Francis Turretin: "Scriptural and Patristic Testimony to the Holy Spirit's Illumination and Scripture's Self-Authenticating Power

"The Thoughts of Francis Turretin," at: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ always posts sensible and thoughtful things.  On this specific post, we have a short, but useful sample of texts re: the Self-Authenticating power of Scripture by the Holy Spirit's illumination. Martin Chemnitz's Vol. 1 of the "Council of Trent," however, affords many more.  We recommend this blog to all our readers.
---------------------------------------

In the comment box of a previous post, Pastor David King provided the following Scriptural and patristic testimony to the Holy Spirit's inward illumination of believers and Scripture's self-authenticating character, to which I've made some minor edits:

---

The canon of Scripture is an artifact of revelation rather than an object of revelation. By "artifact" I mean something that is a feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action.

While the Romanist treats the canon as an object of revelation, it is the result (hence an "artifact") of revelation. In other words, the canonical list of the books of Holy Scripture are the result of God's revelatory work, and not the object of what God has revealed.

A Christian's recognition of these books is result of God's working in him to will and to believe.

I believe 1) Scripture's own witness of its inspiration, and 2) that God confirms that by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. I drawn a distinction (as the Reformers did before me) between the Spirit's revelatory work and his illuminating work.

In his work, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14, Augustine made this point.

Augustine (354-430) in response to Manichaeus:

You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.

Latin text:Nihil aliud elegisti, nisi laudare quod credis, et irridere quod credo. Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero; quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante?

Citation: Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput XIV, PL 42:183; translation in NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.

We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, but God brings us to the place (as Augustine put it) "to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."

Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ.

John 4:39-42
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

The point this passage illustrates is this - that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. The inhabitants of the city came to rest not in her word, but Christ’s own word.

Likewise, though the Church (or the witness of an individual Christian) is often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, it does not follow that this renders the church or the individual Christian with the attribute of infallibility.

God's own word is a spiritual reality which is sufficient to create faith in itself. No church or human being is able to accomplish that supernatural work.

The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9).

Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”

Chrysostom (349-407): Besides, what benefit would there be in a homily when prayer has not been joined to it? Prayer stands in the first place; then comes the word of instruction. And that is what the apostles said: "Let us devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." Paul does this when he prays at the beginning of his epistles so that, like the light of a lamp, the light of prayer may prepare the way for the word. If you accustom yourselves to pray fervently, you will not need instruction from your fellow servants because God himself, with no intermediary, enlightens you mind.
Citation: John Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 72, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Homily 3.35, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 111.

We have strong precedent in the some works of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) that indicate there was also in their time a recognition of the fact that God's word is self-authenticating. Some examples of this precedent are shown below.

Nemesius of Emesa (around the end of the 4th century):

But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because inspired of God.

Greek text:

ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρκεῖ, πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς, ἡ τῶν θεῖων λογῖων διδασκαλία, τὸ πιστὸν ἀθ’ ἐαυτῆς ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ θεόπνευστος εἶναι•

Citation: Nemesius of Emesa, De Natura Hominis, Caput II.18, Migne PG 40:589; translation in William Telfer, ed., The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. IV, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa: On the Nature of Man, Chapter 2 Of the Soul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), p. 292. (It is believed that Nemesius of Emesa wrote this work sometime between A.D. 392-400.)

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):

I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God’s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth.

Latin text:

Neque enim necesse est ut argumentis a me probetur quod hoc ipso quia a Deo dicitur comprobatur. Itaque cum legimus dictum a Deo quia aspiciat jugiter omnem terram, hoc ipso probamus quod aspicit quia aspicere se dicit; cum legimus quod regat cuncta quae fecit, hoc ipso approbamus quod regit, quia se regere testatur; cum legimus quod praesenti judicio universa dispenset, hoc ipso est evidens quod judicat quia se judicare confirmat. Alia enim omnia, id est, humana dicta, argumentis ac testibus egent. Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est, quia necesse est quidquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis.

Citation: Salvian the Presbyter, Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Tertius, I, PL 53:1567; translation in FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

But the truth is always steadfast and needs no assistance. It is self-authenticating, and always established in the sight of the true God.

Greek text:

τῆς ἀληθείας ἀεὶ ἑδραίας οὔσης καὶ μὴ χρείαν ἐχούσης βοηθείας, ἀλλὰ αὐτοσυστάτου οὔσης καὶ παρὰ θεῷ τῷ ὄντως ὄντι ἀεὶ συνιστωμένης.

Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber I, Tom. III, XLIV, §1, PG 41:821; translation by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46) 44. Against Apelleans, 1,3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 340.

Epiphanius (310/320-403):

The truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth.

Greek text:

αὐτοσυστάτης οὔσης τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ μὴ δυναμένης καθαιρεῖσθαι, κἄν τε ἀντιπράττοι ἡ ἀνομία ἀναισχυντίᾳ φερομένη τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας θεσμῷ,

Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber II, Tom. II, LXVI, §10, PG 42:44; translated by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.

Greek text:

Οἷς ἑπόμενον ἂν εἴη μετὰ τὴν ἐπιδρομὴν τῆς θεολογίας τὰ περὶ προφητείας παραδεδομένα διαλαβεῖν, ὡς καὶ τὰς γραφὰς αἷς πεπιστεύκαμεν κυρίας οὔσας ἐξ αὐθεντείας παντοκρατορικῆς ἐπιδείξαντας προϊέναι διʼ αὐτῶν εἱρμῷ δύνασθαι, καὶ ἁπάσαις ἐντεῦθεν ταῖς αἱρέσεσιν ἕνα δεικνύναι Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον παντοκράτορα τὸν διὰ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου εὐαγγελίου γνησίως κεκηρυγμένον.

Citation: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Liber IV, Caput 1, PG 8:1216; translation in ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.

Lactantius (260-330):

For it was not befitting that, when God was speaking to man, He should confirm His words by arguments, as though He would not otherwise be regarded with confidence: but, as it was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of all things, to whom it belongs not to argue, but to pronounce sentence.

Latin text:

Nес enim decebat ut cum deus ad hominem loqueretur, argumentis adsereret suas voces, tamquam aliter fides ei non haberetur, sed ut oportuit locutus est tamquam rerum omnium maximus iudex, cuius est non argumentari, sed pronuntiare.

Citation: Lactantius, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera omnia, Volume 19 (in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Samuel Brandt Editor)(F. Tempsky, 1890), p. 197, lines 4-8; translation in ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter I. See also FC, Vol. 49, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter 1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), pp. 165-166. Alternative translation:

... when God was addressing man, addition of arguments to his words, as if he would not otherwise be believed, was not appropriate; he spoke as the supreme judge of all creation ought to speak, his business being not discussion but declaration.

Citation: Lactantius: Divine institutes, Volume 40 of Translated Texts for Historians, Bowen et al. ed. (Liverpool University Press, 2003), p. 169 at 11

These ECFs, to name a few, are examples in the ancient church who (like us) believed Scripture to be self-authenticating.

John Chrysostom: Shun the Man Who Rejects Scripture

John Chrysostom: Shun the Man Who Rejects Scripture

A Manichean comes and says, Matter is uncreated; say to him, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, and immediately you have overthrown all his conceit. But he does not believe the statement of Scripture, you retort. On these grounds also, then, shun and avoid him as a madman: anyone who does not believe in God who has manifested Himself, and instead represents truth as falsehood -- how does he not patently demonstrate his madness, his unbelief?

- John Chrysostom (around A.D. 347 to around A.D. 407), Sermon 1 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, p. 30 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.

Authority of Scripture: St. Chyrsostom

In other words, let us abandon such reasoning and return to the unassailable rock, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. Rest on this foundation lest someone embroil you in the confusion of human reasoning: "The reasoning of mortals is worthless, and their designs insecure." [Wisdom 9:14] So do not forsake what is reliable by entrusting the salvation of your soul to what is unsteady and insecure; instead, stay firm in what you learned and to which you are committed, and say, In the beginning God made heaven and earth.

- John Chrysostom (around A.D. 347 to around A.D. 407), Sermon 1 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, p. 33 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.

"The Role of Scripture" by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1662 Point of View: Anglicans In The Wilderness)

The Role of Scripture « 1662 Point of View | Anglicans In The Wilderness

Another good post from Hudson Barton, another Heritage Anglican and fellow exile in the Anglican wilderness and "Babylonian Captivity."

Hudson Barton posts a good article by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer on the "Role of Scripture." Article VI of the 39 Articles, for starters, in the Reformed context.

As Cranmer reminds us:

"Therefore as many as be desirous to enter into the right and perfect way unto God must apply their minds to know holy scripture, without the which they can neither sufficiently know God and his will neither their office and duty. And as drink is pleasant to them that be dry and meat to them that be hungry, so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of holy scripture to them that be desirous to know God or themselves and to do his will."

Victor Budgen’s “The Charismatics and the Word of God," 11-24

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=16133&uid=308173344359

1. Victor Budgen’s “The Charismatics and the Word of God” (Faverdall North, UK: Evangelical Press, 1989). Chapter One: Prophecy and the Old Testament, 11-24.

2. Characteristics of OT prophecy:

(1) Infallible. Moses and the 10 plagues, among all the others. This is vital.
(2) Authored by the Holy Spirit. Various texts offered which we won‘t duplicate, e.g. 1 Pet.1.11; 2 Pet.1.21. Since God was the Author, fallibility was rigourously prohibited and false prophets seen to be liars meriting death for false witness and speaking by false spirits.
(3) Supernatural. Predictions by Abraham (e.g. sojourn in Egypt), Plagues of Pharoah, days of Elijah and Elisha.
(4) Forth-telling or fore-telling, signs of prediction. Every OT prophet evinces this with infallibility.
(5) Divine urgency.
(6) Great diversity in expression: parables, symbolic acts such as Ezekiel, the poetic and literary genius such as Isaiah, thunderbolts like Nahum, tender expressions like Hosea, or cross-examining rigour of Malach.
(7) False prophets have existed throughout history, e.g. the false magicians of Pharoah’s court. One distinctive of false prophets: they do not deal with the searing issue of sin. This is a rigourous test. Aside from TBN, Arminians, semi-Pelagians and Pelagians fail this test. Sounds pretty modern.
(8) Prophets were to be tested “stringently” upon pain of death. We would add that Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn would have been put to death years ago under the Old Covenant administration.

3. More to follow, Lord willing. Argument and chapter-by-chapter, the case will be argued.

Reymond’s “Systematic Theology” and the facts of revelation

1. Reymond’s Systematic Theology and the "facts of revelation" (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 3-10.

2. As an additional set amplifying on Reymond, we post Dr. R.C. Sproul’s video-cast at: http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/his-word-truth/?format=video

3. The facts of revelation. God revealed Himself “at many time and in various ways” (Heb.1.1-2) . The OT uses, “the word of Yahweh” scores of times. “The law of Yahweh” occurs also which means “divine authoritative communication.” Galah, a revelatory word, means the “removal of obstacles to perception.” Yadah, in the causative stem, means “reveal” or “make known.” God made known Himself, His attributes, glory, works and words.

4. Pre-patriarchal period, Gen.1.-11. God spoke directly and propositionally to Adam.

5. Patriarch period. Gen.12-50. Theophanies. Varied texts are posted. By the way, throughout, God speaks in recognizable language, not babblings like Pentecostalists assert.

6. Mosaic period. The burning bush (Ex.3) and other visions (Nu.22.20). Moses was repeatedly told to write things down.

7. Conquest under Joshua. Mosaic words inscripturated and were authoritative. A few more Theophanies. Texts given.

8. Age of Prophets, Samuel to Malachi. Samuel inscripturated the Word of the Lord. Samuel organizes guilds of prophets to instruct Israel in the Word of God. They studies the written Word of God, kept a record of Israel’s history, and preserved their own writings.

9. United kingdom under David. God spoke to David and Solomon. 73 Psalms by David. 2 by Solomon. Texts given.

10. Divided kingdom. Various prophets.

11. They were all instructed to put these revelations to writing.

12. Summary:

a. God reveals Himself in the history of redemption.
b. Redemptive history is structured by several covenants.
c. Redemptive revelation is progressive.
d. Revelations came by theophanies, dreams and visions. The NT will call it the “law and prophets” Lk.16.16, inter alia.
e. Public reading, teaching and exposition of the Word of God followed inscripturation. This was to keep the Word of God before the people.

13. As we ponder this theme, it is this scribe's view that the doctrine of Scripture is under very open attack. Should we be surprised?

14. "Modern Reformation" is dealing with this subject, Scripture, throughout the year in its publication. Available through http://www.whitehorseinn.org/. We commend Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, 3-Vol (Concordia Press).

R.C. Sproul, "His Word is Truth"

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/his-word-truth/?format=video

R.C. Sproul, Scriptures, Tradition, Historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/scripture-and-tradition-pt1/

Always clear and salutary.

Sola scriptura, Scriptures, the Reformation, indulgences, Martin Luther.

“Hodge’s Systematic Theology”, the Means of Grace and TBN & Others, 466-480

Also posted on our Facebook Wall entitled “Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN” found at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308173344359

1. “Hodge’s Systematic Theology” and a few miscellaneous afterthoughts on “The Means of Grace” with help from Charles Hodge, “Systematic Theology, Volume Three” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 466-480.

2. Our reference point for wider inquiry is certainly ourselves, but also TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Arminians, Church Growthers, and Contemporary Evangelicals.

3. By “means of grace” is meant the Word of God, sacraments and prayer, the ordinary and customary channels ordained by God for salvation and nurturance, church growth and preservation.

4. The Word of God is “indispensable.” The Church was commissioned to preach Christ and His Words to the nations (Mt.28.18-20). That’s what they did. If you see how Luke summarizes Paul’s years of confinement at Rome, it’s preaching and teaching (Acts 18.28ff.) The preaching of the Word has a two-fold effect, to save and to harden. The sacred writers under the Spirit’s tuition and sovereign superintendence extol the Word of God again and again. (Ps. 19.7, 119). It is a “lamp unto my feet and a light to my path.” (Ps.119.105) “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jer.23.29). “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.3.16). Jesus prays, “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (Jn. 17.17). We could multiply texts in overwhelming abundance, but our point is to bring light to darkness. It’s not our point to develop a full blown bibliology or doctrine of Scripture; that’s for another time. It is our point to bring this to bear on this things we see about us.

5. We would add the Christianity flourishes in proportion to fidelity to the Word of God in liturgy, hymns, sermons, abundant lections or read sections of the Word of God, biblical sermons, and biblical prayers. We would add that Christianity best flourishes when congregations are faithfully instructed and catechetized. The same applies for children, youth, and collegians.

6. The Word is what it is, irrespective of response. It is not be adjusted to audience receptivity like Mega-church theoreticians would make it. There are times of drought in the Bible: the period of the Judges, days under bad Israelite kings, the days of our Lord Himself, and other periods of history. Or, Jesus’ time when vast multitudes rejected Him (Jn.1.10-13). With Isaiah might we well claim, “O Lord, who has believed our report?” (Is.53.1) There have been other times when the Word has flourished such as at Pentecost when 1000’s believed. The days of the Reformation represented times of refreshment and enlargement. The “responses” to the Word of God is in God’s hands. Just because Paul before his conversion hated Christ and Christians did not change the identity of Christ and His Lordship or the authority and power of the Word of God. Christ is who Christ is, whether the numbers are 10 or 1,000,000. The Word of God is the Word of God whether 10 believe or 1,000,000 believe. After all, only 8 were left in Noah’s day, but the Word of God was the Word of God. If the majority hates, derides, and denigrates the Word of God, the office of the Pastor, the commitment of any true church, and the position of any believer is not to dismiss or reduce the Word of God in preaching, hymns, prayers and views, but to hold fast. Paul was explicit with Timothy in 2 Tim.4.2: “Preach the Word: Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”

7. Re: TBN we ask. Why isn’t there reading of chapters on their programming? Unbelief. Why isn’t there serious, in-depth, doctrinal and expository biblical preaching? $$$-mongering and unbelief. Why the hype and the enthusiasm? Unbelief in the presence, power and necessity of Biblical exposition. From Isaiah 3 and the Money-Grubbers, you may wish to follow some leads at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/03/isaiah-3-and-tbn-pentecostals-arminians.html

8. Re: liberals, we need ask no further. Their views of the Bible is that it’s man’s words. It still remains the Word of God when read. We call your attention to an audio on this by Dr. Michael Horton re: the mainline. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-we-should-learn-from-mainline.html

Also, Dr. Carl Trueman at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-carl-trueman-on-decline-of-mainline.html

9. Re: contemporary evangelicals, we ask. Why are there not 3-4 chapters read during divine worship? Why the contemporary music with 7 words repeated 11 times, what we call 7-11 music? Why are we not singing all 150 Psalms? Why are we not sing vast tracts of canonical Scriptures as many Reformed Churches used to do? These same questions could be put to the TBN and liberal crowd. We call your attention to a good series of articles which you can follow-up at:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/03/summary-of-reasons-to-avoid-rick.html

10. Emergents, we need little more than 8. above. They are neo-Marcionites and neo-liberals, although their background is evangelical. More to follow as the light continues to shine.

11. The Word of God is the Word of God, irrespective of audience receptivity, audience likes or dislikes. Just because leaders give lip service to the Word as a means of grace, but deny it in practice, is no ground for us to follow them.

12. In closing, we pray:

“Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.”

Book of Common Prayer, Second Sunday in Advent.

“Hodge’s Systematic Theology“ and TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Megachurchers, Contemporary Evangelicals," 20-40

Also posted on our Facebook Wall entitled “Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN” found at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308173344359

1. “Hodge’s Systematic Theology“ and TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Megachurchers, Contemporary Evangelicals. A few miscellaneous afterthoughts on “Systematic Theology” with help from Charles Hodge, “Systematic Theology, Volume One” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 20-40. A quick search reveals this and other deals in hard back and soft cover at: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_13?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&sprefix=charles+hodge

2. Theology confines its work to natural and special revelation, notably the last since it is God’s corrective, directive, final, authoritative, infallible, sure and amplificatory revelation of Himself to fallen man. Natural theology, e.g. Psalm 19.1ff, Rom.1.18-20, reveals the glory and attributes of God, but the Word of God written is the canon and constitution of His Majesty’s Church.

3. All men are under condemnation throughout the nations, a theme little developed in many circles, even professed Bible and evangelical circles, where sin it is blighted, belittled, minimized, disturbed and adulterated by that obnoxious, self-sufficient and proud Arminianism. Their worship services have no corporate confession of sin or declaration of the remission thereof. On another front re: natural and special revelation, Rome, Billy Graham and some other semi-Pelagians have affirmed that any and all humans, “living up to the light of nature” (without the Gospel) will be saved. As for Rome, this is a departure from her past announcements that “outside the Church none will be saved.“ Emergents, e.g. Brian McClaren, and Protestant liberals of long-standing run from this doctrine of total depravity--altogether. Rick Warren and Church Growthers also diminish the issue of the condemnation of sinners and their inability to read Scriptures savingly. At this blog, http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/, and this FB wall, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308173344359, we hold to total depravity. In relation to special revelation or the Bible, vis a vis Hodge’s point, God directed His inspired authors to “put it to the pen” so subsequent generations of sinners could read, mark, learn, inwardly digest, and be saved. We will develop the doctrine of Scripture and depravity, Lord willing, in later scribblings. Suffice it to note, that Hodge discusses natural revelation and the Bible at his point.

4. Hodge divided theology into five heads:

(1) Theology Proper--Being and Attributes of God, Trinity, Creation and Providence
(2) Anthropology--origin, fall and sin
(3) Soteriology or Salvation--Person and Word of the Redeemer (Christology), application of redemption, regeneration, justification and sanctification, and the means of grace
(4) Eschatology--intermediate state (after death), resurrection, second advent, general judgment, heaven and hell
(5) Ecclesiology--the Church, attributes, prerogatives and organization

5. Rather than five points, this scribe organizes it along six points: God, man, Christ, salvation, Church, and Eschatology.

6. There are some technicalities in this. Just as a brief comment on this. Systematic Theology requires the practitioner to be an exegete (hence, studied in the original languages), a Biblical Theologian (studying the development of doctrines within the Bible itself, as the “acorn” of revelation grows to “an oak tree“), an Historian (of the church and doctrinal developments) and a Practical Theologian. Am reminded of the sage dictum of the famous Lutheran theologian, Paul Althaus: “A theology is only as valuable as one is able to preach it.” (A reason this scribe didn’t pay continuing attention to Cornelius Van Til in earlier years…this does not deny valuable points he offered…but he never wrote clearly, an indecorous thing to do, and rarely did exegesis or historical theology.) Hodge, by the way, writes clearly and accessibly. A layman will do well to buy Hodge’s 3-volume set for review.

7. We would hasten to add for younger readers, that the great Reformation Confessions, notably the Westminster Standards (Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms), are tremendous “organizations” or “systematics” of the Bible. It is imperative to learn them. (The forum has recommended others as well.)

8. TBN--no systematics. You will never hear any of their money-grubbers teaching Biblical doctrines. Why? Money, market-share, teaching in accordance with “itchy ears” for no doctrine. Emergents--neo-liberals and a renascent form of the ancient heresy of Marcionitism. Non-confessional evangelicals? Their credo is “No Creed but Christ,” ergo, no systematic. No “man-made confessions” except their minimalist creed. Pentecostalists? They aren’t interested in doctrine, church history or a relationship between doctrine and life.

9. The simple question comes to every dear saint of God.

Who is God?
What about humanity and myself?
Who is Jesus Christ?
What is salvation about?
What is the church?
What about final things?

10. Serious Christians, young and old alike, want food. Not what is on offer with TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Arminians, Church Growthers, and Contemporary Evangelicals. Get away from these folks into a serious church.

11. Thank God for Confessional Christian Churchmen. Thank God for those who have not given up on old Prayer Book services either. We commend for your reading Dr. Scott Clark’s “Recovering the Reformed Confessions.” It’s a good start. See our beginning review at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-r-scott-clarks-recovery-reformed.html

12. Make a difference in your circles by learning Systematic Theology. Don't let weak Pastors, weak churches, or your circle to govern your situation as many do. We are not of that breed. Help the young people.

“Amen," a Biblical word, and TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Arminians, Church Growthers, and Contemporary Evangelicals

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=16038&post=94710&uid=308173344359#post94710

Also posted on our Facebook Wall entitled “Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN” found at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308173344359

1. “Amen," a Biblical word, and TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Arminians, Church Growthers, Contemporary Evangelicals. A few miscellaneous afterthoughts on “Amen” as a biblical word with help from “The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 39.

2. Ever hear a Baptist or Pentecostalist preacher say, “Can I get an Aaaay-men?” (long vowel) Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed Churchmen say “Amen” at the end of prayers. What does it mean? When should we use it?

3. The Hebrew word means “reliable, sure, true.” As a verb, “to support, sustain.” In the niphil verb form, “to prove oneself steady, reliable, loyal.” In the hiphil verb stem: “to regard someone as reliable, trustworthy, or truthful.”

4. As such, it has come to mean, “Surely! In the very truth.” “Yes, may it be!“ As an Anglican and Prayer Book man, this is why I like the book. In the interests of truth, I have reviewed the prayers, know them, and can say “Amen” at the end. I am sure that liturgical Lutherans and Reformed Churchmen affirm similarly.

5. It is significant that Jesus used the word often, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” (KJV). The Greek is "Amen, amen." We suspect, without checking the other versions, that it is rendered, “Surely, surely, I say unto you.” The full import of the Hebrew sense is before us. This reflects clearly Jesus’ “divine Self-consciousness.” While not developing Trinitarianism here, Jesus was Co-Author of the Old Testament. His high view of the Old Testament and its witness to Him is everywhere and His Majesty pointed that out in his Bible Exposition work, e.g. Luke 24. Jesus did not need a Council to ratify His Word. We say "Amen" to the Old Testament and the Apostolic Word in the New Testament. We never say "Amen" to those adding to God's Word.

6. When we look at “TBN, Pentecostalists, Emergents, Liberals, Arminians, Church Growthers, Contemporary Evangelicals” can we say “Amen?” To revivalist Arminianism throughout the Baptist and Southern Baptist world? To the Emergents neo-liberalism and hermeneutics? To the TBN-reading of the Bible? (there is none) To Protestant liberalism? To non-Confessional evangelicalism? To non-liturgical worship?

7. As men and women seeking truth, let us be careful to what, where and when we say “Amen.” Now, where's my Bible? And my trusty companion, the old Book of Common Prayer?

Quote of the Day: Martin Luther

"I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything."

- Martin Luther

Office Hours, WTS/Cal: Drs. Godfrey, Clark, Kim and Feski, "The Doctrine of Scripture"

http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/03.15.10Panel.mp3

Drs. Godfrey, Clark, Fesko, and Kim on the "Doctrine of Scripture" as the foundation of doctrine, worship and practice.

The Scripture has always been attacked. In the Garden, throughout the OT, Satan tempting Jesus, NT period, Tertullian's Montanism, Romanism, destructive liberalism of 19th and 20th century, Deism and Enlightenment, Machen/Princeton, secular relativism, to the Dr. Bart Erhman (Un. of North Carolina).

[Editor, PV: Emergents, Pentecostalism, Warren; it just part of the battle of the ages.]

We can expect attacks on God's Word, twisting it. Varied critical theories are discussed.

For seminarians of any Reformational background, this is the school to attend for the young man.

Dr. John MacArthur’s “The Truth War,” ix-xx

1. Some observations on Dr. John MacArthur’s “The Truth War” (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), ix-xx.

2. John is a Pastor, dispensational Baptist, and Calvinistic but is not Confessionally Reformed or liturgical…defects we believe. Nevertheless, he writes with boldness and accuracy at many points. His writing is clear, accessible, pastoral, evangelical (non-Confessional), and bold.

3. John turns his guns on Emergent distortionists like Rob Bell and Brian McClaren. The Emergents are an informal affiliation of communities who want to revamp doctrine, the church, worship, piety and approaches to truth. ... See More

4. Truth is “inherently hazy, indistinct, and uncertain--perhaps unknowable.” McClaren in Christianity Today says: “I don’t think we’ve got the Gospel right yet…I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”

5. John points to Zondervan’s “Emergent/YS” product line for youth specialties. In addition to John, we’d add that Zondervan is a bottom-line organization that has lost it’s Reformational roots, like Christianity Today. It’s about a buck and accommodation.

6. John points to martyrs in history who died for the truth. All the apostles were martyred, with perhaps the exception of St. John. Early apostolic leaders were martyred, such as Ignatius and Polycarp, both friends and disciples of St. John the Apostle.

7. Before the blood-thirsty mob in the Roman stadium, Polycarp was pressed to recant his faith. His response: “Eighty-six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me. How then shall I blaspheme my King who saved me.” We would add that Polycarp didn’t have the advanced teaching of the TBN-wolves to “blab and grab it,” “name and claim it, “and speak it into existence.” Polycarp hadn’t read Osteen’s, “Your Best Life Now.”

8. As a Reformed Anglican, the lives, stories and theologies of the Calvinistic Anglicans who were martyred under Queen Mary are near and dear to this scribe. John doesn’t mention it; he's a Baptist so it does not figure alot. But he's correct about the early church. We also think of the 1000's of French Calvinists murdered in 1572 in Paris. We scarcely doubt that the Emergents like Bell and McClaren have read a lick on the English Reformation. But John is making his point about early martyrs--men and women--who died for their faith.

9. John whacks the “entertainment-hungry churchgoers who pack today’s mega-churches.” Whack. While John has areas of theological error on our view, he’s bold and spot-on about many of them wouldn’t “take a bold stand for the truth…” Standing for the truth is the “furthest thing from most churchgoers thoughts.” Whack! Where’s the “slap button” on Facebook.

10. John refers to St. Paul’s admonition to the younger protégé, Timothy. 2 Tim.4.1-4 (NKJV):

“1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” The itching ears of goats. They turn their ears from truth by instinct.

11. Doctrine is “uncool” as John says and as the mega-churches allegedly advance. We know that Paul Crouch, Sr., of TBN says doctrine is “dooh-dooh and I’m tired of these heresy hunters.” Poor Paul. But John has the Emergents in his targets. We add that “Goat-Herding and Goat-Pleasing Ministries” might be appropriate titles.

12. John points us to the cosmic battle that Satan wages against His Majesty, Three-in-One. He observes that real Pastors are needed who will feed the flock with knowledge and understanding (Jer.3.15; Acts 20.28-31). He gives the doctrine on special and general revelation with the usual biblical texts. We won’t develop that now or here.

13. We find this book quite charming, delightful, correct, clear, very readable, and a salutary contribution for our times. It’s date is 2007.

14. We would recommend a few things: Modern Reformation, a skilled magazine, is running a series throughout 2010 on recovering the Scriptures at: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/modern-reformation/blog.html For the inclined, it’s worth the subscription.

15. Also join our engagement on Facebook entitled “Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN” at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=308173344359

16. Also, Reformation Anglicanism at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/ provides a variety of postings from a Confessional Calvinist and Anglican.

17. Lest we forget. John’s frontispiece has a commendable quote from Spurgeon along these lines. We summarize. 1) The Church is an Army (we’d prefer Marines, actually, but we love and respect soldiers, sailors, airmen and coasties…this is not in Spurgeon’s quote). 2) Christ is the “Prince of Peace,” that is the Gospel is the good news of reconciliation, justification, adoption, sanctification and the several other benefits that do accompany or follow from them. And good news it is! However, 3) the Church is the Church Militant on earth. As Spurgeon says, “The spotless purity of truth must always be at war with the blackness of heresy and lies.” Hear! Hear, Charles!

We stand right alongside John's position for truth and the Gospel. There is no other choice.

Whitaker's "Disputations on the Holy Scriptures Against the Papists," Ch.11-12, 80-86(Judith, Tobit)

Whitaker's "Disputations on the Holy Scriptures Against the Papists," Ch.11-12, 80-86(Judith, Tobit). Whitaker is dealing with the canon in general and, here, in particular, with the apocryphal sections of Tobit and Judith.

The false church in The Council of Trent "anathemetized" Confessional Catholics of the Reformation Churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) for their views of the OT and NT canon (consult the respective Confessions of Faith). We will post respective Confessional views

This raises the issue of "authority" which Whitaker will tackle later in his work against the Papists, e.g inspiration, authority, and the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

The photos below are from St. John's College, Cambridge, where Whitaker laboured in his work against the Romanist theologians, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Whitaker is fair, balanced, clear, academic, Reformed, and Calvinistic. In short, Whitaker is an English Reformed theologian.

http://www.archive.org/stream/disputationonhol00whituoft/disputationonhol00whituoft_djvu.txt

---------------------------------
CHAPTER X. OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT.

After having proved that those fragments which are stuck upon certain canonical books should be cut off, and plucked out from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should treat of those six entire apocryphal books.

And first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For, though it be quoted by the fathers, it does not thence follow that it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved : and as to its being called "divine" by Ambrose, the meaning is not to teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is a book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For although it is not truly canonical, yet it may be styled divine, as it was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canonical books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name of scripture. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by plain arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book, and the rest which are involved in the present controversy, from the canon of scripture ; and pretends that it is no wonder he should do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Yet, in the meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canonical, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being as yet not decided by any general council? Therefore, either this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which the church had not yet approved by its sanction and testimony.

Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures ! Therefore the catholic church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit 2 , he wonders at the importunity of those by whom he had been induced to translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unacquainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that Jerome hath rather translated some other person's version of this book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to canonicity.

CHAPTER XI. OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH.

Our adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. For Jerome tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod. Therefore, say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical. But this testimony injures our opponents' cause more than it helps it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted, with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical ?

Secondly, Jerome's words are, " We read that the synod of Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures." But where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Nicene synod had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea, which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture by the council of Nice.

Thirdly, " To be canonical scripture" is one thing, and " to be counted in the number of sacred scripture" is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that tills was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome's own words in the preface to the Proverbs. " The church." says he, " reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures 2 ." Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words ; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments : — first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question 3 : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee 4 . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished ; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome's version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, — a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical.

But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times were of which it professes to be the history. For the opinions of authors upon this subject are various ; nor is it needful that we should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the determinations of those who at present sway the Romish schools. Sixtus Senensis (Lib. vm. Haer. 11) writes, that he who is called Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes, and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor ; and the Persian kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon.

But he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Manasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon, and after a long while set at liberty. He supposes, therefore, that these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, following Melchior Canus, (Lib. 11. c. 16) : which opinion (although repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chronicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, Driedo and others,) seems yet much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian captivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh.

First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war, he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was, and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short time before taken captive by the king of the Chaldeans, and carried into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite. For they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country, the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare, their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon this people, wasted Judrea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.

Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judaea, the temple was overthrown. For these are the very words of Achior, in the Greek text : O vaos tou Qeov aurwv eyevrjOrj et? ecafpos kol a\ TroXeis avTwv eKpaTqOrjarav. " The temple of the Jews at Jerusalem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities occupied." But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no subversion of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the great captivity took place.

Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed them so ignominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter. For the Jews had then experienced both the power and the clemency of the Babylonians.

Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about Holofernes ; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it.

Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more than 105 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years. But now, when Holofernes was in Judaea, Judith had not passed the flower of her age ; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. xii. : so that, after this victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years. For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and reigned two years; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sovereignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. How can we assign that long peace to such times as these ?

Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means disposed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in Manasseh's time. For Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah, who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon. For, as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name became hereditary in the line of Babylonian kings : but there is no evidence that they all went by that name before him.

We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not suit the times of Manasseh. And the argument which led Bellarmine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim, says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth chapter of Judith; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isai. xxii. and 2 Kings xviii. For he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master of the royal household, as others ; but who neither was, nor could have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these times. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his opinion concerning the history of Judith.

Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. 11. anno mundi 3560 l ) assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly. For he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity ; that he sent Holofernes into Judsea in the 13th year of his reign, and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon. But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times. For how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long time after it? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed to be thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself king of the Jews ? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits with these transactions. For it is manifest that none of these three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer than these.

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. "The Preface to the Second Edition," pp. xxxi-xl

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. "The Preface to the Second Edition," pp. xxxi-xli. We publish the second preface to the second edition, 12 years after the first edition, in search of updates by Goode on the development of Tractarianism. Tractarianism was emerging, but given their practice of "reserve" or "economy," that is, the self-conscious practice of "secrecy" that Newman found in second century Christianity (to avoid imperial persecutions), it was hard at first to connect the dots. Goode refers to the Tractarian duplicities in 1853. Other Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans have pointed this up as well, but little is now about the secretive and duplictous behaviours of the Tractarians.

This is a most thorough refutation of the Roman notion that the Bible cannot stand as the sufficient source of saving truth. The massive case is developed from the early church fathers down to the romanizing Oxford Movement of Goode’s own day.

We believe this work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.

This has collateral, practical and pastoral implications. 1) The canonicity, inspiration, authority, sovereignty, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scriptures, in light of charismania, extra-canonical revelations (TBN, 700 Club, and associated enthusiasts). 2) The continuuing inconsistencies between Reformed, Confessional, Evangelical Anglicanism and the Tractarianism in the ACNA, to wit, Bp. Jack Iker avering Tract XC and the disavowal of Reformed thinking. Anglo-Catholicism has no place in authentic Anglicanism. 3) Women's ordination and relativization of the text to religious pluralism. 4) The serious flirtations of contemporary evangelicalism with false and mysticist entities, e.g. Emergent Church, etc. 5) The role of the Bible in reading, home life, education, and pulpit exposition. 6) The influx of expatriates from non-liturgical traditions without exposure to the classical English Reformed faith and their "evangelical" enthusiasm for Anglicanism without information and with their vulnerabilities. I have seen this often...new joins falling for Anglo-Catholicism like "reformed drunks" with little background in the issue. I have one such sop in mind, but there are more. I have no use for it. Bob Duncan, ACNA, will not discipline these modern Tractarians. Nor will the double-dealing REC Bishops. 7) The absence of a genuinely consistent and authentic Reformed and Protestant voice in doctrine, worship and piety, in the Anglican way.

Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered.

Volume One is free and downloadable at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt

---------------------------
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Since the first edition of this work was published, the true nature and tendency of Tractarianism have been so fully proved, that it seems hardly necessary here to address any further warnings to the Reader on that point. But no one can view the present state of our Church without feeling, that, notwithstanding the Romish character of the movement, and the large secession it has caused from our ranks in the direction of Rome, it has produced an efifect upon our Church, the consequences of
which are likely to be at least of long duration and serious moment.

When the conflict commenced by the publication of the " Tracts for the Times," the almost total neglect of theological studies had left the great mass of the Clergy an easy prey to the most superficial writers on the subject of theology. Almost any representation of the doctrines of the Fathers, and even
of our own great divines of former times, might be made with comparative impunity, for few knew, or cared to know, what they were. The state of things among us was precisely such as enables a few earnest men of settled purpose and strong will, especially if not over scrupulous in the means used for the attainment of their end, to stamp upon the prevailing tone of the theology of a Church, almost any character they please. And largely have the Tractators availed themselves of the facilities afforded them by these and other circumstance, which a future historian may havei less difficulty than a contemporaneous one in specifying, to carry on their schemes for 'unprotestantizing " our Church.

I have already noticed, however, in the Preface to the first edition of this work, the various causes which conspired to aid the efforts of the Tractators at the commencement of their course, in the promotion of their designs; and among them, one, — adverted to in pp. xxiii, xxiv, — which I
acknowledge with thankfulness has long ceased to exist, I mean that spirit of hostility to the Church, which grew out of the peculiar political circumstances of the period. We have reason to be grateful to the good providence of God, that amidst all the drawbacks which the manifold practical abuses
and corruptions existing in our Church present to the confidence and affection of the people, the spirit of active hostility exhibited on the part of some, at the period alluded to, has either subsided
or become innocuous, and the alienation of mind existing in others has issued in the work, not of destruction, but of conservative reform.

Such a movement, however, as that made by the authors of the ' Tracts for the Times,'' and their adherents, involving great and important principles, if it once attains a hold upon the public mind, has a course to run, longer or shorter according to circumstances, which nothing can wholly prevent. It ought
not, therefore, to be a matter for surprise, that the effect produced by the writings and labors of the Tractarian party, however erroneous and opposed to the genuine doctrine of our Church, has been of a deep, extensive, and lasting kind. Rather ought we to be prepared to view it as but the commencement of a struggle, which will be long continued, for the re-establishment in our Church of those principles and practices which she repudiated at the Reformation.

It is impossible for one who reads with any degree of attention the history of our Church since that period, not to remark, how, at various subsequent times, retrograde principles have been at work, modifying the views put forth by all our great divines of the Reformation era, gradually altering the current tone of our theology, and even, as at the period of the Restoration, when a few Laudian divines were in the ascendant, tampering, as far as the circumstances of the times would permit, with our public Formularies.

He who seeks a proof of this, may find it exhibited in a very remarkable way, by taking the works of any number of the bishops and divines of leading station in our Church for the first fifty years after its settlement on its present basis, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and comparing them with those of the same number of persons in a similar position at any period since the time of Laud. Few, I believe, have any notion of the difference of the theological atmosphere (so to speak) in which such a person would find himself in the two cases. And it would be a curious subject of inquiry, how many of the (so called) High Churchmen of the present day would have had even a locus standi left them in our Church, if the views held by the former as the doctrines of our Church, and as established by the Formularies they themselves drew up, had been made the standard by which those Formularies were to be interpreted. To that precise standard, I for my part have no desire that those who minister in our Church should be limited. But surely there are bounds, within which the interpretation given to those Formularies, by those who are admitted to the ministerial office in our Church on the condition of their belief in the doctrines there laid down, ought to be found. And if there are any, they are certainly such as to exclude an Anii-Protestant interpretation of Protestant Articles.

It may be right on the part of those who are the genuine doctrinal successors of our Reformers, to overlook the change in the position assigned in our Church for the last two centuries to the doctrines they hold, and to leave even the ascendancy of views scarcely tolerated in our Church for many years after the Reformation, without a protest, to God's providential dispensations. But when those views reach a point at which they become almost identical with those of Rome itself, then surely it becomes the duty of such as desire to preserve to their country the blessings of the Reformation, to call public attention to the dangers to which our Church is exposed.

That such is the case at the present time, few will be disposed to deny. And among the signs of the times indicating the nature of the theology which is being pressed upon our Church, even in some places of the highest authority the subject of this work leads me more particularly to notice the last Charge
of the Bishop of Oxford. In that address to his clergy his Lordship touches upon a subject of undoubtedly great importance, and one which demands the attention of all who have a regard for the souls of men, namely, "our danger from the spirit of infidelity," (pp. 80 et seq.) But in his description
of the mode in which this spirit is manifested, and more especially of the way in which it is to be encountered, we meet with an enunciation of views and principles painfully divergent from those upon which our Protestant Church stands. He tells us, that " the one thing which it resists is authority : it would '' PLACE EVERY SINGLE SOUL IN DIRECT AND INDEPENDENT COMMUNION WITH THE CREATIVE Spirit of whose nature he partakes, and to whom alone he is responsible. So far as Christianity promotes this, it is to be encouraged ; but it is not, " they urge, to be borne, that any dogma should be enforced on such seekers after truth by any external authority as essential to salvation, or in itself necessarily true; or any medium' interposed between their spirits and the Universal Father, In their first stage, therefore, these principles begin commonly by resisting the authority of the Church, as that which meets them most immediately ; they proceed to raise questions as to the "inspiration of some parts of Holy Scripture; they end by denying altogether its authority, and leaving their victim with an entire unbelief as to the objective truth of any spiritual " agency beyond those of the one Great Spirit of the Universe, "and his own soul as an emanation from Him, seeking reunion with Him." And he refers to the history of the author of " The Phases of Faith," as given by himself, in illustration of these remarks ; and assures us, that " he has marked down 'with the utmost accuracy the logical sequence of every one
'of his steps, from an ardent love of Evangelical truth, combined " with a denial of all spiritual authority save in the letter of the" Written Word, down to its close, in a mystical but universal " scepticism" (pp. 80, 81.) So that his Lordship supposes, that if a man begins with "an ardent love of Evangelical truth,"
but denies all spiritual authority but that of tbe Holy Scriptures ''the logical sequence" will be ''a mystical but universal scepticism." " It is with this spirit," the Right Rev. Prelate tells us, ''in unnumbered degrees, forms, and combinations, that we have to struggle ;" and he assures us, that it ''can be " successfully resisted amongst ourselves only by a full and "faithful maintenance of the teaching and authority of our
"Church." (p. 81.)

And he proceeds to quote, as an exemplification of this spirit. Dr. Arnold's teaching on the subject of the Church, contrasting with it what he considers the true doctrine, namely, that "we" are under an appointed spiritual economy, in which human " instruments and outward acts are made the channels of Divine grace; that we are in a spiritual kingdom, which has its appointed officers, through whom God works ;" (p. 88 ;) in short, that we derive all spiritual gifts and graces through ordinances ministered by the clergy of the Apostolic Succession; " the constitution of the Church" " securing for men" " access
to God ;" (p. 81 ;) and " the Church " being dwelt in by the "Spirit of Grod, and so becoming an instrument whereby, through " appointed channels, the gifts of the Spirit are ministered to "men." (p. 85.)

To any one who has but an ordinary acquaintance with such subjects, the views and principles pervading these remarks are too manifest to need one word to point out their seriously anti-
Protestant character. But, being written more particularly against those who deny the inspiration of parts of Holy Scripture, and maintain some kindred errors, they may not, in the case of many readers, attract the attention they deserve. But the system here advocated is scarcely one step removed from
Romanism. So far as concerns the views of Dr. Arnold or others here alluded to, this is not the place to discuss them, but to the system here put forward as their opponent it is necessary to direct attention, as it is in fact the Tractarian system developed to its full proportions ; and if such a system ever prevails in our Church, it will not be long before she will again be absorbed in the Romish Apostasy. The great fundamental principles upon which Popciy rests are precisely those here advocated, namely, (1) the interposition of a mediating priest through whose ministrations alone we can hold communion with God,
and the consequent denial of the soul's'' direct and independent communion" with Him, (2) the denial of the supremacy of '' the written word" to the consciences of individuals, and the setting up of another " spiritual authority" in " the teaching and authority of the Church," that is, the clergy, superior to
it ; and (3) the making the laity of the Church dependent upon the clergy for all spiritual gifts and graces.

As it respects the first and last of these points, I must content myself here with thus pointing them out to the reader's notice. But as it respects the second, which is intimately connected with the subject of this work, there is one remark which I cannot but offer, and that is, that it is a doctrine which, what-
ever may be its character in other respects, is at least utterly subversive of the very foundation upon which the Reformed Church of England stands. With the doctrine of the Supremacy of Holy Scripture to the consciences of individuals, and the right of private judgment in contradistinction to '' the authority
of the Church," she stands or falls. For, her Reformation was effected by comparatively a few individuals acting against the authority of the Church both of the East and West, and going back (as one of her most illustrious Reformers, Bishop Jewel, tells us) to the word of God, to draw from it the pure doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. The faith of almost the whole Catholic Church was at the time, and had been for centuries, opposed to that which she established as the foundation upon which she
was built up. And that which alone enabled her to effect her Reformation was, the gracious providence of God inclining the Civil Power to aid a minority of the clergy and laity in re-establishing a Scriptural faith in the place of the corrupt system of Rome. The very ground, therefore, upon which our Church
stands, is that of the right of private judgment ; and the question it exactly corresponds with the thesis recently offered to be maintained by against Dr. Gaussen at Geneva, which was this, — " The
supernatural faith necessary to salvation has for foundation and for rule, not the Bible submitted to private judgment, or interpreted by the reason of eacli individual, which is the foundation of all heresies, and the source of all errors, but the infallible authority of the Church as interpreter."

Of tbe justice of her charge of heterodoxy against so large a portion of Christendom she leaves to the judgment of the great day. When, therefore, her ministers advocate the doctrine of "the authority of the Church" over the consciences of men, they are in fact subverting the very foundations on which their Church is built. And if they succeed in impressing their doctrines on the minds of men, the necessary consequence, in the case of well-informed persons of ingenuous and independent minds, is a conviction, that the Reformed Church of England is built upon a foundation that will not stand the test of investgation. And the result of such a conviction is obvious. This is now, alas ! no mere theoretical speculation. We have seen the operation of the doctrine in producing the conviction, and the result to which that conviction has led, in a way that can leave no doubt what is the legitimate consequence of such a tenet.

The effects upon our Church, and the country at large, in various ways, from the spread of such views within her communion, are of no trivial moment, even to the mere politician. But the political dangers of Popery having been supposed to cease with the death of the last Popish Pretender, the doctrine
maintained by the clergy has been to the State a matter of comparative indifference. How far prudently so, time will jhow. It is not a matter of little moment to any State what are the doctrines and principles taught by the clergy. The history of those countries in which Romanism has been predominant, espe-
cially Ireland, is a sufficient proof of the effect of its principles upon the general condition and interests of any community in which it holds sway.

It only remains for me to give some account of the present edition of this work. As it respects, then, the entire substance of the work, the doctrine maintained, and all the arguments of any importance by which it was defended, the present edition will be found altogether to correspond with the last. Further
reading and observation have only confirmed me in the views advocated, and led me more and more to feel their importance, and their consonancy with the doctrine of our Church. In fact, the more consideration I give to the matter, the more difficult I find it to understand how any one can reconcile subscription to our Formularies with the system of doctrine put forth by the Tractarian party, and the deeper the conviction, that if that system is allowed to prevail in our Church, its days, as a Protestant Church, are numbered.

But while the work, so far, remains the same, I have carefully revised it throughout ; and the remarks made on the former edition, and the progress of the controversy, have led me to make various additions in different parts, including a final chapter containing a few general remarks on the whole
subject. Among the additions will be found a new section, at the end of Chapter v., pointing out the remarkable testimony afforded to the correctness of the view here maintained of the famous Canon of Vincent of Lerins, by Mr. Newman's total abandonment of the position originally taken up by him, and
here opposed, respecting it. The notion of Primitive Catholic Consent, ascertained by the application of the Vincentian Canon, being a sure guide to the truth and part of the Rule of faith, —which he originally advocated with such unbounded confidence, —has been exchanged by him for the doctrine of Development.

In this edition, also, most of the quotations from the Fathers have been again collated with the originals, and a few more added. But it seemed needless much to increase their number. The same may be said of the quotations from the divines of our own Church. They might easily have been increased fifty or a hundred-fold from the writings of the most eminent bishops and doctors of our Church. But it would have been only a useless trial of the patience of the reader. And the Tractators certainly
cannot object to have their views tested by a selection of the most eminent and able of the witnesses they have themselves chosen.

To the Tractarian answer given to the former edition of this work, in a Review written in the British Critic, by one who not long after passed over to the Church of Rome, my reply will be found in connexion with those parts of the work to which the animadversions applied, and I believe there is no point of any moment touched upon in that Review which I have not noticed. It in worthy of observatioii, that the writer of this Review, though a leading man of the party, and speaking in the Review as one
thoroughly acquainted with the writings of the Fathers and the state of things in the early Church was his own subsequent admission, very little acquainted with them. And I might add, that what the Review pretty clearly indicates as to his own views, was shortly after admitted by himself even before his departure to Rome, namely, that some of the Articles of our Church he could only subscribe in a non-natural sense, maintaining even that one of them contains an ' atrocious and most immoral sentiment.' This is the more observable, as he clearly speaks of it as a matter in which his whole party were in a similar position, and pleads in their defence, that,in his view, the party opposed to them were equally obliged to take other statements in our Formularies in a similar non-natural sense; forgetting, not
merely that his view of the matter does not bind the consciences of others, but also that, even if his charge were a just one, companionship in sin is no palliation of the fault. And in the midst of these admissions he maintains as " the key to a moral and religious knowledge," and the " leading idea" of his work, that ''careful moral discipline is the necessary foundation whereon alone Christian faith can be reared" ( Warde's Ideal of a Christian Church. Lond. 1844. Pref. p. vii.) How far, therefore, even
according to his own view of the matter, his party, while so acting, could expect to become acquainted with the true nature of the Christian faith, is a subject for his and their serious consideration; nay, whether there is not good ground for fear, according to his own principles, that, under such circumstances, it was not to be expected that they should arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

It is with sorrow and reluctance that I point the attention of the reader to such melancholy exhibitions of the self-deluding spirit in which men sometimes allow themselves to indulge. And were it only one of a few isolated cases, I should gladly have left it without notice. But, in fact, the case is one of which it is
to be feared hundreds remain among us, while but few comparatively have taken the more honest course of quitting a ministry which they can only hold upon such terms. And it is absolutely necessary that the public should be acquainted with the real views and principles of the leaders of a party which now has its ramifications through the whole length and breadth of the Church, and is aiming, accoidiug to the confession of Dr. Pusey himself at the extermination of all doctrines opposed to their system.

The sentiment with which Mr. Newman commenced his career is one which might alone serve to place us on our guard, and I must add is to my mind a sufficient, but painful, explanation of his whole subsequent course. In his work entitled, " The Arians of the Fourth Century" published in 1833, just about the period when the "Tracts" commenced advocating " the mode of arguing and teaching " '' called economical by the ancients"' he thus describes its nature, — 'The Alexandrian father [Clement] who has already been referred to, accurately describes the rules which " should guide the Christian in speaking and acting economically. " Being ever persuaded of the omnipresence of God," he says, " and ashamed to come short of the truth, he is satisfied with " the approval of God, and of his own conscience. Whatever is " in his mind, is also on his tongue ; towards those who are fit " recipients, both in speaking and living, he harmonizes his profession with his opinions. He both thinks and speaks the " truth, EXCEPT WHEN CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY, AND *' THEN, AS A PHYSICIAN FOR THE OOOD OF HIS PATIENTS, HE '' WILL BE FALSE, OR UTTER A FALSEHOOD, AS THE SOPHISTS SAY.

" . . . Nothing, however, but his neighbour's good will lead him "to jdo this, . . . He gives himself up /or the Church/ 8m;. " (Clem. Strom, vii. 8, 9.)'' (pp. 72; 81, 82.) I leave this passage without comment in the hands of the reader.

The Reviewer greatly complains at my leaving so much the authorities I have quoted to speak for themselves, and regrets my want of "the poetical and imaginative temper " which '' is absolutely necessary in such inquiries." This defect, I confess, I have not attempted to supply. It appears to me that the less " imagination " has to do with such matters, the better. And I must assure my censor, that if he has found my array of authorities wearisome, I have found it still more so to wade through
those seas of philosophizing disquisitions in which his party delight to indulge, founded upon imaginations, the erroneousness of which a very small amount of research is sufficient to demonstrate. A discourse upon the excellence and value of 'Catholic Consent " and our duty to believe and do what "every body, always, everywhere" has believed and done, however beautiful in itself, is to my mind as uninteresting an affair as a disquisition founded on the notion that all the ancients were of precisely the same size and height. I have, therefore, dealt by others as I would wish to be dealt
by myself, and applied myself principally to the task of supplying the reader with those facts and authorities which may enable him to judge for himself on the points at issue. For instance, to meet the dream of ''Catholic consent" I have supplied the reader with passages from the Fathers directly opposed
to each other. To show what was their view as to the alleged obscurity of Scripture, I have placed before the reader abundant extracts testifying to its self-sufficiency and manifest plainness in all necessary points. And so on other points. In my humble apprehension, men really in search after the truth will prefer this mode of dealing with the matter to any poetic and imaginative ducursus on the subject, written on the supposition that "Catholic" principles must be true, and the study of the Fathers
quite unnecessary.

To this edition are added three Indices, which, it is hoped, will be a great help to those who desire to make use of the work beyond a general perusal. The first, which is an ''Index of the Works cited" I have drawn up myself; the two others have been compiled by a gentleman who is favorably known to
the public as an author ; but for them I must not be held answerable.

A singular misstatement respecting the former edition, emanating from a quarter where it must have been altogether the result of some mistake, the reader will find noticed below.

I trust I may be permitted, without being supposed to

footnote. * I allode to a passage in the Memoir of the Rev. Joniab Pratt, p. 351, where an extract is given from one of Mr. Pratt's s letters stating, respecting the worst contained in these volumes, — ' Bishop Meade of Virginia was in London last summer, and rendered Mr. Goode advice and assistance in this work." How such a misapprehension could have arisen, I know not ; and I am anxious to correct it, as if such a thing had occurred, either on the part of Bishop Meade or any other person I should have felt it a duty to have acknowledged the obligation. The truth, however, is, that not the slightest commnunication ever passed between the Bishop, or any other individual, and myself, respecting anything in the work previous to its publication. In fact, the Bishop and myself were total strangers.

arrogate any undue claims to express my thankfulness for the way in which the former edition of this work was received, and the encouragement given me to hope, that it might not be without its use in strengthening the foundation on which our belief in the incalculably important doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the sole Divine Rule of faith and practice rests. That doctrine is at the root of Protestantism. With it Protestantism stands or falls. Any Church that surrenders that doctrine becomes the slave of a human priesthood ; and, as all experience shows, will be dragged by that priesthood, according to the natural course of human infirmity, into the depths of superstition and idolatry. It is therefore a ground for thankfulness to have been permitted in any way to do service in such a cause.
In the present day more especially, when Popery is again lifting its head among us, and an energetic and unscrupulous party in our own Church has formed a " conspiracy"' (to use their own
term) to " un-Protestantize" her, and justly regards a belief in the doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the great obstacle to its success, it is a matter of the deepest moment to the welfare of our Church, that the public mind should be made acquainted with the proofs and evidence on which it stands, and the groundlessness of the arguments and misapplication of the testimonies by which it has been assailed. To say nothing of the mistake, now admitted by Mr. Newman, of the reference to the Fathers for"Cathohc consent,'' never surely was the blindness of party zeal more displayed, than in the Catenas put forth by the Tractarian party, for the purpose of leading the public to suppose, that their views were held by those great divines of our Church who have, in the most express and direct terms, opposed the doctrine of which they were cited as the advocates. This is one of the most painful parts of the subject ; and while it is to be feared, that by this means a large portion to each other, until he called upon me just before his return to America, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the work so far as it was then printed ; and about three-fourths of it had then passed through the press. A letter from the
Bishop on the subject, confirming the above statement, was published shortly after the appearance of the Memoir ; but it seems unnecessary to dwell further on the point.

Of the public has been first misled and then brought to love the views into which it has been as it were, entrapped, the effect upon more ingenuous minds has been, to cause them to leave a communion which they could only adhere to through a palpable misrepresentation of the doctrines both of her Formularies and the great body of her divines. But alas ! a larger number remain, whose minds appear too much absorbed by the object they have in view, to allow them calmly to consider the nature of the means by which they are seeking to attain their end ; and we have been long ago warned by Dr. Pusey, that the struggle in owr Church will be continued, until the principles he advocates are either ejectedy or triumph and become supreme. With this warning before us, to shut our eyes to the momentous character of the conflict going on among us, and act as if the Protestant principles of our Church were exposed to no dangers, or not worth contending for, may obtain in this world the praise of moderation and its attendant privileges, and save us from much trouble and reproach, but will with difficulty be reconciled with the solemn engagements entered into by us on our undertaking the ministerial office. This is my apology, if any is needed, for the republication of this work. May He who condescends to work by the feeblest instruments make it effectual for the estabUshment of his truth, nullifying what may be erroneous, and giving His blessing to that which is consonant with his word and will.

W. GOODE.

31. Charterhouse Square,
June 21, 1853.