[7] Ps. l. 16.
[8a] Tracts 71, 77, and 86; Froude’s Remains, i. 322, 380, 394, 425, 433; British Critic, July 1841, p. 45, 69.
[8b] See Overton’s True Churchman Ascertained. See also Goode’s Divine Rule of Faith, Preface, p. 16, referring to two centuries ago.
[9a] Newman’s Lectures on Romanism, &c. p. 23.
[9b] See Overton, p. 71, 72, 82, 92. Robertson observes, in his History of America, p. 163, “Of all the Reformed churches, that of England has deviated the least from the ancient institutions . . . Though the Articles to be recognized as the system of national faith were framed conformable to the doctrines of Calvin, his notions with respect to church government and the mode of worship were not adopted.” See the same testimony in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 87, 88. Bishop Burnet says, “In England, the first Reformers were generally in the sublapsarian hypothesis; but Perkins and others asserted the supralapsarian way.”—Exposition of the Articles, p. 151. Dr. Heylin, a zealous Arminian, has the following testimony. “Of any men who publicly opposed the Calvinian tenets in this University” (Oxford) “till after the beginning of King James’s reign, I must confess that I have hitherto found no good assurance.” Buckridge, tutor to Abp. Laud, and Houson, are all he can name. Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626. When Laud preceded about suppressing Calvinistic doctrines, he could not “venture the determining of those points to a Convocation,” so general was the disposition of the bishops and clergy in favour of them. Heylin’s Life of Laud, p. 147. Bishop Burnet’s honest observations, in the close of his discussion of the Seventeenth Article, will not be forgotten. “It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin’s doctrine.” . . . “Since the Remonstrants do not deny but that God, having foreseen what all mankind would, according to all the different circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, He upon that did by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole design in all its branches, which He executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without renouncing their opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple; since the Article does seem more plainly to favour them.”
[11] Tract 90, p. 82. They affirm that their interpretation of the Articles was intended to be admissible, though not that which the authors took themselves. This is the old way of putting darkness for light further carried out. Dr. Powell, Archdeacon of Colchester, and Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, preached a sermon some forty years ago to instruct the University in the matter of subscribing to the Articles. And he says, “Where the original sense is one, and the received another, the subscriber is at liberty to use them in either.” But he never went so far as to say that the subsequently received sense was intended to be admissible by the compilers. And Dr. Hey, the Norrisian Professor, speaks of “a religious society changing its doctrines, and yet retaining the expressions by which they were defined;” and says, “In whatever degree the Articles grow obsolete, the Injunction, (that is, the Royal Declaration,) must grow so,” notwithstanding it commands interpretation in the literal sense; and “that a man, by speaking according to the literal sense, may speak falsehood.”—Lectures, vol. ii. p. 68, 72, 74. This mode of dealing with the Articles, when strongly carried out, as in the present case, issues, of course, in a total change. See Overton, p. 22–26.
[12] British Critic, July, 1841, p. 45.
[13a] Tracts for the Times, No, 71, p. 8, No. 78, p. 2.
[13b] Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jewel, Hooker, Morton, Hall, Laud, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and many others. See Goode’s Divine Rule, ii. 484, &c. The importance of this question, according to the testimony of Roman Catholics themselves, is evident from such passages as the following from Lumper, Hist. Theol. vol. iii. p. 362. “If Protestants would admit that the complete Rule of Faith is Scripture joined with Divine Tradition, all the other controversies between us and them would soon cease.” See Goode, i. 103.
[14] 2 Tim. iii. 15–17.