so ambiguous and perplexed, (ambigua et perplexa,) that it is unintelligible, unless explained by some infallible authority.* He adds, that in very many places we cannot be certain of its meaning, unless we call in the aid of tradition. And he concludes with the following observation (founded partly on the autho rity of a former writer) that the Gospel, without unwritten tradition, is an empty name, or words without sense.‡

"The state of the question, therefore, being now explained, we may proceed in the next chapter to a confirmation of it, by an appeal to the council of Trent."

The use which the Romish church makes of this management is very apparent in another place, where the Professor mentions the fourteenth session of the council of Trent. The fourteenth session relates to the

Sæpissime Scriptura, ambigua et perplexa est, ut nisi ab aliquo, qui errare non possit, explicetur, non possit intelligi.

✦ After considering the words of Scripture in the first place, and the sense in the second, he adds, "Nec possumus, plurimis in locis certi esse de secundo, nisi acce lat

traditio!

Sipe traditionibus non scriptis Evangelium esse purum nomen, id est, esse tant.m noces et verba sine sensu,

doctrines of penance and extreme unction. Now for both of these doctrines appeal is made, as well to Scripture as to tradition. But we have here a proof of that tutelage, or rather vassalage, described at the end of the preceding chapter.-Something like the doctrine to be proved, or some supposed obscure intimation of it, is sought in the words of ScripAnd then, through the light of tradition, this obscure intimation becomes at once a clear and comprehensive account of the doctrine to be proved. Thus, in favour of extreme unction appeal is made to the fifth chapter of the epistle of St. James, where something being said about anointing with oil in the name of the Lord, the decree says, of the words used by St. James, "quibus verbis (ut ex Apostolicâ traditione per ma nus acceptâ ecclesia didicet) docet materiam, formam, proprium ministrum et effectum hujus salutaris sacramenti." Hence the oil is explained, as oil blessed by a bishop; the form to be used is explained to be, "per istam unctionem," &c.-Now of this commentary, thus imposed by tradition, there is not a trace in the text and we here see in what manner the text of Scripture is put to the torture, and made to speak whatever it may appear good that tradition should make it speak.-A similar mode is adopted to prove the doctrine of penance. The word μɛravoɛiтɛ, used by John the Baptist, in the third chapter of St. Matthew, which signifies simply repent, is found by the light of tradition to mean "do penance." Hence μɛTavoεITE is so translated in the Rhemish Testament, which is the English version used by the Romanists in this country; and this translation is accompanied by the following note on the word penance. "Which word, according to the use of the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, does not only signify repentance and amendment of life, but also punishing past sins, by fasting, and such like penitential exercises."

We look upon the third section of the third chapter as highly important. It affords a pregnant specimen of that clearness and precision of mind which particularly distinguish Dr. Marsh as a controversialist; and we most earnestly solicit the attention of many of our Protestant brethren to this well-argued passage." From the doctrines which were wholly rejected [at the Reformation], let us proceed to those which were retained by name, but changed in substance. These are the doctrines which are explained in the five articles [of religion], beginning with the ninth, and ending with the thirteenth. And it is the more necessary to examine these five articles, as, in consequence of their having no direct allusion to the church of Rome, they have been actually represented as articles ip unison with that church. Now in all of them there is some difference; and in three of them the difference is material. But in considering those articles with reference to the church of Rome, we must not overlook their

ther relations; for if we do, the whole purport of them will not be understood. With this two-fold reference in contemplation, let us examine them in the order as they stand.

"The ninth article, which relates to original sin, is that which least differs from the church of Rome, though a comparison of it with the decree made at the fifth session of the Council of Trent will shew that the article and the decree are not in all respects alike. Indeed, it was Dot the church of Rome only that this article was designed to oppose. For since it confines itself to the declaration, "that man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil," it virtually opposes the error that man is so far gone from original righteousness as to have lost it altogether, and to have been become a mere mass of depravity: a notion which, widely differing from that of humility, must tend to extirpate the feelings of morality.-But the tenth article, relating to free-will, is in open opposition to the church of Rome. "The condition of man after the fall of Adam (says this article) is such, that he canDot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." Now the fifth and sixth canons, made at the sixth session of the Council of Trent, declare, that man's free-will was not so far lost by the fall of Adam. Here, then, is a direct opposition. We assert, that unassisted man can do nothing which is pleasing to God: the church of Rome asserts, that unassisted man may But the errors of the church of

at least do some things pleasing to God.
Rome are not, the sole errors which this article had in contemplation.
For as it asserts, on the one hand, that unassisted man cannot do what
is pleasing to God, so it implies, on the other hand, that with the divine
assistance he both may and ought to do so. Indeed it positively declares
that for this purpose the grace of God worketh "with us" and thereby
signifies that we ourselves must work out our salvation, the grace of God
co-operating. It opposes, therefore, the error of denying a joint-agency
in the work of salvation; an error which, by leaving nothing to be done.
by man on that account, must induce the helief that his actions are things
indifferent, and that honesty may with safety be discarded.

"The eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles are decidedly at variance with the doctrines of the church of Rome. The thirteenth article declares, that works done before justification cannot possibly be good works, but that they have rather the nature of sin. Now this is positively denied in the seventh canon made at the sixth session of the Council

of Trent. Again, our twelfth article says that good works follow after justification; whereas, according to the tenets of the church of Rome, there must at least be some good works which precede justification. For the ninth canon of the sixth session asserts, that man is not justified by faith alone. That the doctrine of the church of Rome on this subject may be better understood, I will quote the very words of the canon : "Si quis dixerit, sola fide implum justificari, ita ut intelligat nihil aliud requiri, quod ad justificationis gratiam consequendam co-operetur, anathema sit." But since the church of Rome, while it denies justification by faith only, does not assert justification by works only, and our ele venth article is frequently so explained as to make it include works, the Romanists have hence taken occasion to represent our doctrine of justifi cation as virtually agreeing with their own. Now, since justification by faith is considered as a distinguishing feature of Protestantism, it is worth our while to consider how far that representation is correct. And, as no advantage is gained by evading the force of an argument, I will first state it in all its force, and then-corfate it.

66

Says the Romanist to the Protestant, "When you contend that we àre at variance on the docrine of justification, either your distinctions are merely nominal, or you are Solifidians and Antinomians.”—“ No (says the Protestant) we are neither Solifidians nor Antinomians. For when we say that men are justified by faith, we do not mean a dead faith, or å faith unproductive of good works. No the faith which justifies is a lively faith; and a lively faith is known by its works, as a tree is known by its fruits."" Well, then, (says the Romanist) if your justifying faith is known by its works, and consequently without works is not a justifying faith then works, by your own account, have a necessary connexion with justing faith, and therefore with justification itself. Further, (says the Romamst) thongh we maintain the necessity of good works for justifica tion, yet we as positive'y maintain the necessity of faith. Since, then, (proceeds the Romanist) we assert that works are not justifying works unless they are done on a principle of faith, while you assert that faith is not a justifying faith unless that faith is productive of works, does not jes fication, in either case, result from the joint operation of faith and works? Where then, (concludes the Romanist) is the mighty difference between us, even in this article, which you are accustomed to regard as a distinguishing feature of the Protestant cause?"

"Now this argument can be confuted by no other means than by denying whet was concedeu aɓour justifying faith. For as soon as we admit that saying faith is a lively tanh, the inference above deduced cannot possibly be evaded. Good works are the natural fruits of faith and

therefore its necessary fruits, when faith is become a lively or productive faith. In this state we have the same union of faith and works which the Romanist requires for justification. But it is a mistake that, according to the tenets of our church, justifying faith is a lively faith. According to the tenets of our church, it neither is not can be such. And it is the want of distinction between justifying faith and lively faith to which we may entirely ascribe the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in which the doctrine of justification has, within these few years, been involved. When our twelfth article asserts that "a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by the fruit," the article alludes to works, which, as there stated, "follow after justification," and consequently had no share in the causes of justification. Indeed the thirteenth article denies even the possibility of good works before justification. The faith, therefore, which had previously justified cannot have been a lively or productive faith. For then it would have been a faith accompanied with good works, which before justification cannot even exist. The doctrine of justification, therefore, as maintained by the church of England, is decidedly at variance with the doctrine of the church of Rome.

"If it be objected that this vindication of the church of England from the charge of similarity with the church of Rome exposes the former to the charge of Antinomianism, I answer, that although justification, in the sense of our articles, (the same, also, of St. Paul) does not require for its attainment the performance of good works, they are indispensably necessary for the attainment of final and everlasting salvation. The dis tinction between justification and final or everlasting salvation, is declared in the very exordium of our first homily; where it is said, that holy Scripture contains all necessary instruction "for our justification and everlasting salvation." Indeed our final and everlasting salvation is our happiness in a FUTURE STATE,-in that state where our Saviour himself has declared, that he will "reward every man according to his works." # But our justification takes place in the present life; it takes place at our ADMISSION to the Christian covenant, for which nothing more is required than repentance, whereby we forsake sin, and faith, whereby we stedfastly the promises of God. On forsaking sin, therefore, we are justified by faith, even before it is a lively faith, or before it has produced works positively good. But though the faith which is sufficient to justify is not a lively faith, we must take care that it becomes so when we are justified, or our justification will be of no avail. And we must guard against the fatal error, that justifying faith leads of necessity to good works. Good