{11} Tract 90, p. 82. They affirm that their interpretation of the Articles was intended to be admissible, though not that which the authors took themselves. This is the old way of putting darkness for light further carried out. Dr. Powell, Archdeacon of Colchester, and Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, preached a sermon some forty years ago to instruct the University in the matter of subscribing to the Articles. And he says, “Where the _original sense_ is one, and the _received_ another, the subscriber is at liberty to use them in either.” But he never went so far as to say that the subsequently received sense was _intended to be admissible_ by the compilers. And Dr. Hey, the Norrisian Professor, speaks of “a religious society changing its doctrines, and yet retaining the expressions by which they were defined;” and says, “In whatever degree the Articles grow obsolete, the Injunction, (that is, the Royal Declaration,) must grow so,” notwithstanding it commands interpretation in the literal sense; and “that a man, by speaking according to the literal sense, may speak falsehood.”—Lectures, vol. ii. p. 68, 72, 74. This mode of dealing with the Articles, when strongly carried out, as in the present case, issues, of course, in a total change. See Overton, p. 22–26. {12} British Critic, July, 1841, p. 45. {13a} Tracts for the Times, No, 71, p. 8, No. 78, p. 2. {13b} Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jewel, Hooker, Morton, Hall, Laud, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and many others. See Goode’s Divine Rule, ii. 484, &c. The importance of this question, according to the testimony of Roman Catholics themselves, is evident from such passages as the following from Lumper, Hist. Theol. vol. iii. p. 362. “If Protestants would admit that the complete Rule of Faith is Scripture joined with Divine Tradition, all the other controversies between us and them would soon cease.” See Goode, i. 103. {14} 2 Tim. iii. 15–17. {15a} Cor. ii. 2, and i. 23. {15b} In Tract 81, p, 75, adverting to expressions including the terms _Christ crucified_, they say, “It may be seen by an attention to the context in all the passages, where these expressions occur, that it is a very different view, and in fact the opposite to the modern notion, which St. Paul always intends by it. It is the necessity of OUR being crucified to the world; it is OUR humiliation together with Him; mortification of the flesh; being made conformable to His sufferings and death. It was a doctrine which was foolishness to the wise, and an offence to the Jew, on account of the debasement of the natural man which it implied.” {16a} Brit. Crit. for April, 1842, p. 446. {16b} Newman’s Lectures on Justification, p. 160, 236, 247. {16c} Pusey’s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 71. {16d} Newman’s Lecture on Justification, p. 68. {16e} Tract 90, p. 13. {17} Tract 80 and 87.