Reformers represented

this plea they seek, not by endeavouring to show the superior expediency, with a view to decency, good order, and edification, of the enactments they would defend, but by maintaining the obligatory character of supposed apostolical traditions; and then they are driven, as I have said, to shift our own institutions from the foundation on a rock, to place them on sand.

When one sees persons not content with the advantages they enjoy, unless they can exclude others, and in the attempt to do so, "falling into the midst of the pit they have digged for another," it is hardly possible to avoid recalling to one's mind the case of Haman, and the result of his jealousy of Mordecai.

Some

persons have endeavoured from time to as appeal time, to represent our Reformers as appealing to the practice of what is called the Primitive and Tradi- Church, and to the writings of the early Fathers,

ing to Scripture

tion jointly.

Conduct of the Re

respect of

as the principal,—or as one principal-ground on which they rest the vindication of their own decisions; and as taking for their authoritative standard of rectitude and truth in religious matters, not Scripture alone, but Scripture combined and " blended with Tradition."

66

And it is very true that they do (as it was performers in fectly natural they should, engaged as they were their con- in controversy with the Romanists) frequently refer to the records which their opponents

troversy

with Romanists.

appealed to, in order to show that the very authorities these last were accustomed to rely on, are in fact opposed to them. They point out the proofs extant that many doctrines and practices which had been made to rest on supposed ancient tradition, were in fact comparatively modern innovations; and they vindicate themselves from the charge of innovation in some points by referring to ancient precedents. All this is perfectly natural and perfectly justifiable. But it is quite a different thing from acknowledging a decisive authority in early precedents, and in Tradition, either alone, or "blended with Scripture." If any man is charged with introducing an unscriptural novelty, and he shows first that it is scriptural, and then (by reference to the opinions of those who lived long ago) that it is no novelty, it is most unreasonable to infer that Scripture

'The maxim of "abundans cautela nocet nemini." is by no means a safe one if applied without limitation. (See Logic, b. ii. ch. 5, § 6.)

It is sometimes imprudent (and some of our Divines have, I think, committed this imprudence) to attempt to "make assurance doubly sure" by bringing forward confirmatory reasons, which, though in themselves perfectly fair, may be interpreted unfairly, by representing them as an acknowledged indispensable foundation ;-by assuming for instance, that an appeal to such and such of the ancient Fathers or Councils, in confirmation of some doctrine or practice, is to be understood as an admission that it would fall to the ground if not so confirmed.

Reference

to the

authority would have no weight with him unless backed by the opinions of fallible men.

No one would reason thus absurdly in any other case. For instance, when some bill is brought into one of the Houses of Parliament, and it is represented by its opponents as of a novel and unheard-of character, it is common, and natural, and allowable, for its advocates to cite instances of similar Acts formerly passed. Now, how absurd it would be thought for any one thence to infer that those who use such arguments must mean to imply that Parliament has no power to pass an Act unless it can be shown that similar Acts have been passed formerly!

If any Bishop of the present day should be convinced that such and such Theologians,— ancient or modern-have given correct and useful expositions of certain parts of Scripture, he could not but wish that the Clergy he ordained should give similar expositions; and he would probably recommend to their attentive perusal the works of those theologians. Now how monstrous it would be to represent him, on such grounds, as making those works a standard of faith conjointly with Scripture!

Of a like character is the very reference I writings or have now been making to the documents put of any per- forth by those Reformers themselves. I certainly

procedure

sons, no

proof that believe them to be in accordance with the prin

rity is put

cisive.

ciples above laid down as scriptural and reason- their authoable: but I protest (and so probably would forth as dethey) against "blending with Scripture" the writings of the Reformers, to constitute jointly a rule of faith binding on every Christian's conscience. If any one is convinced that the doctrines and practices and institutions of our Church are unscriptural, he is bound in conscience to leave it.

Our Reformers believed, no doubt, that their institutions were, on the whole, similar to those of the earliest Churches; perhaps they may have believed this similarity to be greater than it really is but what is the ground on which they rested the claim of these institutions to respectful acquiescence? On the ground of their "not being in themselves superstitious, and ungodly, and contrary to God's Word;"-on the ground of the "power of each particular Church to ordain and abrogate or alter" (though not wantonly and inconsiderately) Church - rites and ceremonies, provided nothing be done contrary to Scripture. So also, they believed, no doubt, that the doctrines they taught, and which they commissioned others to teach, were such as had been taught by many early Fathers; and thinking this, they could not but wish that the teaching of the Clergy should coincide with that of those Fathers: but what was the rule laid down,

The Articles

-the standard fixed on, for ascertaining what should be taught as a part of the Christian Religion? It was Holy Scripture: not Scripture and Tradition, jointly, and "blended together;" but the Written Word of God; nothing being allowed to be taught as an Article of faith that could not thence be proved. Again, they doubtless believed that there were early precedents for the form of Church-government they maintained,for the different Orders of the Ministry, and for the mode of appointing each. They believed, no doubt, as a fact, that the Apostles ordained Ministers, and these, others, and so on in succession, down to the then-existing period. But what was the basis on which they deliberately chose to rest their system? On the declared principle that "those and those only are to be accounted as lawfully-appointed Ministers who are called and sent out by those who have authority in the Congregation" (or Church) "to call and send labourers into the Lord's vineyard:" and though themselves deliberately adhering to episcopal Ordination, they refrain, both in the Article on the "Church" and in that on "ministering in the Church" from specifying Episcopacy and episcopal Ordination as among the essentials.

§ 24. Some individuals among the Reformers the Symbol have in some places used language which may

embodying