According 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 Justification 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 erist. 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 sense 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 steadfastly 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,

Matth. xvi. 27.

Here then we may close the review of our doctrinal Articles; for they have been compared with the Doctrines of the Church of Rome both in reference to those, in which the difference is total, and in reference to those, in which the difference is partial. Thus we have clearly seen, not only that the two Churches have built their Faith upon different foundations, but also that the superstructures, respectively erected by them, have a difference corresponding with that of the foundations themselves *.

But the question still remains to be examined, whether the Church of England had sufficient reason for rejecting Tradition as a Rule of Faith. For if it be true, as the Romanists assert, that divine and apostolical Traditions, which are the ingredients of that Rule, do really exist, their authority cannot be disputed. This question therefore, which is a very important one, shall be examined in the next Chapter.

A short statement of the principal Doctrines, in which the Church of Rome differs from the Church of England, may be seen in the Professio Fidei Catholica, secundum Concilium Tridentinum, ex Bullâ Pii Papæ IV,

CHAP. IV.

EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE DIVINE AND APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO CONSTITUTE THE UNWRITTEN WORD OF GOD, OR TRADITION AS A RULE OF FAITH, HAVE A REAL, OR ONLY AN IMAGINARY EXISTENCE.- -PREVIOUS EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

-PROOF THAT THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THEIR ALLEGED EXISTENCE.- -THE REJECTION OF TRADITION, AS A RULE OF FAITH, THE VITAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMATION.

As

As we are now preparing to examine the question, whether the Church of England had sufficient reason for rejecting the authority ascribed by the Church of Rome to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, the examination itself will be rendered easier, and its results will be better understood, if we previously bring into one point of view whatever relates to the general question at issue between the two Churches. It is true, that the state of the question, on Scripture and Tradition, as it respectively affects the two Churches, was explained in the first Chapter. But, as an appeal has been subsequently made to the Council of Trent on the one hand, and to our own

Articles of Religion on the other, we are now enabled to take a more comprehensive view of the subject, and to state the case in all its bearings.

We have seen, that the Church of Rome divides the Word of God into two parts; the written Word, and the unwritten Word; the former called Scripture, the latter called Tradition. Hence Bellarmine divides his treatise De Verbo Dei into two portions, in the former of which he considers the Verbum Dei scriptum, and in the latter the Verbum Dei non scriptum. Further, the whole Word of God is called the whole Rule of Faith. And as the whole Word of God, consists of two parts, the written Word, and the unwritten Word, or Scripture and Tradition, it follows, that Scripture and Tradition are considered, as two partial Rules of Faith, copstituting the whole Rule of Faith, or the whole Word of God. Hence Bellarmine says, Totalis Regula Fidei est verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei Ecclesiæ facta, quæ dividitur in duas Regulas partiales, SCRIPTURAM et TRADITIONEM'. Again, these two partial Rules of Faith, that is, Scripture or the written Word, and Tradition or the unwritten Word, are represented as two equal and independent Rules of Faith. Now the whole of this statement is confirmed by that official document, the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent. For that Decree pronounces, that both the written Word and the unwritten Word must be received

See Chap. I. Note 12. In the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, the expressions, used to denote these two Rules of Faith, are Libri scripti, and Traditiones sine scripto.