tution of any church, and particularly those of England and of Rome, under the general desire to throw a cloud of ambiguity over the grand and leading points of distinction which exists between them, we rejoice to find that the subject has been taken up in all its important bearings by one, whose very name must ever command the attention of the public, whose opinions have been often the object of controversy, but never of neglect. No man perhaps in the present age is so eminently qualified for the discussion of the present question as Dr. Marsh; there is in all his writings that comprehensive power of investigation, that mathematical precision of statement, and that logical accuracy of induction which suffers no ambiguity to remain unresolved, no obscurity unenlightened, and no difficulty unremoved. There is no one who is more happy in clearing away all the rubbish with which controversial questions are generally loaded, and in presenting the whole argument unembarrassed with groundless assumptions, needless personalities, and such sort of incumbrances, in a masterly, perspicuous, and decisive point of view. Though little am bitious of ornament, and seldom affecting eloquence, his style is ever animated and clear, and never fails even on the most complicated questions to preserve the attention unimpaired to the close.

In the first chapter of the work before us, the fundamental difference between the Churches of England and of Rome in respect to articles of faith, forms the first object of consideration. The two Churches are represented as differing not in only a single article of faith, but as deriving these articles from two distinct sources. One of these sources, THE BIBLE, is common to both, while the second TRADITION, is acknowledged only by the Church of Rome. For the opinious held by the Romanists upon this point, Dr. Marsh appeals first to Bellarmine, whom he considers as one of the most acute and most candid controversialists of the Romish Church; and secondly to the theological lectures now given in the College of Maynooth, which, when they agree, as they do on the subject of tradition, he justly considers as expressing the general sentiments of the Church. These however he only quotes as stating and explaining the question; for the authority, he makes an appeal iu a subsequent chapter to the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, as the official declaration of the tenets of the Church of Rome. Traditions, or the verbum Dei non scriptum, is divided by Bellarmine into three kinds. I. Divine tradition ; which relates to the doctrines taught by Christ to the apostles, and taught also by the apostles, but still unrecorded. II. Apos tolical tradition; which relates to doctrines taught by the

apostles

apostles not from the instructions of Christ, but from the dictates of the Holy Spirit. These two constitute the unwritten word of God, which in all respects is considered by the Church of Rome of the same authority with the written. III. Ecclesiastical tradition; which differs from the two others both in origin and in quality, and relates only to customs, ceremonies, &c., and is confessedly derived from a human source, having originated partly in the practice of the Bishops, and partly in the practice of the people, and by tacit consent having acquired the force of a law. This is the tradition alluded to in our thirty-fourth article, which is entitled "Of the traditions of the Church." The two first therefore are to be considered as rules of faith, and to be armed with an authority both independent of Scripture, and in all respects equal to it. The difference between the two Churches with respect to this authority is thus stated by Bellarmine himself.

"Nos asserimus in Scripturis non contineri expresse totara doctrinam necessariam, sive de fide, sive de moribus; et proinde præter verbum Dei scriptum, requiri etiam verbum Dei non scriptum, id est, divinas et apostolicas traditiones at ipsi (sc. Protestantes) docent in scripturis omnia contineri ad fidem et mores necessaria, et proinde non esse opus ullo verbo non scripto."

Such then is the primary differences between the two Churches in this respect. In the second chapter Dr. Marsh shews that what Bellarinine and other more modern writers have said of Scripture and Tradition in respect to their equality and indepéndence as rules of faith, is confirmed by the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. A long quotation is given from the decrees of that council, which places the matter in the clearest point of view, declaring that the Church omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, nec non traditiones ipsas pari pietatis affectu et reverentiâ suscipet et veneratur.

The influence of this tradition as a rule of faith upon the doctrines of the Romish Church next passes under review. In many decrees of this same council appeal is made to the joint authority of Scripture and Tradition, as for instance, with respect to 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 Scripture. And 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 Kk

appeal

VOL. III. MAY. 1815.

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 Apostolica traditione per manus acceptâ Ecclesia didicit) 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 it not a trace in the text: and we here see in what manner the text of Scripture is put to the torturė, and made to speak whatever it may appear good, that Tradition should make it speak." P. 30.

But in the decrees respecting both indulgences and the relics of saints, no attempt is made to press Scripture into the service, upon tradition alone the doctrines are founded. The chapter concludes with some acute and pertinent observations upon the authority of the council itself, the doctrinal parts of which are universally received as infallible, even by those who have opposed their own rights, the decrees which relate to discipline, as may be instanced in the Gallican Church.

In the third chapter the same mode of examination is adopted with respect to the authority on which the doctrines are founded. An appeal is made to the sixth article of our Church, which expressly declares, that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor can be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man," that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Thus, then, as the Council of Trent acknowledges two equal and independent authorities, so our Church recognizes but one. The same will appear from the examination of our Liturgy and our Homilies. Dr. Marsh agaiu reasons from causes to effects. As in the preceding chapter he had taken a review of the doctrines admitted by the Church of Rome, in consequence of its acknowledgment of tradition as a rule of faith, so now he shews, that the rejection of these same doctrines follows from discarding the authority on which they are founded. The remarks of Dr. Marsh upon the subject of Free Will are admirable, guarding that nice and difficult doctrine from the errors of the Romanists on the one hand, who declare, that man's free will was not so far lost by Adam, as to prevent him from turning to God by his natural strength, unassisted by grace; and from the absurdities of the fanatics on the other, who deny the necessity of the co-operation of human effort in the great work of salvation. On the doctrine of Justification by faith

"* See p. xcvi."

alone,

alone, which is the distinguishing feature of Protestantism, the remarks of Dr. Marsh display all that acuteness and perspicuity which are the characteristics of his mind. The Romish Church denies, in the strongest terms, Justification by faith alone, the Church of England asserts it in language equally express. But as the Church of Rome, on the other hand, does not assert justification by works alone, and as our eleventh and twelfth articles consider works as necessary adjuncts to faith, it has been asserted by the Romanists that the doctrines of the two. Churches, though founded on principles directly opposite, meet each other half-way, and are in the end virtually the same. a complete specimen of Dr. Marsh's argumentative powers.

As

"Says the Romanist to the Protestant, When you contend, that we are at variance on the doctrine 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 a 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 justifying Faith, and therefore with Justification itself. Further (says the Romanist) though we maintain the necessity of good works, for Justification, yet we as positively 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 Justification, 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 what was conceded about justifying Faith. For, as soon as we admit, that justifying Faith is a lively Faith, the infer ence 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. Ac cording to the tenets of our Church, it neither is, nor 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 Justi

fication 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 distinction 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 believe 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 works are indeed its natural fruits; but they are not its necessary fruits, till Faith is become a lively, or productive Faith. And, as a tree may wither before it has produced its fruits, so Faith may wither before it has produced good works. But if it does wither, and good works are not produced, the Faith, which had admitted us to the Christian Covenant, will fail of its intended purpose; and we shall lose everlasting salvation. In this manner is the Church of England vindicated, on the one hand, from the charge of Antinomianism, while it is shewn on the other hand to differ from the Church of Rome," P.50.

* Matth. xvi. 27.”