the place of the former, but in addition to an equivalent character substituted for it,) it is hard that we should be required to say. There are many equally remarkable omissions and insertions in our Articles, for which it would not be easy to assign any conclu. sive reason. In Edward's 26th Article, for example, there occurs a condemnation expressly, and by name, of the doctrine ex opere operato: this is wholly omitted in our corresponding one (the 25th); while in the same Article the Edwardian reformers are content with affirming the Sacraments instituted by our Lord to be two; and in our's their Elizabethan successors think it convenient, in addition to this assertion of the true Sacraments, to negative the five false ones of the Church of Rome. Would it be reasonable from this to infer any difference in sentiment upon either subject between these eminent men? To suppose that the doctrine ex opere operato had advanced in favour in the interval; or that the other error of the Church of Rome, denounced explicitly for the first time by the later writers, was unknown to their predecessors ?

If any account of this change were required, it would be thought enough to say, that the earlier writers were aware that their assertion contained implicitly the negation afterwards added, and conceived that to be sufficient; while their successors thought it wiser to give this negation explicitly; but on the other hand, that these last contented themselves with the certainty that here and elsewhere the doctrine ex opere operato was substantially condemned, and considered it needless to retain the express condemnation of it contained in the original Article. An ingenious person might perhaps find an hundred difficulties in this account, but yet we fancy most plain people would consider it as satisfactory as the case admitted or required. In the same way, if obliged to render some reason for the change in the case before us, we should say that the writers of our Article having applied to the doctrine of the Homilies, the epithets "piam atque salutarem," thought (the subjects of the Homilies considered) ab omnibus amplectendam sufficiently included in this character to excuse them from the necessity of adding it. We should presume the remaining epithet introduced to draw especial attention to doctrines recommended by what usually secures attention mostpresent utility. And why what was probably designed, and what was assuredly calculated to secure for these doctrines especial regard in their own times, should have the effect of consigning them to neglect without examination in ours, we do not find it easy to conceive. We should as soon conclude that the Edwardian Reformers did not consider this doctrine necessary for their times, from their omission of this character, as infer from the insertion of it by their Elizabethan successors, that they wished to confine this necessity to their own time. The peculiar necessity of particular doctrines will no doubt vary at different times with the varying prevalence or danger of particular errors. And it must be admitted that a sound and clear exposition of all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, must have been more than ordinarily useful and necessary in times when so recently darkness

had covered the land, and gross darkness the people --but on the other hand, can it be maintained that such a necessity can ever entirely cease? We do not say that all the subjects discussed in the Homilies are of this general and permanent importancebut of the leading subjects we do say, that godly and wholesome doctrines concerning them must continue necessary and to be embraced by all at all times. And if any should doubt the truth of the assertion, we say with good Dr. Heylin, (whom, it will be perceived, we take a particular pleasure in quoting,) "See it he may without a pair of spectacles or any other optical instrument, if he will only consider the titles of some of these Homilies."

*

If we allowed the Bishop of Limerick to settle the sense of this phrase for us, we should have had much less trouble with it. Immediately after our last quotation from him he enters upon a long investigation, partly historical and partly documentary, to shew what (if we may speak for others from ourselves) required no proof at all, viz.-that the use of the Homilies as Sermons was at first necessary; that it became gradually less so, and that the necessity now has wholly ceased; that the decrease of this necessity was foreseen from the first, and provided for even then, in some degree, but more distinctly as it appeared. Having established this very satisfactorily, he with strange precipitancy concludes that this is the necessity spoken of in the Article. But as it is the doctrine contained in the Homilies which is there said to be necessary, the only way of arranging the matter is to make the doctrine contained in the Homilies to mean the mode of teaching by Homilies and this, incredible as it may seem, he actually does.

"We can now be at no loss respecting the true meaning of a clause which I have more than once adverted to :-" and necessary for these times.”—A doctrine, doctrina, a method of teaching, necessary for the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign. From that time, the necessity appears to have been gradually diminishing; and the very introduction of this clause into the Article, goes to prove, that the framers foresaw the termination of the necessity altogether. The substitution in Elizabeth's Article, of the "his temporibus necessariam," for the “ab omnibus amplectendam," in the Article of Edward, here recurs to one's mind, with additional force. It needs must be, that the sagacious men who made the change, made it with their eyes fully open to its magnitude, and with good causes for its adoption: and among those causes, may we not fairly assign a probable place to the consideration, that the" ab omnibus amplectendam" clause, would fetter all future generations, while the substituted "his temporibus necessariam,” would leave posterity free and unincumbered ?”—Jebb, p. 18.

This appears abundantly strange in its simple state, but becomes infinitely more so when considered in a connection in which we are forced to view it: we think it in this way literally the most extraordinary specimen of reasoning that ever fell under our

*"A Fruitful Exhortation to reading the Holy Scripture." "Of the Misery of all Mankind." "Of the Salvation of Mankind." "Of the true and lively Faith." "Of good Works, &c. &c.

notice. The word doctrine occurs repeatedly in both sets of Articles-in no place can this sense with any shadow of probability be assigned to it. Such a deviation without notice would appear curious. But it is alleged that there are elsewhere many precedents for the use of doctrine, in the sense of a mode of teaching. Be it so but precedents to be of any avail in the present case should be for the use of the doctrine contained in a book, to express the manner of teaching by that book or similar books. And such precedents we fancy it would not be easy to find. But even if such were to be found, the matter would be far from ended, for in Edward's corresponding Article it is said, that the doctrine contained in the Homilies is to be embraced by all. We are curious to know whether doctrine means here a mode of teaching-it seems too startling to say that it does; and yet if it do not, what becomes of his Lordship's reasoning which treats ab omnibus amplectendam and his temporibus necessariam as different characters of the same thing? but still more-can it be expected that we should believe that the writers of Elizabeth's Article, with Edward's Article before them, giving a character of the doctrine contained in the Homilies, would have given in theirs a character also of the doctrine contained in the Homilies; meaning by doctrine a thing entirely different from what it meant in this corresponding expression in the other Article, and this without notice or explanation. But we should be led quite too far if we attempted to exhibit the crowd of absurdities that flow from this strange mistranslation; one however is too remarkable to be omitted-in our Article as we have seen, the doctrine contained in the Homilies, is not merely said to be necessary for the times, but also to be godly and wholesome; now if it mean the mode of teaching by printed Sermons, that it is necessary for the times is intelligible, but to call it in this sense godly and wholesome seems hardly so. And in fact although the Bishop of Limerick does not formally notice this difficulty, he feels it as much as we do, though he meets it in a way that would never occur to us. In his paraphrase of the Article, p. 6, he manifestly understands doctrine, when joined to godly and wholesome, to mean the matter taught—and when with necessary for the times, to mean the mode of teaching.

"I conceive the framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies, generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar circumstances of their own times."―Jebb, p. 6.

This is we believe enough—a translation which forces such a proceeding on the proposer of it, will hardly, we apprehend, find many defenders,

As we before intimated no purpose of our argument obliged us to set this matter right at the expense of so much trouble; if, instead of an indirect intimation, to be collected by an argument of seven octavo pages, ending in a mistranslation, that at some indefinite time the use of the Homilies as Sermons was to cease: our Article had contained a distinct provision that after the year 1627 they were to be wholly disused in the pulpit; every one who has attended to what we have said, will see that they would

remain in this year, 1827, in full possession of every particle of authority that we have claimed for them. For such a clause would leave the grounds upon which this claim rests altogether untouched. But we thought ourselves, for other reasons, obliged not to leave unnoticed so flagrant and remarkable an error.

We contracted a kind of engagement in our April Number, to consider the comparison offered of the Church's declarations concerning her Articles, her Homilies, and Book of Common Prayer, when we had concluded our examination of the Bishop of Limerick's arguments. Having done so we shall discharge it, but very unwillingly for the reasons then intimated, and with corresponding brevity. We think ourselves warranted in assuming that the arguments which we have examined, leave the approbation of the Church as we stated it-that she declares of the doctrines of the Homilies that they are godly and wholesome, and obliges us to express our agreement with her. She also declares in the Canons of the Articles, that they are in no part superstitious or erroneous, or such as any man may not with a good conscience subscribe to; and to this declaration she in like manner exacts our assent. Now, certainly, if it may with truth be asserted of a doctrine that it is godly and wholesome, it may with equal truth be said of it, that it is not superstitious or erroneous, or such as may not be conscientiously subscribed to; and from the former character being given by the Church of the doctrines in the Homilies, and the latter of the Articles, it would seem hard to collect the precedence of the one or the other. Whether if there were an instance of opposition between them, amounting to absolute and irreconcileable incompatibility, established clearly, (which never has been, and we think never will be), some rule of conduct might not be derived from the nature of the two documents, is another thing with which we have at present nothing to do-we are speaking of the Church's language concerning them, and it certainly appears to furnish no ground whatever for the conclusion attempted to be derived from it.—The declaration in the Canons concerning the Book of Common Prayer, is nearly the same as that concerning the Articles, and therefore the same observations apply to it. But there is another declaration (of assent and consent) exacted from us, which probably is thought to furnish stronger grounds for magnifying the authority of the Liturgy above that of the Homilies; or, rather, for that is what is done, ascribing authority without bounds to the one, and denying it altogether to the other. This declaration is certainly such as no man can conscientiously make, whose approbation of that book is not very high and very general, but it by no means expresses or implies the kind of approbation of every part of the Book, which the mode of wording it has led many to conclude; any one who looks at the act of uniformity by which it is imposed, will see it there styled a declaration of unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the Book of Common Prayer. And this authoritative explanation of the meaning of this declaration by the framers of it, allows every one to make it whose general approbation of that book is so strong, and the particular exceptions to it so unimportant, as to permit him to enter

into an engagement to use every part of the book so prescribedfor the declaration is nothing more or less than such an engagement. The Church then having composed a form of public worship, exacts from all her ministers an engagement to use it according to the directions she gives: from which may be collected that she thought it fully fitted for the purpose for which she designed it, but we think nothing more. How this gives it any superiority of authority over the Homilies, we do not find it easy to discern; but when asked to see that it deprives the latter of all authority whatsoever, we are entirely bewildered. We entered upon this comparison very unwillingly-we regard the Articles, the Homilies, and the Liturgy of the Church of England as entirely and throughout harmonious, when considered in a fair spirit, and apart from prejudice; there is therefore no useful end to be answered by settling this question. But if it be an object to shew the Articles and Liturgy immeasureably above the Homilies in authority, this must be effected by some other mode; for our obligations of assent to each are clear and strict, varying only to render them appropriate to the subject or the purpose in the respective cases; furnishing no ground by their terms to attribute to the framers and imposers of them any gradation of estimation of these documents-and of course none to derive from this imaginary scale, another of precedence for these subjects of their approbation. And here we may terminate this part of the business.

We

may now proceed to Mr. Knox: we gave his views (p. 305,) which agree in substance with Bishop Jebb's. We shall now as succinctly, and as fairly as we can, put our readers in possession of his mode of supporting them; he thinks that we cannot hold the Homilies as authoritative standards, without making the Church of England inconsistent with itself in doctrine and in discipline-the first he thus establishes:

"Every one who has looked into the Homilies must know that 'those Books which we call Apocryphal, and which the sixth Article excludes from the Sacred Canon, are continually quoted in them, as belonging to the Old Testament, and are not seldom, expressly characterized as the Inspired Word of God. But this radical discordance being permitted to remain uncorrected, makes it evident that the Homilies were not, even at the moment of their adoption, an object of very serious concern, while, the very existence of such an anomaly makes it impossible to regard them as authoritative standards."

"It is impossible, for this plain reason, that if the Homilies were authoritative standards, the Church of England would be at variance with itself in one of the most vital points in theology."-Knox, pp. 13, 14,

And after some instances to prove that the Apocryphal and Canonical Books are quoted without distinction in the Homilies. "I need not say, that in producing these passages from the Homilies, I mean no kind of disrespect to the useful and learned persons who composed them according to their present light. My sole object is to show that the Homilies differ from the sixth Article respecting the Canon of Scripture, not casually or from possible want of recollection, but uniformly and of set purpose, without the least foresight of what on this subject was afterwards concluded. But such being the dissonance between the Homilise and the Articles, it follows, that both could not have been intended to be