THIS Charge is excellent, and full of valuable matter. We find in the Daniel Wilson of Calcutta, the self-same man who nearly forty years ago was commencing his devoted and zealous career of ministerial usefulness as the curate of his honoured friend Richard Cecil; and who afterwards at Oxford, at St. John's, Bedford Row, and at Islington, was enabled, by the grace of God, to war a good warfare as a faithful soldier of Jesus Christ;-we find, we say, with the weight and experience of mature years, the self-same man, in unwearied diligence, in straight-forward honesty of purpose, in unremitting perseverance, in undaunted boldness and resolution, all devoted to the glory of God and the salvation of souls; and connected with, and springing out of, the essential verities of Christ's holy Gospel, applied to the soul by the transforming power of the Holy Ghost. The preaching and writings of Bishop Wilson have always been characterized, amidst the fluctuating opinions of the times, by a peculiarly close adherence to the spirit and character of the Gospel dispensation as a combined record of grace and holiness. The cross of Christ-including, in that expressive scriptural phrase, the sacrifice for sin and the ensample of godly life-has ever been his prominent topic; he has not, in urging it in the one aspect, forgotten its importance in the other; he has not, in preaching salvation by grace through faith, derogated CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 22.

from the fruits and evidences of faith; or, while insisting upon the fruits and evidences, detached them from their source; extolling a faith which does not lead to sanctification; or making sanetification the parent of faith. We should be at a loss to say whether the grace of the Gospel, or its power; Christ dying for us, or Christ living in us, is most conspicuous in his writings; except that the former is always scripturally made the precursor and cause of the latter; so that while inculcating the duties of the Christian life, no place is given to that monstrous Popish and Oxford Tract perversion of the whole genius of Christianity, that Christ crucified means self-mortified; that justification is virtually sanctification; and that the Gospel is not-at least after baptism-hope to the guilty, and shelter to the perishing, when they truly turn to God in Christ, but a covenant of works based upon the condition of not forfeiting the alleged privileges of baptismal innocence.

With respect to the questions between the Church of England and her opponents, Bishop Wilson has exhibited similar comprehensiveness of grasp. While gladly exercising expansive affection towards all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, he has never shrunk from maintaining the scriptural warrant and practical excellence of that communion in which he is a minister and an overseer. He did this at a time when the spirit of the evangelical dissenters

4 K

seemed less harsh than it has been of late; and when they appeared to rejoice in proportion as Christ was preached through the agency of the Church of England; and he has not receded from his position, because under altered circumstances the love of the church is unjustly branded with the names of party-spirit and political secularity.

But our chief reason for reviewing his Lordship's Charge, is to lay before our readers the substance of his sound and seasonable remarks upon the Oxford Tract doctrines; or rather upon that which forms their basis-namely, the setting forth Tradition as a rule of faith. We have abstained of late from renewing the discussions upon these topics, as we feared we had overstepped the patience of our readers; but they have lost none of their importance, and there is still much to say upon them; and we rejoice in adding a warning voice from India to the salutary monitions which have abounded at home. Of these we have already mentioned many in our former papers. Among the more recent ones, which we have not noticed, the reader will do well to weigh the faithful, lucid, and powerful arguments of the Rev. Prebendary Benson, Master of the Temple; and also "Not tradition but Revelation," by Dr. Shuttleworth, Warden of New College, Oxford. The question for examination, says Dr. Shuttleworth, is "Whether we have any reason for supposing that in the Apostolical church, and that which immediately followed, any articles were taught as of Divine authority, independently of those expressly comprehended in the page of Scripture." He proves the negative of this suppo. sition; and shews that it was not till long after, that the notion of the authority of tradition in matters of faith became current. If

any reader imagines that dependence may be placed upon the Fathers as safe guides, he will do well to correct his mistaken estimate, by turning to the facts adduced by Dr. Shuttleworth. Fuller and more striking disclosures will be found in a work now in the course of publication, entitled "Ancient Christianity, and the Doctrines of the Oxford Tracts, by the Author of Spiritual Despotism.'" We reserve any remarks which we may have occasion to offer upon this remarkable and original publication, till its completion, as we are far from being sure how the learned and able writer intends to wind up his conclusion; and he has already disclosed some intimations which we think bear not fairly upon our reformed Anglican communion. His chief drift however is to shew how early and widely the superstitious, demoralising, and, we need not add, unscriptural notion of the religious virtue of celibacy spread in the ancient church, and to trace to it most of the errors which corrupted, and the evils which afflicted, it; and to prove their inseparable connexion, not only with popery, but with the system adopted by the divines of the Oxford Tract school; some of whom have written of the virtues of asceticism in a spirit akin to that of the most fanatical of the ancients or their modern followers.

To us however it is not pleasing to speak of the mistakes and faults, the superstitions and absurdities, of weak good men of former days; and throughout the whole of our papers upon the practical bearings of the question of Tradition, we have sedulously avoided this exposure; though it is an argument both popularly intelligible, and justly effective. The Oxford Tractators, in publishing the writings of the Fathers, if they select them fairly, will furnish the

best antidote to their own arguments. It is wonderful, however, to observe how blind they are as to the effects of their statements. They seem utterly unaware of the extent of Scriptural intelligence, and we add of common sense, which, with all the faults of the age, are to be found in this Christian land; and hence, after making some astounding declaration, they take for granted that they have proved its truth, or opened the way to its acceptance, if they tell us that some person wrote or believed so twelve or fifteen hundred years ago. Thus, for instance, with most marvellous simplicity they say, in the advertisement to their second volume: "Would not most men maintain, on the first view of the subject, that to administer the Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dying and insensible, however consistently pious and believing in their past lives, was a superstition? and yet both practices have the sanction of primitive usage." The inference of every sound-minded person upon reading this passage would be, not that the unscriptural superstitions alluded to were justifiable because they had the sanction of primitive usage; but that primitive usage is very little to be depended upon, if it sanctioned such unscriptural and senseless superstitions.

Should we be forced, as a supplementary argument, (for the word of God is the only authoritative standard of appeal,) to shew how little too many of the Fathers deserve the character of being even ordinarily perspicacious guides-to say nothing of infallible interpreters-we should not have far to seek for such a mass of absurd and often pernicious fancies, as must shock the mind of ignorant persons, who conclude, because they have been told so, that the Fathers are

models of sound doctrine, powerful argument, and apt illustration ! But, while we can, we eschew this invidious topic; resting our argument, not upon what the Fathers actually are, but upon what, as men like ourselves, they must be, frail and fallible; and upon the wisdom and duty of leaving the filthy "puddles," as the Homily calls them, of human tradition, for the pure fountain of unerring and eternal truth. We concur with Bishop Jeremy Taylor, where in his Liberty of Prophesying (Sect. viii.)-speaking of some who " press the authority of the Fathers;" and "think they can determine all questions in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent testimony"-he says:

"If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this topic, it would be more than needs as to this question, and therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy personages, who were excellent lights to their several dioceses and cures. And therefore I will not instance that Clemens hunger or thirst, but eat only to make Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no demonstration of the verity of his human nature; nor that St. Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow; nor that Origen taught the pains of hell not to have eternal duration; nor that St. Cyprian taught Re-baptization; nor that Athenagoras condemned second marriages; nor that St. John Damascen said Christ only prayed in appearance, not really and in truth; I will let them all rest in peace, and their memories in honour. For if I should inquire into the particular probations of this article, I must do to them as I should be forced to do now.

the writings of the school-men were exIf any man should say that cellent argument and authority to determine men's persuasions, I must consider their writings, and observe their defailances, their contradictions, the weakness of their arguments, the mis-allegations of Scripture, their inconsequent deductions, their false opinions, and all the weaknesses of humanity, and the failings of their persons; which no good man is willing to do, unless he be compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible,

or that they are followed by men even into errors or impiety. And therefore since there is enough in the former instances to cure any such mispersuasion and prejudice, I will not instance in the innumerable particularities that might persuade us to keep our liberty entire, or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied but that great advantages are to be made by their writings, et probabile est quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus videtur.' If one wise man says a thing, is it an argument to me to believe it in its degree of probationthat is, proportionable to such an assent as the authority of a wise man can produce, and when there is nothing against it that is greater; and so in proportion higher and higher, as more wise men (such as the old Doctors were) do affirm it. But that which I complain of is, that we look upon wise men that lived long ago with so much veneration and mistake, that we reverence them, not for having been wise men, but that they lived long since. But when the question is concerning authority, there must be something to build it on; a Divine commandment, human sanction, excellency of spirit, and greatness of understanding, on which things all human authority is regularly built. But now, if we had lived in their times, (for so we must look upon them now, as they did who without prejudice beheld them) I suppose we should then have beheld them as we in England look on those prelates who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity: here only is the difference; when persons are living, their authority is depressed by their personal defaillances, and the contrary interests of their contemporaries, which disband when they are dead, and leave their credit entire upon the reputation of those excellent books and monuments of learning and piety which are left behind. But beyond this, why the Bishop of Hippo shall have greater authority than the Bishop of the Canaries, cæteris paribus, I understand

not."

Bishop Taylor goes more fully into the subject in his Ductor Dubitantium. There are some admirable remarks upon the Fathers as good witnesses, but bad expositors, and no authorities. He opens Rule X. of Book I. Chap. 4, with the following striking passage, from which the modern church may learn a humbling but salutary lesson.

"Ancient writers are more venerable;

Modern writers are more knowing. They might be better witnesses, but these are better judges. Antiquity did teach the Millenary opinion, and that infants were to be communicated; that without Baptism they were damned to the flames of hell; that angels are corporeal; that the souls of saints did not see God before dooms-day; that sins once pardoned did return again upon case of relapse; that persons baptized by heretics were to be rebaptized; and they expounded Scripture in places innumerable, otherwise than they are at this day by men of all persuasions; and therefore no company of men will consent, that in all cases the Fathers are rather to be followed than their successors. They lived in the infancy of Christianity, and we in the elder ages; they practised more and knew less; we know more, and practise less; passion is for younger years, and for beginning of things; wisdom is by experience, and age, and progression. They were highly to be valued, because in more imperfect motives they had the more perfect piety: we are highly to be reproved, that in better discourses we have a most imperfect life, and an inactive religion.'

If the reader will turn to the heads of "Catholic church" and Tradition," in the Index to the Ductor, he will find references to many powerful remarks and arguments upon the whole question.

It is impossible for us to quote them at length, but we will adduce a brief specimen. Under the Rule entitled "The Catholic church is a witness of faith, and a record of all necessary truths; but not the mistress and ruler of our creed-that is, cannot make any laws of faith," he says:

"The Catholic church, taking in the Apostolical, that is, the Church of all ages, is a witness beyond exception. For if she have the Spirit of God; if she love truth, and if she do not consent to deceive herself, she cannot be deceived in giving testimony concerning matter of fact and actual tradition: or if she could, yet we are excused in following that testimony, because we have no better, we have no other. Better than our best, and better than all we have, we cannot be obliged to use: but therefore we have the justice and the goodness, our own necessity and the veracity of God for our security, that this is a sure way for us to