CONTENTS PART THE FIRST HISTORICAL PAGES Obligations to Wycliffe and Tyndale for an open Bible-The Sacra- xi - TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE FAITH Extracts from the Reformer's writings: On Regeneration, by Latimer, Cranmer, Tyndale, Hooper, Jewell, Becon, Dean Nowell, S. Fyshe, Walter Brute, John Wycliffe-On Justifica- tion, by Latimer, Cranmer, Wycliffe, Bradwardine, W. Brute, Tyndale, Fryth, Hooper, Ferrar, Philpot, Becon, Foxe, THE WRITINGS OF THE REFORMERS COMPRISE OUR ARTICLES, PRAYER- The writings of the Reformers include the Articles (the Standard of Doctrine), the Prayer-Book, and Homilies in accordance there- with--Some of the revisors: Bishop Cox, P. Martyr and Bucer, INTRODUCTION* CHURCH PRINCIPLES! What are they? and where may they be found? These are questions of increasing importance, because the time is fast approaching when every Churchman will have to choose between two contrary and opposing systems of divinity. We need go no further than our own city churches for proof of this; for in about half of them we hear faithfully preached all those great Protestant truths for which our martyrs fought and died; in the other those same truths are either openly denied or carefully explained away! Brethren of the Establishment, these things ought not so to be. Were it only in little matters of doctrine or ceremonial it would be our duty to bear and forbear, but in matters affecting the salvation of souls indifference or unconcern is a vice and a crime. The questions at issue now in the Church of England are not of secondary importance: they are first principles, even those on which the Reformation turned, such as the all-sufficiency of Holy Scripture, how regeneration is effected, and how a man can stand justified before God. On these chief points we find the Church of England divided into two distinct bodies: the one party teaching exactly as Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, and every one of the Reformers without exception, taught; the other the new school, holding with those men who put the Reformers of the Church of England to death. This is strangepassing strange-disclosing a wider difference within our Church than exists between Baptists, Independents, and Wesleyans. Written in or before 1862. About twenty-five years ago arose, as is well known, the new school of theology. Soon after their teaching was clearly defined by Mr. Gladstone under the title of "Church Principles," the sum and substance of which was the cutting off of all Protestant Churches, and claiming sympathy with Rome through Apostolical Succession, claiming for the Church of England an agreement with Rome in essentials, and dissent from Rome only in less matters. All this attempted by arguments borrowed from Rome, and that in a way no Protestant could by any possibility sanction—namely, by trying to depreciate the authority and all-sufficiency of Holy Scripture, by hiding the scriptural doctrine of Justification by Faith only, and by substituting the sacramental theory of regeneration and justification. Abundant proof of this might be given. One passage will show the estimation in which the Holy Word is held, and be a clue to all his theories. In "Church Principles,' p. 333, he says: "Sectarianism by sheer and blind assumption lays all Scripture at the feet of every individual man, to be moulded according to the crudities of his own fancyan evil, limited or averted by humble piety where it existsbut men in the mass do not bring this qualification to the work-an evil, moreover, denied upon the plea that Scripture is acknowledged as an infallible teacher; but no security is thus afforded, for it is a teacher that is dumb, and cannot remonstrate with the taught." What is it possible to revive in the nineteenth century, with any chance of acceptance, the old Popish idea of a free Bible and the right of private judgment being evils"evils, indeed, but limited by humble piety "? Then let the Bible societies be careful how they distribute the Word of God to any but humble, pious persons, for fear of evil ensuing. But is this fear of the Bible a new idea, after all? No; for my Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, with the Bishops, 300 years ago prevailed on Henry VIII. to issue a procla mation saying that "the having of the Scripture is not necessary for Christian men," and "Forasmuch as the King's Highness, by the advice and deliberation of his Council, and the agreement of great learned men, thinketh in his conscience that the divulging of this Scripture at this time in the English tongue to be committed to the people should rather be to the farther confusion and destruction than the edification of their souls." Just so, Sir Thomas More, and yet the people would not be satisfied until they got the Bible; they insisted on having an open Bible, and we are enjoying the benefit of their perseverance. Still, Mr. Gladstone's "Church Principles go on to caution us against setting too high a value on the Bible, for they tell us that it is a teacher that is dumb and cannot remonstrate. Whoever tried and found it could not remonstrate? Who? That idea, certainly, if true, would be new; but it is neither true nor new. That it is not new may easily be seen by referring to the Council of Trent in the way a former Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford used to do in these words: 66 The voice of Scripture must be our rule. But, saith the Romanizing Papist, the Scripture hath no voice at all, but is res muta, a dumb thing. The Bishop of Poictiers, in the infamous conventicle of Trent, was of this mind,' that the Scripture is a dead and dumb thing.' Albertus Phigius before that time had discovered his opinion of the point that the Scriptures are 'dumb judges, and therefore unfit to have matters of controversy put to their judgment'; and Petrus a Soto saith as much in effect, calling the Scripture a dumb letter that gives no answer.' This is but one of the many blasphemies which Papists have uttered to the disgrace of Holy Scripture, against whom to the honour whereof we maintain this assertion: The Scripture is not dumb and speechless, but hath a voice-a clear voice, easy to be heard, except we be deaf" (Sebastian Benefield, 1629). Thus we see the identity of Mr. Gladstone's new theories with Rome, inasmuch as they both run down Scripture for the purpose of exalting the clergy under the name of |