through an entire Homily for a definition; and imposed on all who should subscrite the Articles, the necessity of receiving the doctrine "in that sense, in which it is explained in the Homily of Justification." Thus, in fact, the whole Homily was made an Article; and an Article most inconveniently and perplexingly long: not to mention the unfitness of a popular discourse, to define the limits of so nice and difficult a question. "The Elizabethan Reformers judged more wisely in this, as in many other particulars, the interval of ten years seems not to have been lost upon them. They briefly and clearly laid down the doctrine in the Article itself; and referred to the Homily, not for a definition, but for " a more large expression" or explication, not of "justification by faith only," but of the "wholesomeness and comfortableness" of that doctrine. That is, in other words, they referred to the Homily, not as an authoritative standerd of Christian faith, but as an instructive practical sermon which derives Christian health and consolation, from a leading Christian doctrine.” And in a note same page, We "In the Latin Article, there is a seeming ambiguity, The words "ut fusius. explicatur," might be taken either impersonally, or with reference to “doctrina.” But the phrase is determined to the former sense, by the English Article. there read, not " as it [the doctrine] more largely is expressed,” but impersonally, "as more largely is expressed." Therefore Dr. Hey has committed an error in saying, "We are called upon to declare that the Homily expresses the doctrine more fully than the Article." What we are called upon to declare is, that the Homily expresses the wholesomeness and comfort of the doctrine, more fully than the Article expresses them. Now upon the grammar of this commentary we have nothing to say, but we must be allowed to resist, in spite of that noble art, the inference to which it leads. We have no objection (except such as arises from doubting whether we understand him) to his lordship's maintaining (p. 32), ours as a "substantive religion," and he must excuse a little anxiety on our part to prevent its becoming a verbal one. All our readers-all our clerical readers at least, are aware that the Homily referred to is emphatically a doctrinal Sermon-that it contains a detailed explanation of the meaning of justification by faith, and of the sense in which we are justified by faith alone, an exposure of the most common errors upon this subject, and an answer to the most common objections-that in short this fundamental doctrine is there stated clearly, established regularly, limited with the utmost exactness, defended from objection, and guarded against abuse, and this with such fulness, and in such minuteness of detail, as to draw from the writers themselves this prophetic deprecation "Here you may perceive many words to be used to avoid contention in words with them that delight to brawl about words, and also to shew the true meaning and avoid evil taking and misunderstanding; and yet peradventure all will not serve them that be contentious, but contenders will ever forge matter of contention, even when they have none occasion thereto." Now it is the doctrine so explained and guarded, that the Homily asserts to be godly and wholesome-the writers would not apply these terms to a doctrine called the same, but really essentially differing. And can we believe that this Article leaves us at liberty to do so? Every one may see that no declaration or exposition of the wholesomeness and godliness of this doctrine apart from the explanation of what it is, is to be found in the Homily. And shall we believe that we are sent to it to take the one and leave the other. Shall we suppose the Church saying to us-you must take this character of the doctrine from the Homily, but you may apply it, if you will, to a different or an opposite doctrine ? Diversa in Tauro ratio est, nec parte sub illa Censetur Bishop Bull in his Harmonia Apostolica, thus writes: "Diligenter autem observandum est, quæ hactenus Ecclesiæ nostræ attulimus testimonia, ea omnia ex Homilia de Justificatione sive salute Hominis desumpta esse; ad quam quidem Homiliam, ut fusiorem Articuli XI. explicationem inde petamus, Ecclesia nostra, idque in eo ipso Articulo, nos ex professo remittit. Quis • am restat dubitandi locus? De sensu Articuli undecimi quæritur; ad Homiliam de salute eo ipso Articulo remittimur. Quid ibi Ecclesia? &c.-Diss. post Cap. 18 §6. When obliged to defend himself from the charge of misrepresenting, or contradicting the principles of the Church of Eng land, he employs a single argument, but one which he expects "Censori ejusdemque farinæ cæteris mei delatoribus os in æternum obstruere sufficiat." It is this--no one can be esteemed guilty of the charge, who "Aperte candide ac sincere illum Articuli undecimi Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ sensum amplectitur ac profitetur, semperque amplexus ac professus est, quem ipsa Ecclesia Anglicana ut unicum, genuinum, ac germanum ejusdem Articuli sensum ex professo & disertis verbis tradidit." And he goes on to show that he is such an one, by proving his view to agree with the explanation in the Homily-how this proves the point, he thus demonstrates : *"Hic autem [upon the words of the 11th Article] observavi, e triginta novem Articulis Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, triginta et octo nude et sine explicatione ullâ proponi; hunc vero unum de Justificatione ex solâ fide traditum esse non sine hac cautione expressâ ut fusior ac plenior ejusdem explicatio en Homilia de Justificatione hominis petenda sit. Quamquam igitur viri docti & graves permulti in Ecclesia nostra non immeritò fortasse judicarunt Homiliarum librum non esse per ompia paris authoritatis cum Articulis nostris ita ut contra sententiam aliquam aut scripturæ interpretationem ne hiscere quidem aut mutire liceat; (quia scil a privatis Doctoribus seorsim singulæ primam confectæ atque ad populi ejusce ætatis genium accomodatæ fuerunt; et in Articulo XXXV. nihil aliud de eis decernitur quam quod generatim contineant piam et salutarem doctrinam temporibus quibus natæ sunt necessariam) tamen quin sensus Articuli undecimi ad lineam et perpendiculum explicationis, in Homiliâ de salute hominis traditæ, exigendus sit, nemini dubium esse potest nisi cui debitâ operâ et contra Articuli ipsius verba clara ac diserta cæcutire lubeat.Exam. cens. Animad. 23§4. Hard words these. The Bishop of Limerick thinks the change in the Article from the language first employed, most important, * This is the passage to which we alluded, p. 308. how far Bishop Bull agrees with him may be collected from what he subjoins. "Quin et hoc ipsum [the reference to the Homily for the explanation of the doctrine] in Articulis Edwardi Sexti clarius adhuc (si quid clarius dici poterit) exprimitur. Again, the Bishop of Limerick (and Mr. Knox p. 10, agrees with him apparently) is so decidedly of opinion that we are sent to the Homily "not for a definition but for a more large expression" or explication, not of "justification by faith only," but of the "wholesomeness and comfortableness of that doctrine;" that we have seen him lightly perstringe even the Rev. Dr. Hey for a trifling difference with him on this point. Hear upon the same head, the opinion of Bishop Bull. He charges his censor, Dr. Tully, with suppressing in quoting the Article, the words "ut in Homiliâ de Justificatione hominis fusius explicatur," which he thus explains : "Nimirum istic expresse nos remittit Ecclesia nostra ad Homiliam de Justificatione hominis, ut indé ipsius Articuli verum et genuinum sensum et explicationem petamus; neque aliter saluberrimam filius suis commendat, quá tanquam ut in Homil. de Justif. hominis fusius explicatur.-Apolog. pro Har. sect. 5, subsect. 2. His own agreement with the Homily, he thinks so important to his vindication, that he closes his assertion of it with this solemn obtestation: "Itaque coram Deo judice meo, cujus iram non deprecabor, si quid sciens fefellero, volo hoc omnibus esse testatum, me undecímo Ecclesiæ nostræ Articulo, juxta hanc explicationem ab ipsa traditam cujus verba accipio in significatione hodie -usitatâ absque omni æquivocationem (sine mentali reservatione) verè, sincerè, atque ea animo consentire ac subscribere."-Exam. Cens. Animad. 23§8. Furthermore, the opinion which we have given from Bishop Jebb, moves him to this severe objurgation: “Itaque talpâ cæcior est, qui non videt, EKOɛov istam [the explanation of the doctrine of the Article given in the Homily] pro genuina, perfectâ, clarâ, ac perspicuâ hujus Articuli, solâ in Christum fide justificamur, sententiâ ab Ecclesiâ nostrâ proponi." This is a kind of language which we could never persuade ourselves to employ-but the Bishop belongs to a rough-tongued race,* Ἔσιν ἀμαιμάκετον φονίοις ταύροισι γενεθλον.... *This worthy Bishop's name is so eminently pun-provoking, that a grave opponent of his (Tombs, by name) is betrayed by it into a lively attempt of this kind, without considering that he was writing in a language in which it does not do quite as well as in the mother tongue. This is Bull's good-humoured account of the matter: "Non est autem quod sibi metuat Author ille a Bulli cornibus et insultibus, (ipsius sunt facetiæ quas Exteri quidem vix intelligent, ridebunt vero Nostrates,) siquidem Bullus animalia istiusmodi oblatrantia contemnere dudum didicit."Exam. Cens.-Ad Lectorem. We would not in any tongue, learned or vernacular, call any one who differed from us, prelate, priest, or laic, blinder than a mole. And in using such respectable authority, we must not be made accountable for any severities of language into which our author may be betrayed. What we have said and quoted might serve as an answer to Mr. Knox, as he adopts in substance the views of the Bishop of Limerick. However, since it is with some difference, and supported by different arguments, we must, according to our system, notice him distinctly. His statement of the amount of the obligation incurred by subscription to the eleventh Article is so curious, that it must be given in his own words : "And here, I assuredly think, a matter of attention is fairly presented to every theological reader, nor can it be deemed excusable in any one who subscribes the thirty-nine Articies, to remain ignorant of a document, to which his notice is called, by such venerable authority. But more than this cannot be reasonably inferred. But even in this very reference, something perhaps will be found, which may be thought to give it the character of a prudential reccommendation, rather than of an authoritative injunction." -Knox, pp. 10, 11. It would appear from this-and we assure the respectable author, if we are misstating his meaning, it is from a bona-fide misconception of it-that every subscriber to the Articles incurs, by the eleventh, the obligation of reading and acquainting himself with the Homily of Justification, and nothing more. This would seem light enough, but the following paragraph shews that even this needs some abatement, and that we are still more leniently dealt with by our indulgent mother. At first view it would appear that the Church says, read the Homily of Justification; but upon closer examination it is found that she does not say so much, but at most-I think you had better read the Homily of Justification, but you need not unless you choose. It is hard to believe this to be the view of any sensible writer, and yet Mr. Knox's language seems so plain, as scarcely to allow us to doubt that we understand him; certain it is that it would require very solid arguments indeed to establish such a view. In fact it seldom falls to our lot to meet with an argument which we would not find it less difficult to presume fallacious, (even if we were unable to find any fallacy in it) than to believe that our Church deviated from the grave and imperative tone which she maintains in her Articles, into such a trifling and purposeless parley as the foregoing. But let us see the reasoning upon which this rests: "It is a well known fact, that there is literally no such Homily, as that referred to in the eleventh Article. The Homily supposed to be meant, is that of the Salvation of mankind. But it is natural to ask, why should it not have been named by its proper title? The history of the case seems to furnish a probable explanation The eleventh Article as it now stands, was modified by Queen Elizabeth's Divines, from the former Article in King Edward's reign, on the same subject. It was evidently an object to make no unnecessary changes; and yet this Article "of Justification by faith," was not a little altered. A statement of the doctrine was briefly, but comprehensively given; whereas, in the former Article, there was no doctrinal proposition, but all was to be learned from "the Homily of Justification." The new form of the Article, as actually propounding the doctrine, made the reference to the Homily no longer indispensable. But probably it was considered, that to omit the mention of the Homily entirely, might be misunderstood, and that the respectability of a necessary means of present public instruction might be thereby diminished. From this motive, as it would seem, the reference to the Homily was in a certain degree retained; but, manifestly, without consulting any other document than the former Article. This is evident from the continuance of Cranmer's misnomer; for had there been a recurrence to the Homily itself, the error would have been detected, and the attention to correctness of expression, which those Divines every where else evince, would have been observed in this instance also. I mean no charge of negligence against those learned and sagacious men. Their work bears testimony to their wisdom, and in no one particular more than in the new form they gave to the Article now adverted to. Concise as the doctrinal part of it is, it bears evident marks of deep consideration; but it is no less clear that they referred to the Homily, without having the Homily itself before them. That they ran no risk of doctrinal error, by such a qualified reference, from general recollection without direct inspection, they must themselves have felt, and there is no just ground to dispute; but that they intended to attach any great importance to a document thus referred to, it is not easy to believe. It would seem rather a matter almost of moral certainty, that such a reference, had it then remained to be made, would not have been made at all."- Knox, p. p. 11, 12, 13. It may arise from some unhappiness in the constitution of our minds, but certain it is, that what brings Mr. Knox thus to moral certainty, seems to us but a tissue of gratuitous, and we may add, eminently improbable assumptions, which leads us to nothing beyond some speculations (of no great value) upon the unprofitable skill employed in the fabrication of it. We shall not give these to Mr. Knox, or our other readers; but present both with a specimen of the inconveniences which flow from this piece of reasoning: desiring them very earnestly to consider it closely. If, we would ask, the appearance of the misnomer, which Mr.Knox notices in our 35th Article, prove it to have been written without a recurrence to the Homily, does not the same misnomer occurring in Edward's corresponding Article prove that it too was written in the same way; that is, that the writers had not, at the time of writing, the Homily before them? And again, if a carelessness about the document misnamed be fairly inferred in the one case, from this mode of writing about it, may not similar indifference concerning it, be inferred in the latter case, in which it is equally evident that the same mode of writing about it was adopted? And finally, if we be released from much concern about this Homily by the indifference to it, thus exhibited by the framers of our Articles, were not the ministers in Edward's time in like manner left at liberty by the indifference concerning it, equally apparent in the divines composing his Articles? Unless we flatter ourselves strangely, this is a chain composed of rather stronger materials than Mr. Knox's: and yet to what an inconvenient conclusion does it conduct us? And to what further difficulties does it lead! Bishop Jebb is of opinion (in which he has we believe, the support of universally concurrent tradition) that Cranmer was the author of this Homily, and he certainly was a |