ing satisfaction for the mind and safety for the soul, that our own incomparable Reformers proceeded, no less than their continental friends. Had they merely stripped Romish doctrines of scriptural authority, and encouraged every speculator to devise a religion for himself, they would, indeed, have provided an opening for admitting a deluge of disputatious heresy and illusory fanaticism. They followed, however, with unvarying steadiness Jeremiah's advice in the text. At every step of their cautious and discreet opposition to the papal system, they sought most anxiously and laboriously for the "old paths." Innovation and destruction were by no means their objects. What they merely desired was the restoration of England to a creed, for which, in every part, Scripture would supply proofs, and Catholic tradition confirmations.

In these endeavours, as originally conducted, our own country's theological antiquities appear to have been very nearly, if not entirely overlooked. An attention almost exclusive was indeed naturally fixed upon those illustrious fathers, whose authority has been profoundly reverenced for ages throughout the Christian world. Archbishop Parker, at a subsequent period, however, by the pub

L

lication of Ælfric's most interesting and important testimonies, vindicated, even nationally, our eucharistic doctrines from the charge of novelty. Nor have insulated points of our reformed faith failed of receiving, from time to time, similar illustrations of their claims upon the grateful veneration of Englishmen. The present undertaking may, haply, under the blessing of Providence, in this way, prove farther useful. It has indicated unquestionably sources of information whence appeals to the creed of Anglo-Saxon times, in behalf of Romish principles, may be convicted of palpable unsoundness. Those who would thus justify an adherence to that religious system which the Reformation overthrew, are manifestly trusting for a staff to "a broken reed." A careful and unprejudiced enquiry would probably make it appear, that the doctrines which they brand as innovations approach much more nearly to the ancient religion of England than those which they profess themselves.

How plainly does the Church of ancient England agree with her modern daughter in maintaining the sufficiency of Scripture! Where will any trace be found, among the venerable monuments of Anglo-Saxon theo

c Isaiah xxvi. 6.

logy, of a dread and a jealousy respecting the use of those holy books, "which are able to make men wise unto salvation d?" Where any intimation that these recorded "oracles of God"" are not a complete repository of all that concerns the faith and morals of mankind? Our distant ancestry encountered no occasion, it is true, of making such an express declaration against an alleged unwritten word of God, as the progress of events at length drew from their posterity. Their testimony, however, against the existence of such a deposit is substantially the same. The whole

tenour of their conduct, and theological remains, asserts in a manner sufficiently clear that "holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation: so that whatsoever 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 f."

Do not also our Ante-Norman ecclesiastical authorities add their suffrages to those of our Reformers, in excluding from a divine origin such appendages to the Old Testament as are uncontained in the Hebrew canon? St. Jerome, in fact, guided their judgment upon this important question, not less than

d 2 Tim. iii. 15.

e 1 Pet. iv. 11.

f Art. VI.

he did that of England at a later period. Hence Bede, Alcuin, Ælfric, the great luminaries of our Anglo-Saxon progenitors, plainly shew that the books termed apocryphal were allowed to appear among Anglo-Saxon religious offices, not because they were admitted to the rank of divine revelations, but because they had long been esteemed useful “for example of life, and instruction of manners "."

The source of faith in ancient and in modern England was therefore perfectly identical. In the former, no less than in the latter, existed no belief in an unwritten word, no canonicity was assigned to books of doubtful origin, disputable character, and unauthenticated pretensions. Our early progenitors were thus precluded equally with their descendants from affording a solemn attestation to any summaries of Christian doctrine, besides the three Creeds; to any ecclesiastical conventions, besides the first four general councils; those venerable and august assemblies, in which the vital truths of holy Scripture were carefully examined, and formally defined'. Who will then expect to discover, among Anglo-Saxon theological remains, any symbol answering to the doctrinal compendium promulged under authority from Pope

g Art. VI.

Pius IV.? Who will esteem it even possible to find asserted any where among these interesting records, that the Catholic faith comprises thirteen articles in addition to the Nicene Creed? Who will suppose that any one among the spiritual guides of ancient England would have denied salvation to all who might see in mere ecclesiastical authority no sufficient reason for admitting such an extensive supplement? An inference must necessarily be drawn, from the records of English religious antiquity, that our national church, as established before the Conquest, acknowledged only those articles of faith which she has expressly sanctioned since the Reformation.

It will hence obviously follow, that our spiritual nursing-mother has agreed, in both these stages of her existence, respecting the evangelical sacraments. In Anglo-Saxon times the term sacrament was indeed loosely applied to every sacred sign. Our distant ancestry, therefore, might probably be found, not only to have equalled Romish authorities in the number of things invested apparently with a sacramental character, but even to have surpassed them. When we see chrism, however, described as a sacrament in the remains of ancient English divinity, shall we