own standard, and dared to profane the name of " tradition" by applying it to all sorts of spurious figments, which have been, in the lapse of ages, foisted into their Church, that is nothing to the present purpose. Execrable, and worthy of all condemnation, as such base forgery is, it is not countenanced by this decree, which is rather a witness (to which they cannot except) against such monstrous conduct. My present purpose is with the letter of the Roman laws, not with the monstrous practices and abuses of the Roman bishops. These are two totally distinct points, and it can answer no end of truth or equity, to except against the former on the score of the latter, unless it can fairly be maintained that the one is a legitimate consequence of the other, which, I conceive, cannot be done here.

PAGE 160, line 14,—(List of the Sacred Books.)

Here, at once, these fifty-six bishops have departed from their own standard, and have insisted, under anathema, upon the reception of books, and parts of books, as canonical, which are not witnessed to by the Scriptures of the New Testament, and are equally destitute of all claim to a continual succession of witnesses in their behalf in the Catholic Church. A more monstrous act of schism, heresy, and impiety, has never been perpetrated in the Christian Church, since its foundation. The Appendix at the end of this collection, will show the Fathers and Councils anathematized by this decree, for they being dead, yet speak.

PAGE 161, line 13.-(With all their parts.)

This expression has reference to "the Song of the Three Children," the history of Susannah, the history of Bel and the Dragon, as parts of the Book of Daniel. The Hebrew canon does not contain them; they were accordingly rejected by Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, as will be more fully shewn in the Appendix.

PAGE 161, line 15.-(Old Latin Vulgate edition.)

If anything was wanting to complete the monstrous and un

warrantable character of this decree, it is supplied by the direction that, on pain of anathema, the Latin Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, to the exclusion of the originals, should be esteemed the standard of faith; a translation, of which at the time the existing copies were so various and discordant, that the labours of three Popes, Pius IV., Sixtus V., and Clement VIII., were afterwards employed in endeavours to procure a correct edition.

ORIGINAL SIN.

PAGE 164-169.-(Decrees.)

I have not cited these for censure, but for admiration: and that I might have opportunity for testifying that though the rulers of the Church of Rome have, in the lapse of ages, suffered accumulations of earthly matters to obscure the temple's gold; yet that the pure gold is there, and may be found of them who search for it. O si sic omnia!

As some persons have fancied that they can detect glaring errors in these decrees on original sin, which seem to me worthy of commendation, I have judged it fair and right to set side by side the recorded opinions of the Roman and English Churches on this point.

THE EFFECT OF BAPTISM ON ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO

The Church of England. Original sin is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; and this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh

The Church of Rome.

If any shall deny, that the guilt of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, or even shall assert that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but

is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

shall say that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

But the holy Synod confesses and believes that concupiscence or lust doth remain in them that are baptized, which being left by way of exercise avails not to injure those who do not consent to it, and by the grace of Christ strive manfully against it. The holy Synod declares that this concupiscence which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, has never been understood by the Catholic Church to be called sin, as though it were truly and properly sin in them that are regenerate, but because it is of sin and inclines to sin.

The

Both churches admit that lust remains in the baptized. Church of England says this lust hath the nature of sin, but is no cause of condemnation to the regenerate, i. e. if they strive against it. The Church of Rome admits that this lust is of sin, and inclines to sin, but as it does not avail to injure those who do not consent to it, it cannot be said to have the true and proper nature of sin. Surely Christian liberty must be a name without a reality, if so slight a shade of difference is not to be tolerated, but to be made the subject of accusation and condemnation.

JUSTIFICATION.

PAGE 170-212.-(Justification.)

After repeated and careful considerations of these decrees and canons, both alone and with the assistance of others, I find no reason to depart from an opinion which I have formerly ex

pressed, that ground for condemnation of the Church of Rome, as touching the main positions of this doctrine, is not to be found in the decrees of the Council of Trent. They who think otherwise are, of course, at liberty to maintain their own opinions. I must, in the sight of God, and with the testimony of my own conscience, maintain my own; seeking in my examination of our opponents' doctrines not to triumph over an enemy, but to vindicate the truth, and being mindful at once of both parts of the saying, "Nothing extenuate, nor set down ought in malice." It seems to me, I confess, that it is as much in the power of every clergyman in the Church of Rome to preach the true and saving doctrine of justification according to the New Testament, without violating the decrees of this council, as it is for the clergy of the Church of England to do so without violating the Articles of their Church and Bishop Burnet long ago observed that "this matter was so stated by many of them, that as to the main we have no just exceptions to it." Nor does he once cite the decrees of Trent as containing matter for condemnation. Burnet on the Eleventh Article. I have no intention of here entering at length into the subject, which would require a treatise of itself: but I am inclined to think, that if a man will examine the matter carefully, he will find that the apparent discrepancy between the Roman and English authorized doctrines, is to be attributed to the paucity of our language, and its inability to express heavenly things, which obliges us to use the same word in many different acceptations and that, therefore, in almost all cases, it both admits of, and requires explanations as to the exact meaning which it is intended to convey. Allowing such explanation, I am inclined to believe that there is nothing in the Tridentine statements which cannot be fairly reconciled with the Gospel doctrine. Without such careful explanations, I am confident that the English Articles are as liable to perversion, and injurious application in one direction, as the Tridentine decrees are in another.

As an illustration of what I mean, I will observe that in the

English Articles the word justification is never used to express what, I believe, many writers imagine it to do, namely, final acceptance, but some state of grace and acceptance with God into which we are admitted in this life. In the 11th Article it seems that the framers had in view that state of grace which is not entered into till baptism; for it would (I conceive) be contrary to Christian verity and utterly without warrant, since the institution of the Christian religion, to affirm that any person is "accounted righteous before God for the merit of Jesus Christ," who has not been baptized. In the 13th Article it seems rather to imply the state into which a man is brought by the preventing grace of God, (as in the case of Cornelius and St. Paul,) and which leads them to desire to receive the adoption. But that final acceptance is not here spoken of is clear from the 12th Article, which speaks of good works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification. But final acceptance is not attained till after death, and then men "rest from their labours." All this will appear more plainly, if attention is paid to the order in which the process is spoken of in the 17th Article, the first steps of which, as there stated, are only applicable to those who receive adult baptism. The order is, calling, obedience to the call, free-justification, good works, everlasting felicity. "They which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

These few observations may serve to shew that something more is required by truth and equity in this matter, than a few hasty sentences of condemnation. If our own Articles require careful examination and explanation, that they may not appear to countenance the false doctrines of those who would dispense with obedience, and who would send every wretched felon, who