Part 5

{29a} See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497.

{29b} For an example, see Blanco White’s Evidence, p. 39.

{29c} See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.

{30} It may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example of implicit faith, recorded by various writers, and which has met with different degrees of Roman Catholic praise and of Protestant censure. An ignorant collier of the Romish persuasion was asked, what it was that he believed, and answered, “I believe what the Church believes.” The questioner rejoined: “What then does the Church believe?” He replied: “The Church believes what I believe.” The other, anxious for particulars, resumed his interrogatories: “Tell me, then, I pray you, what is it that you and the Church both believe?” To which the collier could only give this answer: “Why, truly, sir, the Church and I both believe the same thing.”—Campbell’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 259.

{32a} The true theory of development is ably stated by Bishop Butler in his Analogy, part ii. chap. 3, and may be usefully contrasted with the newly-devised dogma of Popery.

{32b} “Certainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies upon it, will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf; whereas if others interpret for him, they may do it more remissly, or more fraudulently.”—_Works of Hen. More_, p. 454.

“As the case stands in religion, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine, reason, and thinking, and studying, and examination, and industry, and search, though they be necessary tools to be made use of for the putting a man into good hands, yet after he is in those hands, he is to throw all these things away, and never after to make use of them. Doth this look like a doctrine of God? No, certainly.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. vii. p. 29.

{33} Psalm xxv. 14; xxxii. 8; xxv. 8, 9; xv. 12, 13. Prov. li. 1–5; iii. 5, 6; x. 30, 31. James i. 5. Matt. vii. 12. John vii. 17.

{34a} 2 Tim. iii. 16.

{34b} John v. 39.

{34c} 1 Thess. v. 21.

{34d} 1 Pet. iii. 15.

{34e} For proofs and illustrations of this point, drawn from Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome, Basil, and Augustin, see Faber’s “Difficulties of Romanism.”

{34f} See note p. 33.

{34g} John vii. 17. Sermons of Bishop Taylor, vol. vi. p. 402.

{35} Book of Common Prayer.

{36a} _Imprimis vero_, _videbunt_ (Concionatores) _ne quid unquam doceant pro concione_, _quod a populo religiosè teneri et credi velint_, _nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ veteris aut novi testamenti_: _quodque ex illâ ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi collegerint_.—Sparrow, Collect, p. 238. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this canon is not included among those of 1603.

{36b} See chap. vii. of Dr. Waterland’s Treatise on the Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is discussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability. Similar observations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. See vol. vii. of his Works, edited by Bishop Van Mildert.

{37a} James iii. 17.

{37b} 2 Cor. xiii. 5.

{38a} Heb. vi. 11; x. 22.

{38b} Phil. iii. 13.

{38c} Rom. viii. 35–39.