this it is which supplies us with an answer to those who, when we speak of primitive tradition, observe that this is all very well for the learned, but what are the unlearned to do? We point to the Prayer-Book in reply, and say, in taking the Prayer-Book for your guide to the right understanding of Scripture, the whole Prayer-Book, catechism, articles, baptismal office, office for the Eucharist, office for the ordaining of bishops, priests, and deacons, you take for your guide the consentient voice of the universal primitive Church. I may add, that it is the privilege of the English Prayer-Book to be the only work which even professes thus to preserve and embody the primitive tradition. For the Church of Rome, be it observed, does not profess even to defer to antiquity. We have already seen that the ultra-protestants do actually bend to tradition (though not the primitive tradition), while they reject the word. The papist, on the contrary, retains the word, perceiving its vast importance in argument, but rejects the thing, for by tradition in the Church of Rome is meant, not the

antism as a faction, but to preserve in its purity the Gospel. In this good cause no persons have laboured more piously, with a more gentle and truly Christian spirit, and, blessed be God, with more success, than the writers of the Oxford Tracts. But they themselves are most anxious not to form a party; they are most patient in hearing those who in the application of a common principle may differ from them. And we ought to read their

works for information, rather than quote them as authoritative, until, by the consent of the learned world, their authority has been established.

ancient doctrines of the ancient Church, by which the Church of Rome is as much condemned as by the Bible, but whatever the particular Church of Rome has at any time, or may at this time decree1.

So much misrepresentation has taken place with reference to those, who, with all the great divines and

1 It may be seen from what has been stated above, why the true-hearted sons of the Church of England set their faces, as it were a flint, against any proposal for an alteration of the Book of Common Prayer, so as to make it, as those who propose to do so would make it, more conformable to modern customs and modes of thought. They are not swayed by prejudice or by blind attachment to the things of days gone by, (though such prejudice and attachment would be laudable,) for if it were proposed calmly and candidly to act in the spirit of the Reformers, and to examine our present Prayer-book by the existing records of antiquity which we possess in the canons of the first councils and writings of the Fathers and other Liturgies, so as to be quite sure that every thing really valuable has been preserved by us, the opposition would be probably relaxed. But knowing how in times past, from a desire to accommodate the Liturgy to the spirit of the existing age, the errors of Popery were gradually introduced, they may greatly fear in any alterations, the introduction of errors, if not precisely similar, yet equally bad, were we to act now on the same principle; for men are quite as likely to be fallible in an age of Latitudinarianism, as in an age of superstition. It is not with religion as it is with science; for in religion, except as prophecies are gradually fulfilled by the event, no fresh discoveries are to be made. In a revealed religion, a religion once, and once for all, delivered to the saints, the business of the Church is to preserve old truths, not to discover new ones. Well, then, may we fear that by any alteration the Prayer-book, if it gain in symmetry, would lose some portion of that authority which it now possesses, as the interpreter and handmaid of Scripture.

reformers of the Church of England, interpret Scripture according to primitive tradition, instead of that Calvinistic tradition which our opponents would compel us to adopt, that I must be pardoned for again remarking, that they attempt not to supersede the Holy Scriptures, or to add to them: all that they do is, when seeking, as all persons must do, some assistance to guide them to the right understanding of Scripture on fundamental points, to refer to the doctrines directly or indirectly brought before them in the Prayer-Book, the authority of which rests on its embodying the primitive system: and when they find the doctrine taught by the Bible, and the doctrine taught by the Prayer-Book, or, in other words, by the primitive tradition, confluent,-flowing like the waters of the Rhone and the Saone in one stream, though with distinguishable currents-they then feel sure that the meaning they attach to Scripture is the right meaning,-that they know what the Gospel is, what it is that God has revealed, and they listen not for one half moment to the "Unitarian," when he tries by the very fanaticism of criticism to attach some new meaning to the different texts by which any doctrine is supported. The old Scriptures, understood in the old sense, lead us to the old doctrine, which was delivered of old and once for all to the saints'.

1 The late, or rather the prevailing controversy, on the subject of education, is likely to lead to the re-establishment of certain almost forgotten principles. The supporters of the government

But though the principle of adopting a system to direct us to the right interpretation of Scripture be

measure naturally supposed that when they introduced the Bible, and the Bible only, as the basis of religious instruction, into their schools, those who have been so loud in their censures of high Churchmen, and have been proclaiming that the Bible, and the Bible only, is their religion, would be contented. But not only has it been discovered that the propagation of the Gospel is their object as well as ours, for which purpose the Bible and something else, by their own showing is necessary; it has been, also, discovered that by the Bible, and the Bible only, is meant, not what the words would seem to imply, but the authorized version, and the authorized version only. But the authorized version is the Bible and something else, for every version must, to a certain extent, be a commentary. In a disputed passage it conveys the sense of the passage according to the notions of what is correct in the translator. If this were not so, why should we object to the Douay version, or to the "Unitarian" version? and why do Romanists and "Unitarians" object to ours? We may fairly ask, then, On what grounds do ultra-protestants insist on the exclusive use of the authorized version? Have they compared it with the original? Have they compared it with the versions which they condemn? The papists and the "Unitarians" ask of those who so strongly contend for the exclusive use of the authorized version, Do you think that the translators in the reign of James I. were infallible men? It is replied, perhaps, the Romish and "Unitarian" translators were prejudiced. This is indeed to call names, but it is quite open to the Romanist and Unitarian to retort, that King James's translators were equally prejudiced or shall the reply be, though I have not been able to examine the different versions myself, yet the learned Mr. A. and Dr. B. have done so, and they pronounce our version to be the correct one? Then, surely, the answer of the Romanist is equally valid, Cardinal C. and Cardinal D. have examined and approved

an important one, though into some system or other we cannot help falling, still it is liable to abuse, and in its abuse may lead to consequences much to be deplored. In order to avoid this, let me remind you of the legitimate object of every theological system, which is to keep before the mind all those fundamental truths which the Bible, rightly interpreted, makes known to us. But in framing their theological systems divines have frequently erred by attempting to do more than this, by attempting, at the same time, to harmonize the truths which are thus revealed. They have laboured to show how one truth has de

The Romish

the Douay version. It seems to me that those who, on these grounds, insist upon the use of the authorized version, and the authorized version only, act in a spirit decidedly popish. Not so the true Churchman; he says, I object to the Romish and "Unitarian" versions because they were avowedly conducted on a principle which a child may see to be erroneous. version was made in subservience to the novel dogmata of the Church of Rome, the "Unitarian" version in deference to the private judgment of the translator. We, on the contrary, can prove, from the directions given to our translators, that our version was made in deference to primitive tradition. We claim, therefore, authority for that version which was professedly made on a principle which common sense must perceive to be right. Our translators were not infallible, but they acted on the right principle. By revising the version on their principle you may correct any errors they may have committed, but we protest against the introduction of a version avowedly conducted on a wrong principle. Our principle being observed, no errors, of course, of serious moment can have been committed: but on either of the other principles it is scarcely possible to avoid error.