u 
 
 8*
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 

 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
 
 LONDON 
 
 GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.
 
 TREATISE 
 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST 
 
 DESIGNED CHIEFLY 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 X 
 
 REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, 
 REVISED AND ENLARGED. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, 
 AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1842.
 
 13V 
 
 IsOO 
 
 /8'if 2. 
 
 v,i 
 ^p. 
 
 TO 
 THE MOST REVEREND FATHERS IN CHRIST, 
 
 WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 
 
 PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND; 
 
 AND 
 
 JOHN GEORGE, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH, 
 
 PRIMATE OF ALL IRELAND; 
 
 (WITH THEIR GRACES' PERMISSION) 
 
 MOST RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY 
 
 INSCRIBED. 
 
 11.RP84S
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 TH E chief design of the following work is to supply some Design of 
 answer to the assertions so frequently made, that individuals 
 are not bound to submit to any ecclesiastical authority what- 
 ever ; or that if they are, they must, in consistency, accept 
 Romanism, with all its claims and all its errors. 
 
 Lamentable indeed would have been our condition, had no 
 alternative been left between unbounded licence of belief and 
 practice, and the adoption of a system, the evils of which are as 
 clear as the noon-day sun ; had it been impossible to retain, 
 with a firm and reasonable faith, the doctrines " once delivered 
 to the saints," without mingling with them the corrupt inven- 
 tions of man. 
 
 But we dare not judge so of the Gospel ; we dare not thus 
 far distrust the wisdom of its divine Author, as to conceive 
 that His Church has been left without the power of holding her 
 course apart from Rationalism and Anarchy on the one hand, 
 and from Superstition on the other. And though we may 
 not trace the path with absolute certainty in all its minute 
 details, we must be able to discern enough to establish our 
 faith on a firm and immoveable basis, and to submit our prac- 
 tice to the direction of lawful authority.
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 In developing the system by which the Church of God is 
 guided and governed, we have to encounter several unsound 
 and dangerous theories. 
 Latitudina- I. I n opposition to the principles of those who contend for 
 
 rian theory ,.,-, . .. . , n 
 
 rejected, the right of an unrestricted exercise of private judgment in all 
 matters connected with religion, and who would accordingly 
 relieve men from the obligation of adhering to any particular 
 creeds, sacraments, doctrine, discipline, or church communion, 
 it will be the object of this work to show, that all Christians 
 are under the restraint of certain ordinances, laws, and autho- 
 rities, human as well as divine ; and in particular, that God 
 has admonished believers in all ages 8 to be members of a 
 visible church b , which either actually or virtually retains one 
 true faith c , which is holy in its doctrine d , universal in its 
 extent e , apostolical in its derivation and ministry f ; and that,- 
 as no particular branch of this church has a right voluntarily 
 to separate from the remainder, so individuals cannot lawfully 
 separate themselves voluntarily from that particular branch of 
 the church of which they are members g . 
 
 It will be shown, further, that the received doctrine or tra- 
 dition of the universal church in all ages from the beginning, 
 possesses so great an authority, that it ought to outweigh any 
 private interpretation of texts by which individuals may seek 
 to justify their rejection of the creeds and received articles of 
 faith of the universal church h ; and that the doctrines of the 
 genuine oecumenical synods approved by the whole Christian 
 world, and deduced from holy scripture, are of an irrefragable 
 authority, to which all individuals, and all branches of the 
 church, are bound to adhere l . 
 
 The validity of our scriptural proofs of the creeds and 
 articles of faith being thus established by the corroborative 
 testimony of the universal church, the faith of Christians is 
 
 a Part i. chap. i. f Chap. viii. 
 
 b Chap. iii. Chap. iv. sect. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 c Chap. v. h Part iii. chap. iii. 
 
 d Chap. vi. ' Part iv. chap. i. iv. 
 e Chap. vii.
 
 PREFACE. ix 
 
 evidently ONE, UNALTERABLE, IMMUTABLE, and NOT LIABLE 
 
 TO ERROR OR UNCERTAINTY. 
 
 With reference to the duties of individuals to their par- 
 ticular churches, it will be shown, that the churches of the 
 British or Anglo-catholic communion have so many external 
 signs or notes k of being a portion of the universal church, that 
 it is not necessary to establish their soundness by proving in 
 detail all their doctrines and discipline to be conformable to 
 the word of God ; but that their general and external charac- 
 teristics should determine their members to remain attached 
 to their communion l . 
 
 It will also appear, that the Reformation of the British 
 churches in the sixteenth century, was conducted in such a 
 mode, and on such principles, as to afford every reasonable 
 security for the continuity of their faith, and to exempt them 
 from all just imputation of heresy or schism m . 
 
 I shall endeavour, further, to prove, that these churches, 
 like other branches of the universal church, are authorized to 
 make regulations in discipline obligatory on their members n ; 
 and that, while they have no pretensions to infallibility, they 
 may enforce the profession of the catholic faith established by 
 scripture, and supported by universal tradition and the decrees 
 of oecumenical synods ; may suppress needless controversies?; 
 and may require their ministers to teach such doctrines as are 
 at least probably or certainly true, and essential to the unity 
 and well-being of the Church ; even though they be not articles 
 of faith i. 
 
 The measure of restraint thus imposed on the liberty of 
 thought and action, seems to be the very least which is con- 
 sistent with the maintenance of any fixed faith, any established 
 order, any church communion whatever. If men are at liberty 
 to misinterpret scripture, in direct opposition to the authority 
 of their spiritual pastors, confirmed by the united judgment of 
 
 k Part i. chap. ii. Part iv. chap. xiii. xiv. 
 
 1 Part i. chap. x. f Part iv. chap. xiv. sect. 2. 
 
 m Part ii. Ibid. 
 Part iii. ch. iv. ; part iv. ch. xvi.
 
 x PREFACE. 
 
 Christians in all ages, Christianity must speedily become a 
 mass of anarchy and confusion, totally unworthy of the Author 
 from whom it has proceeded. 
 
 Romanism IT. We have, in the second place, to prove, that the main- 
 tenance of a sufficient ecclesiastical authority does not lead, 
 by any necessary inference, to the adoption of the Romish 
 system. 
 
 If, then, we maintain, that separation from particular 
 churches, and from the universal church, is unjustifiable, we 
 also deny the further inference of Romanists, that the com- 
 munion of the universal church itself can never be interrupted ; 
 that divisions between churches always infer formal schism or 
 heresy on one side or the other 1 . And hence, we deny the 
 very basis of that argument by which the claim of the Roman 
 communion to be the whole universal church, is deduced from 
 a comparison of its external characteristics with those of all 
 other churches and sects ; assuming as its first principle, that 
 the universal church can only exist in one communion. 
 
 It will also be found on examination, that the external notes 
 or characteristics of the Christian church are applicable to 
 such an extent, not merely to the Roman churches % but to 
 the Oriental *, and the Anglo-catholic u ; that the pretensions 
 of the latter to be portions of the universal church, cannot be 
 reasonably disputed ; and therefore that the Roman is not the 
 whole universal church *. 
 
 If we contend, that there is an authority in the genuine 
 universal tradition of all ages, we do not allow that every tra- 
 dition commonly received in the Roman communion can lay 
 claim to such an authority ; since it is certain, that even in 
 the universal church, as well as in every portion of it, modern 
 and erroneous opinions, and even heresies and idolatries, may 
 often be widely prevalent 5 ". Hence we are at liberty, con- 
 sistently with our principle, to reject any errors, heresies, and 
 
 r Part i. chap. iv. sect. 4. u Chap. x. 
 
 " Chap. xi. * Chap. xi. sect. 3. 
 
 1 Chap. ix. * Chap. v. sect. 3; part iv. chap, vi
 
 PREFACE. xi 
 
 idolatries which may be found in the communion of Rome z ; 
 and to regard that church as blameable and unsound, for per- 
 mitting their inculcation. 
 
 The admission of an authority in the real decisions of the 
 universal church, to which individuals and particular churches 
 are bound to submit, does not oblige us to hold, with Roman- 
 ists, that some central visible tribunal must always exist, and 
 be in readiness to decide all controversies with an infallible 
 authority*; and that such a tribunal exists either in the 
 papacy, or in general synods b , or in synods of the western 
 church. Hence we consistently deny the papal jurisdiction c , 
 and the infallibility of synods held under its influence d , espe- 
 cially the synod of Trent e . 
 
 One of the principal errors on which Romanism is based, 
 consists in measuring the institutions of God by merely human 
 and earthly standards. It is thus that the absolute certainty 
 of unity of communion in the universal church, and of a central 
 visible tribunal, is argued from the nature of temporal monar- 
 chies and associations, in which a central authority is as neces- 
 sary to unity, as unity itself is essential to existence. Such 
 analogies are easily refuted by an appeal to scripture, and to 
 the facts of history and experience f . 
 
 Another great error consists in the formation of a theory of 
 optimism in the Church, irrespective of the actual declarations 
 of revelation, or the testimony of facts. It is this most 
 unsound theory which leads to the notion of a universal church, 
 perfectly united in communion and in faith, free from all 
 unsoundness in doctrine and morals, and possessed of a stand- 
 ing tribunal, infallible in all its decisions. 
 
 This theory of perfection in the Church is wholly at variance 
 with our experience of the laws of creation. Imperfection is 
 the necessary condition of human nature in all its parts, and 
 throughout the whole course of its history ; and even the 
 
 1 Part i. chap. xi. Appendix iv. c Part vii. 
 
 a Part iv. chap. v. ; part vii. chap. d Part iv. chap. x. xi. 
 
 viii. Appendix. e Chap. xii. 
 
 b Part iv. chap. vii. sect. 1. 2.; ' Part vii. chap. viii. Appendix, 
 part vii. chap. viii. Appendix.
 
 xii PREFACE. 
 
 abundant graces of the Gospel are insufficient to elevate man 
 in this world beyond the reach of infirmities and passions. 
 Hence it is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural, to conceive 
 the notion of a visible church which shall be in any respect free 
 from imperfection s . 
 Various ob- UJ. jj u fc this theory is not peculiar to Romanism, it forms 
 
 j actions to 
 
 the system the basis of objections which are frequently made to some of 
 work. 8 the positions advocated in the following work. 
 
 Thus Dissent frames the notion of a church perfectly holy, 
 consisting only of saints; and separates from the English 
 churches as not realizing this notion, and therefore as being no 
 true churches of Christ h . 
 
 Others, on the same principle, deny that the Roman or the 
 Greek churches can be included within the pale of the uni- 
 versal church ; the prevalence of serious errors and corruptions 
 within those societies seeming to such reasoners quite sufficient 
 to condemn them as anti-christian. A more attentive study 
 of the nature of the Church, as represented in scripture and in 
 Christian antiquity, would lead them at once to an humbler 
 estimate of its actual perfection, and a less sweeping excision 
 of the great body of Christendom from the way of salvation *. 
 
 Others again are perhaps, in a degree, influenced by the 
 same notion, when, contemplating the faults and imperfections 
 of some adherents of the Reformation abroad, they seem 
 almost inclined to exclude all its followers from the Christian 
 church ; but I cannot help being of opinion, that a less severe 
 judgment seems warranted by the facts of the case k . 
 
 But besides those who may object to this work as too 
 liberal and comprehensive, there are others to whom it may 
 appear too narrow and exclusive. Such persons would include 
 within the Christian church all sects and denominations calling 
 themselves Protestant ; as if the rejection of the papacy and 
 its superstitions could atone for every imaginable fault. In 
 
 g Part i. chap. iv. sect. 5 ; chap, tries, however, are proved to be in 
 
 v. sect. 3 ; chap. vi. schism. Part i. chap. x. sect. 4 ; 
 
 h Part i. chap. xiii. Part ii. chap. ii. 
 ' The Romanists of these coun- k Part i. chap. xii.
 
 PREFACE. xiii 
 
 particular, the exclusion of Presbyterians from the visible 
 church is regarded as a harsh and uncharitable proceeding ; 
 and yet a moment's calm reflection, one would think, might 
 remind such objectors, that it is somewhat unreasonable to 
 expect from members of the English church an admission so 
 fatal to themselves, as the lawfulness of separating from a 
 national church in full communion with their own, and sub- 
 verting its episcopacy and its established order, under pretence 
 that the whole system is anti-Christian*. If such a proceeding 
 was justifiable in Scotland, it must be equally so elsewhere ; 
 and thus the real meaning of the demand so modestly made on 
 us, to adopt Scottish Presbyterianism as a branch of the 
 Christian church, is to exact a similar concession in favour of 
 every English dissenting denomination ; to justify separation 
 from the Church of England, and subversion of her established 
 constitution m . 
 
 With reference to the minor sects calling themselves Pro- 
 testant, it would be impossible, consistently with the mainte- 
 nance of any principles of unity, order, or faith, to allow that 
 they constitute part of the visible church of Christ n . 
 
 The imputation of uncharitableness which must be endured 
 by those who are obliged to draw conclusions so unpalatable to 
 particular sects, can have but little effect in inducing them to 
 approve what the word of God condemns ; and if their view be 
 in some degree exclusive, it is surely less so than that which is 
 taken by their opponents in general. The exclusion of the 
 Presbyterian and Dissenting communities from the Church, 
 bodies comparatively insignificant in point of numbers, seems 
 far less harsh than the condemnation of the whole Roman and 
 Greek churches, which are probably more than twenty times 
 as numerous. 
 
 IV. The claims advanced on behalf of the Church of Eng- Modera- 
 
 . ' turn of the 
 
 land in this work, will not, I trust, appear to be in any degree claim on 
 
 behalf of 
 
 Part ii. chap. x. establishment in Scotland. Part v. the English 
 
 m It will be maintained, however, chap. vii. church, 
 
 that the sovereign may lawfully take " Part i. chap. xiii. 
 an oath to protect the Presbyterian
 
 xiv PREFACE. 
 
 excessive or exorbitant. The reader will not find any attempts 
 to prove our churches wholly faultless, absolutely perfect, or 
 even superior in every respect to other communities ; while, 
 at the same time, I would hope that he will be unable to dis- 
 cover any depreciation of their institutions, or any disposition 
 to regard other and less sound churches as the models to 
 which they should conform themselves. All that is attempted 
 is to show, that our churches are Christian a part of the 
 universal church of Christ. The power claimed for them is 
 simply what is essential to the preservation of order within 
 themselves, and to the discharge of the great duty of handing 
 down the faith and discipline of the Gospel, a power which 
 equally belongs to every branch of the universal church. If 
 their Christian liberty is defended from encroachments on the 
 part of other particular churches, and if they are held exempt 
 from the necessity of submitting themselves to any judgments, 
 decisions, or traditions, supported by an authority inferior to 
 that of the universal church of all ages, they are still subjected 
 to that final authority ; nor are they exempted from the duty 
 of desiring and praying for the union of all churches of the 
 East and West in the true faith ; and of labouring for the 
 removal of all scandals, whether amongst themselves or else- 
 where, which may defer the hour of so blessed a recon- 
 ciliation. 
 
 The questions of the relations between the Church and 
 State , and of the nature and constitution of the ecclesiastical 
 Ministry P, are of such importance, that their discussion could 
 not be omitted in a work like the present. It will be found, I 
 trust, that, in either case, no excessive claims have been made 
 on behalf of the church; nothing, in fact, beyond what her 
 absolute necessity requires. 
 
 In conclusion I have only to remark, that some of the sub- 
 jects discussed in the following treatise having recently assumed 
 somewhat of a different aspect, under the influence of contro- 
 versy, it has seemed advisable to make some additions and 
 
 Part vi. P Part v.
 
 PREFACE. xv 
 
 alterations in the present edition, which the Reader will find 
 chiefly in the following places : 
 
 Vol. I., pages 19, 30, 33, 34, 35, 48, 49, 64-69, 82-94, 
 J 02-106, 124-130, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 162, 163-168, 
 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 186, 193, 194, 195, 198, 213, 220, 
 221, 225, 228-231, 235, 237, 238, 239, 242, 244, 262, 263 
 265, 272-274, 276, 283, 284, 285, 286, 293, 295, 296' 
 297-302, 322, 331, 336, 347, 349, 350, 352, 353, 355, 358, 
 359, 362, 367, 369, 371, 373, 374, 387, 388, 392, 393, 395, 
 406-410, 413, 414, 437, 438-440, 442, 443. 
 
 Vol. II., pages 5, 73, 74, 105, 133, 135, 138, 141, 155, 
 186, 213, 214, 223, 282, 293, 309, 310, 317, 318, 320, 322, 
 348, 351-359, 362, 363-365, 376, 378, 379, 383, 384, 388, 
 390, 401, 405, 410, 413, 420-422, 424-428, 440-451, 455, 
 456, 458, 459, 460. 
 
 The Index has also been considerably enlarged, and various 
 other improvements have been introduced, which will, it is 
 hoped, conduce to the Reader's convenience.
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH APPLIED TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITIES 
 OF PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER 1 3 
 
 SECT. i. Definitions ib. 
 
 SECT. n. On the Perpetuity of the Church 5 
 
 SECT. in. Of Salvation in the Church only 10 
 
 OBJECTIONS 16 
 
 CHAPTER II. On the Notes of the Church in general .... 17 
 
 CHAPTER III. On the Visibility of the Church 22 
 
 OBJECTIONS 30 
 
 CHAPTER IV. On the Unity of the Church in respect of Com- 
 munion 34 
 
 SECT. i. On the Obligation of External Communion .... 35 
 
 SECT. n. On Voluntary Separation from the Church .... 38 
 
 OBJECTIONS 50 
 
 SECT. in. On Separation by Excommunication 51 
 
 SECT. iv. The External Communion of the Church may be 
 
 and has been interrupted 54 
 
 SECT. v. Separation from Communion, in what sense necessary 64 
 
 CHAPTER V. On the Unity of the Church in respect of Faith . 71 
 
 SECT. i. The Truth revealed by Christ is to be believed by all 
 
 Christians ib. 
 
 VOL. I. a
 
 XV111 CONTENTS. 
 
 PACK 
 
 SECT. ii. Heresy excludes from Salvation 73 
 
 SECT. in. All Errors, even in Matters of Faith, are not Hereti- 
 cal, and some Errors and Corruptions may exist in the 
 
 Church 82 
 
 SECT. iv. Unity in Faith considered as an Attribute and Sign 
 
 of the Church 95 
 
 OBJECTIONS 98 
 
 APPENDIX. On the doctrine of Fundamentals 102 
 
 CHAPTER VI. On the Sanctity of the Church 107 
 
 Those who are sinners, and devoid of a lively faith, are some- 
 times externally members of the Church 109 
 
 Manifest sinners are sometimes externally members of the 
 Church, and exercise the privileges of members . . . .110 
 
 Visible sanctity of life is not requisite for admission to the 
 
 Church 112 
 
 Miracles 1 14 
 
 OBJECTIONS 117 
 
 CHAFFER VII. On the Universality of the Church 118 
 
 On the name of Catholic 126 
 
 OBJECTIONS 130 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. On the Apostolicity of the Church 132 
 
 The Christian ministry is essential to the Church, and must 
 
 always exist ib. 
 
 A Divine vocation is essential to the Christian Ministry . . .135 
 An internal vocation is insufficient alone to constitute a minister 
 
 of Christ 133 
 
 Popular election alone is insufficient to constitute a minister of 
 
 Christ 139 
 
 An Apostolical Succession of Ordination is essential to the 
 
 Christian ministry 140 
 
 OBJECTIONS 144 
 
 CHAPTER IX. On the Oriental Churches 145 
 
 SECT. II. On the division of the Eastern and Western Churches 151 
 
 OBJECTIONS , 168 
 
 CHAPTER X. On the British Churches 174 
 
 OBJECTIONS 194 
 
 APPENDIX. On Indifference in Religion 207
 
 CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER XL On the Churches of the Roman Obedience . . .212 
 
 SECT. i. Whether the Western Churches continued to be 
 
 Churches of Christ till the Reformation 213 
 
 SECT. ii. Whether the Churches of the Roman Obedience con- 
 tinued to be part of the Catholic Church after the Reforma- 
 tion 217 
 
 SECT. in. Whether these Churches constitute exclusively the 
 
 Catholic Church of Christ 222 
 
 SECT. iv. Societies of the Roman Communion of Modern 
 
 Foundation 234 
 
 OBJECTIONS 237 
 
 APPENDIX i. On Jansenism 244 
 
 ii. On Infidelity and Indifference in the Roman 
 
 Church 263 
 
 in. On the Schisms of 1791 and 1801 267 
 
 iv. Idolatries and Heresies in the Roman Church . 272 
 v. The Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI. . . .27* 
 
 CHAPTER XII. The Foreign Reformation 276 
 
 SECT. i. Whether Luther and his adherents separated from 
 
 the Church 277 
 
 SECT. ii. Whether the Reformed separated from the Church . 285 
 SECT. in. Whether the principles of the Foreign Reformation 
 
 were subversive of Unity 287 
 
 SECT. iv. Whether the Churches of the Foreign Reformation 
 
 are part of the Christian Church 292 
 
 OBJECTIONS 302 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. On the Separatists from the Anglo-Catholic 
 
 Churches 305 
 
 SECT. i. On the origin of Dissent 306 
 
 SECT. n. On dissenting principles as affecting Unity . . 309 
 SECT. in. On dissenting principles as affecting the Sanctity of 
 
 the Church 312 
 
 SECT. iv. Dissent not Apostolical 316 
 
 OBJECTIONS 317 
 
 CHAFFER XIV. On the Nestorians and Monophysites . . . .319
 
 XX CONTENTS. 
 
 PAET II. 
 
 ON THE BRITISH REFORMATION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER I. On the characters of the temporal promoters of 
 
 the Reformation 325 
 
 CHAPTER II. On the abolition of the Papal Jurisdiction, and 
 
 the Schism 330 
 
 CHAPTER III. On the Ecclesiastical Supremacy and acts of the 
 civil power during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward 
 VI 352 
 
 CHAPTER IV. On the proceedings in the reign of Mary . . . 365 
 CHAPTER V. On the proceedings in the reign of Elizabeth . . 369 
 CHAPTER VI. On the Principles of the English Reformation . . 376 
 CHAPTER VII. On the Variations of the English Church . . .385 
 APPENDIX. On the Identity of the Reformed and Unreformed 
 
 Church of England 406 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. On the character and conduct of Archbishop 
 
 Cranmer 411 
 
 CHAPTER IX. On the Reformation and Schism in Ireland . . 422 
 CHAPTER X. On the Reformation and Schism in Scotland . . 43?
 
 A TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH APPLIED TO THE EXISTING 
 COMMUNITIES OF PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. 
 
 VOL. I.
 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 PART I. CHAPTER I. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 THE term EKKAH2IA, which we translate "Church," is 
 occasionally employed by the sacred writers in senses different 
 from those which we connect with it ; as for instance, to de- 
 signate the people of God under the former dispensation, or 
 even to express any public assembly : with these meanings I 
 am not at present concerned. Its ordinary application in 
 Scripture is to a society of Christians, or of those who believe 
 in Christ. God Himself, according to Scripture, has " called " 
 all such " out of darkness into his marvellous light 8 ;" so that, 
 as it is said elsewhere, " It is not of him that willeth, nor of 
 him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy b ." Thus 
 the church of Christ is not formed by the mere voluntary asso- 
 ciation of individuals c , but by divine grace, operating either by 
 miracle, or by ordinary means of divine institution. And this 
 seems implied in the very word EKKAHSIA, derived from 
 EKKAAEIN, " to call forth." 
 
 * 1 Pet. ii. 9- c Potter on Church Government, 
 
 b Rom. ix. 16. chap. i. 
 
 B 2
 
 4 Definition. [p. i. CH. i. 
 
 The applications of this term to the Christian society are 
 various. 
 
 1. It sometimes means the whole Christian body or society, 
 considered as composed of its vital and essential members, the 
 elect and sanctified children .of God, and as distinguished from 
 those who are only externally and temporarily united to Christ. 
 In this sense we may understand the apostle speaking of a 
 " glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing d ." And again : " the general assembly and church of 
 the first-born, which are written in heaven e ." It is generally 
 allowed that the wicked belong only externally to the church f . 
 
 2. The church means the whole society of Christians through- 
 out the world, including all who profess their belief in Christ, 
 and who are subject to lawful pastors^; as in these passages : 
 " Gfivenone offence, neither o"tne Jews, nor to the Gentiles, 
 nor to the church of Gods." "God hath set some in the 
 church ; first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers V 
 &c. In this universal church are many lesser societies or 
 churches. 
 
 3. It is applied to the whole Christian community of a city 
 and its neighbourhood ; thus we read, " Unto the church of 
 God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. i. 2) ; the church of Jeru- 
 salem is mentioned (Acts viii. 1), Antioch (Acts xiii. 1), 
 Ephesus (xx. 17), Laodicea (Col. v. 16), Smyrna, Pergamus, 
 Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia. (Rev. ii. iii.) 
 
 4. It sometimes means a Christian family or a very small 
 community meeting in one house for worship, as in the follow- 
 ing passages : " Greet Priscilla and Aquila, likewise 
 
 greet the church that is in their house" (Rom. xvi. 3. 5) ; 
 " Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the 
 church that is in their house " (1 Cor. xvi. 19) ; " Nymphas 
 and the church which is in his house" (Col. iv. 15) ; " The 
 church in thy house " (Philemon 2). 
 
 d Eph. v. 27. est externam fidei professionem ac 
 
 e Heb. xii. 23. eorundem sacramentorum participa- 
 
 f Field on the Church, b. i. ch. tionem pertinere." De Eccl. qu. i. 
 
 7, 8. The Romish theologians ge- art. 2. See also Bailly, Tract, de 
 
 nerally concur in the same doctrine. Ecclesia, praenotata; Delahogue, c. 
 
 Tournely says, "solos electosac jus- 1; Collet, Praelect. de Eccl. qu. 1 ; 
 
 tos ad nobiliorum ecclesiae partem, Bouvier, part iii. c. 2. See Chapter 
 
 quse anima ipsius dicitur et in virtu- VI. of this Part. 
 
 tibus consistit, reprobos vero et s 1 Cor. x. 32. 
 
 malos ad illius dumtaxat corpus, hoc h 1 Cor. xii. 28.
 
 SECT, ii.] Perpetuity of the Church. 5 
 
 5. Since the Scriptures speak of the universal church in the 
 singular number, though it comprises many particular churches ; 
 and since each particular church is so called, though it includes 
 many Christian families or lesser communities of Christians, 
 we on the same principle may speak of " the church " of Eng- 
 land, or of France, of the Eastern or the Western church, 
 though many particular churches are included under each ; or 
 we may, with equal propriety, say, " the churc/tes of Britain," 
 or of France, &c. This latter form is indeed used in Scrip- 
 ture itself, e.g. " The churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. xvi. 1) ; 
 but the singular form is justifiable from the usage of Scrip- 
 ture '. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 No one denies that our Lord Jesus Christ founded a society 
 of men professing his doctrines on earth. That he did so is 
 certain from his own words : " On this rock I will build my 
 church 1 ' (Matt. xvi. 18) ; and we read afterwards, that " The 
 Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved" 
 (Acts ii. 47). The very object of Christ's mission, and of his 
 death, was to " purify unto himself a peculiar people " (Tit. 
 ii. 14), whom St. Peter describes as " a chosen generation, a 
 royal priesthood, an holy nation," even " the people of God *' 
 (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10). The intention of our Saviour was to estab- 
 lish a kingdom upon earth, and draw all men unto him ; and it 
 was impossible that this object could fail : its completion had 
 been decreed before the foundation of the world ; it had been 
 predicted by prophets, and the Son of God accomplished it. 
 
 It is needless to occupy space in proving what is generally 
 admitted, namely, the institution of a society of Christians called 
 the church, by Christ and his apostles ; but it has been en- 
 quired whether this society was to continue always in the 
 world j . 
 
 The perpetuity of the church was predicted by the prophet Scriptural 
 Isaiah in these words : " I will make an everlasting covenant 
 with them ; and their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, 
 and their offspring among the people : ah" that see them shall 
 
 1 For the various appellations and j On this subject see Archbishop 
 types of the Church, see Jo. Ger- Potter on Church Government, chap- 
 hard. Lcci Theologici, 1. 23, c. 3. ter i.
 
 6 Perpetuity of the Church. [P. i. CH. i. 
 
 acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath 
 blessed" (Is. Ixi. 8, 9). The prophecy of Daniel is still more 
 clear : " In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven 
 set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed . . . and it 
 shall stand for ever" (Dan. ii. 44) k . It was also promised by 
 our Lord himself, on several occasions : " On this rock I will 
 build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it" (Matt. xvi. 18); " I will pray the Father, and he shall 
 give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for 
 ever; even the Spirit of Truth" (John xiv. 16, 17) ; " Lo, I 
 am with you always, even unto the end of the world " (Matt, 
 xxviii. 20). These remarkable and positive promises clearly 
 establish the perpetuity of the church ; and it may be also 
 inferred easily from the promise made to the faithful servant, 
 whom the Lord should set over his household : " Blessed is 
 that servant whom his Lord, when he cometh, shall find so 
 doing" (Matt. xiv. 46) ; in which words it is intimated, that 
 when Christ shall come in the latter day, he shall, even then, 
 find faithful servants presiding over his own household, still 
 existing upon the earth. It is also proved by the words of the 
 apostle Paul, in describing the coming of Christ : " Then we 
 which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with 
 them in the clouds, tg meet the Lord in the air, and so shall 
 we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess. iv. 17). It is also to be 
 deduced from the parables of the tares and the draw-net, in 
 which the angels of God are represented as gathering out of 
 his kingdom, still existing up to the end of the world, all the 
 wicked and hypocrites (Matt. xiii. 41. 49). 
 
 The same divine love which caused the humiliation of the 
 Eternal Son, that a new people might be gathered from all 
 nations, and constituted the church of the living God ; this 
 love would most assuredly not permit that a system designed 
 for the salvation of mankind, should after a time entirely 
 cease. Man is always in the same need of divine mercy ; and 
 if the church of Christ was originally the way of salvation, and 
 God willed that all men should receive the offer of salvation, it 
 must be supposed that the church once founded, would con- 
 tinue always, because the Christian dispensation is not to be 
 superseded by any other. If it were supposed, indeed, that the 
 
 k See also Isa. liv. ; Ps. xlviii. 8; Ixxxix. 29.
 
 SECT, ii.] Perpetuity of the Church. 7 
 
 church of Christ had no promise of perpetuity from God, and 
 might have altogether failed, it would be, at least, uncertain 
 whether there is any church of God now existing on earth. It 
 would be useless in this case to enter into the investigation of 
 controversies between different sects, because all might alike 
 be cut off from Christ, and from the privileges granted to his 
 disciples. And if we suppose the church once to perish, it 
 could not revive except by a new outpouring of divine power ; 
 for God alone can call men to be the disciples and members of 
 Christ, either by miracle or by ordinary means of his appoint- 
 ment ; and since, in case of the failure of the church, there 
 would no longer be any ordinary means (for the Scripture 
 says, "How shall they hear without a preacher?"), it would 
 be necessary that Christianity should be revived by a display 
 of miraculous power, not inferior to that which accompanied 
 its foundation. And if the church has ever failed, and there 
 has been no such outpouring of the Spirit in after-times, it 
 must be concluded that the Christian revelation was designed 
 only for temporary purposes, and that it is now obsolete. Such 
 are the conclusions to which those must be led who deny the 
 perpetuity of the church or Christian society *. 
 
 I do not yet enter on the question whether the church of Proof from 
 
 Christ is visible or invisible ; all that is here maintained is, 8 eneral 
 
 consent. 
 that there shall always be a church of Christ in the world ; 
 
 that the Christian society shall never fail. The perpetuity of 
 the church is, indeed, in some sense, admitted by all parties. 
 The creeds which are received by the infinite majority of pro- 
 fessing Christians, express a belief in the existence of " one, 
 holy, catholic, apostolic church," which usage can only be 
 founded in the doctrine that the church was always to con- 
 tinue, for why otherwise should men profess their belief in the 
 existence of the church as an article of the faith? We find 
 that such a belief was universal amongst Christians from a very 
 remote period. St. Athanasius says : " The word is faithful, 
 the promise is unshaken, and the church is invincible, though 
 the gates of hell should come, though hell itself, and the rulers 
 of the darkness of the world therein be set in motion m ." His 
 
 1 The perpetuity of the church m Uiffrbg 6 Xoyoc, rat a<raXvroc 
 
 was denied by the Socinians and the r) v-x6c<\iai, xal r/ ImcXqaia dtjTrr)- 
 
 Arrainians, especially by Episco- roc, K< f v ffiov irvXai iirif'tvuvTai, 
 
 pius, Curcellseus, and Limborch. KQV 6 j$ijc avroc, KtvtjOy, K$V ol iv
 
 8 Perpetuity of the Church. [p. i. CH. i. 
 
 immediate predecessor in the see of Alexandria, St. Alexander, 
 had taught the same doctrine : " We confess one and only one 
 catholic and apostolic church, never to be destroyed, though 
 the whole world should war against it n . Eusebius observes 
 that the Lord " foretold that not only his doctrines should be 
 preached throughout all the inhabited world, for a testimony to 
 all nations," but " that his church, afterwards composed of all 
 nations by his power . . . should be invincible, unconquerable, 
 and never to be overcome even by death ." " Hence," says 
 Jerome, " we understand that the church may indeed be as- 
 sailed by persecutions to the end of the world, but cannot be 
 subverted ; may be tempted, but not overcome ; and this will 
 be because the Lord God Almighty, the Lord God of the 
 church, has promised that he will do so, whose promise is the 
 law of nature p ." Augustine confirms the same truth : " The 
 church shall not be overcome, it shall not be rooted up, nor 
 shall it yield to any temptations, until the end of this world 
 shall come, and we shall be received from this temporal to an 
 eternal habitation q ." 
 
 It is needless to multiply quotations from the more ancient 
 Christian writers, in testimony of the general belief of pro- 
 fessing Christians, that the church of Christ was to exist 
 always on earth. The Nicene and Apostles 1 Creed have been 
 already alluded to as intimating this doctrine, and they have been 
 accepted not only by all ancient societies of Christians, but 
 even by those of modern formation. The Reformation made 
 no alteration in this respect, and Bellarmine admits, that many 
 of the Romish theologians had taken much needless pains, in 
 
 avT< KOff/iocparopEc; TOV OKOTOVQ. siam usque ad finem mundi concuti 
 
 Athan. Oratio, quod unus sit Chris- quidem persecutionibus, sed nequa- 
 
 tus, torn. ii. p. 51, oper. Benedict. quam posse subvert!: tentari, non 
 
 n Miav teal fi6ft]v Ka&oXiKtjv T>}V superari. Et hoc net, quia Dominus 
 
 airoaTo^ucrjv tKK\i]ffiav, aicaGaipsTov Deus omnipotens, sive Dominus 
 
 fj,i}v del, Kq.v TTUC o Kooyzoe avry iro\t- Deus ejus, id est, Ecclesiae, se fac- 
 
 p.ilv fiovXtvrjrai. Alexandri Epist. turum esse pollicitus est; cuj us pro- 
 
 ad Alex. Const. Theodoret. lib. i. missio lex naturae est." Hierony- 
 
 c. iv. mus, Comment, in Amos, ad finem, 
 
 ff]v Tt vtJTfpov 7ror avaraaav torn. iii. p. 1454. ed. Benedict. 
 
 ry avrov Swa^ti airavriav TUIV ' " Non vincetur Ecclesia, non 
 
 eKK\r)aiav . . . cb/rri/rov KCU eradicabitur, nee cedet quibuslibet 
 
 axriTov tattrQai, ical firjSe- tentationibus, donee venial hujus 
 
 vb OavaTov viKtjdriatffdai. saeculi finis, et nos ab ista temporali 
 
 K. r. X. Eusebii Praepar. Evang. aeterna ilia habitatio suscipiat." 
 
 lib. i. c. 3. August. Enarr. in Ps. Ix. torn. iii. 
 
 p " Ex quo intelligimus Eccle- p. 587. oper. ed. Benedict.
 
 SECT, ii.] Perpetuity of the Church. 9 
 
 proving against their opponents the perpetuity of the church, 
 which none of them denied 1 . The Confession of Augsburgh 
 expressly maintains it. " Item docent, quod sancta ecclesia 
 perpetuo mansura sit s ." The Helvetic Confession says, 
 " Since God from the beginning wished men to be saved, and 
 to come to the knowledge of the truth, there must always 
 have been, and now, and even to the end of the world be, a 
 church, that is, a congregation of faithful men called forth or 
 collected from the world ; a communion of all the holy ; of 
 those who truly know and rightly worship the true God in 
 Christ the Saviour, by the Word and Holy Spirit, and who 
 partake by faith of all the benefits freely offered through 
 Christ *," &c. Calvin argues that God preserves his church in 
 every age. " Although," he says, " immediately, even from 
 the beginning, the whole race of mankind was corrupted and 
 vitiated by the sin of Adam, yet from this polluted mass he 
 always sanctifieth some vessels unto honour, lest there should 
 be any age which did not experience his mercy. Which also 
 he testified by certain promises such as these : ' I have made a 
 covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, 
 thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all 
 generations 1 (Ps. Ixxxix. 3, 4). Again: 'The Lord hath 
 chosen Zion ; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is 
 my rest forever, 1 " &c. (Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14 u .) In fine, almost 
 all professing Christians regard their respective communities as 
 churches of Christ, and endeavour to prove them to be so ; 
 whence it must be supposed that they assume as a principle, 
 that such churches were always to exist. The modern dissen- 
 ters, in their " Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge," say, 
 "we cannot doubt that in this, as in every preceding age, such a 
 church exists v ." In the following section additional proof 
 will be furnished of the general agreement on this subject, from 
 the fact that all parties admit, that the church of Christ is the 
 way of salvation. 
 
 The English Church expresses her belief in the existence of English 
 the church in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds ; and the Church - 
 
 r Bellarm. de Conciliis et Eccle- u Calvin. Institut. iv. c. i. s. 17. 
 sia, lib. iii. c. 13. T Tract on the Christian Ministry, 
 
 Art. vii. Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii. 
 
 ' Conf. Helvetic. AD. 1536. cap. p. 355. 
 17.
 
 10 Salvation in the Church only. [p. i. CH. i. 
 
 Articles also invariably speak of the church as still existing. 
 In the hymn ' Te Deum,' the prayer for the church militant, 
 and many other parts of the ritual, the existence of the church 
 is always recognized. This can only arise from a belief that 
 the church was to be perpetual by the divine promises. Nowell 
 observes, that we profess our belief in the church, " because 
 unless there be a church, Christ would have died in vain," and 
 all which relates to the causes and foundations of salvation 
 would be in vain and reduced to nothing, for the " effect of 
 them is, that there is a church, a certain blessed city and 
 commonwealth, in which we ought to deposit and consecrate 
 all that is ours, and to which we should give ourselves wholly 
 up, and even die for it w ." Field assumes the perpetuity of the 
 church, to be the general doctrine of the Reformation x . 
 Bishop Pearson says : " Though the providence of God doth 
 suffer many particular churches to cease, yet the promise of 
 the same God will never permit that all of them at once should 
 perish. When Christ spake first, particularly to St. Peter, he 
 sealed his speech with a powerful promise of perpetuity, saying, 
 ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matt. xvi. 
 18). When he spake generally to all the rest of the apostles 
 to the same purpose ... he added a promise to the same 
 effect ; ' and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the 
 world.' . . . Wherefore being Christ doth promise his pre- 
 sence unto the church, even unto the end of the world, he 
 doth thereby assure us of the existence of the church until 
 that time, of which his presence is the cause y v " 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 OF SALVATION IX THE CHURCH ONLY. 
 
 The Christian revelation is so far necessary to be believed 
 by those to whom it is proposed, that our Lord himself affirms 
 of such : " he that believeth not shall be damned." How far 
 the unsearchable goodness and mercy of God may provide 
 some means of escape for those who are beyond the illumina- 
 tion of the Gospel, we know not : for the Revelation of God 
 
 w Noelli Catechismus, p. 101. * Field, Of the Church, b. i. c. 10. 
 Oxford ed. 1835. y Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix.
 
 SECT, in.] Salvation in the Church only. 1 1 
 
 only offers salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. But faith 
 in the infinite justice and mercy of God will inspire hope even 
 where Revelation is silent ; and the apostolic principle, " them 
 that are without GOD judgeth," will teach us not to condemn 
 those, to whom the way of life has not been pointed out. On 
 the same principles I maintain that salvation is only offered 
 in the church of Christ by divine revelation, and that all men 
 to whom the Gospel is preached, must be members of this 
 church when sufficiently proposed to them, on pain of being 
 excluded from the favour of God for ever z . 
 
 That salvation is only to be obtained in the church, may be Proof from 
 argued from Scripture thus : " Christ is the head of the body, 
 the church" (Col. i. 18), therefore those who are separated 
 from the church of Christ are separated from his body, and 
 from himself. Now "if any man abide not in Christ, he is 
 cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them, 
 and cast them into the fire, and they are burned' 1 '' (John xv. 6). 
 We are taught that " Christ is the Saviour of the body," that 
 is, "of the church" (Eph. v. 23). He is only said to save 
 the church : there is no promise beyond it. It is said that 
 " Without faith it is impossible to please God " (Heb. xi. 6) ; 
 but " how shall men believe in him of whom they have not 
 heard ? And how shall they hear without a preacher, and 
 how shall they preach except they be sent ?" (Rom. x. 14, 15). 
 Therefore there is ordinarily no faith and no salvation except 
 through the teaching of God's ministers ; but these ministers 
 are only in the church. " God hath set some in the church ; 
 first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers," &c. 
 (1 Cor. xii. 28.) In fine, this doctrine is directly taught in 
 the following passage : " The Lord added to the church daily 
 such as should be saved" (Acts ii. 47). Therefore the way of 
 salvation is by divine appointment to be found in the church 
 only. 
 
 Such indeed has been at all times the tradition of the Chris- From 
 tian community. Theophilus of Antioch says : " God hath Traditlon - 
 given unto the world troubled with waves and storms through 
 sin, those congregations called holy churches, in which, as in 
 secure island havens, the truth* is taught ; where those who 
 desire salvation take refuge V Origen says : " Let no one 
 
 1 On this subject, see Potter on Ourw SiSwKfv 6 0oc r< *o<r/z<p 
 Church Government, chap. i.
 
 12 Salvation in the Church only. [p. i. CH. i. 
 
 persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: without this 
 house, that is, without the church, no one is saved V The 
 martyr Cyprian says : " That man cannot have God for his 
 father who has not the church for his mother. If any one 
 could escape the deluge out of Noah's ark, he who is out of 
 the church may also escape c ."" " He cannot be a martyr who 
 is not in the church, he cannot come to the kingdom, who 
 deserts that which is to reign "V Augustine continues the 
 chain of tradition thus : " No one cometh to salvation and 
 eternal life, except he who hath Christ for his Head, but 
 no one can have Christ for his Head, except he that is in 
 his body, the church e ." Fulgentius observes, that " With- 
 out this church neither doth the name of Christian help 
 in any degree, nor doth baptism save, nor is a clean sacri- 
 fice offered to God, nor is remission of sins received, nor 
 is the felicity of eternal life found f ." These are indeed the 
 sentiments of all the fathers and doctors of the church. I 
 shall only add the testimony of two councils. The synod of 
 Zerta (A. D. 412) said : " Whosoever is separated from this 
 catholic church, however innocently he may think he lives ; for 
 this crime alone, that he is separated from the unity of Christ, 
 will not have life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him g ." 
 
 rSJv a/japrT/juarwv rag <vaywya \t- e " Ad ipsam vero salutera ac 
 jofisvae tKK\T)ffiag ayi'af, kv ale Ka9- vitam aeternam nemo pervenit, nisi 
 direp XI/KCW/ evopfaoig kv vr]aoi at <5t- qui habet caput Christum. Habere 
 da<TKa\icu r/Je dXjj&icte dai Trpof &e autem caput Christum nemo poterit, 
 KarcHptvyovaiv ol BeXovng a^taQai. nisi qui in ejus corpore fuerit, quod 
 Theophil. Antioch. ad Autolycum, est ecclesia." August, cont. Dona- 
 lib, ii. p. 123. ed. Paris, 1624. tist. Epist. vulgo de Unit. Eccl. torn. 
 
 b " Nemo ergo sibi persuadeat, ix. p. 392. ed. Benedict, 
 
 nemo semetipsum decipiat : extra f " Extra hanc ecclesiam nee 
 
 hanc domum, id est extra ecclesiam, Christianum nomen aliquem juvat, 
 
 nemo salvatur." Origen. in lib. nee baptismus salvat, nee mundum 
 
 Jesu Nave Horn. iv. torn. ii. p. 414. Deo sacrificium offertur, nee pecca- 
 
 oper. ed. Ben. torum remissio accipitur, nee aeternae 
 
 c " Habere jam non potest Deum vita? felicitas invenitur." Fulgen- 
 
 Patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet tius, de Remissione Peccatorum, 
 
 matrem. Si potuit evadere quis- lib. i. c. 22. 
 
 quam qui extra arcam Noe fuit ; et * " Quisquis ergo ab hac Catho- 
 
 3ui extra Ecclesiam foris fuerit, eva- lica ecclesia fuerit separatus, quan- 
 
 it." Cypr. de Unit. p. 251, ed. tumlibet laudabiliter sevivere existi- 
 
 Pamel. met, hoc solo scelere, quod a Christi 
 
 d " Esse martyr non potest, qui' unitate disjunctus est, non habebit 
 
 in ecclesia non est : ad regnumper- vitam, sedira Dei manet super earn." 
 
 venire non poterit, qui earn qua? Concil. Zertense, Harduini Con- 
 
 regnatura est, derelinquit." Ibid, cilia, torn. i. p. 1203. 
 p. 257.
 
 SECT, in.] Salvation in the Church only. 13 
 
 The fourth council of Carthage (A. D. 398) directed, that 
 every bishop, before his ordination, should be questioned, 
 " whether he believes that there is no salvation beyond the 
 church h ." 
 
 We are not to suppose that this was the opinion of Chris- From the 
 tians in the primitive ages only : it has been generally admitted tion. 
 in later times. The doctrine of salvation in the church, was 
 held by all the Lutherans and Reformed, and by the sects 
 which separated from them ; as well as by the Romish and 
 other churches. Luther teaches that remission of sins and 
 sanctification are only obtained in it ; and Calvin says, " be- 
 yond the bosom of the church no remission of sins is to be 
 hoped for, nor any salvation i ." The Saxon confession pre- 
 sented to the synod of Trent, 1551 j , the Helvetic confession k , 
 the Belgic \ the Scottish m , all avow that salvation is only to be 
 had in the church. The Presbyterian Divines assembled at 
 Westminster, A. D. 1647, in their "Humble Advice concern- From sec- 
 ing a Confession of Faith," (chap, xxv.) declare that " the ta 
 visible church, which is also Catholique or Universal under the 
 Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the Law), 
 consists of all those throughout the world that profess the 
 true religion, together with their children : and is the kingdom 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of 
 which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation n ." The Inde- 
 
 h " Quaerendum etiam ab eo . . . negemus eoscoram Deo vivere posse, 
 
 si extra ecclesiam catholicam nullus qui cum vera Christ! ecclesia non 
 
 salvetur." Cone. Carthag. iv. cap. communicant, sedab ease separant; 
 
 i. Harduini Concilia, torn. i. p. 978. nam ut extra arcam Noe non erat 
 
 For further proofs, see Gerhard, ulla salus . . . ita credimus, extra 
 
 Loc. Theol. 1. xxiii. . 36. Christum, qui se electis in ecclesia 
 
 1 Luther, speaking of the church, fruendum praebet, nullam esse salu- 
 
 says, " extra hanc Christianitatem, tern certam." Conf. Helvet. art. 
 
 ubi huic evangelic locus non est, xvii. de Ecclesia. 
 
 neque ulla est peccatorum remissio, 1 " Credimus quod cum 
 
 quemadmodum nee ulla sanctificatio extra earn nulla sit salus, neminem 
 
 adesse potest." Catechismus Ma- .... sese ab eo subducere ut se- 
 
 jor, P. ii. Symbol. Apost. art. iii. ipso contentus separatim degat : sed 
 
 " Quia nunc de visibili ecclesia dis- omnes pariter teneri huic se adjun- 
 
 serere propositum est, etc gere, eique uniri, Ecclesiae unitatem 
 
 Extra ejus gremium nulla est spe- conservare," &c. Conf. Belgica, 
 
 randa peccatorum remissio, nee ulla art. xxviii. 
 
 salus, teste lesaia (37, 32) et Joele m " Extra quam Ecclesiam nee 
 
 (2, 32) ; quibus subscribit Ezechiel est vita, nee aeterna felicitas." 
 
 (13, 9)," etc. Calvin. Institut. iv. 1. Conf. Scot. art. xvi. 
 
 3 Conf. Sax. art. xii. De eccl. n This confession was approved 
 
 k " Communionem vero cum ec- by the Scottish Presbyterians in 
 
 clesia Christi vera tanti facimus, ut their assembly, 1647 ; and being
 
 14 Salvation in tJie Church only. [P. i. CH. i. 
 
 pendents admitted the same. Dr. Owen, their principal writer, 
 says : "It is required that we believe that the Lord Christ 
 hath had, in all ages, and especially hath in that wherein we 
 live, a church on the earth, confined unto no places nor parties 
 of men, no empires nor dominions, or capable of any confine- 
 ment ; as also that this church is redeemed, called, sanctified 
 by him ; that it is his kingdom, his interest, his concernment 
 in the world ; that thereunto all the members of it, all the pro- 
 mises of God do belong and are confined ; that this church he 
 will save, preserve, and deliver from all oppositions, so as that 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; and after death 
 will raise it up, and glorify it at the last day. This is the 
 faith of the catholic church concerning itself; which is an 
 ancient fundamental article of our religion. And if any one 
 deny that there is such a church, called out of the world, sepa- 
 rated from it, unto which alone, and all the members of it, all 
 the promises of God do appertain in contradistinction unto all 
 others, or confines it unto a party, unto whom these things 
 are not appropriate, he cuts himself off from the communion 
 of the church of Christ . Even the Quakers admit " that 
 out of the church there is no salvation," though they hold 
 that " there may be members of this catholic church among 
 Heathens, Turks, Jews p !" " Beyond all question," say the 
 Dissenters, " the church, and the church only, will be finally 
 saved ; the church, and the church alone, is the pillar and 
 ground of truth ; the church, and nothing but the church, 
 secures a living and faithful ministry q ." 
 
 From the The British churches hold salvation as inseparably connected 
 En"laud f w ^ *^ e church only. Thus in the office of baptism we pray, 
 that the person to be baptized may be " washed and sanctified 
 with the Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered from thy wrath, 
 may be received into the ark of Christ's church, and being 
 stedfast in faith, &c., may so pass the waves of this trouble- 
 some world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting 
 life :" here the church of Christ is represented as the ark in 
 which alone we obtain salvation. We afterwards pray, that 
 
 ratified by ( their Parliament in 1690, p Barclay, prop. x. p. 273. 
 it is still received by them and their q Library of Ecclesiastical Know- 
 collateral societies. ledge : Essays on Ch. Polity, vol. ii. 
 
 Owen's True Nature of a Gos- p. 367. 
 pel Church, chap. xi.
 
 SECT, in.] Salvation in the Church only. ]o 
 
 " with the residue of thy holy church he may be an inheritor 
 of thine everlasting kingdom ;" evidently implying that the 
 church only shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. And in the 
 collect for Good Friday we pray " for all Jews, Turks, infidels, 
 and heretics, that they may be fetched home to God's flock, 
 that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israel- 
 ites ;" evidently implying that salvation is not found out of the 
 church of Christ. Indeed, the contrary doctrine of those who 
 say " that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which 
 he professeth," is declared Anathema by the xviiith article of 
 the Synod of London, A. D. 1562. 
 
 The catechism of Dean Nowell, which was approved by 
 several bishops and theologians in the time of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, speaks as follows : " Is there no hope of salvation out of 
 the church ? Without it there can be nothing but damnation, 
 destruction, and perdition. For what hope of life can remain, 
 when the members are torn or severed from the head or body ? 
 Those therefore who seditiously excite discord in the church of 
 God, and cause strife and dissent therein, and disturb it with 
 factions, such men are cut off from all hope of salvation through 
 the remission of sins, until they agree and are re-united with 
 the church r ." 
 
 I shall only cite the words of Bishops Pearson, Beveridge, 
 and Wilson, in further confirmation of this doctrine. The first 
 writes thus : " The necessity of believing the Holy Catholic 
 Church appeareth first in this, that Christ hath appointed it as 
 the only way unto eternal life. We read at the first, that ' the 
 Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved ' (Acts 
 ii. 47) ; and what was then daily done hath been done since 
 continually. Christ never appointed two ways to heaven ; nor 
 did he build a church to save some, and make another institu- 
 tion for other men's salvation. ' There is no other name under 
 heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved, but the 
 name of Jesus ;"" and that name is no otherwise given under 
 heaven than in the church. As none were saved from the 
 deluge but such as were within the ark of Noah, formed for 
 their reception by the command of God ; as none of the first- 
 born of Egypt lived but such as were within those habitations 
 whose door-posts were sprinkled with blood, by the appoint- 
 
 r Noelli Catechismus, p. 108, ed. Oxon. 1835.
 
 16 Salvation in the Church only. [p. i. CH. i. 
 
 ment of God for their preservation ; as none of the inhabitants 
 of Jericho could escape the fire and sword but such as were 
 within the house of Rahab, for whose protection a covenant 
 was made ; so none shall ever escape the eternal wrath of God 
 which belong not to the church of God 8 ." 
 
 Bishop Beveridge on those words, " the Lord added daily to 
 the church such as should be saved," says, " This being the 
 way and method that he hath settled in the world for the 
 saving of souls, or for the applying that salvation to them 
 which he hath purchased for them, we have no ground to expect 
 that he should ever recede from it." And afterwards : " See- 
 ing, therefore, that the Holy Ghost hath so positively affirmed 
 that the Lord added to the church such as should be saved, 
 and likewise hath given us such extraordinary instances of it, 
 it is no wonder that the Fathers so frequently assert that there 
 is no salvation to be had out of Chrisfs Holy Catholic Church ; 
 but that whosoever would be a member of the church trium- 
 phant in heaven, he must first be a member of the church here 
 militant on earth V Bishop Wilson says : " If God addeth 
 to this church such as shall be saved, then if I for my wicked 
 life shall deserve to be separated, cut off, or excommunicated 
 out of any particular church which is a true member of this 
 Holy Catholic Church, then am I most assuredly deprived of 
 the ordinary means of grace, and out of the way of salvation"." 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The doctrine of salvation in the church only is a popish 
 and intolerant doctrine. 
 
 Answer. (1.) The Romanists are orthodox in maintaining 
 this doctrine in the abstract, but they err in identifying the 
 church exclusively with their own societies. (2.) Intolerance 
 might with equal justice be objected to the doctrine of salva- 
 tion through Christ only : it is therefore a frivolous objection. 
 
 II. The church under the law was limited within the pro- 
 vince of Judea, yet salvation was obtained by some who were 
 not Jews, as, for instance, by Job, and by others of the Gen- 
 tiles. 
 
 Pearson on the Creed, art. ix. ii. 47. 
 
 vol. ii. p. 254. u Bishop "Wilson, Sermon on Acts 
 
 * Beveridge, Sermon IV. on Acts ii. 32, 33.
 
 SECT, in.] The Notes of the Church. 17 
 
 Answer. (1 .) The church of the Jews was only instituted 
 for a particular people, and not for the world generally, as the 
 Christian church was ; therefore there was no obligation on 
 other nations to adopt the Jewish polity. (2.) Job, and other 
 righteous men of the Gentiles, who were not called to unite 
 themselves with the Jewish church, we know from Scripture 
 itself to have been acceptable to God through faith. But the 
 Scripture does not enable us to judge in general of the state 
 of those who have died in ignorance of Christ, even after the 
 Gospel was preached throughout the world ; all, however, who 
 believed not when they heard it, were condemned. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ON THE NOTES OF THE CHUECH IN GENERAL. 
 
 IF it be true, as I have endeavoured to prove in the last 
 chapter, that Christ's church was always to continue, even to 
 the end of the world, and that it is the only way of salvation, 
 it is evident that nothing deserves our attentive examination 
 more than the signs by which we can distinguish the church of 
 Christ at present existing. Surrounded by a vast multitude of 
 contending societies calling themselves Christian, and all alike 
 claiming to be churches of Christ, there is an apparent neces- 
 sity for the discovery of some method, by which, without any 
 extreme difficulty or labour, we may discriminate the church 
 of God from its rivals. 
 
 It cannot be requisite to prove that all societies calling Church 
 themselves Christian, are not necessarily what they pretend to -^.\^ & \\ 
 be ; nor is it probable that the multiplied " denominations 1 ' Denomina- 
 around us, should be all alike faithful and obedient to our 
 Divine Master. The unanimous opinion, indeed, of professing 
 Christians is, that some of these societies belong not to Christ 
 but to Antichrist. Every particular doctrine and duty of 
 Christianity is made a matter of dispute, and denied or cor- 
 rupted by some community ; and it seems irrational to sup- 
 pose that God could have instituted "a kingdom divided 
 
 VOL. i. c
 
 18 Importance of Notes of the CJiurcJi. [PART i . 
 
 against itself v on every point, torn by irreconcilable divisions 
 and mortal enmities, and exhibiting a chaotic confusion even 
 in the most elementary principles of religion. It is incredible, 
 if Revelation be indeed from God, if it be designed for perpe- 
 tuity, if all men be bound to receive it, and if means be pro- 
 vided by Divine Providence for enabling them to receive it ; it 
 is incredible, I say, that when all its doctrines and precepts are 
 made matters of dispute, and denied by some, all professing 
 Christians should be equally included in the Church of Christ. 
 Besides this, Christ himself and the Apostles predicted, that, 
 after their departure, there should be false Christs and false 
 prophets, Antichrists and false teachers, who should privily 
 bring ,in damnable heresies ; and that many should be deceived 
 by their arts a . These evils were to continue even in the 
 latter days of the world ; and therefore there is a very great 
 probability, that some of the communities calling themselves 
 Christian, may have arisen in this manner, and are not to be 
 reckoned as any part of the church of Christ. 
 
 Necessity By what means then can we determine with certainty, which, 
 of notes. amon g these communities, are indeed portions of the church of 
 God ? All declare that they are themselves within its pale : all 
 assert that their doctrines and practice are in accordance with 
 Scripture, and with the commandment of Christ. A hundred 
 different societies present their respective claims to our ad- 
 herence, on the ground of their peculiar purity and sanctity. 
 The mind is perplexed at their number, and the positiveness of 
 their assertions. The labour of investigating all, or many, of 
 these cases in detail, is beyond human power and endurance ; 
 and the learning and judgment requisite to determine such a 
 multitude of difficult questions in doctrine and morality, are 
 possessed by very few men ; while, if the research be com- 
 menced fortuitously, without any clue to guide us to those 
 societies which may most probably be of the church of Christ, 
 we may begin by devoting a great deal of time to the exami- 
 nation of objects totally unworthy of our attention. 
 
 The precepts of Christian prudence require, that we should 
 take the briefest course, consistent with a security of arriving 
 at a sound conclusion in a practical question of such vital 
 importance. " The time is short" to run the race of Chris- 
 
 a Matt. vii. 15. xxiv. 2325; 1 Timothy iv. 1; 2 Peter ii. 1, 2; 
 Acts xx. 29; 2 Thess. ii. 312; Rev. xiii. 8. 16.
 
 CHAP. Ji.] Various Notes assigned by Theologians. 19 
 
 tianity, even when we have entered on it : how necessary then 
 is it that we should endeavour to find speedily, as well as 
 certainly, the arena in which it is to be run. It is with such 
 views that theologians, in various ages, have endeavoured to 
 lay down rules for the discrimination of Christ's church, by a 
 comparatively short and intelligible process ; and these rules 
 are styled notes or signs of the church. By notes of the church 
 are meant some of its more prominent attributes, which may 
 be ascertained and applied to all existing communities of pro- 
 fessing Christians, without any very lengthened discussion on 
 obscure and difficult points. 
 
 In this point of view, general Truth of doctrine and general Truth of 
 accordance with the law and institutions of Christ, do not & c c ^^at 
 seem to be positive notes of the church. Each society pre- sense unfit 
 tends its own soundness in these respects, and sustains its own 
 views by scriptural and other arguments ; and the critical 
 investigation of all the doctrines and duties of Christianity in 
 controversy would be impossible to the infinite majority of men. 
 It would demand, at all events, too lengthened a process ; and 
 as men are, in general, always obliged either to follow the 
 doctrine of their church, or to be uncertain on many points ; 
 it is impossible that they should discover the true church, by 
 investigating all those doctrines which, through their ignorance, 
 they are obliged by the arrangements of Divine Providence to 
 receive on her testimony. It may be observed, however, that in what 
 false doctrine and wronq administration of the sacraments are, sense ' 
 
 .... notes. 
 
 in a certain sense, notes of the church, i. e. when it can be 
 shown that a society obstinately rejects any one article of the 
 Christian faith, or refuses to administer any one sacrament, it 
 is plainly no part of the church. Thus Arians and Socinians 
 are at once excluded from the Christian society by their heresy. 
 Their errors are manifest : they demand no lengthened inves- 
 tigation ; and they are thus notes of separation from Christ and 
 from his church. 
 
 The necessity of devising some general notes of the church, Notes as- 
 and of not entering at once on controversial debates concern- S1 8 ned V 
 
 . ... . various 
 
 ing all points of doctrine and discipline, was early perceived by writers. 
 Christian theologians. Tertullian appeals in refutation of the 
 heresies of his age, to the antiquity of the church derived from 
 the Apostles, and its priority to all heretical communities b . 
 b Praescriptiones advers. Hsereticos. 
 
 c 2
 
 20 Various Notes assigned by Theologians. [PART i. 
 
 Irenaeus refers to the unity of the church's doctrines, and the 
 succession of her bishops from the Apostles . The univer- 
 sality of the church was more especially urged in the contro- 
 versy with the Donatists. St. Augustine reckons amongst 
 those things which attached him to the church : The consent 
 of nations, authority founded on miracles, sanctity of morals, 
 antiquity of origin, succession of bishops from St. Peter to the 
 present Episcopate, and the very name of the catholic church d . 
 St. Jerome mentions the continual duration of the church 
 from the Apostles, and the very appellation of the Christian 
 name 6 . In modern times Bellarmine, one of the Roman 
 school, added several other notes, such as : Agreement with 
 the primitive church in doctrine, union of members among 
 themselves and with their Head, sanctity of doctrine and of 
 founders, efficacy of doctrine, continuance of miracles and 
 prophecy, confessions of adversaries, the unhappy end of those 
 who opposed the church, and the temporal felicity conferred on 
 it f . Luther assigned as notes of the true church, the true and 
 uncorrupted preaching of the Gospel, administration of bap- 
 tism, of the eucharist, and of the keys ; a legitimate ministry, 
 public service in a known language, and tribulations internally 
 and externally g . Calvin reckons only truth of doctrine, and 
 right administration of the sacraments ; and seems to reject 
 succession h . Our learned theologians adopt a different view 
 in some respects. Dr. Field admits the following notes 
 of the church : Truth of doctrine ; use of sacraments and 
 means instituted by Christ ; union under lawful ministers ; 
 antiquity without change of doctrine ; lawful succession, i. e. 
 with true doctrine ; and universality in the successive sense, i. e. 
 the prevalence of the church successively in all nations j . 
 Bishop Taylor admits as notes of the church, antiquity, dura- 
 tion, succession of bishops, union of members among them- 
 selves and with Christ, sanctity of doctrine, &c. j 
 
 It is plain that we are not obliged to follow implicitly the 
 
 c Adv. Haereses, lib. i. c. 10; sintnotae, &c torn. vii. p. 147, oper. 
 
 lib. Hi. ed. 1550, &c. 
 
 d Contra Epistolam Manichaei h Institutiones, lib. iv. c. 1. s. 
 
 Fundament!, c. 45. Tom. viii. p. 7 9. 
 
 153, ed. Benedict. ' Of the Church, b. ii. c. 1, 2. 5, 
 
 e Dialogus adversus Luciferianos, &c. 
 
 torn. iv. pars ii. p. 306, ed. Benedict. j Dissuasive from Popery, part ii. 
 
 f De Eccl. lib. iv. c. 3, &c. b. i. s. 1 ; art. vi. p. 182, &c. Ox- 
 
 g Lutherus, De Ecclesia, et quae ford ed. 1836.
 
 CHAP, ii.] Various Notes assigned ly Theologians. 21 
 
 judgment of particular theologians in ancient or modern times, 
 in selecting notes of the church. Bellarmine's notes of tem- 
 poral prosperity and the unhappy end of the church's enemies, 
 are rejected by Tournely, Bailly k , and generally by modern 
 Romish theologians. They also differ with him and several 
 other writers of their communion, on the question of the 
 universality of the church, which they rightly maintain, accord- 
 ing to the doctrine of St. Augustine, in the simultaneous and 
 permanent sense, as opposed to the doctrine of successive 
 universality, which Melchior Canus, Bellarmine, and others 
 admitted l . We have a right to the same liberty of selection 
 and addition as regards the notes assigned by our theolo- 
 gians ; and if any of them have appeared to dwell on truth of 
 doctrine as a note, in the first of the senses mentioned above, 
 or to adopt the notion of successive universality, we are in no 
 degree bound to sustain a line of argument which we may not 
 judge to be conclusive. 
 
 The Constantinopolitan Creed gives to the Church the attri- 
 butes of "ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLICAL;" and 
 as the notes of the church may, in fact, be included under 
 these four heads, and as many of those with whom we are 
 engaged in controversy make use of them for the purpose, I 
 shall, for the sake of convenience, adopt this arrangement in 
 examining the notes of the church and marking the points in 
 which Romanists and others are to be corrected. But, in 
 order to avoid a preliminary difficulty which might arise on the 
 question, whether the church of Christ is visible or invisible, I 
 shall first examine that point. 
 
 k Multi nihilominus inter Catho- where he argues against these notes, 
 
 licos existimant duas posteriores See also Bailly, Tract, de Eccl.c.v. 
 
 notas, quas assignat Bellarminus, l Melchior Canus de Locis Theo- 
 
 nempe infelicem exitum hostium log. lib. iv. cap. postremum. Resp. 
 
 ecclesiae, et felicitatem temporalem ad 13. Bellarmin. 1. iv. de Notis 
 
 eorum qui ecclesiam defenderunt, Eccl. c. 7- This subject is exa- 
 
 ab eo expungi debuisse." Tournely mined by Gerhard, Loc. Theol. 1. 23. 
 
 de Ecclesia, qu. i. art. 2. p. 60, s. 147.
 
 22 Visibility of the Cliurch. [PARTI. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ON THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The church BY the visibility of the church is meant the manifest, public, 
 e ' known existence of congregations or churches professing Chris- 
 tianity, and joining in external acts of Christian worship. The 
 point which I am about to establish is, that there were always 
 to exist such societies, according to the Divine appointment a ; 
 and that Christianity was never to be reduced at any time to 
 obscurity ; or to be a secret profession, held by a few scattered 
 individuals, living and uniting externally in the profession of a 
 false religion. The question of an invisible church will be con- 
 sidered among the objections. 
 
 Scripture. That the church of Christ was to be eminently conspicuous 
 and visible, we collect from the following words of the prophet 
 Isaiah : " It shall come to pass in the last days, that the 
 mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of 
 the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all 
 nations shall flow unto it" (Isa. ii. 2). This shows that the 
 church of Christ was to be visible and known to all the world. 
 And the prophet Daniel's expressions are equally remarkable : 
 " The stone that smote the image became a great mountain 
 and filled the whole earth " (Dan. ii. 35). This is afterwards 
 explained to mean, that " the God of heaven shall set up a 
 kingdom which shall never be destroyed " (v. 44) ; that is, the 
 church, which had been before described as "a great moun- 
 tain," and was therefore to be in the highest degree visible. 
 
 The words of Christ Himself prove the visibility of the 
 church when he says, " Ye are the light of the world. A city 
 
 " See Archbp. Potter on Church Church of Christ ; Barrow, on the 
 Government, chap, i.; Rogers, Dis- Unity of the Church, 
 course on the Visible and Invisible
 
 CHAP, in.] Visibility of the Church proved from Tradition. 23 
 
 that is set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. v. 14) ; and it 
 equally follows from his directions in the case of an offending 
 brother : " Tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear 
 the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a 
 publican" (Matt, xviii. 17): which proves that the church 
 must be always visible ; for were it invisible, this precept 
 would be in vain. 
 
 The directions of St. Paul to the Corinthians relating toi, 
 judgments in the church (1 Cor. vi. 4), for the decorous and / 
 proper order of divine worship in their religious assemblies 
 (1 Cor. xi.), and his rules for the appointment of pastors and 
 teachers (1 Tim. iii. Tit. i.), all establish the fact that Chris-// 
 tians were formed into visible societies by the apostles. The 
 churches to whom the Epistles were addressed were all visible 
 societies, known to the heathen, and often persecuted by them. 
 If, indeed, this had not been the case, but Christianity had 
 been a secret invisible profession, the prophecies of our Saviour 
 that they should be " brought before kings and rulers for his 
 sake," that they should be reviled and persecuted for his name^s 
 sake, could not have been fulfilled. In conclusion, it may be 
 asserted without hesitation, that there is not a single instance 
 in the New Testament of a believer who uxzs not externally united 
 imth the rest in the profession of Christianity. Hence it results 
 that the visible public profession of Christianity in common is, 
 according to the divine institution, essential to the Christian 
 church. 
 
 This is confirmed by the doctrine of primitive tradition, Fathers. 
 which always describes the church as a visible and conspicuous 
 society. Irenseus says, " The preaching of the church is true 
 and firm, wherein the same way of salvation is shown through- 
 out all the world. For to her has been entrusted the light of 
 God, and thus, the wisdom of God, by which He saveth all men, 
 ' uttereth her voice in the streets, she crieth in the chief place 
 of concourse, 1 &c. . . . For everywhere the church proclaims 
 the truth ; and she is the candlestick with seven branches, 
 bearing the light of Christ 6 ." Origen observes, that "we 
 ought not to give heed to those who say, ' Here is Christ, 1 but 
 do not so manifest him in the church which from the east even 
 to the west is full of glory, which is full of the true light, which 
 
 b Irenseus adv. Hseres. lib. v. c. xx.
 
 24 Visibility of the Church farther proved. [PART i. 
 
 is the pillar and ground of the truth, in which is the whole 
 advent of the Son of Man, who saith to all that are in every 
 place, ' Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the 
 world V " Cyprian says, " The church of the Lord, full of 
 light, diffuses her rays throughout the whole world. Yet the 
 light which is every where diffused is one, nor is the unity of 
 the body separated d ." Chrysostom declares that " it is easier 
 for the sun to be extinguished than for the church to disap- 
 pear 6 ." Augustine says, "There is no security for the pre- 
 servation of unity except from the promises of .Christ to his 
 church, which being placed on a mountain, as it was said, 
 cannot be hidden ; and therefore it is necessary that this 
 church should be known to all parts of the world f ." And in 
 another place : " Hence it is that the true church cannot be 
 hidden to any one ; and hence that which he saith in the Gos- 
 pel, ' A city set on an hill cannot be hid g .' ' 
 
 Reason. It is certain, in fact, that all the Fathers considered the 
 church as visible throughout the world in all its particular 
 churches or congregations. If, indeed, the church of Christ 
 had not been visible by divine institution, it could not have 
 been the light of the world or a witness of Christianity ; and 
 if it had ever ceased to be visible, the gates of hell might well 
 have been said to have prevailed against it. If the church of 
 Christ, once exalted on the top of the mountains, and spreading 
 herself from Judea to the ends of the earth, could have so 
 far fallen away as to become a heretical community, wherein 
 
 c " Non debemus attendere eis e Ei/KoXwi-tpov rbv i'i\iov a 
 
 qui dicunt, ' Ecce hie Christus,' rj rrjv tKK\r]ffiav atyavivQiivai. In il- 
 
 non autem ostendunt eum in eccle- lud, vidi Dominum, Horn. iv. torn. 
 
 sia quae plena est fulgore ab oriente vi. p. 122, oper. ed. Bened. 
 
 usque ad occidentem, quse plena est f " Nulla est igitur securitas uni- 
 
 lumine vero, quse est columna et tatis, nisi ex promissis Dei ecclesias 
 
 firmamentum veritatis, in qua tota declarata, quse super montem, ut 
 
 totus est adventus Filii hominis di- dictum est, constituta, abscondi non 
 
 centis omnibus qui ubique sunt : potest : et ideo necesse est ut omni- 
 
 ' Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus bus terrarum partibus nota sit." 
 
 diebus vitse, usque ad consumma- Aug. contr. Epist. Parmeniani, lib. 
 
 tionem sseculi.' " Origen in Matt. iii. c. 5, torn. ix. p. 75, ed. Benedict. 
 
 tract, xxx. torn. ii. p. 865, ed. Bened. " Hinc fit ut ecclesia vera nemi- 
 
 d " Sic et ecclesia Domini luce nem lateat. Unde est illud quod in 
 
 perfusa per orbem totum radios suos Evangelio ipse dicit : Non potest 
 
 porrigit, unum tamen lumen est, civitas abscondi super montem con- 
 
 quod ubique diffunditur, nee unitas stituta." Cont. Petil. lib. ii. c. xxxii. 
 
 corporis separatur." Cypr. de Uni- torn. ix. p. 240. 
 tate, p. 254, ed. Pamel.
 
 CHAP, in.] Visibility of the Church held by Protestants. 25 
 
 some few souls alone retained their Christianity in obscurity, 
 while they externally united in the abominations of an apos- 
 tate society ; in such a case, it seems impossible to deny 
 that the gates of hell must have prevailed against her. Were 
 there no promise that the church should be always visible, 
 what assurance could we have that any existing community of 
 Christians is a church of Christ ? It might be that the true 
 church still lurks unperceived in some corner, or that, as yet, 
 its members are concealed amongst various communities of 
 professing Christians; it might be that all existing visible 
 churches are Antichristian. 
 
 But I proceed to show the general agreement of Christians Reformers, 
 in modern times, that the church is visible. It would be super- 
 fluous to prove that those of the Eoman obedience and the 
 Eastern churches maintain the visibility of the church ; none 
 of them have ever denied it. But the perpetual visibility of 
 the church has been also acknowledged by the Lutherans, the 
 Reformed, and by various sects. 
 
 The confession of Augsburg professes " that there is one 
 holy church which is to endure for ever ;" that it is " a con- 
 gregation of saints, in which the gospel is rightly taught and 
 the sacraments administered V The preaching of the gospel 
 and administration of the sacraments are attributes of a visible 
 church only. The Apology, also, drawn up by Melancthon, 
 declares that the impious only communicate externally with the 
 true church : the notes of which are, " the pure doctrine of 
 the gospel, and the sacraments ; and this church is properly 
 the pillar of the truth V This proves that they esteemed the 
 church a visible society ; and the confession of Augsburg 
 denies that " all ceremonies, all old institutions were abolished 
 in their churches V evidently understanding visible societies. 
 The Saxon confession says, that " the church may be seen and 
 heard, according to that text, ' their sound went into all the 
 
 h " Item decent, quod una sancta nos Platonicam civitatem, ut quidam 
 
 Ecclesia perpetuo mansura sit. Est impie cavillantur, sed dicimus exis- 
 
 autem Ecclesia congregatio sancto- tere hanc Ecclesiam . . . Et addimus 
 
 rum, in qua evangelium recte doce- notas : puram doctrinam evangelii 
 
 tur et recte administrantur sacra- et sacramenta." Apol. Conf. iv. de 
 
 inenta " Art. vii. de Ecclesia. Ecclesia. 
 
 ' " Docet impios illos quamvis ha- > " Falsa enim calumnia est, quod 
 beant societatem externorum signo- omnes ceremonise, omnia vetera in- 
 rum, tamen non esse verum regnum stituta in Ecclesiis nostris abolean- 
 Christi .... neque vero somniamus tur." Conf. August, pars i. xxii.
 
 26 Visibility of the Church held by Protestants. [PART i. 
 
 world ;' " and that there is a visible church in which God 
 operates k . The Bohemian confession, approved by Luther 1 ; 
 the confession of the Reformed of Strasburgh m ; the Helvetic 
 confession ; that of Basil, in 1536; the Galilean?; all speak 
 repeatedly of the church as essentially visible. This was also 
 the doctrine of Calvin, who declares that out of the visible 
 church there is no salvation q . 
 
 In fact, the Reformed seem generally to have taught the 
 doctrine of the visibility of the church, until some of them 
 deemed it necessary, in consequence of their controversy with 
 the Romanists, who asked them where their church existed 
 before Luther, to maintain that the church might sometimes 
 be invisible. This mistaken view appears in the Belgic con- 
 fession, and was adopted by some of the Protestants ; but it 
 arose entirely from their error in forsaking the defensive 
 ground which their predecessors had taken at first, and placing 
 themselves in the false position of claiming the exclusive title 
 of the church of Christ, according to the ordinary signification 
 of the term. Jurieu, a minister of the French Protestants, 
 has shown this r , and has endeavoured to prove that the church 
 of Christ is essentially visible, and that it never remained 
 obscured, without ministry or sacraments, even in the perse- 
 cutions, or in the time of Arianism. The same truth has been 
 Dissenters, acknowledged by several denominations of dissenters in Britain. 
 
 k "Non igitur de Ecclesia, tan- * Conf. Gallicana, cap. xxvii. 
 
 quam de idea Platonica loquimur ; 1 " In symbolo, ubi profitemur 
 
 sed Ecclesiam monstramus, quse nos credere Ecclesiam, id non solum 
 
 conspici et exaudiri potest; juxta ad visibilem, de qua nunc agimus, 
 
 illud : In omnem terram exivit so- refertur, sed ad omnes quoque elec- 
 
 nus eorum . . . Dicimus igitur, EC- tos Dei." Inst. iv. 1. s. 2. " Quia 
 
 clesiam visibilem in hac vita coe- nunc de visibili Ecclesia disserere 
 
 tutn esse amplectentium evangelium propositum est, discamus vel uno 
 
 Christi, et recte utentium sacramen- matris elogio quam utilis sit nobis 
 
 tis, in quo Deus per ministerium ejus cognitio, imo necessaria : quan- 
 
 evangelii est efficax, et multos ad do non alius est in vitam ingressus, 
 
 vitam aeternam regenerat." Conf. &c extra ejus gremium nulla 
 
 Saxon art. xii. est speranda peccatorum remissio, 
 
 I Confess. Bohemica, cap. viii. nee ulla salus," &c. Ibid. s. 4. If 
 m Confessio Tetrapolit. c. xvi. 16. salvation is only to be obtained in 
 
 II Conf. Helvetica, c. xvii. " Mili- the visible church, it follows that 
 tans in terris Ecclesia semper pluri- there must always be a visible church, 
 mas habet particulars Ecclesias, quae He adds that "paternus Dei favor 
 tamen omnes ad unitatem Catho- et peculiare spiritualis vitee testimo- 
 licae Ecclesise referuntur." It is evi- nium ad gregem ejus restringitur : 
 dent that the church is all through ut semper exitialis sit ab Ecclesia 
 regarded as a visible society. discessio." Ibid. 
 
 Art. xiv. xv. ' In his Systeme de 1'Eglise.
 
 CHAP, in.] Visibility of the Church proved from the Articles. 27 
 
 Thus the Presbyterian divines of Westminster (1647) declared, 
 that the visible church, which is also catholic or universal under 
 the gospel, ... is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary 
 possibility of salvation 8 ." Dr. Owen, the chief of the Inde- 
 pendents in the seventeenth century, admits the existence of 
 " a visible catholic church * ;" and says, that the " union of the 
 catholic church in all particular churches (which are visible 
 according to him), is always the same, inviolable, unchange- 
 able, comprehending all the churches in the world at all times, 
 .... nor to be prevailed against by the gates of hell u ." In 
 fact, all the dissenting societies claim to be " Churches of 
 Christ ;" therefore they must admit that the church of Christ 
 was to be visible, which, unless they believed that Christ had 
 promised this visibility, they could not be certain of. Even 
 the Quakers admit the visibility of the church. Barclay speaks 
 of the " Christians, as they are stated, in a joint fellowship and 
 communion, and come under a visible and outward society ; 
 which society is called the church of God, and in Scripture 
 compared to a body, and therefore named the body of Christ V 
 
 Finally, I proceed to show that the visibility of the church church of 
 is recognised by the British churches and our theologians. En g land - 
 The articles of the Synod of London (1562) uniformly regard 
 the church as a visible society ; as in the following passages : 
 41 The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful 
 men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the 
 
 sacraments duly administered," &c "As the Church of 
 
 Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the 
 Church of Kome hath erred w . r> . . . . " The church hath power 
 
 Westminster Confession, chap, tinue to prefer truth to falsehood, 
 
 xxv. and will preserve that purity in its 
 
 1 Owen's True Nature of a Gos- ministry by virtue of its own ever- 
 
 pel Church, p. 50. living purity, which will in vain be 
 
 u Owen's True Nature of a Gos- attempted by instruments, artificial 
 
 pel Church, p. 403. The modern and extraneous to itself." No words 
 
 dissenters, in their " Ecclesiastical -can more strongly express the per- 
 
 Library " (on religious creeds, p. petuity of the church, and the total 
 
 126), say, "The Redeemer promised impossibility that it could ever have 
 
 to be with his church always, even to apostatized. Yet dissent only exists 
 
 the end of the world .... as defend- on the supposition that the universal 
 
 ing and perpetuating the prosperity church had apostatized, 
 
 of his whole body, and maintaining T Barclay's Apology for the Qua- 
 
 its purity and vitality to the consum- kers, prop. xi. p. 272. 
 
 motion of all earthly things. And if w Art. six. 
 so, his church will, to the end, con-
 
 28 Visibility of the Church proved from the Articles. [PARTI. 
 
 to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies 
 of faith x ." . ..." It is repugnant to the word of God, and the 
 custom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the 
 church, or to minister the sacraments, in a tongue not under- 
 stood of the people ?." ... . " Although in the visible church 
 . . . sometimes the evil have chief authority in the administra- 
 tion of the word and sacraments ; yet forasmuch as they .... 
 do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their 
 ministry z ." . . . . " That person which by open denunciation of 
 the church is rightly cut off from the unity of the church and 
 excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of 
 the faithful as an heathen and a publican, until he be openly 
 reconciled by penance, and received into the church a ." " Who- 
 soever through his private judgment willingly and purposely 
 doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church." 
 . . . . " Every particular or national church hath authority to 
 ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites b ," &c. In all 
 these passages the church is uniformly regarded as a visible 
 society, in which the gospel is preached, the sacraments admi- 
 nistered, a ministry presides, rites and ceremonies are decreed, 
 controversies of faith determined, and offenders censured by 
 authority. A visible association, visible sacraments, a visible 
 priesthood, are all supposed to be instituted by Christ, and 
 therefore essential to the church : and there is no trace of 
 the notion that Christianity should lie concealed, a few scat- 
 tered believers, surrounded and overpowered by a triumphant 
 and universal apostasy. 
 
 The catechism of Dr. Nowell, approved by several bishops, 
 confesses that the church of God is visible, and that those who 
 disturb this church or dissent from it, are without hope of sal- 
 vation c ." Bishop Jewell says, that " we believe there is one 
 church of God," and " that there are various orders of ministers 
 in it ; that some are deacons, some priests, some bishops d ," 
 &c. This plainly refers only to a visible church. Bishop 
 Pearson professes, as "a necessary and infallible truth, that 
 Christ, by the preaching of the apostles, did gather unto him- 
 
 x Art. xx. c Noelli Catechismus, p. 106. 108. 
 
 y Art. xxiv. Oxford ed. 1836. 
 
 z Art. xxvi. d Juelli Apologia, p. 27, 28. Ed. 
 
 11 Art. xxxiii. London. 1606. 
 
 b Art. xxxiv.
 
 CHAP, in.] Visibility of the Church from our Writers. 29 
 
 self a church consisting of thousands of believers and numerous 
 congregations, to which he added daily such as should be 
 saved, and will successively and daily add to the same unto the 
 end of the world e ." This church he had before described as 
 possessing unity of government and sacraments ; therefore it 
 was visible. Dr. Field denies that the writers of the Refor- 
 mation generally maintain the church to be invisible. Bellar- 
 mine, he says, labours in vain, " in proving that there is, and 
 always hath been a visible church, and that not consisting of 
 some few scattered Christians without order of ministry or use 
 of sacraments ; for all this we do most willingly yield unto ; 
 howsoever, perhaps, some few have been of opinion that though 
 all others failing from the faith, the truth of God should remain 
 only in some few of the laity, yet the promise of Christ con- 
 cerning the perpetuity of his church might still be verified f ." 
 
 I shall conclude with the words of the profound Bishop 
 Butler. " Miraculous powers were given to the first preachers 
 of Christianity, in order to their introducing it into the world ; 
 a visible Church was established in order to continue it, and 
 carry it on successively throughout all ages. Had Moses and 
 the prophets, Christ and his apostles, only taught, and by 
 miracles proved, religion to their contemporaries, the benefit 
 of their instructions would have reached but to a small part of 
 mankind. Christianity must have been in a great degree sunk 
 and forgot in a very few ages. To prevent this, appears to 
 have been one reason why a visible Church was instituted ; to 
 be like a city upon a hill, a standing memorial to the world of 
 the duty which we owe our Maker ; to call men continually, 
 both by precept and instruction, to attend to it, and by the 
 form of religion ever before their eyes, remind them of the 
 reality ; to be the repository of the oracles of God ; to hold up 
 the light of revelation in aid of that of nature, and propagate 
 it throughout all generations to the end of the world g ." 
 
 e On the Creed, art. ix. vol. ii. by Ockham and some other school- 
 
 p. 236. men. 
 
 1 Field, Of the Church, book i. Butler's Analogy, part ii. c. 1. 
 c. 10. This doctrine was maintained
 
 30 Visibility of the Church. [PART i. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The true church of Christ consists only of the elect, but 
 the elect are not known and visible to the world ; therefore 
 the church of Christ is invisible. 
 
 Answer. I deny the first proposition, if it be understood of 
 election to eternal life. The church or kingdom of God com- 
 prises many who shall not inherit eternal life. This is evident 
 from the parable of the tares and the draw-net, in which it 
 appears that the evil will only be separated from the good at 
 the day of judgment. It is true, indeed, that the sanctified 
 Church, and elect are principally and essentially the church of Christ, 
 Bible!"" an ^ m this point of view the church may be called invisible h ; 
 but besides them are many sinners and hypocrites who belong 
 to the church, though only externally, temporarily, and imper- 
 fectly. The second proposition requires a distinction. I grant 
 that the elect are not visible as elect, but I deny that they are 
 not visible as professing Christians. There is not a single in- 
 stance of any saint in the New Testament who did not exter- 
 nally and visibly confess Christ with all other Christians ; nor 
 is there an instance of a church whose existence was unknown 
 and secret. On the contrary, a visible profession of Chris- 
 tianity is essential, for, " With the mouth confession is made 
 unto salvation" (Horn. x. 10) ; and again : " Whosoever shall 
 confess me before men, him shall the Son of Man confess 
 before the angels of God." As St. Augustine saith : " Faith 
 requires from us the office both of the heart and the tongue ; 
 .... we cannot be saved unless we labour for the salvation 
 of our neighbours, by professing with our mouth the faith 
 which we bear in our heart V While, therefore, we admit 
 that those who are essentially members of the church are not 
 discernible as such from hypocritical professors or false brethren, 
 and are therefore in one sense invisible ; we maintain that they 
 
 h See Gerhard, Loci Theol. 1. 23, oportet nos esse et justitise memores 
 
 s. 69-78 ; Rogers, On the Visible et salutis. Quando quidem in sem- 
 
 and Invisible Church. piterna justitia regnaturi, a praesenti 
 
 1 " Quoniam scriptum est seculo maligno salvi fieri non possu- 
 
 ' quia Justus ex fide vivit,' eaque mus, nisi et nos ad salutem proxi- 
 
 fides officium a nobis exigit et cor- morum nitentes, etiam ore profitea- 
 
 dis et linguae ; ait enim Apostolus, mur fidem, quam corde gestamus." 
 
 ' Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore August, de Fide et Symbolo, torn, 
 
 autem confessio fit ad salutem:' vi. p. 151, ed. Bened.
 
 CHAP, in.] Objections. 31 
 
 always openly profess Christ, and are therefore always and 
 essentially visible. 
 
 II. The worship of the faithful is entirely spiritual, there- 
 fore the church is not visible. The former proposition is 
 proved by Scripture. " After those days, saith the Lord, I 
 will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their 
 hearts" (Jer. xxxi. S3). "The hour cometh, and now is, 
 when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit 
 and in truth" (John iv. 23). " Ye also, as lively stones, are 
 built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spi- 
 ritual sacrifices" (1 Pet. ii. 5). 
 
 Answer. (1.) This proves too much, namely, that no exter- 
 nal worship, sacraments, or ordinances, were instituted by 
 Christ ; which would be contrary to Scripture and the general 
 consent of all nations and ages. (2.) These expressions sig- 
 nify that the Christian religion was not to be chiefly typical, 
 ceremonial, and external, like the Jewish, or rather like what 
 it had been made by the Scribes and Pharisees ; but chiefly 
 internal, though not without external rites, and the form of a 
 visible church. 
 
 III. " The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke xvii. 21). 
 Answer. This is only intended to correct the errors of the 
 
 Jews, who thought it would come with external pomp and 
 power, or " with observation" (verse 20). In these words 
 Christ meant that his dominion was chiefly in the mind and 
 heart ; but this does not prove that it was not also to be mani- 
 fested by external signs of obedience and profession. 
 
 IV. " When the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on 
 the earth" (Luke xviii. 8)? it seems, from this, that the 
 visible church, if it then exist, shall not be the church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Answer. Christ only speaks of " faith which worketh by love 1 " 1 . 
 (Gal. v. 6) ; of which there will be little in the church of 
 Christ in the latter days, " Because iniquity shall abound, the 
 love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. xxiv. 12) k ; yet still 
 
 k This explanation is given by St. inveniet fidem in terra ? Videmus 
 
 Jerome (Dialog, adv. Lucifer.), Au- fieri quod ille prsedixit. In Dei 
 
 gustine, lib. de Unitate, and Ser- timore, in lege justitiae, in dilectione, 
 
 mo 36, de Verbis Dom. Cyprian in opere, fides nulla est. Nemo 
 
 applies the words to his own time, futurorum metum cogitat, diem 
 
 and explains their meaning as above. Domini, et iram Dei .... Quod 
 
 " Filius hominis cum venerit, putas metueret conscientia nostra, si ere-
 
 32 Visibility of the Church. [PART i. 
 
 there shall be some faithful in the visible church of Christ : 
 for, " Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world ;" 
 and again, " We which are alive and remain, shall be caught 
 up ... and so shall we ever be with the Lord " (1 Thess. 
 iv. 17). 
 
 V. " That day shall not come, except there come a falling 
 away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdi- 
 tion, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called 
 God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the 
 temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 
 ii. 3, 4). 
 
 Answer. (1.) It does not follow that because there is an 
 apostasy there is not also a true church. (2.) The man of 
 sin sits in God ''s temple, which still remains God^s temple ; he 
 usurps the attributes of God, but it does not follow that he is 
 worshipped by all, or even by the majority of those who form 
 the temple ; consequently there may be always a true visible 
 church '. 
 
 VI. The church of God, under the former dispensation, 
 sometimes became invisible, or failed. Thus Elijah says, " The 
 children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down 
 thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword ; and I, 
 even I only, am left " (1 Kings xix. 10. 14). 
 
 Answer. (1.) Moses had prophesied or intimated the falling 
 away of the children of Israel (Deut. xxviii. xxix. 25, 26. xxx. 
 17). (2.) The kingdom of Judah retained the true worship 
 of God at the time Elijah spoke. 
 
 VII. The church of Christ was invisible during the time of 
 Arianism. 
 
 Answer. It is not to be doubted that the church may some- 
 times be full of schisms and disturbed by heresies, even though 
 true religion ultimately prevails. " The church," says Augus- 
 tine, " is sometimes obscured, and, as it were, clouded by the 
 
 deret ; quia non credit omnino, nee novisshnis temporibus, in Ecclesia 
 
 metuit ; si autem crederet et cave- Dei aut evangelicus vigor cecidit, 
 
 ret ; si caveret evaderet." De Unit, aut Christianas virtutis, aut fidei 
 
 p. 260. robur elanguit, ut non supersit por- 
 
 1 " Domini voce atque Apostolo- tio sacerdotum, quae minime ad has 
 
 rum contestatione preedictum est, rerum ruinas et fidei naufragia suc- 
 
 deficiente jam mundo, atque appro- cumbat,"&c. Cyprian. Epist.lxviii. 
 
 pinquante Antichristo, bona queeque ad Clerum et Plebes in Hispania, 
 
 deficere, mala vero et ad versa pro- p. 167- 
 ficere. Non sic tamen, quamvis
 
 CHAP, in.] Objections. 33 
 
 multitude of scandals, when sinners bend their bows, that they 
 may privily shoot at them that are true of heart ; but even 
 then it is conspicuous in its firmest members ; . . . . Perhaps 
 it was not said in vain, ' as the stars of heaven, and as the 
 sand of the sea- shore ;' that by the stars of heaven might be 
 understood the fewer, firmer, more renowned ; and by the sand 
 on the sea-shore, that great multitude of the carnal and weak 
 which sometimes, in peaceable times, appears free and quiet, but 
 sometimes is covered and disturbed by the waves of tribulation 
 and temptation m ." Still, even at such times, there are always 
 witnesses to the truth n . 
 
 VIII. The church of Christ was invisible during the papal 
 domination. 
 
 Answer. I deny that it was so : part of the church was 
 indeed subdued by the pontiffs, but the church at large existed 
 and was visible, as I shall hereafter prove. 
 
 IX. If the church of Christ is always visible, the Protestant 
 and Eeformed church could not have been the church of 
 Christ, for it was not visible before the Eeformation. 
 
 Answer. (1.) I shall hereafter prove, that although the 
 Lutheran and Reformed communities were not churches of 
 Christ, in the full sense of the term, yet that they were not 
 cut off from the universal church, but were so far a portion of 
 it, as to be capable of salvation. (2.) The British churches 
 have always been visible. 
 
 X. If the church of Christ is always visible, the Eeformation 
 was unjustifiable ; for the nineteenth article of the Church of 
 England, and the Lutheran, and other Confessions, affirm that 
 the visible church is a society in which " the pure word of God 
 
 m " Ipsa est quae aliquando ob- tentationum fluctibus operitur atque 
 ecuratur, et tamquam obnubilatur turbatur." August. Epist. xciii. al. 
 multi incline scandalorum, quando xlviii. torn. ii. p. 243, ed. Bened. In 
 peccatores intendunt arcum, ut sa- this sense Ambrose says : " Obum- 
 gittent in obscura luna rectos corde. brari potest (Ecclesia), deficere non 
 Sed etiam tune in suis firmissimis potest." Lib. iv. Hexaem. c. 2. 
 eminet . . . ut fortasse non frus- Vincentius also says, " Quid si no- 
 tra dictum sit, ' sicut stellae coeli, et vella aliqua contagio non jam porti- 
 sicut arena qua? est ad oram maris :' unculam aliquam Ecclesiae, sed to- 
 ut in stellis cceli pauciores, firmi- tarn pariter Ecclesiam commaculare 
 ores, clarioresque intelligantur ; in conetur "i " Vincent. Lirin. Corn- 
 arena autcni maritimi littoris magna monitor, c. iv. 
 multitude infirmorum atque carna- n For the state of the church in 
 lium, quae aliquando tranquillitate the time of Arianism, see part iv. 
 temporis quieta et libera apparet, c. x. s. 2. 
 aliquando autem tribulationum et 
 
 VOL. I. D
 
 34 Unity of the Church in Communion, [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 is preached," and " the sacraments duly administered " in " all 
 things necessary." Therefore there was no need of reforma- 
 tion ; and those who opposed the doctrine of the visible Roman 
 church were enemies of Christ. 
 
 Answer. The pure word of God means the doctrine certainly 
 revealed by Jesus Christ, neither mutilated nor corrupted by 
 heresies. The whole church never formally taught any other. 
 But erroneous opinions, not directly contrary to faith, and 
 superstitious practices, were inculcated by authority ; and 
 many individuals taught heresy and idolatry without censure 
 or reproof; and hence it became necessary to correct and 
 reform the church. The Reformation was not directed against 
 any doctrines defined by the whole Catholic Church, as will be 
 seen in the course of this work. 
 
 XI. Several Protestant divines have considered the church 
 as sometimes invisible. 
 
 Answer. (1.) With Dr. Field, I deny that the Protestants 
 have generally said so ; I have proved the contrary. (2.) The 
 authority of a few recent theologians is to be entirely disre- 
 garded when opposed to Scripture and the sentiments of the 
 church generally, which it is in this instance. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH TN RESPECT OF 
 COMMUNION. 
 
 THE church of Christ is in many respects ONE a . 
 
 I. It is one in origin, having been founded by Christ and his 
 apostles. 
 
 II. It possesses one ministry derived from the apostles, with 
 which the faithful hold communion. 
 
 III. It is actually or virtually one in communion, its true 
 members being always in communion with all their brethren, 
 either in act or in intention and desire. 
 
 a See Pearson on the Creed, art. s. 34 ; Barrow's Discourse on the 
 ix. ; Gerhard. Loci Theolog. 1. 26, Unity of the Church.
 
 SECT, i.] Union of Communion a Christian Duty. 35 
 
 IV. It is one in faith, none of its true members obstinately 
 doubting or rejecting any articles of the faith. 
 
 Of these various sorts of unity, the first has been considered 
 under the question of the perpetuity of the church, and will 
 also be treated of in chapter vi. ; the second will be considered 
 under the question of the " Apostolicity of the Church " (chap, 
 viii.) ; the third and fourth shall now be examined, under the 
 two general heads of Unity in Communion, and Unity in 
 Faith. The former of these is to be the subject of our present 
 consideration. 
 
 I design to prove, 
 
 First, That external, visible communion between all Chris- 
 tians, in matters of religion, is, when possible, a Christian duty. 
 
 Secondly, That separation from this communion, by a volun- 
 tary act, excludes from the church or kingdom of Christ. 
 
 Thirdly, That the same effect is produced by lawful excom- 
 munication. 
 
 Fourthly, That external communion may, consistently with 
 the promises of God, and has been, in fact, interrupted in the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Fifthly, I shall inquire in what cases separation of commu- 
 nion is justifiable ; and, 
 
 Sixthly, Examine in what respects unity in communion is a 
 sign or note of the true church. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 ON THE OBLIGATION OF EXTERNAL COMMUNION. 
 
 The general duty of religious communion among Christians 
 is to be inferred from their mutual relations, from the duty of 
 charity enjoined by Christ and the apostles, from the practice 
 of the church instituted by them, and, finally, from universal 
 tradition and the general consent of professing Christians. 
 
 I. All Christians " are the children of God by faith in Christ Scriptural 
 Jesus " (Gal. iii. 26), who is " the first-born among many proofe ' 
 brethren' 1 '' (Bom. viii. 29). As brethren they are bound to all 
 the duties of the fraternal relation in religion ; and this neces- 
 sarily infers a visible communion and amicable intercourse in 
 religious matters. Christ is described in Scripture as "the 
 head of the body, the church" (Col. i. 18); and Christians 
 are " one body in Christ, and every one members one of 
 
 D2
 
 36 Union of Communion a Christian Duty. [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 another" (Rom. xii. 5). This implies the very closest ties and 
 strongest mutual interest between all Christians ; and there- 
 fore, as a necessary consequence, their external communion. 
 
 2. The duty of charity, so often urged by the Saviour him- 
 self, involves, necessarily, the same thing : "A new command- 
 ment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have 
 loved you, that ye also love one another" (John xiii. 34). 
 Obedience to this precept would necessarily lead to that perfect 
 unity for which he so earnestly supplicated in these words : 
 " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall 
 believe in me through their word, that they all may be one : as 
 Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be 
 one in us .... that they may be one, even as we are : I in them, 
 and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one : and that 
 the world may know that Thou hast sent me, and hast loved 
 them, as Thou hast loved me " (John xvii. 20 23). This per- 
 fect unity, for which our blessed Saviour so earnestly prayed, 
 was to be the result of Christian charity ; and it obviously 
 includes the notion of external communion in all religious 
 matters ; for how could those who should refuse to hold any 
 religious intercourse with their brethren, be accounted in any 
 way obedient to the dictates of divine charity ? 
 
 3. Accordingly the apostles not only urged unceasingly the 
 necessity of possessing this holy virtue, " the bond of perfect- 
 ness," but of fulfilling all the duties of external intercourse 
 which flowed from it. Their admonitions were : " That ye 
 stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the 
 faith of the gospel ;" " Let us walk by the same rule, let us 
 mind the same thing" (Phil. i. 27; iii. 16) ; u Not forsaking 
 the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is " 
 (Heb. x. 25) ; " Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one 
 of another ; love as brethren," &e. (1 Pet. iii. 8) ; " With 
 long suffering forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to 
 keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv. 
 2, 3) ; " Fulfil ye my joy . . being of one mind . . Let nothing 
 be done through strife or vain glory" (Phil. ii. 2); and, finally, 
 what is strongest of all : " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the 
 name of Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and 
 that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly 
 joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment. 
 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren
 
 SECT, i.] Unity of Communion. 37 
 
 that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that 
 every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of 
 Cephas, and I of Christ," &c. (1 Cor. i. 1012). Nothing 
 can prove more plainly the religious communion of the Chris- 
 tian brethren, and the holy zeal of the apostle to preserve it 
 perfect and unimpaired by the least division. 
 
 4. We observe the effects of such exhortations and instruc- 
 tions in the state of the church then. In every place the 
 brethren assembled together to partake of the " one bread " 
 which united them by such sacred ties, and to hear the exhorta- 
 tions of the same " rulers " who were established in the church 
 by God, to " give account for their souls." And farther, the 
 Christians of the church in each particular locality, communi- 
 cated with their brethren in all other places, as they had 
 opportunity. The churches of Macedonia, of Corinth, and 
 Galatia, made contributions for those of Judea. The church 
 of Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea, and trans- 
 mitted it to the elders of that church by the hands of Barna- 
 bas and Saul; and they again evinced their communion by 
 sending messengers to consult the apostles who presided there. 
 The church of Ephesus wrote to the disciples in Achaia, ex- 
 horting them to receive Apollos (Acts xviii. 27). Paul was 
 accompanied to Troas by members of the churches of Berea, 
 Thessalonica, Derbe, and Asia ; and all were present when 
 the church at Troas met to " break bread" (Acts xx. 4. 7). 
 St. Paul commanded the Romans to receive Phoebe, a dea- 
 coness of Cenchrese, "in the Lord" (Rom. xvi. 1). "The 
 churches of Christ" saluted the faithful of Rome (xvi. 16). 
 The "churches" of Asia "saluted" that of Corinth (1 Cor. 
 xvi. 19). Letters of commendation were given to the faithful 
 who went from one church to another in travelling, or for some 
 lawful cause (2 Cor. iii. 1). The Colossians were enjoined to 
 salute the brethren of Laodicea, and to cause their epistle to 
 be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and likewise to read 
 the epistle from Laodicea (Col. iv. 15, 16). 
 
 It is clear, then, that the churches of Christ all held com- 
 munion in various ways ; aiding, each other, exchanging saluta- 
 tions, admitting those who brought letters of commendation, 
 to the assemblies and rites of the church, seeking for mutual 
 advice. This was all instituted by the Apostles in accordance 
 with the will of God.
 
 38 Separation from the Church. [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 Practice The same external communion and intercourse continued in 
 Church. t ne church. Thus the Roman church had a custom, accounted 
 ancient in the second century, of sending pecuniary aid to that 
 of Corinth, and many others b . The same church, under its 
 bishop, St. Clement, wrote to the Corinthians, exhorting them 
 to unity. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote to many 
 churches ; Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, followed his exam- 
 ple c ; the venerable Polycarp came to Rome to consult on the 
 time of keeping Easter ; and Anicetus, the bishop, to testify 
 his communion, permitted him to consecrate the eucharist in 
 his presence d . Finally, the use of commendatory letters was 
 universal e ; and the bishops and presbyters assembled in nume- 
 rous councils, and sent their judgments and circular epistles to 
 all churches throughout the world f . 
 
 5. The doctrine of all Christians, from the earliest ages, 
 was in perfect accordance with this apostolical practice. They 
 esteemed it a most grievous and inexcusable sin, to separate 
 from the communion of the church ; and regarded all who did 
 so, as cut off from Christ. The very same doctrine has been 
 confessed by professing Christians of all " denominations'" in 
 later ages, but I reserve for the succeeding section the proof of 
 this general consent. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 ON VOLUNTARY SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH. 
 
 Particular churches were instituted by the apostles, in obe- 
 dience to the divine will, not to divide, but to organize the 
 church universal. Their establishment was necessary, to pro- 
 vide for the ordinary exercise of divine worship in common, 
 and for the preservation of religion ; because, from the uni- 
 versality of the Christian society, it was impossible that the 
 same teachers should ordinarily instruct all nations ; but this 
 arrangement, which was rendered essential by the constitution 
 
 b Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, e Bingham, Origines Eccles. v. 1. 
 
 states this in an epistle to Soter of s. 3. 
 
 Rome. Euseb. Hist. iv. 23. Dio- f This subject is more fully dis- 
 
 nysius of Alexandria, also. Euseb. cussed by Barrow, in his Discourse 
 
 vii. 4. concerning the Unity of the Church, 
 
 c Euseb. Hist. iv. 23. Works, vol. i. p. 762, &c. ed. Til- 
 
 '' Irenseus, cited by Eusebius, lotson. 
 v. 24.
 
 SECT, ii.] Separation from the Church. 39 
 
 of human nature, could never impair the sacred relations of 
 fraternity and fellow-membership, which resulted from their 
 mutual communion with God, nor the duty of external com- 
 munion with all Christians, which followed from those rela- 
 tions a . Hence the communion of the church is two-fold, and 
 there may be offences against it in two ways : either in dividing 
 the communion of a particular church, or in dividing that of 
 the universal church. The one arises, when professing Chris- 
 tians divide, or refuse to communicate with the particular 
 church of which they are members : the other, where particu- 
 lar churches refuse to communicate with the universal church ; 
 that is, with the great body of Christians. The offence against 
 communion is called schism ; and schism, in its extremest de- 
 gree, is separation, or dissent b . Division or schism is partial, 
 when no rival worship is established, or when the communion 
 of the great body of the church is not rejected, nor withdrawn 
 by a legitimate judgment : but when one or more professing 
 Christians separate themselves from the communion of a parti- 
 cular church, and from that of the great body of Christians, or 
 are cut off from it by a regular and legitimate judgment, they 
 are totally separated from the church of God. 
 
 I shall first speak of voluntary separation from the church, 
 and afterwards of separation by excommunication. 
 
 1. Schism, even in the smallest degree possible, was for-Sc ripturaJ 
 bidden by the apostles : " I beseech you, brethren, by the name 
 of Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that 
 there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly 
 joined together," &c. (1 Cor. i. 10); and the offence of raising 
 such divisions was so serious, that they who were guilty of it 
 were not to be treated as Christians, they were to be sepa- 
 rated from communion : " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark 
 them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doc- 
 trine which ye have learned ; and avoid them, for they that are 
 such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. xvi. 17, 18). 
 They are thus classed with " fornicators, covetous, idolaters, 
 railers, drunkards, extortioners," with whom, also, Christians 
 
 " Though the Church in the tar. in Ps. xiv. p. 62. ed. Ben. 
 world be one, yet every city has its b Schism was sometimes entitled 
 
 own Church, and it is one in all, for heresy, in primitive times ; but cus- 
 
 though there are many, it is one in torn has appropriated the latter term 
 
 many." Hilarius Pictav. Commen- to offences against faith.
 
 40 Separation from the Church. [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 are "not to keep company" (1 Cor. v. 11). If it be sup- 
 posed, as it has been by some, that by " them which caused 
 divisions," was here meant only such as excited disturbance in 
 some particular church ; how much more grievous was the 
 offence of actually separating totally from the communion of 
 Christians, establishing a rival worship, and a rival church, and 
 endeavouring to seduce and tempt the brethren to forsake the 
 society of the faithful, and of those pastors whom God had 
 commanded them to "obey" (Heb. xiii. 17). The Apostle, 
 whose spirit was all charity and affection, in speaking of such 
 men, reveals the awful truth, that they had never been known 
 to Christ : " They went out from us, but they were not of us, 
 for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have con- 
 tinued with us ;" their separation was by an act of divine 
 judgment, manifesting their estrangement from Christ : " They 
 went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not 
 all of us." " But ye," he proceeds, addressing those that 
 remained, " have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know 
 all things" (1 John ii. 19, 20). 
 
 The character of separation is again drawn by Jude the 
 apostle : " These be they who separate themselves, sensual, not 
 having the Spirit" (Jude 19) ; and hence it was, that the 
 Fathers taught that no good men can possibly be among those 
 who voluntarily forsake the church. " Let no one imagine," 
 says Cyprian, " that good men can depart from the church : 
 the wind scattereth not the wheat, nor doth the storm over- 
 throw the tree supported by a solid root. Empty straws are 
 tossed by the tempest ; weak trees are prostrated by the vio- 
 lence of the whirlwind. Such as these are execrated and 
 smote by John the apostle, saying : ' They went out from us, 
 but they were not of us, 1 &c. c " Augustine adds his testi- 
 mony to the same doctrine : " Let us hold it as a thing un- 
 shaken and firm, that no good men can divide themselves from 
 the church d ." It is not, indeed, to be supposed or believed 
 for a moment, that divine grace would permit the really holy 
 
 c " Nemo existimet bonos de ec- cutit Joannes apostolus dicens," &c. 
 
 clesia posse discedere. Triticum non Cypr. de Unitate, p. 256, ed. 
 
 rapit ventus, nee arborem solida ra- Pamel. 
 
 dice fundatam procella subvertit. d " Inconcussum firmumque te- 
 
 Inanes palege tempestate jactantur, neamus, nullos bonos ab ea (eccle- 
 
 invalidae arbores turbinis incursione sia) se posse dividere." Adv. Par- 
 
 evertuntur. Hos execratur et per- menian. lib. iii. c. 5.
 
 SECT, ii.] Separation condemned by the Fathers. 41 
 
 and justified members of Christ to fall from the way of life. 
 He would only permit the unsanctified, the enemies of Christ, 
 to sever themselves from that fountain, where his Spirit is 
 given freely. " In the church," says Irenaeus, " did God place 
 the apostles, prophets, teachers, and every operation of the 
 Spirit, whereof they are not partakers, who do not run unto 
 the church, but defraud themselves of life by their evil opinions 
 and most wicked deeds ; for where the church is, there is the 
 Spirit of God ; and where the Spirit of God is, there also the 
 church and every grace exist e ." 
 
 We may therefore conclude, that voluntary separation from 
 the church of Christ is a sin against our brethren, against 
 ourselves, against God; a sin which, unless repented of, is 
 eternally destructive to the soul. The heinous nature of this 
 offence is incapable of exaggeration, because no human imagi- 
 nation, and no human tongue can adequately describe its 
 enormity. 
 
 2. It is certain that the primitive Christians regarded com- Fathers. 
 munion between Christians as a thing absolutely necessary, and 
 viewed those who separated from it, as sinners. " Remain 
 inseparably united to Jesus Christ and your bishop, and the 
 ordinances of the apostles," said the martyr Ignatius : " He 
 who is within the altar is clean ; but he who is without, that 
 is, without the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons, is 
 not clean f ." " As children of light and truth, avoid the 
 division of unity, and the evil doctrines of heretics g ." Ire- 
 nseus says : " The spiritual man will also judge those who 
 work divisions ; vain men, devoid of the love of God, seeking 
 their own advantage more than the unity of the church ; 
 who for trifling, nay for any causes, rend and divide the great 
 and glorious body of Christ, and, as far as in them lies, slay it ; 
 who speak peace, and work warfare ; who truly strain at the 
 gnat and swallow the camel ; for no improvement can be made 
 by them so great, as is the evil of schism h ." Cyprian con- 
 
 " In ecclesia enim, inquit, po- ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi 
 
 suit Deus apostolos, prophetas, doc- Spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia et omnis 
 
 tores, et universam reliquam opera- gratia." Adv. Ha?res. iii. 24. p. 
 
 tionem Spiritus, cujus non sunt 223. 
 
 participes omnes qui non currunt ad f Epist. ad Trail, 
 
 ecclesiam, sed semet-ipsos fraudant * Epist. ad Philadelph. 
 
 a vita per sententiam rnalain et h " Nulla enim ab eis tanta po- 
 
 operationem pessimam. Ubi enim test fieri correctio, quanta est schis-
 
 42 Separation condemned by the Fathers. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 tinues the chain of tradition : " Whosoever, divorced from the 
 church, is united to an adulteress, is separated from the 
 church's promises ; nor shall that man attain the rewards of 
 Christ, who relinquishes his church. He is a stranger, he is 
 profane, he is an enemy . . . He who assembles, except with 
 the church, scatters the church of Christ V " An enemy of 
 the altar, a rebel against Chrises sacrifice ; as to faith, false ; 
 as to religion, sacrilegious ; a disobedient servant, an impious 
 son, a hostile brother ; contemns the bishops and forsakes the 
 priests of God, dares to constitute another altar, to offer 
 another prayer with unlawful words, to profane the truth of 
 the Lord's oblation by false sacrifices; nor deigns to know, 
 that he who contends against the divine ordinance, is punished 
 for his audacious rashness by the divine judgment J." Diony- 
 sius of Alexandria writes thus to Novatus, who had formed a 
 schism from the church of the Romans : "If, as you say, you 
 were compelled unwillingly (to be ordained head of the new 
 sect) you will prove it by your voluntary return. It were, 
 indeed, better to have suffered any evil, than to have divided 
 the church of God ; nor would martyrdom, for the sake of not 
 dividing, have been less glorious ; yea, in my opinion, more so : 
 for, in one case, martyrdom is for the sake of one's own soul ; 
 in the other, for the whole church. If even now you will per- 
 suade or oblige the brethren to return to concord, your merit 
 will be greater than your offence. The one will not be im- 
 puted, the other will be praised. But if they should be dis- 
 obedient, and you cannot accomplish it, save your own soul k " 
 It would fill volumes to transcribe the various arguments of 
 the Fathers against separation from the church. The holy 
 Cyprian wrote a treatise against it 1 , and Optatus, Augustine, 
 and many others, have written copiously against the various 
 sects of the Novatians, Donatists, Manichaeans, &c., who had 
 separated themselves from the communion of the church. 
 
 matis pernicies." Adv. Hseres. iv. ecclesiam spargit." De Unit. p. 
 
 c. 33. al. 62. p. 272. 254, 
 
 * Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus * Ibid. p. 258. 
 
 adulterae jungitur, a promissis ec- k "Edu ^iv yap coi irav brwvv va- 
 
 clesise separatur. Nee perveniet ad Qiiv, vvep TOV /z) Siaico^ai rrjv tic/c\j/- 
 
 Christi praemia, qui relinquit eccle- aiav TOV Qeov . . . ' Be a^tidovvrtav 
 
 siam Christi. Alienus est: profa- advi>a.Toir)<;> <ri>>wv <TJ& Tt}v atavTov 
 
 nus est : hostis est .... Qui alibi ^vx,nv. Euseb. Hist. vi. 45. 
 prseter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ' De Unitate Ecclesiae Catholicas.
 
 SECT, ii.] Protestants condemn Separation. 43 
 
 Augustine declares, that " there is nothing more grievous than 
 the sacrilege of schism m ." 
 
 3. Nor were these merely the sentiments of the early ages, Reformers. 
 they were always received by the whole body of Christians up 
 to the period of the Reformation, and by the infinite majority 
 of professing Christians for a long time after. All agreed that 
 Christians ought to hold external communion with their breth- 
 ren every where, and that separation from the church was a 
 grievous sin. Calvin affirms, that " a departure from the 
 visible church is a denial of God and Christ; wherefore we 
 must beware of so wicked a dissent, because when we are 
 attempting, so far as in us lies, the ruin of God's truth, we 
 deserve to be crushed beneath the thunders of his extremest 
 wrath. Nor can any more atrocious crime be imagined, than 
 the violation, by sacrilegious perfidy, of that marriage which 
 the only-begotten Son of God has deigned to contract with us n ." 
 The non-conformist Baxter says : " He that is out of the Dissenters, 
 church, is without the teaching, the holy worship, the prayers, 
 and the discipline of the church ; and is out of the way where 
 the Spirit doth come, and out of the society which Christ is 
 especially related to : for he is the Saviour of the body, and if 
 we once leave his hospital, we cannot expect the presence and 
 help of the physician. Nor will he be a pilot to them who 
 forsake his ship, nor a captain to those who separate from his 
 army. Out of this ark there is nothing but a deluge, and no 
 place of rest or safety for a soul ." Owen the Independent 
 observes of the communion of churches, that " the church 
 that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts 
 itself off from the external communion of the church catholic ; 
 nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his 
 soul to such a church p ;" and again : " That particular church 
 which extends not its duty beyond its own assemblies and 
 members, is fallen off from the principal end of its institution 
 
 m Cont. Parmenian. ii. 2. fingi crimen potest, quam sacrilega 
 
 n " Unde sequitur, discessionem perfidia violare conjugium, quod 
 
 ab ecclesia, Dei et Christi negatio- nobiscum unigenitus Dei Filius con- 
 
 nemesse: quo magis a tarn scelerato trahere dignatus est." Calvin In- 
 
 dissidio cavendum est : quia dum stitut. iv. c. i. s. 10. 
 
 veritatis Dei ruinam, quantum in Baxter's " Cure of Church Di- 
 
 nobis est, molimur, digni sumus ad vision." 
 
 quos conterendos toto irae suee im- p True Nature of the Gospel 
 
 petu fuhninet. Nee ullum atrocius Church, p. 413.
 
 44 Separation condemned l>y the British Church. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 And every principle, opinion, or persuasion, that inclines any 
 church to confine its care and duty unto its own edification 
 only, yea, or of those only which agree with it in some pecu- 
 liar practice, making it neglective of all due means of the 
 edification of the church catholic, is schisrnatisal q ." Owen 
 accordingly admits the propriety, and even necessity, of synods, 
 and other modes of mutual aid and communication. Even 
 now societies of various " denominations," hold it their duty to 
 communicate with all of their own party. The Independents 
 and Baptists unite in " Unions," and send messages to their 
 brethren in America, and elsewhere. The Presbyterians meet 
 in synods, the Methodists in conference. Lutherans, Calvin- 
 ists, Eomanists, &c., all feel it their bounden duty to commu- 
 nicate with those whom they regard as constituting the church 
 of Christ ; and generally, the separation of a new sect from 
 any of their communions is regarded as wrong, though some 
 societies are prevented by their principles from opposing what 
 they confess to be a grievous evil. 
 
 British 4. It is needless to spend much time in detailing the doc- 
 
 Churches. ^. rme o f English theologians, and of our churches, on this 
 subject. The canons of the synod of London, A.D. 1603, 
 excommunicate any who shall separate from the church, or 
 who shall affirm that any meetings, assemblies, or congrega- 
 tions within this land, which are separated from the estab- 
 lished churches, may rightly assume the name of true churches r . 
 NowelFs Catechism says of those " who cause strife and dissent 
 in the church, and disturb it with factions, that such men are 
 cut off from all hope of salvation through the remission of sins, 
 
 i Ibid. 414, 415. Even in the 1833, (No. 20) The dissenting 
 present day the Independents, as " Library of Eccl. Knowledge" says, 
 they say, " believe that Jesus Christ that among the " duties and enjoy- 
 directed his followers to live together ments" of churches, is, " commu- 
 in Christian fellowship, and to main- nion with other churches, in letters 
 tain the communion of saints; and recommendatory or dismissory, when 
 that, for this purpose, they are members remove from one place to 
 jointly to observe all divine ordi- another. These, and all other ex- 
 nances, and maintain that church pressions of Christian regard to sis- 
 order and discipline, which is either ter churches are a part of 
 
 expressly enjoined by inspired insti- the communion of saints, which con- 
 
 tution, or sanctioned by the un- stitutes one of the greatest blessings 
 
 doubted example of the apostles, of the true catholic church," &c. 
 
 and of apostolic churches." De- On Ch. Discipline, Essays on Ch. 
 
 claration of Faith of the Congrega- Polity, vol. ii. p 417- 
 
 tional or Indep. Dissenters, A. D. r Canons, ix. x. and xi.
 
 SECT, ii.] Separation condemned by our Theologians. 45 
 
 until they agree and are reconciled with the church 8 ." Arch- 
 bishop Ussher speaks of communion in the universal church as 
 follows : " Thus must we conceive of the catholic church, as 
 of one entire body made up of the collection and aggregation 
 of all the faithful unto the unity thereof; from which union 
 there ariseth unto every one of them such a relation to, and a 
 dependence upon, the church catholic, as parts used to have 
 in respect of their whole. Whereupon it followeth, that 
 neither particular persons, nor particular churches, are to 
 work as several divided bodies by themselves, which is the 
 ground of all schism ; but are to teach, and to be taught, and 
 to do all other Christian duties, as parts conjoined unto the 
 whole, and members of the same commonwealth or corpora- 
 tion V Bishop Pearson says : " It is necessary to believe the 
 church of Christ, which is but one, that being in it, we may 
 take care never to cast ourselves or be ejected out of it .... 
 A man may not only passively and involuntarily be rejected, 
 but also may, by an act of his own, cast out or reject himself ; 
 not only by plain and complete apostasy, but by a defection 
 from the unity of truth, falling into some damnable heresy ; or by 
 an active separation, deserting all which are in communion with 
 the catholic church, and falling into an irrecoverable schism. . . 
 There is a necessity of believing the catholic church, because, 
 except a man be of that he can be of none V Finally, I shall 
 cite the words of Archbishop Potter : " Whoever is separated 
 from any sound part of the church by schism or just excom- 
 munication, is by that means separated from the whole church. 
 Just as we find in natural bodies, that in one body there are 
 many members, and whatever is united to any one of them is 
 thereby united to the whole body ; as, on the contrary, what- 
 ever is cut off from any member, does by that separation lose 
 its union with the whole body. . . . Whence appears the neces- 
 sity which every Christian lies under, of maintaining communion 
 with the particular church wherein he lives, in order to his 
 communion with the church catholic, and with Christ the head 
 ofitV 1 
 
 5. We may infer from the preceding part of this section, Separation 
 that separation from the church is incapable of justification. No Of" m *^ e . 
 
 excusable. 
 
 " P. 108. Oxford ed. by Jacobson. u On the Creed, art. Holy Catho- 
 ' Sermon before the King, on lie Church. 
 Eph. iv. 13. T Church Government, p. 459.
 
 46 Separation from the Church unjustifiable, [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 excuse can be admitted in the case of positive and deadly sin, 
 except the plea of ignorance ; and this does not render the act 
 less heinous, though he who commits it may be " beaten with 
 few stripes." To separate openly from the universal church, 
 or, which is the same thing, to separate from a particular 
 church, on grounds and principles which equally involve sepa- 
 ration from the universal church, is, as I have said, inexcusable ; 
 and St. Augustine affirms it thus : " We are certain that no 
 one can justly have separated himself from the communion of 
 all nations V and long afterwards Calvin acknowledged the 
 same : " Let both these truths remain fixed ; that he who 
 voluntarily deserts the external communion of a church where 
 the word of God is preached and his sacraments administered, 
 is without excuse ; and that the vices of few or of many are no 
 obstacle to prevent us from professing our faith there, by means 
 of the ceremonies instituted by God x ." 
 
 The excuses which may be offered are of various sorts. 
 Personal edification and spiritual improvement, correction of 
 deficiencies in discipline, rites, &c., and other advantages, may 
 be alleged to justify separation. These are all overthrown 
 immediately by the apostle : " As we be slanderously reported, 
 and as some affirm that we say, ' Let us do evil that good may 
 come, whose damnation is just y .' Irenseus replied to a similar 
 argument adduced by the heretics of his time : " No correction 
 can be made by them so great as is the mischief of schism z ." 
 
 It may be said that it is necessary to forsake the church 
 because its external communion includes evil men unsanctified 
 by the Spirit of God. But the church is compared by our 
 Saviour himself to a net, in which are all manner of fishes, 
 both good and bad ; to a field in which tares grow to the har- 
 vest : and the churches founded by the apostles contained 
 unsanctified members ; for instance, those of Corinth, Perga- 
 mos, Thyatira, Sardis, &c. The true church can never be free 
 from evil members, until after the day of judgment, and he 
 who pretends to render it otherwise sets himself above Christ. 
 This was the heresy of the Donatists, against whom St. Augus- 
 
 w " Nos autem certi sumus, nemi- * Instit. iv. c. 1. s. 19. 
 nem se a communione omnium gen- y Rom. iii. 8. 
 tium juste separare potuisse." z Adv. Haeres. lib. iv. c. xxxiii. 
 
 Epist. 93, al. 48, c. 9, p. 242. Tom. al. Ixii. p. 272. 
 ii. ed. Bened.
 
 SECT, ii.] Separation from the Church unjustifiable. 47 
 
 tine often and convincingly argued. " The good," said he, 
 " are not to be deserted on account of the evil, but the evil to 
 be tolerated on account of the good, as the prophets tolerated 
 those against whom they spoke such great things ; nor did 
 they relinquish communion in sacraments with that people ; as 
 our Lord himself tolerated the wicked Judas unto his deserved 
 end, and permitted him to communicate at the holy supper 
 with the innocent ; as the apostles tolerated those who preached 
 Christ through envy ; as Cyprian tolerated the covetousness of 
 his colleagues, which, according to the apostle, he called idola- 
 try a ." The truth is, that every church and society of pro- 
 fessing Christians, without exception, contains bad men and 
 hypocrites ; and were this a sufficient reason to separate from 
 the church, there could be no such thing in the world as church 
 communion. Calvin's doctrine on this subject I have cited 
 already; he devotes a large space to the refutation of the 
 notion that the existence of evil members in the church justifies 
 separation from it. The Germans, too. in the Apology for 
 the Confession of Augsburgh, say : " Christ admonished us, in 
 his discourses on the church, not to excite schisms through 
 our offence at the private vices of priests or people, as the 
 Donatists wickedly did. And as for those who have raised 
 schisms because they denied the lawfulness of the clergy's 
 holding possessions or property, we judge them plainly sedi- 
 tious," &c. b 
 
 The mere existence of some doctrinal errors, or some cor- 
 ruptions in rites and sacraments, in any church, afford no 
 excuse whatever for separating from its communion. The 
 abuses of the Corinthians, the errors of the Galatians, did not 
 justify any separation from those churches ; on the contrary, 
 the duty of union was strongly inculcated on them by the 
 apostle. Calvin affirms, that while a pure ministry of the word 
 and sacraments exists, " a church is never to be rejected as 
 long as it persists in them, although otherwise it abounds in 
 faults. Moreover, somewhat of corruption might creep into 
 
 August. Epist. 93, al. 48. c. 4. vero, qui ideo excitaverunt schis- 
 
 tom. ii. p. 237, ed. Bened. mata, quia negabant sacerdotibus 
 
 b " Monuit nos Christus in colla- licere tenere possessiones aut pro- 
 
 ticnibus de ecclesia, ne offensi pri- prium, plane seditiosos judicamus." 
 
 vatis vitiis sive sacerdotum sive po- Apologia Confessionis, art. iv. de 
 
 puli, schismata excitemus ; sicut ecclesia. 
 scelerate fecerunt Donatistse. Illos
 
 48 Separation when Necessary. \v. i. CH. iv. 
 
 the administration of the sacraments themselves, which ought 
 not to alienate us from its communion c ." If the doctrines or 
 practice of his particular church, or even those most commonly 
 prevalent around him, appear to any Christian imperfect or 
 corrupt, it is an office of charity to endeavour to promote, as 
 far as he can, a purer system, provided it be done with humility 
 and wisdom ; but he should not forsake the body of Christ 
 because in some part it may be ailing. I speak here only of 
 faults and defects which do not amount to a rejection of what 
 God has plainly revealed, or to a manifest contradiction and 
 disobedience to his commandment ; because if any church of 
 Christ should be guilty of such a rejection and contradiction, 
 and obstinately persist in them, it would be apostate, and cease 
 ipso facto to be a church of Christ ; and therefore he who 
 should forsake its communion would not forsake the communion 
 Separation of the church, but of a synagogue of Satan ; and in this case 
 ^ e precept of Christ would oblige his disciples to separate 
 utterly from the apostate community; and remain united with 
 the true church. Separation from such a society is as much 
 a duty as separation from heathenism and idolatry ; and there- 
 fore it is a case which affords no justification to him that for- 
 sakes the church of Christ. Those who, either at the Refor- 
 mation or at other times, pretended to justify their voluntary 
 separation from any society of professing Christians, always did 
 so on the plea that it was an apostate society, and therefore not 
 a church of Christ ; and wherever this plea was well founded 
 they were perfectly justified. 
 
 We may infer from what has been said, that since unity of 
 communion is the law of God, both in the universal church and 
 in all the particular churches in which it is arranged, it is 
 impossible that in the same place there can be several different 
 churches equally authorized by God and united to Christ. It 
 is true that persons may be, in fact, separated from the com- 
 munion of the church in a particular place, who are not truly 
 separated from the universal church : this may arise from an 
 excommunication founded in an error of fact, not yet made 
 manifest. It is also true that the communion of a church may 
 be divided by a lawful separation, according to the principles 
 to be laid down in the fifth section. But what I contend for 
 
 c Institut. iv. c. i. s. 12.
 
 SECT, ii.j Cammimion with Separatists unlawful. 49 
 
 is, that in one locality there can be but one society whose com- 
 munion Christians are bound to seek in preference to all others. 
 The supposition, indeed, that Christians in each locality could Latitudina- 
 be bound to entertain fraternal intercourse in religion with " 8 "f" 
 several communities mutually separated, would carry an absur- commu- 
 dity and contradiction on the very face of it, because the obli- 
 gation of each individual to communicate with all, would render 
 it impossible that there should be different communions. This 
 conclusion is maintained by Cyprian in several places : " The 
 Lord himself admonishes and teaches us in his gospel, saying, 
 * And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.' And does 
 any one imagine that there can be, in one place, many shep- 
 herds or many flocks ? The apostle Paul, recommending the 
 same unity to us, beseeches and exhorts, saying, ' I beseech 
 you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
 all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among 
 you, but be agreed in the same mind and the same judgment d .' " 
 Hence we are bound to reject the notions of those who would 
 wish to hold communion with various sects or denominations 
 of professing Christians separated from each other in the same 
 locality. 
 
 It must always be unlawful for members of the church to 
 hold religious communion with those who have separated them- 
 selves from it. I mean that it must be unlawful to unite in 
 their worship, or generally to perform any purely religious acts 
 with them ; though it is commendable in those brethren who 
 are especially fitted for that office, to confer with the sepa- 
 rated, in order, if possible, to convert them from the error of 
 their ways. This follows from the admission that separation 
 is a sin of the deepest die ; for acts of religion performed 
 apart from the church, and in rivalry to it, are precisely those 
 things which constitute some of the very worst parts of separa- 
 tion itself. It is in these rival religious acts alone that the 
 schism is completed. There is nothing more requisite to show 
 the unlawfulness of communicating in any such acts ; because 
 the rule of the Scriptures forbids Christians absolutely to unite 
 
 d " Monet ipse (Christus) in evan- eandem nobis insinuans unitatem, 
 
 gelio suo et docet, dicens : Et erit obsecrat et hortatur dicens : Obse- 
 
 unus grex et unus pastor Et esse cro, inquit, vos fratres per nomen 
 
 posse uno in loco aliquis existimat Domini nostri Jesu Christi," &c. 
 
 aut multos pastores aut plures gre- De Unitate, p. 255, ed. Pamelii. 
 ges? Apostolus item Paulus hanc 
 
 VOL. I. E
 
 50 Objections. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 in, or in any degree countenance, what is in itself evil : " Come 
 out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the 
 unclean thing ;" " If there come any unto you and bring not 
 this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him 
 God speed ;" l ' Ye cannot be partakers of the cup of the Lord 
 and the cup of devils." These passages prove that Christians 
 are, as the apostle says, to have " no fellowship with the works 
 of darkness," among which all acts of separate worship may be 
 included, for they are performed beyond the kingdom of Christ. 
 It was in accordance with this principle that the canons of the 
 universal church decreed, that it was unlawful for Christians to 
 communicate or pray with those who were excommunicated, or 
 who deserted the prayers of the church, and met in private 
 houses ; that no one should receive gifts from heretics, or pray 
 in their cemeteries, or contract marriages with them, &c. e 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. If it be unlawful under any circumstances to separate 
 from a church of Christ, the Reformation must have been 
 unlawful. 
 
 Answer. The Reformation was not a voluntary separation 
 from the church of Christ, as I shall prove hereafter : if there 
 was such a separation in any case it is not to be defended. 
 Besides, those who consider the church of Christ altogether to 
 have failed in the West before the Reformation, cannot, con- 
 sistently with their own principle, maintain that there was any 
 separation from the church then. 
 
 II. It is intolerant to maintain that separation from any 
 church is a sin. 
 
 Answer. It cannot be intolerant in any evil sense if it be the 
 doctrine of Scripture and of Christians generally, as I have 
 proved it to be. Christ has a perfect right to bestow his 
 favour in the church only if he pleases it. Salvation is the free 
 gift of God, and is not due to man. 
 
 Apostol. can. xi. 1 ; Concil. canons. It is almost needless to 
 
 Laodicen. can. 32. 34 ; Antioch. 2 ; mention Dr. Routh's " Opuscula," 
 
 Laodicen. 9. 31. See also Gangra, Justel, Bingham, Beveridge, John- 
 
 c. 6; Nicen. 5; Antioch. 6; Afri- son's" Vade Mecurn," Fleury's"In- 
 
 can. 9- I take this opportunity of stitution au Droit Eccles.," and Van 
 
 saying, that Mr. Perceval's book on Espen, as the best authorities on the 
 
 "The Roman Schism" contains sacred canons, 
 many of the most important ancient
 
 SECT, in.] Separation by Excommrnication. 51 
 
 III. We are commanded in Scripture to " come out of Baby- 
 lon f ." " Depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean 
 thing; go ye out of the midst of here." " I have written to 
 you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother 
 be a fornicator, or covetous h ," &c. 
 
 Answer. The former texts refer to some community which 
 is not the church of Christ, but has either apostatized from 
 him or never owned him. The latter only enjoins us to avoid 
 the society and procure the excision of scandalous offenders, 
 which we may do without forsaking the communion of the 
 whole church. 
 
 IV. The presence of God is promised to all Christian meet- 
 ings : " Where two or three are gathered together in my 
 name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt, xviii. 20). 
 
 The martyr Cyprian replies, " How can two or three be 
 gathered together in the name of Christ who have plainly sepa- 
 rated from Christ and from his gospel? For we have not 
 departed from them, but they from us ; and since schisms and 
 heresies are born afterwards, they left the fountain-head and 
 origin of truth when they constituted different conventicles for 
 themselves V 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 ON SEPARATION BY EXCOMMUNICATION. 
 
 A case might occur, in which individuals should violate the 
 duty of charity towards some of the brethren, or towards the 
 particular church of which they were members, and yet should 
 by no means wish to separate from the rest of the brethren 
 throughout the world, but rather desire to retain all the advan- 
 tages resulting from their communion. In a case like this the 
 Christian society may be purified from such false brethren by 
 its own act. The Apostolic admonition : " Mark them which 
 cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 have learned : and avoid them* ;" recognizes the right and the 
 duty of Christians to separate themselves from those that 
 offend extremely against charity ; and our blessed Saviour 
 authorizes those against whom any brother has trespassed, 
 
 1 Rev. xviii. 4. l DeUnit 256. 
 
 * Is. lii. 11. J Rom. xvi. 17. 
 
 h 1 Cor. v. 11. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 Separation by Excommunication. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 mumca- 
 tions. 
 
 and who, after repeated endeavours, cannot induce him to 
 repent of his fault, to " tell it unto the church : but if he 
 neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen 
 man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, 11 he adds, "What- 
 soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven k ." 
 This empowers the church to take cognizance of all offences 
 Conditions against charity. The decree of the church, however, is to be 
 supposed necessarily to have two conditions ; first, that it be 
 founded on an examination of the facts of the case, without 
 which extreme injustice might occur l ; and injustice could 
 never be accordant with the design of the righteous and 
 merciful Judge of all the earth ; and secondly, that the judg- 
 ment of the church be unanimous, or nearly so. The judgment 
 of the church greatly divided, or the judgment of a portion 
 of the church, the remainder delivering no opinion, could not 
 be invested with that authority and unity which are to be 
 inferred from the terms used by our Saviour ; " If he shall not 
 hear the church" &c. 
 
 If then individuals should be condemned by a particular 
 
 k Matt, xviii. 1518. 
 
 1 That Christ has only promised 
 his assistance and authority to the 
 church on such conditions, even in 
 deciding questions of faith, is as- 
 serted by Melchior Canus, Tournely, 
 Delahogue, and the Romish theolo- 
 gians generally. The first says : 
 " Commune est, crede mihi, omni- 
 bus ecclesiae judicibus, ut si decreta 
 ediderint temeritate quadam, sine 
 judicio, repentino quasi vento inci- 
 tati, nihil omnino confidant, quod 
 solidum, quod grave, quod certum 
 habeatur." (Loci Communes, v. de 
 Conciliis, p. 147.' ed. Patav. 1762.) 
 The second says, that Christ only 
 promised his presence to the church 
 assembled in councils, when " ser- 
 vata suffragiorum libertate, et adhi- 
 bita humana industria et diligentia, 
 veritatem sedulo inquirerent." (Prae- 
 lect. de Eccl. Christi, t. i. qusest. iii. 
 art. 3. p. 384.) See also Delahogue, 
 de Eccl. cap. iv. quaest. 3. objectiones. 
 Bailly, de Eccl. cap. xv. in fine c. xvi. 
 sect. vi. Bouvier, de vera Eccl. pars 
 ii. c. ii. art. v. s. 2. Collet, Institut. 
 
 Theolog. Scholast. torn. i. p. 30. 
 If judgments in questions of faith 
 and discipline are null where the 
 ordinary rules of judgment have 
 been manifestly transgressed, they 
 must be also in all questions affect- 
 ing the unity of the church, because 
 the latter is not less important than 
 faith itself. In fact, Van Espen 
 (Tractatus de Censuris, c. 5. s. i.) 
 observes, that no one doubts that in 
 cases of excommunication, the laws 
 of judicial proceedings should be 
 observed; and Suarez, cited by him, 
 affirms, that a censure, in which 
 there has been " a substantial defect 
 in the lawful order " of proceeding, 
 is entirely invalid. And what greater 
 defect can there be, than in not ex- 
 amining the facts of the case, or 
 determining them in blind obedience 
 to a power erroneously supposed to 
 be irresistible? That an unjust ex- 
 communication does not separate its 
 subjects from the catholic church is 
 proved by Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 
 1. 23, s. 61.
 
 SECT, in.] Separation ly Excommunication. 53 
 
 church, but that sentence should be disallowed by the great 
 body of the church universal, they are not cut off from the 
 church of Christ. If a particular church should be con- 
 demned on some account by a portion of the universal church, 
 but not by another considerable portion, it is not to be held 
 as heathen and separated, because the whole, or nearly the 
 whole body of the faithful, has not united in the judgment 111 . 
 If individuals or churches have been condemned by a large 
 portion of the church universal, and it can be clearly proved 
 that the facts of the case have not been investigated, such a 
 sentence is to be held invalid and unratified in heaven n . If 
 however the condemnation of the universal church is unani- 
 mous, and there is no proof of any marked injustice in the 
 proceedings, those who are condemned for offences against 
 charity, ought to be held of all the brethren as " heathen men 
 and publicans." We see examples of this in the case of 
 Novatian and the Donatists. Novatian and his adherents, 
 having separated from the communion of the church of the 
 Bomans, and established a rival worship, were declared to be 
 separated from the church by a council of sixty bishops at 
 Borne, and by all the bishops in Africa and other western 
 provinces ; and in the East by the bishops assembled at 
 Antioch p : and this judgment being universally received, and 
 the facts of the case being undeniable and notorious, the 
 Novatians were always accounted schismatics, cut off entirely 
 from the church of Christ. In the same manner, the Dona- 
 tists having separated from the communion of the church of 
 Carthage, and prevailed on the bishops of Numidia to support 
 their schism and create a rival bishop ; and a division having 
 arisen throughout Africa on this account, their cause was suc- 
 cessively heard by a council of Italian and Gallican bishops at 
 Borne ; by the council of Aries convened from all the West ; 
 by the Emperor Constantine at Milan ; and it was universally 
 condemned after a full examination. The Donatists were 
 thenceforward regarded by all Christians as separated entirely 
 from the church of Christ, as much as the Marcionites, Mon- 
 
 m E. g, the churches of Asia con- Council of Trent. See Part iv. 
 
 denmed by pope Victor. c. xi. 
 
 D E. g. The adherents of the Re- Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. 
 
 formation were condemned by the c. 43. 
 
 churches of the Roman commu- p Ibid. c. 46. See also Fleury, 
 
 nion, without examination, after the lib. vii. c. 5.
 
 54 Romish Doctrine of Unity. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 tanists, Sabellians, Arians, or any other sect which denied 
 the first principles of the Christian religion. And they on 
 their part declared the church apostate, and rejected its 
 communion. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 THE EXTERNAL COMMUNION OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH MAY 
 BE AND HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED. 
 
 It has been shown, that Christ enjoined perfect unity in his 
 church, and therefore that whatever society of Christians shall 
 either voluntarily separate itself from, or be regularly excom- 
 municated by the great body of Christians, is cut off from the 
 church. This was the case with the Novatians, Donatists, 
 Arians, Pelagians, Luciferians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Mo- 
 nothelites, &c. 
 
 But it is now to be inquired, whether it is possible that 
 the catholic church itself can be at any time divided in respect 
 of external communion. The great majority of Romish theo- 
 logians absolutely deny the possibility of any such case. Their 
 popular argument in proof that their community constitutes 
 the catholic church of Christ, is indeed altogether based on 
 this principle. They contrast the external characteristics of 
 their own community with those of all others, and endeavour 
 to prove that it possesses superior claims to those of any other 
 society. This is the beaten course pursued by all their writers, 
 since the time of Bellarmine at least ; and it is entirely based 
 in the assumption, that the catholic church can never exist, 
 except as perfectly one in external communion. 
 
 This position, always assumed by their writers, and some- 
 times admitted insensibly by their opponents, was expressly 
 maintained by Nicole q (followed by Tournely, and all subse- 
 quent Romish theologians), against M. Jurieu, a minister of 
 the French Protestants, who affirmed that the universal church 
 consists of all societies agreeing in fundamental doctrines, 
 even though mutually excommunicated and anathematized ; 
 that the only true unity of communion consists in spiritual 
 union with Christ, and therefore that the formation of new 
 sects is in no degree blamable r . Such principles were indeed 
 
 Unite* de 1'Eglise. ' Vrai Systeme de I'Eglise, and 
 
 Defence of the same.
 
 SECT, iv.] Romish Doctrine of Unity examined. 55 
 
 absurd, and totally subversive of the catholic doctrine of unity ; 
 and Jurieu himself confessed, that from the time of Cyprian 
 at least, ail the fathers maintained a system entirely opposed 
 to his s . But while the doctrine of Jurieu merits censure, as 
 novel and erroneous, his opponents have not succeeded in their 
 attempts to prove, that the external communion of the whole 
 catholic church can never be interrupted. 
 
 If this external communion must always exist uninter- 
 ruptedly, it must be from a very remarkable exercise of divine 
 power, because we know from Scripture, that the church was 
 to comprise evil men as well as good ; and no one pretends 
 that its members were to be exempt from frailties, passions, 
 errors, ignorance. These circumstances would be very liable, 
 occasionally, to cause divisions in the church ; and it is credible 
 that in some case the fault and the justification might be so 
 equally divided between two parties, that it might be impos- 
 sible to affirm, that either was involved in the guilt of formal 
 schism. There is therefore no impossibility of division in the 
 church itself, if we regard the persons of whom it is consti- 
 tuted ; and the only way in which this impossibility can be 
 proved, is by evidence of some divine promise to that effect. 
 
 I shall discuss this subject from Scripture, tradition, history, 
 and the principles and admissions of Romanists. 
 
 First. Scripture contains no direct plain assertion, either N O pro- 
 that the external communion of the church will always be m[ f ea . of 
 perfectly one, or that it will be divided. Romanists allege the ^mmu 
 words of our Saviour in reference to the Gentiles : " Other nion< 
 sheep I have, which are not of this fold ; them also I must 
 bring, and they shah 1 hear my voice, and there shall be one 
 fold, and one shepherd V This promise was doubtless fulfilled 
 by the admission of the Gentiles to the same privileges as the 
 believing Jews ; so that our Saviour meant, that they should 
 be one in spiritual privileges ; and this unity might well sub- 
 sist, even if external communion were sometimes interrupted 
 through misunderstandings or infirmities. They also adduce 
 those words of Christ : "A kingdom divided against itself 
 cannot but fallV This passage does not prove, that the 
 church can never be divided in point of external communion, 
 because our Lord was here alluding to the case of kingdoms 
 
 Unite de 1'Eglise. * John iii. Id. " Matt. xii.
 
 56 Romish Doctrine of Unity examined, [v. i. CH. iv. 
 
 which had no promise of perpetuity, and did not refer to the 
 church, which has such a promise, and therefore can never fall 
 even by her divisions. But supposing that we applied these 
 words to the church, still they would not prove what our 
 opponents desire, because our Lord could only have meant, 
 that an irreconcilable division, an intestine and destructive 
 war, would lead to the inevitable overthrow of any kingdom ; 
 but he did not mean, that a kingdom may not for a time be 
 divided by jealousies, without being destroyed. 
 
 If the essential unity of the church is to be inferred from 
 its being spoken of in the singular number, as the " kingdom," 
 " household," " body," and " spouse " of Christ ; it is probably 
 to be understood of a spiritual unity of relations to Christ, 
 which might exist, even if external visible unity were inter- 
 rupted. The "field," the "draw-net," and "the threshing 
 floor," prefigure the church as one, that is, as the common and 
 only way of trial and salvation. The same may be said of the 
 types of the terrestrial paradise, the ark of Noah, the temple 
 of Jerusalem, &c., which are said to prefigure the church's 
 unity. They all relate to salvation in the church only ; but 
 they do not enable us to determine whether that church was 
 always to be perfectly united in external communion. The 
 argument for the unity of the church, from Christ's " coat 
 without seam," which St. Cyprian and others have regarded as 
 a type of unity, was probably so used by them rather in the 
 way of theological argument, than from any apostolical tradi- 
 tion ; nor does it appear safe or satisfactory to rest on an 
 interpretation so symbolical, in a question of so much import- 
 ance, as that which is here under consideration v . 
 
 If it be supposed, however, that the images and types above- 
 mentioned, relate to the unity of the church in general, they may 
 only be representative of its perfect state according to the will 
 of God, or its glorified state. The sacred writers speak of the 
 
 v No one pretends that the parti- juristse, solum dispositivum arresti, 
 
 cular arguments of theologians, even seu contend in capite aut canone, est 
 
 in the earlier ages, are always to be defide: motivum vero arresti, seu ejus 
 
 received without examination. Even probationis, non sunt de fide ?" 
 
 the arguments of general councils (Delahogue, De Eccl. cap. v. prop. 2. 
 
 themselves are not binding, as the Annot. circa decreta Concil.) If this 
 
 Romanist Delahogue argues from is the case even in the decrees of 
 
 Vasquez, and Veron, the latter of general councils, how much more 
 
 whom says, " Id solum esse de fide so in the case of individual fathers 
 
 quod dennitur ; seu, ut loquuntur and theologians.
 
 SECT, iv.] Romish Doctrine of Unity examined. 57 
 
 church comprising imperfect men, when viewed in this respect, 
 as " without spot and without blemish." The church is in this 
 sense perfectly one, that is, according to the divine will, and 
 in the essential respects which are known to God ; but we 
 cannot infer that it will never at any time in this world be 
 blemished in reality by serious faults. On the contrary, Christ 
 himself intimates, that when he cometh, he will find but little 
 true faith in the earth. 
 
 The apostle Paul urges the duty of peace and order in the 
 church, because we being many, are one body in Christ, and 
 every one members one of another" (Rom. xii. 5). From 
 this expression " one body" our opponents argue, that the 
 church must always be one in external communion. But why 
 may not the church constitute " one body in Christ" spiritually 
 united to him as their head, animated by one spirit of faith 
 and charity, and continuing to be the one way of salvation, 
 though for a time, through mutual misunderstandings, there 
 should be an estrangement between some portions of the 
 church ? And if the same apostle urges Christians to " keep 
 the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." because there is 
 " one body and one spirit w ," &c. ; does he also affirm it impos- 
 sible that some portions of this " one spiritual body" should, 
 through misunderstandings, be estranged for a time from ex- 
 ternal intercourse ? Our Lord himself prayed for all believers : 
 " that they may all be one, as thou Father art in me, and I 
 in thee ; that they also may be one in us : that the world may 
 believe that thou hast sent me x ." We may justly infer from 
 this, that perfect unity is the will of Christ, and that he has 
 provided means for preserving or recovering this unity ; but we 
 cannot infer, that it would never be actually impaired in the 
 church at any time. 
 
 Our Saviour's earnest and repeated prayer for the unity of 
 his disciples, is not equivalent to a promise that they should 
 never be divided. We may rather infer from the earnestness 
 of that prayer, that the church was in imminent danger of 
 disunion, and that so great an evil would, most probably, at 
 some time arrive. When Christ had prayed earnestly that the 
 cup might pass from him, did it actually pass away ? So it is 
 in this case. Perhaps no duty is more frequently, more earn- 
 
 " Eph. iv. 4, 5. x John xvii. 21.
 
 58 Romish Doctrine of Unity examined. [P. i. cir. iv. 
 
 estly inculcated in the New Testament, than that of perfect 
 unity with the brethren. It was the new and special com- 
 mandment of the Saviour himself, and when the first symptoms 
 of division manifested themselves in the Christian family, he 
 took occasion to eradicate the very principle from which they 
 came. " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
 them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 
 But it shall not be so among you : but whosoever will be great 
 among you, let him be your minister ; and whosoever will be 
 chief among you, let him be your servant y ," &c. Ambition, 
 was, as our Saviour knew, the source of divisions, and there- 
 fore he warned his disciples against all desire of earthly domi- 
 nion and aggrandisement, under any pretence whatever. Nor 
 did he mean that they should merely assume the title of " ser- 
 vants of the servants of God," while they endeavoured to bring 
 all the world beneath their domination. 
 
 The commandments, the prayers of Jesus Christ for the 
 unity of the brethren, and the corresponding exhortations of 
 all the apostles, afford no promise, however, that the church 
 should never be divided in point of external communion. On 
 the contrary, they rather afford a presumption that it would be 
 so at some time. When Moses, before his departure, deli- 
 vered to the Israelites those awful warnings of the evils which 
 would overtake them, if they declined to idolatry, it may be 
 reasonably inferred, that there was danger, and probability that 
 they would actually commit that sin. So when Christ and the 
 apostles, before their departure, with equal earnestness, press 
 on us the duty of perfect unity, we may infer that there was 
 danger and probability of division in the church. 
 
 There is, as I have said, no prophecy of the division of the 
 church at any time ; but neither is there any promise of its 
 perpetual and perfect external union. This is what the Ro- 
 manists ought to produce before they affirm the impossibility of 
 any division in the church, or the certainty that the catholic 
 church can only exist in some one communion. 
 
 Secondly, I proceed to consider the doctrine of catholic 
 tradition ; and here also, as we might have anticipated, the 
 position of our opponents is entirely unsupported. That the 
 fathers and councils of the church do not affirm, that the 
 
 T Matt. xix. 25. 27.
 
 SECT, iv.] Romish Doctrine of Unity examined. 59 
 
 church can never be divided in point of external communion, 
 we may conclude from the very quotations adduced by the 
 Romish theologians, Nicole, Tournely, Bailly, &c., in proof of 
 their assumption ; for they are silent on the very point in 
 debate. It is in vain to adduce passages from the fathers, 
 where they speak of the catholic church as one communion, 
 from which all heretics and schismatics are cut off. Who 
 disputes that heretics and schismatics are not of the church, 
 and that the church was generally one communion in fact ? 
 The only question is, whether it could ever be troubled by 
 divisions. The innumerable exhortations and arguments of 
 the fathers in favour of unity ; their denunciations of those 
 who separated from the whole church, or whom the church 
 condemned : these are entirely received and approved by us ; 
 but they do not touch the question in debate, namely, whether 
 the catholic church itself may not, at some time, be divided in 
 point of external communion. 
 
 There are but two writers, of all those adduced, whose words 
 appear to bear on the question. St. Cyprian, in speaking of 
 the unity of the church says : " Unity cannot be severed ; nor 
 the one body by laceration be divided 2 ." One or two more 
 similar passages occur in the same treatise. We know that 
 Cyprian, in these places, was speaking with reference to the 
 Novatians, who had separated themselves from the communion 
 of the particular church of Eome, and established a rival 
 community, and who were condemned by the universal church. 
 His meaning is, that the unity of the church cannot be so 
 divided by laceration, that in one place there shall be several 
 true churches, as he observes in the same treatise a ; but he 
 does not touch on the question of estrangement between the 
 'churches of different parts of the world. St. Augustine, in 
 his treatise against Petilian, says, with reference to the Dona- 
 tists : " He that does not communicate with this church 
 (universal) thus diffused, communicates not with Him whose 
 words have been recited " (Christ) b . This passage decides 
 nothing as to the question : it merely assumes that the univer- 
 sal church was, in fact, one in communion ; and that those 
 who rejected the communion of the whole catholic church, and 
 
 1 De Unitate, near the end, p. b Contra Literas Petiliani, lib. 2. 
 260, ed. Pamel. c 55. torn. ix. 
 
 a Ibid. p. 255.
 
 60 Communion of Catholic Church interrupted, [p. i. CH. jv. 
 
 pronounced it apostate, as the Donatists did, or who were 
 separated by the regular condemnation of the whole church, 
 were cut off from Christ 6 . He affirms nothing as to the 
 possible state of the church. Innocentius of Rome, with whom 
 St. Augustine communicated, was himself not in communion 
 with the eastern churches. 
 
 It is very certain, then, that the fathers esteemed separation 
 from the church a most grievous sin, but they did not affirm 
 that the church itself could never be divided for a time by 
 jealousies and misunderstandings. 
 
 Commu- Thirdly, it is undeniable from history, that external coin- 
 been inter- munion between all churches has at various times been inter- 
 rupted, rupted. I need not dwell on the excommunication of the 
 Asiatic churches by Victor and the Roman church : nor on 
 that of Cyprian and the Africans by Stephen, who, when some 
 African bishops came to Rome, forbade the people to commu- 
 nicate with them, or even to receive them into their houses ; 
 nor on the excommunication of Hilary of Aries by Leo d . In 
 all these cases, different parts of one and the same catholic 
 church were separated from external communion. But we 
 may observe instances in which this division was carried to a 
 greater extent, and involved the whole church. Fleury (him- 
 self of the Roman communion) says, with reference to the 
 death of Chrysostom : " His death did not terminate the divi- 
 sion of the churches of the East and West ; and while the 
 orientals refused to re-establish his memory, the Roman church, 
 followed by all the West, held firm to the resolution she had 
 taken, not to communicate with the oriental bishops, especially 
 with Theophilus of Alexandria, until an oecumenical council 
 should be held to remedy the evils of the church e ." This 
 division continued for several years. 
 
 The division between the East and West was again renewed 
 in the time of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, whom 
 Felix of Rome deposed and excommunicated for having held 
 communion with heretics, and for other causes, and to whose 
 communion all the eastern bishops adhered. We learn from 
 the letters of the orthodox oriental bishops, that after this 
 time they were not actually in communion with the West f . 
 
 c I have considered this subject d Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xxvii. s. 5. 
 
 more fully in "The Apostolical Ju- e Hist. Eccl. 1. xxii. 13. 
 
 risdiction, &c. of the Episcopacy in f Ibid. 1. xxxi. 16. 
 the British Churches," s. xvi.
 
 SECT, iv.] Communion of Catholic Church interrupted. 61 
 
 The Eoman bishops informed them of the mode in which they 
 might recover their communion g , and, in fine, when the reunion 
 had been accomplished between the churches of Eome and 
 Constantinople, after an interval of thirty-five years, Pope 
 Hormisdas writes to the bishops of Spain, to inform them " on 
 what conditions they should admit the orientals to their com- 
 munion h ." This shows that the Eastern and Western churches 
 had again been altogether separated in point of external com- 
 munion. 
 
 I shall not multiply instances of division, but it is impossible 
 not to mention the great schism in the western church, which 
 continued from 1379 to 1414. During this interval the whole 
 of that church was divided into two, and at last three, " obe- 
 diences," subject to so many rival popes, and in a great degree 
 estranged from mutual communion. Each "obedience" ad- 
 hered to its head as the true vicar of Christ, and treated those 
 of the other obedience as schismatics. I do not say that this 
 separation of communion was universal, but it existed to a 
 great extent both between different national churches and in 
 particular churches, as we may see in the ecclesiastical history 
 of that time ! . 
 
 The best reply made to such facts by Eoman theologians is, Romanists 
 that although in these cases some portions of the church were ^ h gf d to 
 
 . admit our 
 
 separated from mutual communion, they still communicated position. 
 with some third party, some portion of the church which did 
 not engage in the schism. Such a third party does not appear 
 in the schism between the eastern and western churches in the 
 time of Theophilus of Alexandria, and^Acacius, as Nicole him- 
 self admitted ; but, at all events, the communion of two parties 
 with a third, does not in any degree prove that the external 
 unity of the church universal is uninterrupted. It is manifest 
 that this sort of communion only preserves at most an internal 
 unity between separated portions of the church ; the external 
 union is evidently interrupted. Eomanists are sensible that 
 they cannot sustain the perpetual external unity of the church 
 on so imperfect a communion, and therefore they endeavour to 
 
 * Fleury, 1. xxxi. s. 16. See also Spain, which were not in commu- 
 
 s. 26. nion with the rest of Christendom ; 
 
 h Ibid. s. 43. yet this Obedience is considered to 
 
 1 The Obedience of the popes of have been a part of the church by 
 
 Avignon, before the council of Con- Romanists. See Episcopacy Vindi- 
 
 stance, consisted only of France and cated against Wiseman, p. 1 90.
 
 62 Communion may be interrupted. [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 make up the deficiency by referring to the motives, sentiments, 
 and conduct of those who have been actually separated from 
 external communion. For example, the oriental bishops who 
 adhered to Acacius are said not to have been schismatics, 
 because " they thought the bishop of Constantinople could not 
 be condemned except in a general council ; but they did not 
 deny the primacy of the Roman pontiff, nor the authority of 
 the universal church." " They sought communion with the 
 apostolical see." In the western schism, " all with good faith 
 adhered to him whom they held to be the legitimate pontiff." 
 " All with due reverence expected the judgment of the universal 
 church.* " There were probable reasons on both sides." " If 
 there were any error, it was in mere fact, not in the doctrine 
 itself J," &c. Now, if different parties, though actually sepa- 
 rated from external communion, may yet all form parts of the 
 one catholic church, and be free from schism, in consequence 
 of their motives and principles, and their communion with some 
 third party, might not the same principles and motives, and 
 communion with the universal church before their division, be 
 equally consistent with the unity of the church ? I see not 
 why this communion should not preserve the unity of the 
 church just as well as communion with some third part of the 
 existing church, which may perhaps be exceedingly small, for 
 no Romanist has pretended to determine the dimensions neces- 
 sary to this party. Suppose, then, that it should consist of a 
 few insignificant particular churches, how would the visible 
 unity of the church be preserved in such a case ? 
 
 Interrup- Fourthly. I ask whether the church universal may not, 
 tlonofcom " consistently with the principles of Romanists themselves, be 
 
 munion 
 
 consistent divided into two parts which hold no direct external commu- 
 trim^'oT nionl It is their doctrine, that the external unity of the 
 Romanists, church consists, not only in the communion of all its members 
 with each other, but with their visible head, the Roman pontiff. 
 Now, Delahogue and others admit that their communion with 
 the head may be interrupted k ; therefore, a pari, it may be 
 
 1 Tournely, Praelect. Theol. de trum unitatis, licet ecclesiae necessa- 
 Ecclesia, qusest. iv. art. iv. objec- rium, interrumpi posse, sub quo 
 tiones. Delahogue, de Eccl. cap. i. respectu ejus ope eodem visibili corn- 
 pars ii. propos. ii. objectiones. munionis vinculo connectuntur om- 
 Bailly, Tract, de Eccl. torn. i. c. vi. nes catholici ; namque per quadra- 
 object, ginta annos magni schismatis occi- 
 
 k " Cseterum notandum est, cen- dentis, varii competitores in pontiff-
 
 SECT, iv.] Communion may be interrupted. 63 
 
 interrupted between the members also ; for the one species of 
 external unity, in their opinion, is as divinely instituted as the 
 other. If they contend that external communion cannot in 
 both its branches be interrupted at the same time, yet still, if 
 it may be deduced from their principles that a time may come 
 when the Roman pontiff shall be the only link of external com- 
 munion between two parties in the church, it seems that 
 external visible unity is not more secure on their principles 
 than on ours. 
 
 It is the doctrine of Delahogue and Romish theologians, that 
 schism consists in "a separation from the communion of the 
 universal church, which happens either when the church ex- 
 cludes any one from its body, or when any one leaves its com- 
 munion 1 ." How can they prove that no case can occur in 
 which a party neither separates itself from the communion of 
 the universal church, nor is cut off from communion by the 
 universal church, and yet is not actually in external communion 
 with the majority of the church ! If we suppose the church 
 equally divided in some question, and each portion simply to 
 withdraw its communion from the other without anathema, in 
 obedience to an authority erroneously supposed to be irre- 
 sistible, or from mutual misunderstandings; in such a case 
 both sides would be free from schism according to this defini- 
 tion, and therefore both would remain portions of the one 
 catholic church, though separated from mutual external com- 
 munion. 
 
 Tournely m and other Romish theologians distinguish three 
 species of excommunication : one " by which bishops are 
 deprived of the charity and ecclesiastical communion of other 
 bishops ;" which consisted chiefly in mutual visits, celebration 
 of offices together, exchange of letters, and sitting together in 
 councils. Another "by which a person was totally cut off 
 from the body of the church, and held as a heathen man and a 
 publican.'" And another, "most customary among the an- 
 cients," which " consisted in bare subtraction or denial of 
 communion, by which bishops or churches separated themselves 
 
 catu suas habebant obedientias, et Ecclesia, c. viii. qiuTst. 3, prop. 2, 
 
 singuli eas quae illis non adhserebant p. 393. 
 
 excommunicatione feriebant. Quo- ' Delahogue, c. i. p. 1, propos. 2, 
 
 modo autem nulla ex illis fuerit object. Tournely, itbi supra. 
 
 schismatica probavimus," &c. De m De Ecclesia, ibid.
 
 64 Communion may be interrupted, [v. i. CH. iv. 
 
 from mutual communion, and thus one, as it were, excommuni- 
 cated the other, though not subject to it." This excommuni- 
 cation, according to Tournely, " was not excommunication 
 properly so called" though it separated churches from mutual 
 intercourse. Therefore, if the church universal should be 
 divided into two portions by such an excommunication, neither 
 party would be truly cut off from the church, and therefore the 
 church would exist in different communions. 
 
 Nicole himself, ' in arguing for the unity of the church in 
 external communion, makes the following admission : " We do 
 not pretend that the actual unity which consists in the effective 
 union of all the church is essential to the church, because this 
 union may be troubled by divisions and contests which God 
 permits." He even lays down two conditions which exempt 
 from schism the parties so divided. The first is, that " all 
 those who are divided in good faith by some controversy which 
 is not ruled or decided, tend sincerely to unity ;" and the second, 
 that they must " acknowledge a common judge, to which they 
 refer their differences, which is a general council"." There- 
 fore, according to the principle here laid down by Nicole, whose 
 book has been copied by all succeeding Romish theologians^ 
 and is styled by the bishop of Mans " exquisitum opus ;" there 
 may be external divisions of such a kind, that ecclesiastical 
 unity is not truly subverted by them. 
 
 It may be concluded, then, that Scripture, tradition, his- 
 tory, and theological reasons, combine to establish the possi- 
 bility of a division of communion in the catholic church. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 SEPARATION FROM COMMUNION, IN WHAT SENSE NECESSARY. 
 
 The unlawfulness of voluntary separation from the commu- 
 nion of the whole body of the visible church, or of that parti- 
 cular church of which we are members, has been maintained 
 above ; but there are certain cases in which separation, not 
 indeed from the church of Christ, but from its unsound mem- 
 bers, is a most sacred duty. The language of St. Paul dis- 
 tinctly informs us of this : " Now have I written unto you not 
 to keep company, if any man that is called a brother " (i. e. 
 a Christian) " be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a 
 
 n Cited by Jurieu, Unite de 1'Eglise, p. 360, 361.
 
 SECT, v.] Separation from Communion. 65 
 
 railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no 
 not to eat " (1 Cor. v. 11). And again : " Now we command 
 you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
 withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disor- 
 derly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" 
 (2 Thes. iii. 6). And in another place : " Mark them which 
 cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 have learned, and givoid them'" (Rom. xvi. 17). 
 
 It may be collected from these passages, that when any pro- 
 fessing Christian is guilty of heresy, idolatry, or other crimes, it 
 is the duty of believers to separate themselves from him at once, 
 even before the cause has been brought to the ordinary tribunals 
 of the church ; and this appears to be a general rule, applic- 
 able even in cases where bishops or other ecclesiastical supe- 
 riors are guilty of crime. 
 
 Of this rule of catholic communion we find innumerable 
 examples in the history of the church. Thus St. Cyprian, in 
 many places, condemns bishops and other members of the 
 church, who received to communion without any canonical 
 penance, those who had fallen away in the time of persecu- 
 tion, and had performed acts of idolatry ; assuming through- 
 out, that such offenders had been at once, by their own acts, 
 and without any sentence, separated from communion ; these 
 lapsed, according to him, had ceased to be members of the 
 church. " A number of lapsed," he says, " cannot be called a 
 church, since it is written, ' God is not the God of the dead, 
 but of the living P. 1 " He commends the clergy of Carthage 
 for refusing communion to Gaius and another, who " by com- 
 municating with the lapsed, and offering their oblations, were 
 discovered to be in their wicked errors q ." When a bishop who 
 had committed idolatrous actions attempted to resume his 
 ministry in the church, Cyprian declared that " those who have 
 committed grievous sins, that is, who have offered sacrilegious 
 sacrifice in sacrificing to idols, cannot assume to themselves to 
 
 Cyprian, Epist. x. xxvii. Ixiv. q " Integra et cum disciplina fe- 
 
 &c. ed. Pamelii. cistis . . . quod consilio coilegarum 
 
 p " Absit enim, nee Domini mise- meorum qui praesentes erant, Gaio 
 
 ricordia, et potestas ejus invicta pa- Diddensi presbytero et diacono ejus 
 
 tiatur, ut Ecclesia esse dicatur lap- censuistis non communicandum : 
 
 sorum numerus ; cum scriptum sit, qui communicando cum lapsis, et 
 
 Deus non est mortuorum, sed vivo- offerendo oblationes eorum in pra- 
 
 rum." Epist. xxvii. p. 55, ed. Pa- vis erroribus suis frequenter depre- 
 
 melii. hensi," &c. Epist. xxviii. p. 56.
 
 66 Separation from Communion. [p. i. CH. iv. 
 
 be priests of God, nor make any prayer before Him for the 
 brethren ;" and that " no oblation can be sanctified where the 
 Holy Spirit is not, nor can any blessing from the Lord come 
 through the prayers and supplications of one who hath injured 
 the Lord r ." The synod of African bishops, with Cyprian, in 
 an epistle to the clergy and people of Leon and Merida, in 
 Spain, whose bishops had committed idolatry, declared, that 
 under such circumstances, " the people should not flatter them- 
 selves that they could be free from the contagion of guilt when 
 in communion with a, wicked bishop, and consenting to his un- 
 righteous and unlawful rule s ." " A people obedient- to the 
 Lord's commands, and fearing God, ought to separate itself from 
 a bishop that is a sinner, and not partake in the sacrifices of a 
 sacrilegious priest '." The synod afterwards exhorts them 
 " not to be united in sacrilegious communion with profane and 
 defiled bishops u ." 
 
 This rule applied even in the case of the bishops of the 
 principal sees. Thus Antonianus, a bishop of Numidia, would 
 not hold communion with Cornelius, bishop of Rome, who had 
 been accused of communicating with the lapsed, and restoring 
 a lapsed bishop to his office, until St. Cyprian showed him the 
 injustice of those accusations v . St. Jerome refers with 
 approbation to the acts of the monks and many of the brethren 
 who separated from the communion of John, bishop of Jerusa- 
 lem, because he would not clear himself from the errors of 
 Origen, with which he was strongly charged w . The monks 
 of Cappadocia separated themselves from the communion of 
 the elder Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, because he had sub- 
 scribed the creed of Ariminum, and was suspected of Arian- 
 ism x . From all these cases it is plain, that in the primitive 
 
 r Epist. Ixiv. Ad Epictetum et sacerdotis sacrificia miscere." Ibid. 
 
 plebem Assuritanorum. p. 166. 
 
 8 " Nee sibi plebs blandiatur ; " " Quantum possumus adhorta- 
 
 quasi immunis esse a contagio de- mur litteris nostris, ne vos cum pro- 
 
 licti possit, cum sacerdote peccatore fanis et maculatis sacerdotibus com- 
 
 communicans, et ad injustum atque municatione sacrilega misceatis." 
 
 illicitum praepositi sui episcopatum Ibid. p. 166. 
 
 consensual suum commodans." v Cypr. Epist. lii. ad Antonianum. 
 Epist. Ixviii. p. 165. w Hieron. Epist. xxxviii. col. 308. 
 
 1 " Propter quod plebs obsequens Oper. torn. iv. ed. Benedict, 
 praeceptis Dominicis, et Deum me- x Vita Gregorii Naz. a Gregorio 
 
 tuens, a peccatore praeposito sepa- presbytero, torn. i. Oper. Naz.; 
 
 rare se debet, nee se ad sacrilegi Orat. xii. De Pace, p. 191 &c.
 
 SECT, v.] Separation from Communion. 67 
 
 ages it was considered right to separate from the communion 
 even of bishops, however eminent in station and dignity, when 
 they were guilty of heresy or idolatry. 
 
 According to Sozoman, when St. Basil was obliged to escape 
 from the enmity of Eusebius, archbishop of Csesarea, in Cappa- 
 docia, " the people of Caesarea intended to desert Eusebius 
 entirely, as suspected of heresy, and to hold their assemblies 
 apart y ." After the condemnation of Chrysostom, many of the 
 people of Constantinople refused to communicate with Arsa- 
 cius, who was ordained bishop of Constantinople in his stead ; 
 or with Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyrius of Antioch, 
 who had been aiding or abetting in the deposition of Chrysos- 
 tom; and their conduct was highly approved by the see of 
 Borne and by all the west z . The people of Constantinople, 
 on hearing the errors advanced by their bishop, Nestorius, 
 immediately left the church, and held no further communion 
 with Nestorius ; for which they were applauded by St. Cyril, 
 of Alexandria, and by Ccelestinus, bishop of Rome a . 
 
 The clergy of Edessa, when petitioning the synod of Berytus 
 in favour of their bishop, Ibas, who was accused of preaching 
 the Nestorian heresy in his church, protested, that " if they 
 had held communion with him, or ministered with him, preach- 
 ing such errors, they would have deserved eternal punishment 1 *." 
 Many of the clergy and people of Rome separated themselves 
 from the communion of Pope Anastasius II. because he had 
 held communion with a deacon who communicated with the 
 Monophysites, and because he wished to restore Acacius to 
 the see of Constantinople, who had received the Monophysites 
 to communion . When Pelagius I. was made bishop of 
 Rome, great numbers of the most eminent members of the 
 Roman church separated themselves from his communion, 
 alleging that he had been concerned in the death of Pope Vigi- 
 lius, his predecessor d . In the same manner, many separated 
 themselves from Popes Symmachus, Adrian II., and Victor 
 III., as being charged with various crimes. 
 
 r Sozom. 1. vi. c. 15. Joan. Antioch. col. 375. 
 
 1 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xxii. s. 9. b Apud Concil. Chalced. act. x. 
 
 Cyril. Alexandrinus Epist. ad p. 668, torn. iv. Concil. ed. Labb. 
 
 Coalestin. Papam, torn. iii. Cone. ed. c Liber Pontificalis, Vita Ana- 
 
 Labbaei, col. 342 ; Epist. Coelest. ad stasii, Labb. Cone. torn. iv. col. 1276. 
 
 Cyril, col. 346, 347 ; Ad Cler. et d Liber Pontificalis, Labb. torn. v. 
 
 Popul. Const, col. 363, &c. ; Ad col. 787. 
 
 F 2
 
 68 Separation from Communion. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great forbade their ambas- 
 sadors at Rome to assist at the communion with John and Cyri- 
 acus, bishops of Constantinople, in consequence of their having 
 assumed the title of " (Ecumenical Patriarch 6 ." Gregory VII. 
 forbade any of the faithful to hear service performed by, or to 
 communicate with, any priest who was notoriously simoniacal, 
 or lived in the state of marriage ; and he commended the 
 clergy and people of Constance for withdrawing themselves 
 from the communion of their bishop, who had obtained his 
 see simoniacally, and who squandered the property of the 
 church f . 
 
 It may be inferred from these facts, that in the judgment of 
 the church, it is lawful to withdraw from the communion of 
 any of the brethren, and even from the communion of bishops, 
 when they are notoriously guilty of heresy, idolatry g , or other 
 grievous crimes, or when they communicate with heretics and 
 idolaters, and thus encourage them in their sins ; and that if 
 bishops or others are vehemently suspected and accused of 
 heresy, idolatry, or other crimes, and will not or cannot clear 
 themselves from such imputations, it is also right to withdraw 
 from their communion, until the cause has been decided by a 
 lawful synod. 
 
 It is plain, however, that this principle, though deeply-rooted 
 in the nature of Christianity, is, like most other salutary prin- 
 ciples, capable of being most erroneously applied ; and if it be 
 not acted on with great caution and charity, it may lead to 
 schisms and to incalculable evils. In some of the instances 
 cited above, it was, to a certain extent, misapplied ; and eccle- 
 siastical history furnishes many instances of schisms, like those 
 of the Donatists and Luciferians, which originated in such 
 misapplications, combined with an imperfect appreciation of 
 the perpetuity and catholicity of the church, and the absolute 
 duty of adhering to her communion. Such acts of separation 
 are schismatical where the heresies or idolatries of those from 
 whom the separation is made are not notorious or certain ; or 
 when separation takes place without giving the accused an 
 
 e Gregorii Epist. ad Joan. Const. Crosthwaite), where the Synod of 
 
 Labb. Cone. torn. v. col. 11Q1. Ephesus, act. vii. can. iii , and the 
 
 f See Christianus Lupus, in Cone, (so-called) eighth oecumenical syn- 
 
 General. pars ii. p. 1297, 1301. od, can. xv. are quoted in proof of 
 
 K See Archbp. Potter on Church this principle. 
 Government (chap. iv. p. 121, ed.
 
 SECT, vi.] Unity of Communion. 69 
 
 opportunity of self-vindication and explanation ; or when the 
 separation is made on principles involving separation from the 
 whole universal church ; or when it is made by the act of union 
 with those who are notoriously guilty of crimes still greater 
 than those which have induced separation from others. In the 
 first case separation is causeless ; in the second it is unjust ; 
 in the third it is based on unsound doctrine ; in the fourth 
 it does not arise from the love of the truth, or from zeal for 
 God. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 UNITY OF COMMUNION, HOW FAR A NOTE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 We are now to consider how far the doctrine of unity in 
 communion furnishes us with notes of the true church, or 
 means by which we may discriminate it, without much diffi- 
 culty, from rival communities. 
 
 1. Since, then, it has been proved, in Section I., that God 
 has commanded unity in his church, it follows necessarily that 
 he must have provided means for sustaining this unity ; and 
 therefore, that any society which does not possess means for 
 upholding unity of communion, and which is obliged by its 
 fundamental principles to tolerate and even encourage separa- 
 tion and division without limit, cannot be a church of God. 
 This, then, is a note which enables us easily to discriminate 
 sects from the church. 
 
 2. From the principles laid down in Section II., it follows 
 that any society which originally separated itself from the 
 whole church, or from a particular church, on grounds which 
 equally implied separation from the whole, is no part of the 
 church of Christ. This is another test which may be easily 
 applied. 
 
 3. It also follows, from Section II., that any society which 
 originally separated itself from the bishops and other disciples 
 of its own locality, is involved in schism, except in the case 
 contemplated in Section V., when those bishops or disciples 
 were notoriously guilty of idolatry or heresy, or refused to clear 
 themselves of those crimes when justly suspected. There may 
 be some difficulty in applying this test to particular communi- 
 ties, involving, as it does, the discussion of particular doctrines,
 
 70 Unity of Communion. [P. i. CH. iv. 
 
 and of the extent to which they are held or approved by certain 
 societies ; still it may be possible to establish so undeniable a 
 case, and in so brief a compass, that a society may be easily 
 cleared from schism or convicted of it. 
 
 4. It is not difficult to show that some existing societies 
 have been excommunicated by the universal church for their- 
 errors (Section III.), and that others have not been so. This, 
 then, may be employed as one of our tests. 
 
 5. It is plain from Section IV., that actual unity of external 
 communion is not a necessary characteristic of the church ; 
 but all parts of the church must necessarily desire such an 
 unity, and tend towards it, and must possess principles and 
 means calculated to produce unity in each particular church, 
 and in the universal church. 
 
 6. If, in fine, it can be shown that any society of professing 
 Christians was originally founded by the apostles, or the 
 churches they instituted; that this society has been always 
 visible ; that it never voluntarily separated itself from the great 
 body of the church ; that it was never excommunicated from 
 the rest of the church by any regular or valid judgment ; and 
 that it maintains the necessity of unity, and provides effectual 
 means for preserving it ; then it follows that such a society 
 must be a portion of the church of Christ, as far as it can be 
 proved such from the unity of communion, even though it may 
 not be actually in communion with the larger part of the 
 church. In this case it can never have ceased to be what it 
 originally was, namely, a church of Christ ; for a church can 
 only cease to be united to Christ by its own voluntary separa- 
 tion, or by the lawful judgment of others.
 
 SECT, i.] Unity in Faith. 71 
 
 CHAPTER V. . 
 
 OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN RESPECT OF FAITH. 
 
 THAT our Lord Jesus Christ did, in the time of his sojourn on 
 earth, and afterwards by his apostles, make a revelation of 
 truths salutaiy and necessary to be believed, is the general 
 confession of all who call themselves Christians. Such truths 
 ought doubtless to be believed by all his disciples, that is, by 
 the church ; and therefore the church ought to have unity of 
 faith. But many questions have been raised as to the invari- 
 able unity of the church in faith, and the possibility of salva- 
 tion under certain circumstances, even when revealed truth is 
 not perfectly received. In treating of this subject, I shall 
 prove, 
 
 First, that THE TRUTH revealed by Christ must be believed 
 by all Christians, in order to salvation. 
 
 Secondly, that heresy, or the pertinacious denial or perver- 
 sion of the truth, excludes from salvation. 
 
 Thirdly, that all errors, even in matters of faith, are not 
 heretical ; and that some errors and corruptions may exist in 
 the church. 
 
 Fourthly, I shall examine in what respects unity in faith is 
 an attribute and sign of the church of Christ. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE TRUTH REVEALED BY CHRIST IS TO BE BELIEVED BY ALL 
 CHRISTIANS. 
 
 The whole system and body of the Christian religion is Revealed 
 necessarily free from the least mixture of error or falsehood, tr " obll ~ 
 
 . . gatory. 
 
 because it proceeds from the infinitely wise and only-begotten 
 Son of God, who declared himself to be emphatically " the way, 
 the truth, and the life." The very object of his mission was to 
 declare the truth. " To this end was I born, and for this 
 cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto 
 the truth v (John xviii. 37) ; and the reason was, " God hath
 
 72 Necessity of believing the Truth. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctifi- 
 cation of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. ii. 13). 
 His promise to his disciples was ; " Ye shall know the truth, 
 and the truth shall make you free " (John viii. 32) : and again, 
 "The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth" (xvi. 13). 
 It is to be observed, that salvation, and freedom from the 
 dominion of evil, are here connected with the belief of the 
 truth : the holy Spirit even is given for its maintenance : and 
 hence Christians are bound by their hopes of salvation, and by 
 the obligation of submitting their own wills to the will of God, 
 to believe the truth alone, as revealed by Jesus Christ. This 
 truth he commanded his disciples to " teach all nations ;" and 
 since truth is but one, the apostle declares that there is but 
 " one faith 1 ' (Eph. iv. 5), for which " faith once delivered to 
 the saints," a faith incapable of improvement, of addition, or 
 correction, all Christians are commanded " earnestly to con- 
 tend" (Jude 3). In this faith they are to remain " stablished 
 as they have been taught" (Coloss. ii. 7). They are exhorted 
 to " stand fast, and hold the traditions they have been taught" 
 (1 Thess. ii. 15) ; " not carried about with divers and strange 
 doctrines " (Heb. xiii. 9) ; nor " like children tossed to and 
 fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 
 iv. 14). Their pastors are commanded, when needful, to 
 " rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith " 
 (Tit. i. 13). Nothing is more evident than the will and com- 
 mandment of Christ, that his whole church should firmly 
 believe and sustain the one truth which he came to reveal by 
 himself and his apostles. Even in his last hours he thus 
 addressed the Father : " Sanctify them through thy truth : 
 thy word is truth" (John xvii. 17) ; and their common belief 
 in this truth was doubtless included in the petition which he 
 immediately added : " that they may all be one" In fine, St. 
 Paul describes the Christian church as established for the 
 maintenance of the truth. " The church of the living God, 
 the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 5). 
 
 Hence we may conclude that there is an obligation on all 
 Christians to receive the whole truth revealed by Christ, and 
 to deny no part of it h . Every portion of this truth comes 
 from God himself, and rests on his authority ; and we cannot 
 
 h See Rogers's Discourse of the mon II. before the University of 
 Church, chap. iii. Hook, Ser- Oxford.
 
 SECT. IT.] Heresy. 73 
 
 without temerity divide the doctrines which he has revealed, 
 into those which may be denied, and those which may be 
 believed. Independently of the rashness and folly of such a 
 distinction made without any authority of revelation, its im- 
 piety is manifest, as it in effect constitutes man the judge of 
 God himself. It is necessary therefore to avoid with the 
 greatest care any approximation to this evil doctrine. The 
 obligation of believing all that Christ has actually revealed, 
 must however be admitted by professing Christians of "all 
 denominations. 11 Even the Unitarian cannot allow that it is 
 lawful to deny that pardon is given on condition of repentance, 
 or that future rewards are eternal ; or if he does so, he must 
 be prepared to maintain the absurd paradox, that one who 
 denies every doctrine which Christ taught, may yet be a 
 disciple of Christ, and in the way of salvation which Christ 
 came to point out. But I proceed to confirm what has been 
 asserted in this section, by showing the sin of disbelieving any 
 of the truth revealed by Christ. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 HERESY EXCLUDES FROM SALVATION. 
 
 Heresy is the pertinacious denial of some truth certainly Heresy 
 revealed. I say " pertinacious, 11 because it is agreed generally 
 that pertinacity or obstinacy is required to constitute formal 
 heresy. Field defines heretics as " they that obstinately persist 
 in error contrary to the church's faith V Hooker says, that 
 " heresy is heretically maintained by such as obstinately hold 
 it after wholesome admonition V On the other hand, Melchior 
 Canus teaches that "heresy is the pertinacious error of one 
 who professes the faith, manifestly contrary to that truth 
 which is certainly catholic, 11 and that " he alone is to be 
 accounted a heretic who resists the doctrine of the church, 
 and is therefore pertinacious k . 11 I add " certainly revealed, 11 
 because if there be a legitimate doubt in a controversy, which 
 of the two contrary doctrines was actually revealed, either 
 may be held without heresy. It is obvious also, that mere 
 
 1 Field, Of the Church, book i. ologicis, lib. xii. c. vii. resp. ad 5. 
 
 ch. 14. The same doctrine is maintained by 
 
 1 Hooker's Works by Keble, vol. Bossuet, Defens. declar. cler. Galli- 
 
 iii. p. 620. cani, torn. Hi. p. 286. 
 
 k Melchior Canus, De Locis The-
 
 74 Heresy a Sin. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 ignorance, or a temporary error in ignorance, is altogether 
 different from heresy. 
 
 Heresy a ! Heresy is in fact a species of infidelity; it denies a 
 sin, accord- portion of what God has revealed ; and the words of Christ 
 ture. to his apostles, " Go ye and teach all nations ... to observe all 
 things that I have commanded you ... he that believeth not 
 shall be damned" (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. lb'), con- 
 signing to destruction those who do not believe the apostolic 
 preaching, prove the infinite danger of disputing or denying 
 it in any point. As it has been shown above that the Scrip- 
 tures connect salvation with a belief of the truth, so also is 
 condemnation united with the belief of false doctrines : " For 
 this cause shall God send them strong delusion that they 
 should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who 
 believed not the truth" (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12). Heresy is 
 here represented as a judgment of God on the wicked, by 
 which he permits Satan to gain dominion over them, and 
 precipitate them into destruction. St. Paul, in writing to 
 the Galatians, with reference to the Judaizing teachers, who 
 maintained the necessity of obedience to the old Law without 
 denying the mission of Christ, says : " There be some that 
 trouble you, and would pervert" (not deny} "the Gospel of 
 Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any 
 other gospel (i. e. by perverting the Gospel) unto you than 
 that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. 
 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any 
 other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be 
 anathema" (Gal. i. 7 9). 
 
 St. Peter said : " There shall be false teachers among you, 
 who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the 
 Lord that bought them" (2 Pet. ii. 1). These words probably 
 refer directly and immediately to those who are described by 
 another apostle as " deceivers " and " antichrists," who " con- 
 fess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (2 John 7). 
 St. John continues : " Whosoever transgresseth and abideth 
 not in the doctrine of Christ, he hath not God : he that abideth 
 in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the 
 Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, 
 receive him not into your house ; neither bid him God speed : 
 for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil 
 deeds" (9 11). It appears that St. John alluded in this
 
 SECT. IT.] Heresy condemned by the Primitive Church. 75 
 
 passage to the Gnostics, who denied that Christ's body was 
 real, and consequently subverted the doctrine of his real incar- 
 nation, passion, death, atonement, &c. ; and no words can 
 more plainly show the guilt of separating from the unity of the 
 true faith. Evil doctrine is elsewhere described as hateful to 
 God. " So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the 
 Nicolaitanes, which thing I HATE" (Rev. ii. 15). Those who 
 teach and maintain false doctrines are, according to the apos- 
 tolic command, to be rejected and cut off from the society of 
 Christians. " If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to 
 wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is 
 proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes 
 of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 
 perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of 
 the truth, supposing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw 
 thyself' 1 '' (1 Tim. vi. 3 5). " A man that is a heretic, after 
 the first and second admonition, reject" (Tit. iii. 10). 
 
 These passages are so clear, that it is needless to adduce 
 further proof from Scripture to the same effect. It may be con- 
 cluded, therefore, that a pertinacious denial of any truth certainly 
 revealed by Christ our Lord, whether it be doctrinal or moral, 
 relating to the nature and attributes of God, or the duty and 
 hopes of man, is offensive to God, and destructive of salvation. 
 
 2. The whole church of Christ, from the beginning, acknow- Fathers, 
 ledged this principle. Ignatius writes thus to the church in 
 Ephesus : " Do not err, rny brethren. They who corrupt the 
 house, shall not inherit the kingdom of God ; and if such as 
 do these things according to the flesh have perished, how much 
 more if any one should corrupt the faith of God by evil doc- 
 trine, for which faith Jesus Christ was crucified I Such a one, 
 being defiled, shall depart into fire unquenchable. Likewise 
 he who heareth him 1 ." To the Trallians he writes : " There- 
 fore I exhort you, and yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, 
 to use only Christian food, and to abstain from strange pas- 
 ture, which is heresy. For the heretics, to appear worthy of 
 
 tdv iriffTiv Qeov Kaicy iaa- Epist. ad Ephes. C. xvi.
 
 
 76 Heresy condemned ly the Primitive Church. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 belief, involve Jesus Christ in their doctrine, like those who 
 administer a deadly potion mingled with sweet wine, which the 
 ignorant receiveth with pleasure ; and therein is death." 
 Justin Martyr teaches the same doctrine. Having cited the 
 words of Christ : " Many false Christs and false apostles shall 
 arise and deceive many of the faithful ;" he continues : " There 
 are therefore, and were many, who going forth in the name of 
 Christ, taught impious and blasphemous doctrines and prac- 
 tices ; and we call them by the name of those men from whom 
 each doctrine or opinion arose .... with none of whom do we 
 communicate, knowing them to be irreligious, impious, un- 
 righteous, iniquitous, who instead of venerating Jesus Christ, 
 only profess him in name V " The Lord," 1 says Irenaeus, 
 " shall judge all those who are without the truth ; that is, 
 without the church ." " If they are heretics they cannot be 
 Christians," according to Tertullian P ; who also judged, that 
 " heresies had not inflicted less injury on the Christians by 
 their perverse doctrines, than Antichrist by his horrible per- 
 secutions V Clement of Alexandria affirms, that "he who 
 revolts against the ecclesiastical doctrine, and falls into the 
 opinions of human heresies, ceases to be a man of God, and 
 faithful to the Lord r ." Origen continues the same doctrine : 
 " As those shall not possess the kingdom of God, who have 
 been defiled by fornication, and uncleanness, and impurities, 
 and idolatry ; so neither shall heretics s ." " If any one, read- 
 ing the gospel, applies to it his own interpretation, not under- 
 standing it as the Lord spake it, truly he is a false prophet, 
 uttering words from his own mind. These words may fairly be 
 understood of heretics V " Nor can that man be accounted 
 
 m IlapaicaXto ovv vpae, OVK tyu, p "Si hseretici sunt, Christian! 
 
 aXX' 17 aycLTTT] 'Irjaov Xpiffrov, p.6vy esse non possunt." De Prsescript. 
 
 Ty XoiffTiavy rpo0jf -^p^aQai, dXXo- c. 37- p. 215. ed. Rigalt. 1664. 
 Tpiag Si jSordi/jje dirs^iffOai, ijriQ ktrriv q Prsescript. C. 4. 
 a'/ptffif, K. r. X. Ad Trail, c. vi. r Stromat. vii. 88. "A.vQpw7roQ ilvai 
 
 n IloXXoi . o'l aOta icai /3Xd<r0;/ia rov Qcov Kai Triorof ry Kvpiy Siap,i- 
 
 Xsytiv Krai Trpdrrfiv iSiSa^av .... wv vnv cnroXwXticev, 6 avaXaKTiaag TI}V 
 
 ovdevi Koiv(i>vovjj.fv, ol yvwpiovrf<; sKicXj/ffiaari/o/v Trapddoffiv, Kai airo- 
 
 aOsove Kai dae/3tlg Kai aSiKove KOI ffiaprjjcraf tig 6a alpfatwv avQptit- 
 
 avo/jLOVQ ai>Toi< vTrap-%ovTa.Q. Just, irivwv. Stromat. lib. vii. p. 890. ed. 
 
 Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 208. ed. Potter. 
 Thirl. 8 Origen. ap. Pamphil. Apol. 
 
 " Dominus judicaturus est eos torn: v. p. 225. Oper. Hieron. Paris, 
 
 omnes qui sunt extra veritatem, id 1706. 
 
 est qui sunt extra ecclesiam." Adv. ' Horn. ii. in Ezech. torn. iii. p.. 
 
 Haeres. 1. 4. c. 33. al. 62. 362.
 
 SECT, ii.] Heresy condemned by the Primitive Church. 77 
 
 a Christian," says Cyprian, " who doth not remain in the truth 
 of his gospel and faith u ." 
 
 The practice of the church was in accordance with these Practice of 
 principles. Heretics were always regarded as cut off from the the cnurclu 
 church, and to be avoided by all Christians. Irenseus relates, 
 from the tradition of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, that 
 when the apostle went to the bath at Ephesus, and beheld 
 Cerinthus there, he departed, saying, " Let us fly, lest it 
 should fall upon us, for Cerinthus the enemy of the truth is 
 there v ." Polycarp himself, when asked by the heretic Mar- 
 cion, " Whether he knew him," answered, " I know thee, the 
 first-born of Satan." " So great care," says Irenaeus, " had 
 the apostles and their disciples not to communicate, even by 
 words, with those who adulterated the truth ; as Paul also 
 said : ' A man that is a heretic, after the first and second 
 admonition reject, knowing that such a one is perverted, and 
 sinneth, being condemned by himself w .' " Heretics were only 
 received into the church on confessing their fault, as Irenaeu's 
 intimates in the case of Cerdo x . Those who taught false 
 doctrines were condemned and anathematized. Thus Victor 
 and the Koman church expelled Theodotus, Artemon, and their 
 followers, who held that Christ was a mere many. Noetus 
 was condemned at Ephesus z , and Paulus of Samosata at 
 Antioch, by seventy oriental bishops, who in their epistle to all 
 churches speak thus : " We also wrote and exhorted many 
 bishops afar off, to procure a remedy of this deadly doctrine a ," 
 .... and having alluded to the scandalous life of Paulus, they 
 observe, that had he been orthodox, they would have examined ' 
 into this ; " but we have not judged it fit to take account of 
 these things, in the case of one who hath betrayed the mys- 
 tery, and boasted himself in the accursed heresy of Artemon ; 
 for why should we not declare his parent ? . . . . Having, 
 therefore, expelled him as an enemy of God, and remaining 
 
 " Nee Christianus videri potest dXjjOa'ac x0po{;. 
 
 qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus, w Ibid, 
 
 et fidei veritate." De Unit. Eccl. * Adv. Haeres. iii. c. 4. 
 
 T Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. lib. iii. y Euseb. v. 28. Fleury, iv. 33. 
 
 c. iii. 'Iwarv^c, TOV Kvpiov fiaQij- * Fleury, liv. v. c. 52. 
 
 TI}Q. ivry 'EQtaij) iroptvBtic XovaaaOat, * 'ETTiarfXXo^ev e cifia KOI irap- 
 
 icai tfwvfffw K/jnivflov, r/Xaroroi)/3a- fcaXoi5^v TroXXov? rat rCJv fiaicpdv 
 
 Xavi iov pri XovffdfitvoQ, aXX' tiriiirwv' iiriaKOTrwv, liri TI}V Ofpcuriiav TTJQ 
 
 Qvytitfitv, fir) Kai TO /3aXavov <ri'/t- flovar^opow SidaffKctXiac, Euseb. 
 
 , ivdov OVTOQ KtjnivOov, TOV rr/c vii. C. 30.
 
 78 Heresy condemned by the Reformers. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 obstinate, we are compelled to ordain another bishop V &c. 
 On the same principle the holy oecumenical synod of three 
 hundred and eighteen bishops at Nice, declared all who should 
 deny the divinity of Christ to be anathema c . It is needless to 
 go further in accumulating proof that the church, in all ages, 
 from the beginning, regarded heresy as a crime destructive of 
 salvation. Even the sects which separated from the church, 
 bore testimony, by their very act of separation, to their belief, 
 that those who taught doctrines contrary to the truth, were 
 not to be held Christians, or communicated with. 
 
 Reformers. 3. And the same doctrine has been continually received 
 amongst professing Christians of all appellations to the present 
 day. At the reformation all parties received the definition of 
 faith called the Creed of Athanasius, in which it is declared, 
 that " whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary 
 that he hold the catholic faith, which faith except every one 
 do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish 
 everlastingly/' Nothing can be more decisive than this of 
 the doctrine of the reformation ; for all its adherents vied 
 with each other in their adoption of the Athanasian Creed d . 
 Nor was this merely a speculative doctrine with them. Luther 
 and his adherents held Zuinglius, CEcolampadius, and their 
 followers, as heretics in the question of the eucharist, and 
 accordingly refused to hold any communion with them e . Both 
 parties denounced the Socinians and Anabaptists as most 
 grievous heretics, and separated them from all communion. 
 Calvin styles Servetus (one of the Socinian and Anabaptist 
 
 b Tbv Si topx?jiTa/ij/ov rb fivaTrj- Arians against the Son of God, es- 
 
 ptov, (cat tpirofnrtvovTa ry /uap at- pecially the blasphemies of Michael 
 
 pscrfi ry aprtfj.$ (rt yap ov %pr) /*o\t Servetus and his sect, which Satan 
 
 rbv Trarepa avrov SrjXtiffai) ovSkv Selv drew as from hell, by their means, 
 
 riyovfjii9a TOVTWV TOIIQ \oyiff[i,ovg airai- against the Son of God, and most 
 
 j)vay/ca(T0;^i> ovv &VTI- audaciously and impiously scattered 
 
 avrov rif Qt(f Kai fir} through the world." " We exe- 
 
 jpvZavTiG, K. T. \, Ibid, crate the madness of Eutyches and 
 
 c Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. c. 8 The- the Monothelites," &c Confess. 
 
 odoret. ii. c. 12. H el vet. i. c. xi. All the Confessions 
 
 d See the Articles of Smalcald, of the foreign Reformation are full 
 
 Formula Concordise, Confess. Hel- of condemnations of various here- 
 
 vet. i. c. xi. ; Confess. Gallic, art. v. ; sies in the strongest terms. See 
 
 Belgica, art. ix. ; Bohemica, art. iii. chap xii. 
 
 &c. e Bishop Cosin, in his History of 
 
 The Swiss said in their Con- Transubstantiation, has shown that 
 
 fession : " We abominate the im- the differences on this question were 
 
 pious doctrine of Arius and the not so great as has been imagined.
 
 SECT, ii.] Heresy condemned by the British Church. 79 
 
 sect) " a monster f ," and was instrumental in his being burned 
 alive for heresy g . The reformed of Holland expelled the 
 Arminians as heretics, not only from their communion, but 
 from their country. I merely adduce these specific acts to 
 prove the universal consent of the foreign reformation, that 
 heresy is a most grievous sin, and that they who are guilty of 
 it, are not to be treated as Christian brethren. The principle 
 of temporal persecution for religion, is perfectly distinct from 
 the original principle of the church with regard to heresy. It 
 arose several centuries after the foundation of Christianity. 
 
 4. The sense of the Church of England admits of no doubt. English 
 The Athanasian Creed, which she declares " ought thoroughly 
 to be believed and received," as it " may be proved by most 
 certain warrant of holy Scripture h ," is decisive on the ques- 
 tion ; and in the collect for Good-Friday we pray for " heretics," 
 that they may be " fetched home to God's flock," and " saved ;" 
 evidently implying that they are, as heretics, out of the way of 
 salvation. Our most noted theologians hold the same doc- 
 trine. Bishop Jewel says : " Heresy is a forsaking of salva- 
 tion, a rejection of God's grace, a departure from the body of 
 Christ '," &c. Bishop Pearson says : " A man may not only 
 passively and involuntarily be rejected, but also may by an act 
 of his own, cast himself out and eject himself" (out of the 
 church), " not only by plain and complete apostasy, but by a 
 defection from the unity of faith, falling into some damnable 
 heresy J ." Dr. Barrow says : " In regard to this union in 
 faith peculiarly, the body of Christians adhering to it was 
 called the catholic church, from which all those were es- 
 teemed ipso facto to be cut off and separated, who in any 
 point deserted that faith ; ' such a one, 1 (saith St. Paul) 
 istorpciTrrat, ' is turned aside, 1 or hath left the Christian way of 
 life. He in reality is no Christian, nor is to be avowed or 
 treated as such, but is to be disclaimed, rejected, and shunned." 
 Having proved this to be the doctrine of the Christian church 
 
 f " Nostro quoque saeculo emersit Inst. i. 16, 5. " Cavendum ta- 
 
 non minus exitiale monstrum Mi- men est a diabolica imaginatione 
 
 chael Servetus." Inst. ii. 14, 5. Serveti." ii. 9, 3. 
 
 " Manichseorum delirio occurrere g AJosheim, cent. xvi. sect. iii. 
 
 necesse est, quod rursus hac setate part. ii. c. 4. s. 4. 
 
 invehere tentavit Servetus . . . hie h Art. viii. 
 
 diabolicus error quam crassas et foe- ' Apologia, p. 18. 
 
 das absurditates secum trahat," &c. j On the Creed, art. ix.
 
 80 Church may excommunicate Heretics. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 in early times, he adds : " Hence, in common practice, who- 
 soever did appear to differ from the common faith, was rejected 
 as an apostate from Christianity, and unworthy the communion 
 of Christians k ." 
 
 Dissenters. 5. Even dissenters have admitted the same doctrine. The 
 divines of Westminster (Presbyterians), in their " Humble 
 Advice, 11 declared that " the catholic visible church consists 
 of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion" 
 &c. Owen, a leader of the Independents, admits that the 
 church of Christ must have " belief of the same doctrine of 
 truth which is according to godliness, the same articles of 
 faith, and the public profession thereof: 11 that "although any 
 society of men should profess the Scripture to be the word of 
 God, and avow an assent unto the revelation made therein ; 
 yet by the conception of their minds, and misunderstanding of 
 the sense of the Holy Spirit therein, they may embrace and 
 adhere unto such errors as may cut them off from all commu- 
 nion with the catholic church in faith. 11 .... And " in case, 
 through the subtilty, &c. of those by whom damnable doctrines 
 are broached, the church itself, whereunto they do belong, is 
 not able to rebuke and suppress them, 11 &c., in such a case 
 synods may be resorted to l . The admissions of some of the 
 modern dissenters on this point are also clear and decisive. 
 " Can any person, then, who professes to be a believer in 
 Christianity, doubt whether there are not some doctrines 
 essential to religion. 11 Such doctrines "a faithful church 
 must hold fast, and even make them conditions of communion m . 11 
 Nothing can be more reasonable, and at the same time more 
 calculated to justify the invariable practice of the church in 
 proposing certain creeds as the conditions of her communion, 
 and excommunicating those who teach false doctrines. 
 Church 6. Having thus proved that according to Scripture and 
 
 may ex- universal consent, heresy is a most deadly sin, I shall only add 
 
 communi- i i 
 
 cate here- here that the church must certainly have the power of expel- 
 ling those who are guilty of it, from her communion. If 
 Christians may separate even those who are guilty of offences 
 against fraternal charity, as I have elsewhere observed n ; how 
 
 k On the Unity of the Church. Essays on Church Polity, vol. ii. p. 
 
 Works, vol. ii. p. 762. 40] . See also Tract on Const, of 
 
 1 The True Nature of a Gospel Prim. Christ, vol. i. p. 39. 
 
 Church, p. 404, 405. 417- "In the preceding chapter, sect. 
 
 m Library of Eccles. Knowledge, iii.
 
 SECT, ii.] Excommunication of Heretics. 81 
 
 much more must they be bound to remove from their com- 
 munion those, who dare to corrupt and destroy the holy truth 
 revealed by God himself for the salvation of mankind. Not 
 only is this crime more directly offensive to God, but it is more 
 dangerous to us ; for heresy commonly appears in the character 
 of goodness and piety. " And no marvel," says the apostle, 
 " for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 
 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be trans- 
 formed as the ministers of righteousness ; whose end shall be 
 according to their works" (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15). We know, 
 accordingly, from ecclesiastical history, that the founders of 
 almost all heresies, as Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, &c. have 
 been famed for external piety and sanctity ; and when such 
 men earnestly assert their doctrines as true and orthodox, 
 then even the faithful may be in danger of forsaking their 
 stedfastness. But as the apostle says : " There must be also 
 heresies among you, that they which are approved may be 
 made manifest among you" (1 Cor. xi. 19). That is, God 
 provides that the very heresies which he permits to fall as a 
 judgment on proud and carnal spirits, shall only purify and 
 glorify that church which they are apparently destined to 
 destroy. 
 
 It is therefore absolutely necessary that the church should 
 be able to separate heretics from its communion ; and the 
 Scripture gives such a power : " A heretic after the first and 
 seconi admonition reject ." . . . . " From such withdraw thy- 
 self 1 "" . . . and finally : " If he shall neglect to hear the church, 
 let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 
 Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth 
 shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven''." The church's power of 
 judgment in cases of heresy is reasonably to be inferred from 
 this last passage, because, though our Saviour had originally 
 only supposed a case of sin against the law of charity, he 
 concludes by expanding ecclesiastical judgments to all matters 
 of religion. " Whatsoever ye shall bind," &c. Nor can any 
 reason be assigned why the church should not take cognizance 
 of heresy amongst her members, as well as of any other sin. 
 It is evident, also, from what has been said in this Section, 
 
 Tit. iii. 10. P 1 Tim. vi. 5. Matt, xviii. 17, 18. 
 
 VOL. I. G
 
 82 All Error not Heresy. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 that Christians have in all ages, from the beginning, regarded 
 the Christian society as invested with such a right, and per- 
 petually acted upon it ; and that those whose doctrines were 
 pronounced false by the voice of the Christian world, and who 
 remained pertinacious in their errors, were universally rejected, 
 and no longer regarded as Christians. 
 
 On this subject I shall speak more fully elsewhere (Part IV. 
 chap. XVI. sect. II) ; but here it may be observed, that as 
 in the case of all offences against charity, so in the case of 
 offences against faith, there are certain conditions requisite 
 to a valid ecclesiastical judgment, which, if plainly violated, 
 render it null and devoid of all spiritual effect. It is very 
 improbable, however, that the universal church should not 
 perform these conditions, and it might be even argued that it 
 is impossible ; but at least the improbability is so great, that 
 unless it can be clearly proved by facts, that in some case the 
 church did not examine whether those accused of heresy were 
 really guilty of it, but judged from mere impulse or passion ; 
 it is only reasonable to conclude, that those who are condemned 
 were rightly condemned. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 ALL ERRORS, EVEN IN MATTERS OF FAITH, ARE NOT HERE- 
 TICAL, AND SOME ERRORS AND CORRUPTIONS MAY EXIST 
 IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 It has been proved that Christians are bound by their hopes 
 of salvation to believe and stedfastly maintain the truth revealed 
 by Jesus Christ, and that they cannot, without committing 
 deadly sin, forsake or corrupt any portion of that truth. But 
 in order to free this doctrine from all unjust consequences 
 which might be deduced from it, we must consider the cases in 
 which heresy is not to be imputed to those who are in error r , 
 or in other words, how far error in belief is consistent with 
 salvation. 
 
 Errors in I. In the first place, with reference to those who are not 
 always * members of the church, it may be observed, that there is a 
 
 heretical. 
 
 r This question is also treated of in Part iv. ch. vi.
 
 SECT, in.] All Error not Heresy. 83 
 
 great difference between those who actually apostatize from 
 the evident truth, and those who have been born and educated 
 out of the pale of the church's teaching, and have indeed im- 
 bibed from their parents or instructors doctrines contrary to 
 the truth in some points, but who maintain them without 
 obstinacy, and with a willingness to embrace the truth revealed 
 by Christ, whatever it may be. It would be inconsistent with 
 that charity which " hopeth all things, 11 to maintain absolutely 
 that such persons are separated from Christ. St. Augustine 
 teaches this doctrine : " the apostle Paul indeed said, ' A 
 heretic after the first and second admonition reject, 1 &c. ; they 
 however who defend their opinion, though false and perverse, 
 with no pertinacious vehemence, especially if they have not 
 themselves invented it with presumptuous audacity, but received 
 it from parents who had been seduced and fallen into error ; 
 and if they are seeking after the truth with cautious solicitude, 
 and ready to be corrected when they have discerned it, such 
 men are by no means to be accounted among heretics s ." This 
 is also the doctrine of Archbishop Laud, who says that such 
 persons, " however misled, are neither heretics nor schismatics 
 in the sight of God, and are therefore in a state of salvation V 
 This last statement should be received with some caution, 
 and be understood rather to imply a pious and charitable hope 
 and opinion, than any absolute certainty. It is true that the 
 defect of knowledge diminishes or removes the guilt of sin. 
 " If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had 
 sin 11 (John xv. 22). Again : " That servant which knew his 
 Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to 
 his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew 
 not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten 
 with few stripes'" (Luke xii. 47, 48). Hence we may infer 
 that those who maintain keretical doctrines in ignorance, are 
 in a very different condition from those who forsake the light 
 of the truth ; but still, if a society has separated itself, or been 
 legitimately separated by the whole church of Christ for heresy, 
 
 " Qui sententiam suam quamvis citudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum 
 
 falsam atque perversam nulla perti- invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter 
 
 naci animositate defendant, prseser- hsereticos deputandi." Aug. Ep. 
 
 timquaranonaudaciapraesuraptionis 43. al. 162. Oper. t. 2. p. 88. 
 suae pepererunt, sed a seductis atque ' Laud, Controversy with Fisher, 
 
 in errorem lapsis parentibus acce- s. 36. p. 315. 
 perunt, quaerunt autem cauta solli- 
 
 G 2
 
 84 All Error not Heresy. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 its members are not in the way of salvation pointed out by 
 Jesus Christ. With regard to those who merely through 
 ignorance maintain heretical doctrines within the communion of 
 the church, we cannot reckon such persons amongst heretics; 
 St. Augustine maintains that they are not heretics, unless they 
 reject the truth after it has been sufficiently manifested to 
 them u . 
 
 II. We are now to consider the case of the church herself, 
 and to inquire how far errors and corruptions may exist in her 
 communion. It must be observed in the first place, that a 
 distinction should be drawn between Christian doctrines. 
 
 Articles of Some doctrines have been certainly revealed, and are known 
 to be so by the clear words of Scripture, and the voice of uni- 
 versal tradition. These are matters of faith, and cannot be 
 pertinaciously denied without heresy. Other doctrines are 
 deduced from passages of Scripture which admit of a different 
 interpretation, or from doctrines of faith whence it is not 
 certain that they follow, and are not supported by the voice of 
 universal tradition, but have been opposed by several members 
 of the church at all times without any condemnation of their 
 
 Opinions, doctrine by the church generally. Such doctrines are matters 
 of opinion, and they may be received, or not received, according 
 to the judgment of individuals or particular churches, without 
 heresy ; because there is no certainty that they were revealed 
 by Christ. As St. Augustine says ; " Some points there are, 
 in which even the most learned and best defenders of the 
 catholic rule disagree, yet the union of faith is preserved T ." 
 This distinction is admitted by all parties. Calvin observes, 
 that " there are some things which may be controverted 
 amongst churches, yet do not destroy the unity of faith. For 
 what churches ought to separate merely for this cause, if one 
 should suppose without any contentiousness or positive asser- 
 tion, that souls departing from the body ascend to heaven, and 
 
 u " Constituamus ergo duos aliquos Catholicse fidei resistere maluerit, et 
 
 isto modo, unum eorum, verbi illud quod tenebat elegerit." Au- 
 
 gratia, sentire de Christo quod Pho- gust. De Bapt. cont. Donat. 1. iv. c. 
 
 tinus opinatus est, et in ejus haeresi xvi. col. 135. t. ix. 
 
 baptizari extra Ecclesise Catholicae T "Alia sunt in quibus inter se 
 
 communionem; alium vero hoc idem aliquando etiam doctissimi atque op- 
 
 sentire, sed in Catholica baptizari, timi regulae Catholicae defensores, 
 
 existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam salva fidei compage non consonant." 
 
 fidem. Istum nondum haereticum Contr. Jul. i. 22. p. 510. torn. x. 
 dico, nisi manifestata sibi doctrina
 
 SECT, in.] All Error not Heresy. 85 
 
 the other should not dare to determine the place, yet hold that 
 they are alive to God w f In the same manner the Romish 
 divines distinguish between theological opinions and doctrines 
 defide. Amongst the former some include the points disputed 
 between the Thomists and Scotists, the Jesuits and Domini- 
 cans, the Ultramontane and the Cisalpine parties, the doctrine 
 of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, &c. From what 
 has been said, we may infer, 
 
 1 . That mistaken opinions, not contrary to the faith, may be 
 held by many individuals in the universal church ; nay, even 
 by the majority of its members ; because this does not imply 
 heresy, or separation from Christ. 
 
 2. Many persons may believe such doctrines to be articles 
 of faith, without being guilty of heresy. Bossuet says, that 
 the majority of writers in any age may pronounce a doctrine 
 heretical, and yet be themselves mistaken x . 
 
 3. Particular churches may hold and teach such doctrines 
 without being heretical. Thus the Gallican church main- 
 tained its own doctrines, which many Romanists consider 
 erroneous ; and yet is excused from heresy by Romanists y . 
 
 4. I do not suppose however, that the whole universal church 
 could formally teach by a united judgment, any such doctrine ; 
 or impose it as an article of faith ; because the promises of Christ 
 (Matt, xxviii. 20, and John xiv. 16, 17), give the church so 
 much authority, that in the case supposed, an error would be 
 universally received without any remedy. 
 
 We have been hitherto considering how far mistaken opin- 
 ions may exist in the church, without being formally defined 
 by the authority of the whole church. Let us now examine 
 whether in all cases, the refusal to receive doctrines so defined, 
 necessarily implies heresy. I maintain that even when a doc- 
 trine has been declared de fide by the legitimate judgment of 
 the universal church, still if through an error of fact it be sup- 
 
 w Calvin, Institut. lib. iv. c. i. qui supra fundamentum aedificant 
 
 s. 12. The Lutherans admitted the stipulas perituras, hoc est, quasdam 
 
 same in their Apology, where, in inutiles opiniones, quse tamen, quia 
 
 reference to the universal church, it non evertunt fundamentum, tune 
 
 is said, " Hsec ecclesia proprie est condonantur illis, turn etiam emen- 
 
 columna veritatis. Retinet enim dantur." Apol Conf. August, iv. 
 
 purum evangelium, et ut Paulus * Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cler. 
 
 inquit, fundamentum, hoc est, veram Gallicani, Append. 1. ii. c. 14. See 
 
 Christi cognitionem et fidem, etsi Part iv. ch. vi. 
 
 sunt in his etiam inulti imbecilles, y See Part iv. ch. xiv, sect. ii.
 
 86 All Error not Heresy. [P. i. en. v. 
 
 posed by some churches not to have been so declared, they do 
 not incur heresy in retaining a different doctrine. This is 
 admitted even by Romanists, and it is a principle of consi- 
 derable importance. They excuse from heresy those churches 
 which did not receive the condemnation of the " three chap- 
 ters " by the fifth oecumenical synod, on the ground that these 
 churches were uncertain whether it was oecumenical z . For , 
 the same reason they excuse the Western bishops who rejected 
 the Synod of Nice (called the Seventh Synod) a . The Gallicans 
 excuse for the same reason the Ultramontanes, for not receiving 
 the decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil, concerning 
 the superiority of a general synod to the Pope b . In like man- 
 ner the cardinal of Lorraine and the Gallicans generally, did 
 not receive the Synod of Florence as oecumenical, nor its 
 decree on the papal supremacy, and yet are admitted to have 
 been free from heresy c . It appears, therefore, that those who 
 on strong grounds deny that the church has actually judged in 
 a particular controversy, are free from heresy, even though 
 they hold a doctrine which has been condemned ; and the 
 reason of this is, that there is still a legitimate doubt whether 
 the contrary doctrine was revealed by Christ. So that those 
 who believe the Council of Trent to be oecumenical, have 
 no reason to impute heresy to those Eastern and Western 
 churches, which have on reasonable and strong grounds denied 
 it to be oecumenical. 
 
 From the preceding principle it follows, that a church which 
 through an error of fact, but on probable reasons, believes a 
 doctrine to have been defined by the universal church as a 
 matter of faith, which was in reality pot so defined, and which 
 is erroneous even in faith, may not be guilty of heresy in hold- 
 ing that doctrine. Thus the African and some other western 
 churches opposed themselves to the judgment of the fifth 
 (Ecumenical Synod against the " three chapters," because they 
 
 z Tournely, torn. i. p. 401. 1689. It is acknowledged by 
 
 a Bailly,Tractatus de Eccl. Christi, Tournely, Hooke, and other Romish 
 
 torn. i. p. 423. Delahogue, de EC- theologians, that the oecumenicity of 
 
 clesia, p. 177. Bossuet, Defens. the Synod of Florence is doubted by 
 
 Decl. Cleri Gallic, t. ii. p. 527, &c. some. See part iv. chap. xi. sect. v. 
 
 Tournely, de Ecclesia, t. i. p. 402. According to Andradius (de Script. 
 
 b Bailly, torn. i. p. 425. Bossuet, et Trad. Auctor. lib. ii. fol. 251). 
 
 Defens. declarat. Cleri Gallicani. France never acknowledged the 
 
 c Fleury, liv. 164. s. 74. Launoii Synod of Florence as general. 
 Epistolae, part ii. Ep. 6. ed. Cantabr.
 
 SECT, in.] Some Errors may exist. 87 
 
 believed, through mistake, that the fourth (Ecumenical Synod 
 had approved them. And in this, and all similar cases, those 
 who are in error are free from heresy when they judge, on 
 probable grounds, their opinion supported by a greater scrip- 
 tural and ecclesiastical authority than that of their opponents. 
 
 III. We are now to examine how far heresy and idolatry Heresy and 
 may exist in the Christian church. idolatry 
 
 Of course, it is not to be supposed that either one or the in the 
 other could be formally defined by the whole catholic church, clmrch - 
 because this is inconsistent with the notion of the church's 
 perpetuity ; but that heresy and idolatry may exist in the com- 
 munion of the catholic church, may be proved in the following 
 manner* 1 : 
 
 1. The promises of Christ to be with his church, and to 
 guide her into all truth, were as applicable in the apostolic age 
 as at any subsequent time ; nevertheless, we find that serious 
 errors were even then very generally received by professing 
 Christians. 
 
 In the church of Antioch, " certain men which came down 
 from Judea, taught the brethren and said, ' Except ye be cir- 
 cumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved ' ' 
 (Acts xv. 1). And " there rose up certain of the sect of 
 Pharisees which believed," (at Jerusalem,) " saying, that it was 
 needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the 
 law of Moses" (verse 5). And yet, notwithstanding the decree 
 of the apostles in the synod at Jerusalem (Acts xx. 29), we 
 find that this erroneous doctrine was taught and promulgated 
 in every part of the church. The Epistles of St. Paul to the 
 Romans and Hebrews are directed almost entirely against it ; 
 it also forms the subject of his Epistle to the Galatians, and is 
 mentioned in that addressed to the Colossians, and elsewhere. 
 St. Paul says of this doctrine, that it is " another gospel" (Gal. 
 i. 6) ; and he pronounces anathema against those who hold it 
 (verse 8, .9). He styles them ''false brethren" (Gal. ii. 4), 
 and declares " that they walked not uprightly according to the 
 truth of the gospel" (ii. 14). He asserts, that if this doctrine be 
 true, then Christ is dead in vain" (ii. 21). It is evident, there- 
 fore, that this doctrine was most dangerous, and even heretical, 
 
 d See Gerhard. Loc. Theol. c. i. c. ii.; Field, Of the Church, book 
 xxiii. s. 104124; Melancthon, De iii. c. 9, 10. 
 Ecclesia ; Chamier, Panstratia, torn.
 
 88 Some Errors may exist. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 and yet that it was widely prevalent in the church. Therefore 
 the promises of Christ to his church do not prevent the exist- 
 ence of grievous errors in her communion. 
 
 The Christians at Corinth appear to have partaken of sacri- 
 fices offered to idols, and thus to have held communion with 
 idolaters (1 Cor. x. 7. 14. 19 22). Some amongst them said, 
 "that there is no resurrection from the dead" (xv. 12). 
 
 To "the Church of Pergamos" it was written, " Thou hast 
 there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac 
 to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat 
 things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast 
 thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, 
 which thing / hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee 
 quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my 
 mouth 1 ' (Rev. ii. 1416). 
 
 To the " Church of Thyatira " it was written, " Thou suf- 
 ferest that woman Jezebel, which callest herself a prophetess, 
 to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and 
 to eat things sacrificed unto idols " (Rev. ii. 20). 
 
 From these various passages, it is evident that false doc- 
 trines and idolatrous practices may exist within the bosom of 
 the church ; that they do not necessarily destroy the church. 
 The Galatians were addressed by the apostle as " the churches 
 of Galatia" (Gal. i. 2), though they had for the most part 
 adopted grievous errors on the question of justification. The 
 " church of God at Corinth" contained some who denied any 
 future resurrection. The " churches " of Pergamos and Thya- 
 tira, as we have seen, comprised heretics, and suffered their 
 members to practise and inculcate idolatrous rites. There- 
 fore, since the existence or even prevalence of errors and 
 idolatries does not, in all cases, absolutely annul the character 
 of particular churches, it does not annul that of the uni- 
 versal church. If the Galatians were still " the churches of 
 Galatia," notwithstanding the grievous errors prevalent amongst 
 them, the eastern or western churches in later times might 
 still be churches of Christ, notwithstanding the prevalence of 
 errors within their communions ; and from this it follows 
 necessarily, that errors and idolatrous practices may exist 
 within the communion of the universal church, and be widely 
 prevalent in it, because they may prevail in the particular 
 churches of which it is composed. And therefore the promises
 
 SECT, in.] Some Errors may exist. 89 
 
 of Christ to be with his church " always even unto the end of 
 the world," and to lead her " into all truth," do not necessarily 
 infer her perfect freedom at all times from the prevalence of 
 errors and corruptions amongst many of her nominal or real 
 members. 
 
 To assert this is not to assert that the universal church can 
 teach, or fall away into heresy or idolatry, and can thus come to 
 an end ; it is merely to maintain what is in some sense admitted 
 by all, that she was to include within her communion many 
 men of carnal and unsanctified minds, many ignorant and indis- 
 creet brethren, many of those things which are described as 
 "tares" (Matt, xiii.), "wood, hay, and stubble" (1 Corin. 
 iii. 13). And it is also to maintain, that as in the case of the 
 churches of Pergamos and Thyatira, God may " have a few 
 things against her" (Rev. ii. 14. 20), because she permits 
 errors and idolatries ; and yet may judge her laudable in other 
 respects (Rev. ii. 13. 19). 
 
 Our Lord himself intimates this when he compares "the 
 kingdom of heaven," that is, his church, to "a man which 
 sowed good seed in his field ; but while men slept, his enemy 
 came and sowed tares among the wheat " (Matt. xiii. 24, 25) ; 
 and these tares remain in the field " until the harvest " (verse 
 30). From which we learn, that the church will not be freed 
 from " things that offend s^di them that do iniquity " (verse 41), 
 until " the end of the world " (verse 40) ; that is, during the 
 whole period during which the assistance of our Lord is pro- 
 mised (Matt, xxviii. 20). To what extent such evils may exist 
 in the universal church, is not defined in Scripture ; if they 
 may prevail widely, there is no difficulty in supposing that they 
 may sometimes prevail almost universally. 
 
 The same line of argument might be pursued in reference to 
 the parables of the draw-net, of the ten virgins, and of the 
 unfaithful servant (Luke xii. 45). 
 
 2. We may also infer that the Christian church may include 
 idolatries and heresies within her communion, from the condi- 
 tion of the church of God under the Mosaic dispensation. 
 Even putting out of view the ten tribes whom Jeroboam made 
 to sin, the chosen people of God most undeniably were polluted 
 by idolatry and other grievous sins. God addresses his " peo- 
 ple " (Is. i. 3) as they that " have forsaken the Lord" (verse 4). 
 " According to the number of thy cities are thy gods, Judah"
 
 90 Some Errors may exist. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 (Jer. ii. 28). The idolatries of Judah are even represented as 
 more offensive to God than those of Israel (Jer. iii. 6 11) ; 
 yet still Judah, and even Israel, are continually spoken of as the 
 people of God, and exhorted to return to him. Consequently, 
 the church may sometimes be full of abuses and idolatries, 
 without ceasing to be the chosen people of God, or without 
 collectively or universally apostatizing from the faith. 
 
 3. That the church is liable at all times to the existence of 
 such evils within her own communion was maintained by the 
 fathers. Thus St. Jerome observes on the parable of the 
 tares : " By the men who ' slept 1 are understood the rulers of 
 the churches ; the ' servants of the householder 1 you should 
 interpret to be the angels, who daily behold the face of the 
 Father ; the devil is called ' the enemy.' .... Wherefore let 
 not the ruler of a church slumber, lest through his negligence 
 the enemy should sow ' tares, 1 that is, ' the doctrines of heretics? 
 What is said, ' Lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also 
 the wheat with them, 1 gives an opportunity for repentance, and 
 we are warned not to cut off a brother hastily ; because it may 
 be, that he who is now corrupted by erroneous doctrine, may 
 presently repent and defend the truth e ." Thus, according to 
 St. Jerome, the church was to include unsound believers in 
 her communion. 
 
 This is also the doctrine maintained so frequently by St. 
 Augustine against the Donatists, who conceived it impossible 
 that the true church could comprise heretics or idolaters. 
 " The apostle Paul," he says, " speaks of some ' who concern- 
 ing the truth had erred, 1 and ' who subverted the faith of many, 1 
 and ' whose word did eat as doth a canker 1 (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18). 
 Although he said that they were to be ' shunned, 1 he yet sig- 
 nified that they were ' in a great house," 1 but as vessels to dis- 
 honour 1 (verse 20). I believe that they had not yet gone 
 out f " [from the communion of the church] . 
 
 e " Quamobrem non dormiat qui vatus est dogmate, eras resipiscat et 
 
 Ecclesiae praepositus est : ne per illius defendere incipiat veritatem. " 
 
 negligentiam inimicus homo super- Hieron. in Matt. lib. ii. c. xiv. torn, 
 
 seminet zizania, hoc est hseretico- iv. p. 58, 59, ed. Benedict, 
 
 rum dogmata. Quod autem dicitur : f " Dicit et Apostolus Paulus de 
 
 Ne forte colligentes zizania, eradi- quibusdam qui circa fidem aberrave- 
 
 cetis simul et frumentum, datur lo- rant, et fidem quorumdam subverte- 
 
 cus pcenitentiae, et monemur ne cito bant, quorum sermo ut cancer ser- 
 
 amputemus fratrem : quia fieri po- pebat, quos cum evitandos esse di- 
 
 test, ut ille qui hodie noxio depra- ceret, in una tamfen domo magna
 
 SECT, in.] Some Errors may exist. 91 
 
 St. Augustine maintains that the church includes within her 
 communion some who are adherents of Satan, and who are not 
 internally united to her. The church, then, " mourns amidst 
 strangers, both those who within are laying snares for her, and 
 those who are assailing her from without. Yet such, may, even 
 within [the church] receive, have, and administer baptism g ." 
 In another place he replies thus to the Donatists, who were 
 labouring to prove that heretics could not be in the church : 
 " What, then, does not Paul show that those who said ' Let 
 us eat and drink, r for to-morrow we die ' (1 Cor. xv. 32), were 
 corrupters of good manners by evil discourses ? for he immedi- 
 ately adds, ' Evil communications corrupt good manners ' (verse 
 33) ; and yet he signified that they were WITHIN [the church], 
 for he says, ' How say some among you, that there is no resur- 
 rection of the dead.' . . . Although I should prefer to under- 
 stand that those of whom the apostle said ' their word eateth 
 as a canker, 1 are without, Cyprian himself does not allow me." 
 He then quotes St. Cyprian h , and continues : " Which, if it 
 be so, the 'vessels unto dishonour 1 (2 Tim. ii. 20), whose 
 ' word eateth as a canker, 1 were in the church herself, that is, in 
 the ' great house V 
 
 Thus, then, it is evident that St. Augustine held that false 
 doctrines might exist amongst the members of the church ; 
 but he goes beyond this, and holds, that the great majority of 
 the members of the visible church may be such " vessels made 
 
 eos fuisse significat, sed tanquam ' " Quid enim et illos qui dice- 
 
 vasa in contumeliam. Credo quod bant, Manducemus et bibamus, eras 
 
 nondum foras exierant." August, enim moriemur, nonne corruptores 
 
 De Bapt. cont. Donatist. lib iv. c. morum bonorum per mala colloquia 
 
 xix. col. 11Q. t. ix. Paulusessemanifestat,continu6sub- 
 
 * " Nunc ergo quseritur quomodo jungens, Corrumpunt bonos mores 
 
 poterant homines ex parte diaboli, colloquia mala ? et tamen eos intus 
 
 pertinere ad Ecclesiam non haben- fuisse significavit, cum ait, Quomodo 
 
 tern maculam aut rugam, aut aliquid dicunt quidam in vobis quia resur- 
 
 ejusmodi (Eph. v. 27), de qua etiam rectio mortuorum non est . . Quan- 
 
 dicta est, una est Columba mea quam et istos de quibus ait aposto- 
 
 (Cant. vi. 8). Quod si non possunt, lus, Sermo eorum sicut cancer serpit, 
 
 rnanifestum est earn inter alienos vellem intelligere foris fuisse, sed 
 
 gemere, et intrirsecus insidiantes, Cyprianus me non sinit. . . Quod si 
 
 et extrinsecus oblatrantes. Tales ita est, in ipsa Ecclesia, id est, in ipsa 
 
 tamen etiam intus, et accipiunt bap- domo magna,erant vasa in contume- 
 
 tismum, et habent, et tradunt." liam, quorum sermo ut cancer ser- 
 
 August. cont. Donat. 1. iv. c. viii. pebat." August. De Bapt. cont. 
 
 col. 130. t. ix. Donat. 1. iv. c. xii. col. 131, 132. 
 
 h Epist. Iv. ad Antonianum. t. ix.
 
 92 Some Errors may exist. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 to dishonour." " I think I may say without temerity, that 
 some persons are so in the house of God, that they themselves 
 constitute the same house of God which is said to be ' built on 
 a rock, 1 which is called the ' one dove, 1 the fair spouse ' with- 
 out spot or wrinkle, 1 the ' enclosed garden, 1 the ' sealed foun- 
 tain, 1 the ' well of living water, 1 the ' paradise ' with fruit of 
 apples ; which house also received the ' keys, 1 and the power 
 of 'binding and loosing, 1 &c. ... To this house, it is said, 
 ' the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 For this 
 exists in the good believers and the holy servants of God. . . . 
 And that others are so said to be in the house, that they do not 
 belong to its building, nor partake of that righteousness which 
 bringeth forth fruit and is peaceable, but as chaff is said to be 
 amongst the wheat ; for that they are in the house we cannot 
 deny, since the apostle says, ' In a great house," 1 &c. (2 Tim- 
 ii. 20). Of this innumerable number there is not only a crowd 
 which within [the church] oppresses the hearts of the righteous, 
 who are but few in comparison of so great a multitude, but also 
 heresies and schisms, breaking the nets, exist amongst those 
 who now are rather to be said to be out of the house than in the 
 house J." 
 
 St. John Chrysostom interprets the parable of the tares like 
 Jerome and Augustine. It relates, according to him, to the 
 introduction of heretical doctrines within the communion of 
 the church. He remarks on the passage " While men slept 
 his enemy came and sowed tares, 11 &c., that this was fulfilled 
 when " many of the bishops, by introducing evil men, who 
 were secretly heresiarchs, into the churches, afforded great faci- 
 lity for such an hostile design ; for the devil hath no further 
 
 5 " Quibus consideratis omnibus, pertineant ad compagem domus, nee 
 
 puto me non temere dicere, alios ita ad societatem fructiferse pacificaeque 
 
 esse in domo Dei, ut ipsi sint eadem justitise ; sed sicut esse palea dicitur 
 
 domus Dei, quae dicebatur aedificari in frumentis : nam et istos esse in 
 
 super petram, quae unica columba domo, negare non possumus, dicente 
 
 appellatur, quae sponsa pulchra sine apostolo, In magna autem domo non 
 
 macula et ruga, et hortus conclusus, solum aurea, &c. Ex hoc numero 
 
 fons signatus, puteus aquae vivae, innumerabili, non solum turba intus 
 
 paradisus cum fructu pomorum : premens cor paucorum in tantae mul- 
 
 quae domus etiam claves accepit, ac titudinis comparatione sanctorum, 
 
 B)testatem solvendi et ligandi. . . . sed etiam disruptis retibus haereses 
 
 uic domui dicitur . . . Templum et schismata existunt in eis, qui jam 
 
 enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis ma>jis ex domo quam in domo esse 
 
 vos. Haec quippe in bonis fidelibus dicendi sunt." Aug. cont. Donat. 
 
 est, et sanctis Dei servis. . . . Alios 1. vii. c. li. col. 200, 201. t. ix. 
 autem ita dici esse in domo, ut non
 
 SECT, in.] Some Errors may exist. 93 
 
 need to labour when he hath planted them in the midst " [of 
 the church] k . The same view is taken by Theophylact l . 
 
 4. It is certain, in fact, that various heresies and errors have 
 existed within the communion of the church. The error of 
 Origen, who denied the eternity of future punishments, was 
 received by many of the fathers, and continued for many ages 
 to exist in the church, till it was condemned by the fifth oecu- 
 menical synod m . Arianism, under various modifications, con- 
 tinued to exist for half a century at least within the church 
 herself 11 . More recently, the Roman church was disturbed for 
 at least a century and a half, by the existence of Jansenism 
 within her own bosom . At the present day she includes 
 within her communion many persons who are considered by 
 other Romanists to be most highly unsound and heterodox, 
 such as the adherents of the Hermesian doctrines lately con- 
 demned by the see of Rome, the opponents of clerical celibacy, 
 and other reformers of the church. 
 
 5. In fine, the existence and purity of the church, and her 
 union with Christ, is not more affected by the prevalence of 
 heresies and idolatries within her communion, than by that of 
 other gross and deadly sins. This is, in substance, the argu- 
 ment with which Cyprian and Augustine frequently pressed 
 the Novatians and Donatists, who separated from the church 
 on pretence that she admitted to her communion those who 
 had been guilty of idolatry, while they themselves did not 
 refuse to communicate with those who had committed ..other 
 sins equally great. The fathers argued then, that since many 
 
 k IloXXoi yovv T>V irpofaTUTittv that St. Hilary of Poictiers said, 
 
 7rovjpot'c ilaayovTi c tiv^pcif iv TCUQ " Tantum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 
 
 iKK\t]rriaiQ mpfaiap^af KpvTrrofiivov^, periculum est, ut rarum sit hujus 
 
 7roXX)v ivKoXiav ry roiavr-g Trapiaxov ridei . . . aut sacerdotes aut popu- 
 
 eiripov\g- oiidk yap irovwv Stl Tif Sia- lum inveniri. . . . Absque episcopo 
 
 /36X^j Xonrbv, OTO.V iKtivovs tig n'taov Elensio et paucis cum eo, ex major! 
 
 <j>vTtvay. Chrysost. Horn. xlvi. al. parte Asianse decem provincise, intra 
 
 xlvii in Matt. t. vii. p. 480. quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt." 
 
 1 Theophylact. Comment in IV. Hilar. Pict. Lib. de Synodis, n. 
 
 Evang.p. 74, 75, ed. Paris. 1631; On Ixiii. p. 1186. The remainder of the 
 
 the Interpretation of the Parable of East was not much better circum- 
 
 the Tares, see Greswell's Exposition stanced. N'incentius Lirinensis,Com- 
 
 of the Parables, vol. ii. p. 101 10Q. monitor, c. vi., and Augustine, Epist. 
 
 m See Natalis Alexander, Dissert. 93, al. 84, c. 46, t. 2, p. 243246, 
 
 xvi. in Hist. Eccl. iii. Saeculi ; Hist, also testify the fearful and general 
 
 Eccl. Saec. vi. c iii. s. 3. prevalence of this heresy. 
 
 n Arianism prevailed at one time See chapter xi. appendix i. 
 so extensively in the Eastern church,
 
 94 Some Errors may exist. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 other crimes, as great as idolatry and heresy, may exist in the 
 Christian community, there could not be any excuse for sepa- 
 rating from the church merely because she comprised idolaters 
 or heretics p . The sanctity of the church is as much the sub- 
 ject of type, prophecy, and promise, as her purity and unity of 
 faith ; yet it is certain that multitudes of her external members 
 are unholy : therefore they may be also impure in faith and 
 idolatrous in practice. 
 
 6. Nevertheless, because when we speak of the church we 
 include all her members, as well the " wheat " as the " chaff," 
 the " vessels made to honour " as those " made to dishonour ;" 
 it does not seem to have been the practice, either of the sacred 
 writers or of Christians in early times, to speak of the church 
 of Christ as corrupt, or idolatrous, or unholy, or heretical ; on 
 the contrary, they always asserted that the church, including 
 its vital members, could never perish or fall away into heresy or 
 idolatry q . And this doctrine we ought to maintain, while, at 
 the same time, we are at liberty to hold that great corruptions 
 of doctrine and practice may exist in the communion of the 
 church r ; that God may " have a few things against her," even 
 though he praises her for other things, and recognizes her as 
 his own. And, in fine, it must be remembered, that as I have 
 shown at the commencement of this section, many living mem- 
 bers of the church may hold errors in ignorance, or through 
 some excusable mistake, and therefore such errors may be 
 widely prevalent in the church, without destroying her sanctity 
 or vital unity. 
 
 i* " Nee sibi in hoc novi haeretici also St. Augustin. Lib. de Unit, 
 
 blandiantur, quod se dicant idolola- Eccl. c. xxii.; De Bapt. cont. Donat. 
 
 tris non communicare ; quando sint 1. iv. c. iv. 
 apud illos et adulteri et fraudatores, q See above, chap. i. sec. ii. 
 qui teneantur idololatrise crimine, r In the conference at Carthage the 
 
 secundum apostolum (Eph. 5. Coll. catholic bishops maintained against 
 
 3) Nam cum corpora nostra the Donatists, " Ecclesiam Christi 
 
 membra sint Christi, et singuli simus nullorum malorum, usque in finem 
 
 templum Dei, quisquis adulterio sibimet permixtorum, non solum 
 
 templum Dei violat, Deum violat ; ignotorum.verumetiamcognitorum, 
 
 et qui in peccatis comrnittendis vo- quasi corruptione pestifera, posse in- 
 
 luntatem diaboli facit, daemon! et quinari atque deleri." Gesta Colla- 
 
 idolis servit." Cyprian. Epist. Hi. tionis Carthaginensis, Optati Opera, 
 
 ad Antonian. p. 101. ed. Pamel. See p. 256, ed. Du Pin.
 
 SECT, iv.] No promise of perfect Unity. 95 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 UNITY IX FAITH CONSIDERED AS AN ATTRIBUTE AND SIGN 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 I proceed now to apply the principles established in the last 
 Section, to the question of unity of faith, considered, first, as 
 an attribute, and, secondly, as a sign, of the church of Christ. 
 
 It has been shown that there may be doctrinal differences in 
 the catholic church generally, or between particular churches ; 
 that doctrines of faith actually revealed may sometimes be 
 controverted in the catholic church ; and that erroneous doc- 
 trines may sometimes be received as matters of faith ; in either 
 case without heresy or separation from the unity of faith. 
 
 We may conclude from this, that although it is absolutely Actual 
 the duty of all Christians to receive the whole truth revealed, doctrine 
 and though they are bound unceasingly to watch over the not pro- 
 precious deposit of the faith, and to desire most earnestly a m 
 perfect union and concord amongst the brethren in all matters 
 of religion ; still there is no promise that the catholic church 
 shall at all times be, in fact, perfectly agreed in all the articles 
 of Revelation. It is, however, to be inferred most certainly, 
 from the positions laid down at the beginning of this chapter, 
 that Christ has provided the whole church with some method 
 for preserving or recovering within itself, perfect unity in this 
 respect. So strong an obligation to believe the truth and to 
 avoid all false doctrine, infers the possibility of obedience, and 
 the institution, by God himself, of some ordinary means for 
 the purpose. While these means are resorted to, on all hands, 
 with good faith, and while there is an implicit belief in all that 
 Christ has revealed, and all that the church has received from 
 him ; there may be differences for a time in particular doc- 
 trines, arising from different but probable applications of the 
 same rule ; and yet without heresy on either side. It is pos- 
 sible that through ignorance or prejudice particular churches, 
 or a part of the universal church, may be for a time misled in 
 some point : I do not here speak of the universal church, or 
 affirm that it can err when judging collectively a . 
 
 See Part iv. chap. iv.
 
 96 
 
 Actual Unity in Faith not a Sign. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 Actual it may be concluded from this, that actual unity in all mat- 
 
 doctrine, ters of faith, cannot be a note by which we can easily discri- 
 T \h n te mma ^ e tne cnurcn fr m sects ; for, first, an apparent differ- 
 church. ence in doctrine, does not furnish alone any proof that there is 
 a real difference in faith. Before we can prove this, we must 
 know the rule by which we are to distinguish between matters 
 of faith and matters of opinion : we must apply this rule 
 equitably and patiently to the question in controversy, to de- 
 termine whether or not the existing difference is permissible. 
 We must also consider, whether the apparent differences in 
 faith are, or are not, more verbal than real ; whether or no 
 they arise from mutual misunderstandings ; whether they are 
 held as matters of probability and with a mind undetermined, 
 or as matters of certainty ; whether they are the doctrines of 
 individuals within churches, or of those churches themselves. 
 All this must be examined into before it can be positively 
 affirmed that in a particular case there is an essential differ- 
 ence in faith. The fact is, that absolute and perfect apparent 
 unity in doctrine cannot be pretended to by any society of 
 professing Christians. It is not merely the Lutherans and 
 Calvinists who differ. There are disputes in the Eastern 
 churches ; and in the Roman Obedience (not to mention the 
 differences about Jansenism and other matters b ), the contro- 
 versies of Jesuits, Dominicans, and Augustinians, of Scotists 
 and Thomists, of Ultramontanes and Cisalpines, are well 
 known. These latter differences may not relate to matters of 
 faith or questions decided by the universal church, as the 
 Romish controversialists pretend ; but still they are apparent 
 differences in doctrine, and in order to determine that they 
 really do not concern faith, it is necessary to proceed through 
 the lengthened process above alluded to ; for surely Romanists 
 would not have us believe the mere assertion of some contro- 
 versialists ; especially when several other theologians of their 
 own affirm, that these disputes do concern faith, and that one 
 or other party amongst them are heretics c . 
 
 b See Chapter xi. Appendix i. ii. 
 and iii. 
 
 c Dr. Milner admits that " they 
 have also disputes in their schools," 
 but " these disputes are not about 
 articles of faith." End of Con- 
 trov. lett. xvi. Dr. Baines also as- 
 
 serts : " The doctrines of the catho- 
 lic religion are every where the 
 same. Not a difference will be found 
 in any single article of faith amongst 
 all its countless millions," &c. 
 Sermon at Bradford, 1825. In re- 
 ply to these assertions, it may be
 
 SECT, iv.] Actual Unity in Faith not a Sign. 97 
 
 Secondly, the whole catholic church has been frequently 
 disturbed for a long time by differences concerning faith amongst 
 her members. Arianism was not expelled from her commu- 
 nion for half a century. The disputes concerning Origen's 
 doctrines continued for three centuries. The Eutychian doc- 
 trines continued to disturb her for more than two centuries. 
 The controversies on Images continued for the same time 
 nearly. Therefore the mere existence of important contro- 
 versies in the whole church, or in any part of it. is perfectly 
 consistent with the continuance of the church. 
 
 Thirdly. The apparent existence of unity in faith, is not a 
 proof of such unity as Christ requires in his church, because 
 there may be a unity of error. There is no impossibility in the 
 supposition, that a heretical body may possess as much appa- 
 rent unity as the church in doctrine. For example, the Nesto- 
 rians or Eutychians are not less apparently united in their 
 faith than the Eastern or the Roman churches. This unity 
 may, therefore, be a unity in error, and in order to determine 
 whether it be so or not, we must enter on a long course of 
 investigation. 
 
 We may, however, deduce from the obligation of unity in 
 faith, certain conclusions which will aid us to discriminate the 
 true church. 
 
 We may infer, then, that Christ having enjoined unity in 
 the belief of the truth on all Christians, there must necessarily 
 be in his church some means for preserving or restoring this 
 unity, as well in particular churches as in the church universal ; 
 and, therefore, all those societies which are prevented by their 
 
 sufficient to direct the reader to and ipso facto deprived of all epis- 
 Bossuet's Defens. declar. Cleri Gall, copal jurisdiction; that their com- 
 (Appendix, lib. ii. c. 13.) where he munion should be avoided, and even 
 says, that Bellarmine, Stapleton, &c. that they ought to be burned !" On 
 hold the Galilean doctrine of the the other side, the Cardinal of Lor- 
 superiority of a general council to rain, and Richerius, with a large 
 the Pope, to be heretical, and that number of others, held that the 
 Christianus Lupus, Nicholas Du- Ultramontane doctrine, as con- 
 bois, the Bishop of Strigonium, &c., demned by the Councils of Con- 
 regard the question as one de fide, stance and Basil, was heretical, (see 
 Nicholas Cevoli even maintained Bossuet, t. i. p. 58. Lannoii Epis- 
 that " the propositions of the Gal- tolae, pars ii. Epist. 6. Ed. Cantab, 
 lican clergy are every one taken out 1689 ) Even Bossuet says, in his 
 of Calvin's Institutes, and are plainly " Defensio," that the question is one 
 heretical : that the bishops who con- de fide, though he does not con- 
 firmed them are, as schismatics and demn the Ultramontanes as here- 
 heretics, cut off from the church, tics. 
 
 VOL. I. H
 
 98 Unity in Faith. [PART i. 
 
 fundamental principles from sustaining unity in the truth, 
 cannot be churches of Christ. On the other hand, societies 
 which by their principles tend to unity of faith, and provide 
 means for accomplishing it, are probably parts of the church. 
 
 We may also conclude, that any society which either sepa- 
 rated itself from, or was cut off by the great body of the 
 church of Christ in any one question of faith, after due exami- 
 nation and without any manifest irregularity of proceeding, is 
 not to be accounted a portion of Christ's church. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. Though the apostles were enabled to determine what was 
 damnable doctrine, yet Christians in succeeding ages, and now, 
 cannot determine whether any particular doctrine is damnable. 
 Their decision is fallible and uncertain, and therefore they 
 cannot maintain any doctrine to be false and heretical. 
 
 Answer. This objection assumes as its basis, that there are 
 now no certain means of ascertaining what is true and what is 
 false in religion. Were this the case, the regulations and 
 declarations of Scripture with regard to heresy, would cer- 
 tainly be obsolete and nugatory. But this cannot be true, 
 because several of them relate to the very latter times of the 
 church, and warn us that even in those ages when the apostles 
 shall have long slept, false teachers, heretics, antichrists, false 
 prophets, are to be avoided : that a belief in the truth is still 
 to be the way of salvation, and damnation to be the portion of 
 those that believe a lie, and believe not the truth. 
 
 To doubt, then, that in the very latter days of the church 
 there shall still be some means of ascertaining the truth, and so 
 ascertaining it as not to be misled by false teachers, is to doubt 
 what inevitably results from Scripture itself. But the truth 
 is, that the argument, when stripped of its disguise, is essen- 
 tially subversive of Christianity. If there have not always 
 been sufficient means of ascertaining some truths to have been 
 taught by Jesus Christ, the revelation of Christ was only 
 designed for temporary purposes. It was not designed to 
 illuminate future ages. It does not concern us. Consequently, 
 this principle is not Christian a . 
 
 a See Hook, sermon ii. before the University of Oxford, p. 39.
 
 CHAP, v.] Objections. 99 
 
 II. The essential principle of the Reformation is, the right 
 of private judgment, that is, the liberty of individuals to main- 
 tain whatever their own judgment deduces from Scripture ; but 
 it is impossible that there should not be infinite differences 
 of opinion between individuals ; therefore (according to the 
 principle of the Reformation) no degree of uniformity of faith 
 can be requisite to salvation. 
 
 Answer. (1.) If the essential principle of the Reformation 
 had justified individuals in maintaining what was contrary to 
 the truth revealed by Christ, the Reformation would be inde- 
 fensible ; but I deny that the Reformers held this principle. 
 Their conduct proves the reverse ; for, as I have before shown, 
 and shall hereafter prove more fully, they refused to hold 
 communion with those whom they judged heretics, and by 
 their reception of the Athanasian Creed, maintained the neces- 
 sity of believing the truth revealed by Jesus Christ b . (2.) If 
 the conclusion of the objection be defended as a truth, indepen- 
 dently of its supposed connexion with the Reformation, then it 
 follows that Christianity is only a name ; for if no truth 
 revealed by Christ can now be certainly ascertained, or if it is 
 lawful to deny it, the gospel must either be obsolete or false. 
 
 III. It is impossible to defend the Reformation, except by 
 maintaining the right of private judgment as above. 
 
 Answer. (1.) This objection cannot proceed from the friends 
 of the reformed, because it would at once, without proceeding 
 another step, prove the Reformation unjustifiable. Accord- 
 ingly, it is advanced by Romanists, and by those who maintain 
 that the societies of the Reformation have acted tyrannically 
 and inconsistently in requiring belief in any creeds. (2.) I 
 deny the fact, and shall hereafter justify the Reformation on 
 different grounds altogether. 
 
 IV. If the belief of particular doctrines be held necessary to 
 salvation, the infidel may reasonably object that Christianity 
 cannot be true ; for, had it been designed for the salvation of 
 men, it could not have failed in its object, and been the subject 
 of perpetual dispute among its adherents. 
 
 Answer. (I.) I deny the consequence; for it sufficiently 
 vindicates the merciful design of Grod, if the means of salva- 
 tion be offered to men, without any compulsion on them to 
 
 b See Section ii. ; chap. xii. sect. Hi. ; and part ii. chap. vi. 
 H 2
 
 100 Unity in Faith. [PART i. 
 
 avail themselves of those means. It was not the design of 
 God to force men to believe and be saved, but to draw them 
 by the persuasive power of divine grace. Therefore, if Chris- 
 tianity be rejected or perverted by some men, while it is 
 received by others, it does not fail of its design. (2.) Many 
 disputes amongst Christians are consistent with uniform belief 
 in the truth certainly revealed by Jesus Christ. 
 
 V. Christian truth has no existence external to the mind of 
 each individual. It is not the letter, but the sense of the 
 Bible, and that sense only exists in our own minds. There- 
 fore, it is impossible to affirm that any individual does not 
 maintain the truth, because the persuasion of his own mind is 
 the truth. 
 
 Answer. (1.) If the sense of each individual mind is truth, 
 then those who hold Christ a mere man, believe the truth ; 
 and those who hold the contrary, believe the truth also : that 
 is, contradictory propositions are both true ; which is absurd, 
 and destroys the very nature of truth. (2.) Every proposition 
 relating to Christianity is either true or false, antecedently to 
 its being presented to the mind of man. Therefore the judg- 
 ment of the mind does not affect the truth or falsehood of 
 Christian doctrines. 
 
 VI. It is cruel and inhuman to deny salvation to those who 
 merely hold erroneous doctrines. 
 
 Answer. (1.) It is not unreasonable that Christ should 
 require belief in the truth revealed by him, because he had a 
 right to offer salvation to man on whatever terms he pleased. 
 Now belief in the truth revealed by him is not an impossible 
 condition, because though it might be impossible for any man 
 to constrain his own judgment to be different from what it 
 actually is, and though it would be cruel in any other man to 
 attempt to force him to change it, yet the difficulty is at an 
 end when the authority of God decides what is true ; because, 
 however inclined our judgment may have been to the contrary, 
 there is now a reason which is irresistibly convincing ; namely, 
 the infallibility of God himself. Consequently, it is not im- 
 possible to believe the truth certainly revealed by Christ, and 
 it cannot be cruel or unreasonable in him to require belief in 
 it. (2.) It has been before observed c , that every difference in 
 
 " Section iii.
 
 CHAP, v.] Objections. 101 
 
 matters of religion does not infer heresy, and the distinctions 
 there made exempt many from the operation of this prin- 
 ciple. 
 
 VII. Heretics are not more offensive to God than those who 
 are guilty of offences against the moral law ; but the latter do 
 not necessarily cease to be members of the church, therefore 
 the former may also be members of the church. 
 
 Answer. The wicked not excommunicated are only exter- 
 nally, and therefore imperfectly, members of the church, and 
 will not receive salvation except they repent. Heretics who 
 are not excommunicated openly, by their own act, or by the 
 act of the church, are in the same state. But if separated 
 from the communion of the church, they are not even exter- 
 nally members of it, like those who are justly excommunicated 
 for their sins. 
 
 VIII. We are forbidden to judge other men's doctrines to 
 be heretical or false by the following passage : " Who art thou 
 that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he 
 standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall be holden up : for God is 
 able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above 
 another ; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man 
 be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom. xiv. 4, 5). 
 
 Answer. These differences of opinion related to matters in 
 which difference was justifiable, not to matters of faith clearly 
 revealed by Christ. In such matters of opinion, we grant that 
 it is unlawful to condemn our neighbours ; but " If any man 
 preach any other gospel than that has been preached, let him 
 be anathema 11 (Gal. i. 9) ; and " If any come unto you, and 
 bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house" 1 
 (2 John 10). Therefore we are bound to reject heretics, and 
 consequently must have some means and some right to deter- 
 mine what is heresy. 
 
 IX. " In a great house there are not only vessels of gold 
 and of silver, but also of wood and earth ; and some to honour, 
 and some to dishonour, 11 &c. (2 Tim. ii. 20.) The apostle 
 here includes heretics and false teachers in the church, having 
 just before spoken of Hymenseus and Philetus (v. 17). 
 
 Answer. Admitting that the apostle here speaks of heretics 
 as " vessels of wood and earth 11 made to " dishonour, 11 he only 
 refers to those who, having not yet been openly separated, or 
 excommunicated, are imperfectly in the church ; and, even of
 
 102 On Fundamentals. [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 these, he declares that they are to " dishonour," that is, to 
 destruction. A fortiori, then, all those who are openly sepa- 
 rated from the church. 
 
 X. Sincerity, or a full persuasion that our interpretation of 
 God's law is right, is always sufficient to justify us in God's 
 sight, even if we are in error. (This is the principle of Hoadly 
 and his disciples.) 
 
 Answer. I reply with Rogers d , that if this alone be in all 
 cases sufficient, then no one is strictly bound to obey any laws 
 of Christ in the meaning he intended in them : no plainness is 
 sufficient to oblige us to understand them, and there can be'no 
 such thing as a culpable mistake. Even he who rejects Chris- 
 tianity, because he is persuaded it is false, must be as accept- 
 able to God, as he who accepts it because he believes it true. 
 Yet our Saviour denounced heavy woes against those who 
 rejected him (Matt. xi. 21; Mark xvi. 16). I maintain, on 
 the contrary, as a self-evident position, that Christians are 
 bound to obey the laws and believe the doctrine of Christ, and 
 that nothing but natural incapacity, or blameless ignorance, 
 can be pleaded in excuse for their not doing so. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAP. V. 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTALS. 
 
 DR. WATERLAND, in his Discourse on Fundamentals, observes, 
 that since the beginning of the seventeenth century this sub- 
 ject has passed through many learned and judicious hands, 
 " most of them complaining of the perplexities appearing in it, 
 but all bearing testimony to the great weight and importance 
 of it *." According to certain theologians of Holland, Ger- 
 many, and Geneva, quoted by him, the questions of toleration, 
 heresy, secession, schism, union of churches, excommunication, 
 &c., all depend on distinguishing fundamentals in religion. It 
 appears, I think, on examining various controversies which 
 
 d Visible and Invisible Church, a "Water-land's Works by Van 
 part i. c. 6. Mildert, vol. viii. p. 87.
 
 APPENDIX.] On Fundamentals. 103 
 
 have almost entirely turned on this point, that the perplexity 
 so much and so justly complained of, has arisen, and must 
 continue to prevail, from the use of the term " Fundamental." 
 This term is capable of so many meanings, as applied to Chris- 
 tian doctrine, and it actually is, has been, and must continue 
 to be, used in so great a diversity of senses, that it is morally 
 impossible to avoid perplexity while it is employed in contro- 
 versy. 
 
 1. The term "fundamental" may rightly and properly be Various 
 applied to very different notions in religion. It may mean ^F"^. 
 what is at the basis of all religion ; that is, belief in the exist- mentals, 
 ence and attributes of God, or it may express what is the first 
 
 step in the Christian religion belief in Christ as the Messiah, 
 or as a messenger sent from God. It may signify those arti- 
 cles of Christianity from which others seem to be derived. It 
 may with equal propriety mean articles of faith clearly revealed 
 by Christ, as distinguished from opinions or doctrines deduced 
 by human reasoning. It may mean those doctrines which are 
 necessary to be explicitly believed or known by all men in order 
 to salvation, or those doctrines which must be believed by 
 every one to whom they are sufficiently proposed, or which 
 must be believed either explicitly, or else implicitly, in order to 
 salvation. The term "fundamental" maybe employed with- 
 out any impropriety in any one of these senses, and even in 
 others, which it is needless to specify in this place. 
 
 2. The term fundamental is actually used in the greatest Different 
 variety of meanings by different writers of eminence, and even j^"" 
 by the same writers. Chillingworth in one part of his " Reli- writers, 
 gion of Protestants," says : " That may be sufficiently declared 
 
 to one (all things considered) which (all things considered) to 
 another is not sufficiently declared ; and consequently that may 
 be fundamental and necessary to one, ichich to another is not so V 
 In a few pages afterwards he says : " Fundamental points are 
 those only which are revealed by God, and commanded to be 
 preached to all and believed by all*" In the first quotation 
 fundamentals are regarded as doctrines which must be believed 
 by those only to whom they are sufficiently declared ; in the 
 second, they are regarded as doctrines necessary to be believed 
 by ah" men. Laud in one place understands by them, doctrines 
 
 b Religion of Protestants, chap. c Ibid. s. 20. 
 iii. s. 13.
 
 104 On Fundamentals. [p. i. CH. v. 
 
 which must be believed expressly and explicitly by all men 
 without exception, and which no man can be ignorant of with- 
 out loss of salvation d . In another place he says, that certain 
 points " are not formally fundamental for all men, but for such 
 as are able to make or understand them." &c. e Accordingly, 
 he teaches in one place that the Apostles 1 Creed contains all 
 fundamentals f ; in another, that not only the creed itself but 
 certain deductions from it are fundamental g . Waterland 
 regards fundamentals in religion or Christianity as matters 
 " so necessary to its being, or at least its wett-being^ that it 
 could not subsist, or not maintain itself tolerably without it V 
 Here are two very different notions in the same definition of 
 fundamentals ; one which connects these with the very existence 
 of religion, another which connects them only with its perfection. 
 Various 3. Waterland observes, with perfect truth, that there are 
 FundaT tO " a " mos ^ as many different rules for determining fundamentals, 
 mentals, as there are different sects or parties V' an d thus, " that which 
 might otherwise serve (if all men were reasonable j ) to end all 
 differences, has itself been too often made one principal bone 
 of contention." Accordingly, having himself first laid down 
 the Christian covenant and its parts, as the rule for deter- 
 mining fundamentals, he proceeds to detail the different rules 
 of other writers as follows. Some regard the definition of the 
 church as the rule of fundamentals. (This is the doctrine 
 generally maintained by Eomanists, as we may see in Knott 
 the Jesuit k , Tournely, Bailly 1 , and other of their divines.) 
 Some regard whatever is asserted in sacred Scripture as fun- 
 damental. Others hold every thing that is expressly taught in 
 Scripture to be fundamental, and nothing which is not so 
 taught. Another rule is, that what Scripture has expressly 
 declared necessary is alone fundamental. Several eminent 
 writers, as Petit, Usher, Davenant, Calixtus, Chillingworth, 
 Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Whitby, &c. have referred to the Apos- 
 tles' Creed as the rule and sample of fundamentals. Others, 
 
 d Conference with Fisher, s. 10. ing it. It does not seem that there 
 
 e Ibid. p. 334. is anything unreasonable in employ- 
 
 1 1 1 . ing the term in a sense different from 
 
 * P. 28. 334. what we judge best. It is merely a 
 
 h Waterl. Works, viii. p. 88. difference of language and usage. 
 
 1 Ibid. viii. p. 90. k Controversy with Chillingworth. 
 
 J Or rather, united in their sense ' Tractatus de Ecclesia. 
 of the term, and their rule for apply-
 
 APPENDIX.] On Fundamentals. 105 
 
 with the Arian Clarke, teach that the fundamentals of religion 
 are defined by Hebrews vi. 1, 2, and that we may differ about 
 every thing else. Locke and others regard the profession of 
 faith made by converts to Christianity in the apostolic age, 
 viz. " that Jesus is the Messiah," as the only fundamental. 
 Universality of agreement among Christians so called, is the 
 rule of fundamentals with some. Herbert and other infidels 
 regarded the universal agreement of the whole race of mankind 
 as the true measure of fundamentals. Some " throw off all 
 concern for a right faith as insignificant, and comprise all fun- 
 damentals in the single article of a good life, as they call it ; to 
 which some are pleased to add faith in the divine promises m ." 
 Some consider professed love to the Lord Jesus Christ as the only 
 fundamental. In fine, Chillingworth declares that the variety of 
 the circumstances of different men " makes it impossible to set 
 down an exact catalogue of fundamentals n ," and he is obliged 
 to propose, as the only security against fundamental error, the 
 belief that Scripture is true, and that it contains all things 
 necessary to salvation ; and the endeavour to find and believe 
 the true sense of it . Now if it be impossible to determine 
 practically what are fundamentals in Christianity, the distinc- 
 tion is surely not available for practical purposes. 
 
 4. It does not seem that individuals have any power to limit 
 the term to any one meaning. We cannot command human 
 language, and therefore it would seem advisable to abstain 
 from the controversial use of a term which is so highly am- 
 biguous. I do not deny that every one may form a notion of 
 fundamentals in his own mind, and employ it in speculation to 
 discriminate some parts of religion from others ; but it does 
 not seem expedient to employ the distinction in general con- 
 troversy. It is very true, indeed, and very important to be 
 remembered, that a distinction is to be made between doctrines, 
 i. e. that all doctrines are not matters of faith. This distinc- 
 tion I have already alluded to p . But it is rendered at once per- 
 plexed and unavailable, when the ambiguous term " fundamen- 
 tal," is connected with it. 
 
 5. There is a notion floating in some minds, that some doc- 
 trines of revelation are more important than others, and that, 
 
 m Waterland, Works, viii. p. 105 Relig. of Prot. ch. iii. s. 13. 
 123. P Sect. iii. 
 
 11 Relig. of Prot. ch. iii. s. 13.
 
 106 On Fundamentals . [P. i. CH. v. 
 
 provided men believe aright in the more important matters, it 
 Is not of much consequence if they err in lesser doctrines. 
 Waterland himself seems to have been led inadvertently to 
 countenance this notion in some degree. He says, that in 
 cases "where the truth of the doctrine is at least morally 
 certain, and the importance of it only doubtful, in such cases 
 communion ought not to be divided or broken q ." Taking his 
 words in connexion with the mode in which he determines 
 fundamental doctrines by reasoning from the nature of a 
 covenant, it would seem that some doctrines actually revealed 
 by Christ, are less important than others, and that we may 
 tolerate error in the one case, but not in the other. This view 
 is certainly entertained by some without sufficient considera- 
 tion. But it seems that such an opinion is unsafe, because if 
 Christ did indeed reveal a particular doctrine, it must surely 
 be of the utmost importance to man, though it may be less 
 important in itself than other doctrines. I do not deny that 
 we may, by a sort of intuitive light of faith, distinguish some 
 doctrines of revelation as greater and more sublime than 
 others; but it seems exceedingly dangerous to attempt by 
 human reasoning to weigh the importance of truths certainly 
 revealed by Christ, relatively to each other. It constitutes 
 man as it were the judge of his Creator, and it must be im- 
 possible to the infinite majority of men, because there is a 
 much more practical and important question first to be deter- 
 mined : What are all the doctrines actually revealed by Christ? 
 Few men, perhaps, have completely mastered this question ; 
 and yet it is a necessary preliminary to any examination of the 
 relative importance of doctrines, because Christian doctrines 
 are so concatenated, that without a perfect view of all, it would 
 be impossible even to attempt their comparison. Whatever 
 foundation there may be for the notion, that some doctrines 
 are more important in themselves than others, it cannot be 
 supposed that any doctrine certainly revealed by Christ is un- 
 important to us, or that it may be safely disbelieved, or that 
 we may recognize as Christians those who obstinately disbelieve 
 such a doctrine. 
 
 i P. 102.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Sanctity of the Church. 107 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ON THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 THE sanctity of the church may be considered in several 
 different points of view. First, the sanctity of its Head, and 
 of those who founded it ; secondly, the holiness of its doctrine ; 
 thirdly, the means of holiness which it has in the Sacraments ; 
 fourthly, the actual holiness of its members ; and fifthly, the 
 divine attestations of holiness in miracles a . 
 
 1. The Divine Head and Founder of the church is the Church 
 essential origin and source of all its holiness. "He gave ho . ly . m lts 
 
 ^ origin. 
 
 himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
 purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works V 
 The glorious efficacy of his sacrifice procured the mission of 
 the Eternal Comforter, the author of every good gift, and the 
 source of all heavenly grace in the word and sacraments of 
 Christianity. The apostles of our Lord were commissioned 
 by him, with the authority which he had received from the 
 Father, to found the Christian church ; and all churches must 
 therefore derive their origin from the apostles, either by proving 
 that they were originally founded by the apostolic preaching, 
 and have perpetually existed as societies from that moment to 
 the present ; or else they must be prepared to show that, at 
 their origin, they were derived peaceably and with Christian 
 charity from the apostolical churches, or that they were sub- 
 sequently received into Christian communion by such churches. 
 These are the only conceivable ways in which any church can 
 pretend to prove that it was founded by the apostles imme- 
 diately or mediately. If any society was not founded actually 
 by the apostles, nor yet founded by the successors of the 
 apostles and the apostolical churches, but in the moment of 
 its birth separated itself from the communion and religion of 
 all such churches; if it was never received afterwards, and 
 
 See Gerhard. Loci Theologici, Art. ix. 
 1. xxiii. s. 34 ; Pearson on the Creed, b Tit. ii. 14.
 
 108 Sanctity of the Church. [PARTI. 
 
 engrafted into the communion of churches, apostolical in their 
 origin or derivation ; it is impossible that such a society can 
 in any way show that it was holy in its origin, as being 
 founded by the apostles of Jesus Christ. This is a point 
 which may be easily determined in any particular case by the 
 facts of history. 
 
 Sanctity of 2. It is undeniable that the end of Christ's mission on 
 earth was the sanctification of his people. He "called us 
 with a holy calling ." His will is "our sanctification d ." 
 Therefore, if it could be clearly shown that any society pro- 
 fessing to be Christian, denied the obligation of good works, 
 and taught its members that they might freely indulge in 
 wickedness, such a society would be evidently anathema from 
 Jesus Christ. Nothing further could be required to prove it. 
 
 Means of 3. The means of sanctity in the sacraments cannot with 
 ' l ^' propriety be reckoned among the signs of the church, for 
 before we determine whether a society is in possession of all 
 these means, we must enter on the whole subject of the sacra- 
 ments, which would lead to a discussion much too lengthened, 
 and beyond the capacity of the majority of men. Romanists 
 argue that the true and valid administration of the sacraments 
 is not a note of the church e , therefore they cannot consistently 
 enter on the discussion of those sacraments as a means of 
 holiness. 
 
 Sanctity of 4. I now come to the question of the actual holiness of the 
 
 church members of the church. It is asserted by some that a society 
 
 members. . * 
 
 which includes a number of unholy men cannot be a church of 
 
 Christ, that a true church comprises only saints or perfect 
 Christians, and that sinners cannot be members of it. The 
 Novatians and Donatists considered all who were guilty of 
 great sins as forming no part of the church. The Pelagians 
 held the church to consist only of perfect men free from sin. 
 The Wickliffites taught that the church includes only the 
 predestinate. The Anabaptists and the English dissenters 
 asserted, that it consists only of those who are visibly holy in 
 their lives ; and the latter founded their separation from the 
 church on the principle that she comprised sinners in her 
 
 p 2 Tim. i. 9. Christ, torn. i. p. 62. Bouvier, de 
 
 d 1 Thess. iv. 3. vera Ecclesia, p. 79. Collet, Inst. 
 
 e Tournely, de Ecclesia, torn. i. Theolog. Scholast. torn. ii. p. 450. 
 p 63, &c. Bailly, Tractatus de Eccl.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Church comprises Sinners. 109 
 
 communion. Therefore they departed from her, to form a 
 pure society of saints in which no sinner was to find any place. 
 Their whole system was founded, and continues to be main- 
 tained on the fiction, that all the members of their communities 
 are holy, pure, perfect saints, incapable of passion, strife, tyranny, 
 &c. f Against these principles, which have unhappily been 
 refuted long ago by experience, I maintain the following 
 position. 
 
 THOSE WHO ARE SINNERS, AND DEVOID OF LIVELY FAITH, ARE 
 SOMETIMES EXTERNALLY MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH 8. 
 
 This is proved from Scripture. Christ compares the church, 
 or kingdom of heaven, to " a field " in which tares and wheat, 
 that is, evil men and good, grow till the harvest, i. e. the end 
 of the world (Matt. xiii. 2430. 3743) ; to " a net that was 
 cast into the sea and gathered of every kind," that is, both 
 " the wicked" and " the just" (xiii. 47 50). The church is 
 elsewhere spoken of under the figure of " a wedding feast," 
 whereto the servants " gathered together all, as many as they 
 found, both bad and good" (Matt. xxii. 10) ; and to "a great 
 house," in which " there are not only vessels of gold and silver, 
 but also of wood and earth ; and some to honour, and some to 
 dishonour" (2 Tim. ii. 20). These texts prove sufficiently, 
 that while the church of God exists on this earth, it will com- 
 prise evil men as well as good in its communion ; and accord- 
 ingly, as we learn from St. Augustine in his account of the 
 conference at Carthage, the Donatists were entirely overcome 
 by them h . It is almost superfluous to add, that the primitive 
 church fully concurred with the above principle, as might be 
 easily shown from Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, 
 Gregory, &c.' As soon as the Donatist and Pelagian errors 
 on this subject were advanced, they were refuted by St. Jerome 
 in his book " Contra Pelagianos," and by St. Augustine in his 
 books against the epistles of the Donatists Parmenianus and 
 Petilianus, and in other treatises. The Lutherans and Calvin- 
 
 ' See Chap. XIII. Fulgentius de Remiss. Peccat. c. 18; 
 
 * See Field, Of the church, b. i. Gregor. lib. 2, in Ezek. horn. iv. n. 
 
 c. 16 18. 16. See Pearson on the Creed, art. 
 
 k August. Breviarium Collationis, iy. ; Field, Of the Church, b. i. c. 16, 
 
 et Liber post Collationem. 17, 18 ; Gerhard, Loci Theolog. 1. 
 
 1 Cypr.Ep.adAntonianum; Hier. xxiii. s. 48, 49. 
 dial. adv. Lucifer, ultra medium ;
 
 110 Church comprises Sinners. [PART r. 
 
 ists also maintained sound views on this subject. The former 
 say, " We admit that hypocrites and evil men in this life are 
 joined with the church, and are members of the church as far as 
 relates to external participation in its signs, that is the word, 
 the profession, and the sacraments, especially if they be not 
 excommunicated V Calvin argues at great length, and with 
 his usual energy, against the doctrine of the Anabaptists and 
 modern dissenters k . He says, " In the church are many hypo- 
 crites mixed, who have nothing of Christ except the name and 
 appearance : many ambitious, covetous, envious, slandering 
 men ; some of impure life, who are tolerated for a time, either 
 because they cannot be convicted by a lawful judgment, or 
 because due severity of discipline is not always in force 1 ." 
 
 But the Donatists discovered a distinction which has been 
 adopted by the more modern sects. They admitted that sin- 
 ners might indeed exist in communion with the church, but 
 they denied that open and manifest sinners could in any respect 
 be of the church. In reply to this distinction I proceed to 
 show, that, 
 
 MANIFEST SINNERS ARE SOMETIMES EXTERNALLY MEMBERS 
 OF THE CHURCH, AND EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGES OF ITS 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 St. Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, styles them " the 
 church of God which is at Corinth " (1 Cor. i. 2), yet in this 
 church of God " were envying, and strife, and divisions'" (iii. 3) ; 
 " Going to law against each other," and that " before the 
 heathen" (vi. 1. 6, 7) ; and even "fornication, such as is not 
 so much as named among the Gentiles' 1 (v. i.). This clearly 
 proves that manifest sinners are sometimes found in the 
 
 j Apologia Confessionis August, omnes sint sancti." 
 
 iv. de Ecclesia. See also the Con- k Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. i. 
 
 fession of Augsburg, art. viii. The s. 13 29. 
 
 Formula Concordiae, another Lu- * Ibid. sect. 7- The same doc- 
 
 theran Confession, "rejects and con- trine is taught by the Tetrapolitan 
 
 demns" amongst the " Errores Ana- Confession, in which it is said, that 
 
 baptistarum " this ; " Non esse earn " many will be mixed in the church 
 
 veram et Christianam Ecclesiam, in even to the end of the world, who do 
 
 qua peccatores reperiantur." (Form, not really believe in Christ, but pre- 
 
 Conc. pars ii. ad fin.) The Sax. tend to do so." (cap. xv.) It is also 
 
 Conf. (art. xii.) says, " Improbamus taught by the Helvetic Confession 
 
 et colluviem Anabaptisticam, quae (cap. xvii), the Gallican (xxvii), the 
 
 finxit ecclesiam visibilem, in qua Bohemian, (art. viii.)
 
 CHAP, vi.] Manifest Sinners in the Church. Ill 
 
 church, for the person last alluded to was not separated from 
 the church of Corinth until the apostle had rebuked them, and 
 commanded him to be delivered to Satan (v. 5); yet the Corin- 
 thian church is not considered by the apostle to have been 
 apostate because this sinner was in their communion. The 
 same is proved by the words to " the church in Thyatira :" " I 
 have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that 
 woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach 
 and seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat 
 things sacrificed to idols" (Rev. ii. 18. 20). And to the 
 " church in Sardis," it is said, "thou hast a, few names, even in 
 Sardis, which have not defiled their garments" (Rev. iii. 1.4). 
 In both of these churches it is manifest that there were great 
 and glaring offences. It is further proved, by the parable of 
 the evil servant whom his lord made ruler, and who "shall 
 begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with 
 the drunken" (Matt. xxiv. 45 51); for this parable refers 
 to evil pastors in Christ's church, who are represented in pos- 
 session of authority over the church, and in its external com- 
 munion, while they are guilty of gross sins ; it is thus in- 
 terpreted by Hilary, Jerome, and Chrysostom, in their com- 
 mentaries. The mere fact, then, that there are known sinners 
 in any church, does not annihilate its character, render it apos- 
 tate, or deprive it of the rights which belong to it by divine 
 institution. Nor does an improper delay in expelling the 
 offenders, as appears by the case of the churches of Corinth, 
 Thyatira, and Sardis. Such faults and defects of discipline 
 are found in every society of Christians alike. Thus the dis- 
 senters, in describing their system, say, " A much greater evil, 
 however, is to be found in the retaining of persons as church- 
 members when their character plainly unfits them for such a 
 station. Instances have not been wanting in which persons of 
 NOTORIOUS IMMORALITY, such as habitual drunkards and 
 others, have remained in undisturbed possession of their mem- 
 bership "." 
 
 Notwithstanding this, it is clear that such defects of disci- 
 pline in their own communities are tolerated with great charity 
 by the dissenters. They hold communion and intercourse with 
 societies in which discipline is thus relaxed, and acknowledge 
 
 m Essays on Church Polity, vol. ii. p. 185. See also p. 188.
 
 112 Church admits Sinners. [PART r. 
 
 their Christian character ; nor does it appear that any inquiry 
 is ever instituted as to the state of particular societies, to 
 ascertain their conduct in this respect ; or that any of them 
 are ever rejected by the rest, in consequence of a defective 
 discipline. By no means ; they can make allowance for the 
 difficulties of the case, and are unwilling to condemn the good 
 with the evil. We have only to regret, for their sakes, that 
 the same rule of charity has never been extended to the church, 
 by the dissenters and their predecessors ; and that a laxity, 
 which is excused in the case of those who profess to be all 
 saints, is viewed as an abomination in the case of those who 
 admit that there must always be sinners among them. 
 
 That the ungodly, whether secret or manifest, do not really 
 belong to the church, considered as to its invisible character, 
 namely, as consisting of its essential and permanent mem- 
 bers, the elect, predestinate, and sanctified, who are known to 
 God only, 1 admit ". It is also certain, that " if any man 
 that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an 
 idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner," with 
 such a one we are " not to keep company, or even to eat " 
 (1 Cor. v. 11) ; his society is to be abstained from by the 
 faithful, and he ought to be separated from the church. But 
 I deny that such men cease to belong externally to the church, 
 until they are excommunicated, (for otherwise excommunica- 
 tion would be a mere nullity,) or until they withdraw them- 
 selves from the church by some formal act of separation. 
 
 It is further contended by dissenters, that none but those 
 who are visibly holy in their lives can lawfully be admitted into 
 the church. In opposition to this principle, I affirm that 
 
 VISIBLE SANCTITY OF LIFE IS NOT REQUISITE FOR ADMISSION 
 TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 First, the gospel was preached to publicans, harlots, sinners 
 of all kinds, who were invited to repent and be baptized, and 
 wash away their sins. After St. Peter had spoken, three 
 thousand souls were at once baptized, and added to the church 
 (Acts ii. 41. 47). Philip baptized the eunuch on his simply 
 professing his faith (Acts viii. 37, 38). Therefore a profession 
 of faith in Christ, of willingness to obey his laws and believe 
 
 n See Field, Of the Church, book i. chap. xi.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Church admits Sinners. J13 
 
 his words, is a sufficient condition of baptism, unless there be 
 some evident proof, at the same time, that the profession is 
 hypocritical. 
 
 Secondly, the Scriptures and the universal church appoint 
 only one mode in which Christians are to be made members of 
 the church. It is baptism which rendters us, by divine right, 
 members of the church, and entitles us to all the privileges of 
 the faithful : " For as many of you as have been baptized into 
 Christ have put on Christ "...." Ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus" (Gal. iii. 27, 28). If baptism, therefore, makes men 
 members of Christ, or clothes them with Christ, it follows 
 necessarily that they must have, at once, a right to all the 
 privileges of that part of the church in which they abide. It 
 is admitted by those dissenters who allow the validity of infant 
 baptism, that " it giveth them all the external rights and privi- 
 leges which belong unto them that are regenerate, until they 
 come to such seasons, wherein the personal performance of 
 those duties whereon the continuation of the estate of visible 
 regeneration doth depend, is required of them ." Since bap- 
 tism, therefore, gives infants the external rights of the regene- 
 rate, those rights must still remain ; (for it is absurd to sup- 
 pose that the developement of reason alone should deprive them 
 of them :) and consequently, at the age of reason, every bap- 
 tized Christian has a right to all the external and general pri- 
 vileges of the church instituted by Christ Jesus. Therefore it 
 is contrary to sound doctrine to institute any rite or ceremony 
 by which it is then pretended to make him a member of the 
 church, as dissenters do p . If he be found guilty of scandalous 
 offences, it is proper and right to suspend him from church 
 communion ; but otherwise, as a baptized Christian, he has a 
 
 Owen's Gospel Church, p. 28. admission of members " to the 
 
 p Dissenters are obliged to con- church is one of the most practi- 
 
 fess that their mode of admitting cally important matters affecting it ; 
 
 people into the church is not men- if this be not exactly detailed in 
 
 tioned in the Bible. ' The manner," Scripture, it cannot be expected that 
 
 they say, " of admitting members to all the forms of government, rites, 
 
 this church is not indeed precisely &c., should : and in that case, what 
 
 stated in the sacred records." Es- becomes of the accusations against 
 
 says on Ch. Polity, vol. ii. p. 383. the church, as guilty of adding to 
 
 If this be so, the Scriptures cannot Scripture ; and what becomes of the 
 
 afford that exclusive guidance in duty of separating from her on this 
 
 matters of discipline which the dis- account ? 
 senters contend for. Surely " the 
 
 VOL. I. I
 
 114 Miracles, as Proofs of Sanctity. [PART i. 
 
 divine right to every external privilege of the church. (See 
 Chapter XIII.) 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 We are now to consider the question of miracles as divine 
 attestations of sanctity. Romanists contend that the perform- 
 ance of miracles is a sign of the true church, as it evinces the 
 sanctity and orthodoxy of those who work them. The stu- 
 pendous physical and moral miracles on which the truth of 
 Christianity is based, are indeed amply sufficient to demon- 
 strate the divine mission of those who performed them. But 
 the Revelation which is based on these miracles, tells us, that 
 there should afterwards arise workers of miracles, " of great 
 signs and wonders q ," who, far from being orthodox or holy 
 men, should be the agents of the Evil One. They tell us, that 
 at the day of judgment, some of those who have " done many 
 wonderful works " in Christ's name shall be condemned r ; that 
 though we should speak with tongues, cast out devils, raise 
 the dead, and yet be destitute of charity, it shall profit us 
 nothing s . It is clear, then, that signs and wonders are not, 
 since the Christian revelation, necessarily proofs of sanctity ; 
 and moreover, it is obviously the duty of Christians to look 
 with jealousy on all pretended miracles. 
 
 No suffi- Even amongst Romanists it does not seem that signs and 
 cient proof wonders alone are universally judged a sufficient proof of per- 
 :tl y> feet sanctity. Christianus Lupus says, that " not every sort of 
 sanctity is sufficient for canonization, even though it be distin- 
 guished by miracles ; but it should also be eminent, and free 
 from any ill fame? As an instance, he adduces the case of 
 Robert, bishop of Lincoln, who had opposed the Roman pontiff, 
 Innocentius ; for which cause, says Knighton, " though Robert 
 was resplendent with manifest miracles, he was not permitted 
 to be canonized ;" and Matthew Paris adds, that Sewallus, 
 archbishop of York, who was excommunicated by Alexander 
 IV., " performed miracles on his death-bed V Baillet observes, 
 that " men who are shining with miracles and sanctity," are 
 sometimes not placed in the catalogue of Roman saints, because 
 
 i Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Mark xiii. 22. 571, quoted by Van Espen, Jus 
 
 1 Matt. vii. 22. Canonicum, pars i. tit. xxii. c. vii. 
 
 8 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2. sect. 7. 
 1 Tom. iii. ; Schol. in Can. p.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Miracles, as Proofs of Sanctity. 115 
 
 they have troubled the Koman court, or in some manner given 
 scandal u . 
 
 It is acknowledged by the Jesuit Maldonatus that miracles 
 may be done by false prophets v . Espencseus, another Roman 
 theologian, says, that "miracles are common to God and to 
 the devil, to Christ and to antichrist w ." It is admitted by the 
 fathers, Irenseus, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine x , that here- 
 tics may have wrought signs and wonders; and this is not 
 denied even by Romanists y ; they have been wrought in pro- 
 fusion by the Jansenists 2 ; and they are pretended to, not only 
 by the Roman churches, but by the Oriental churches a , by 
 the Nestorians and Eutychians, the Hugonot prophets, the 
 Irvingites, and sundry other sects. It is in vain for Romanists 
 to pretend that their miracles alone are authentic, or that they 
 alone merit examination ; this is a mere assumption, which is 
 by no means founded in truth. 
 
 But further : the performance of miracles is not essential to 
 real sanctity. It will not surely be pretended, even by Roman- 
 ists, that all those who are honoured by the church as saints 
 must have wrought miracles ; such a condition would be most 
 highly inconvenient. It would be difficult to prove that Ana- 
 cletus, and the other early bishops of Rome, who are accounted 
 saints, wrought any miracles ; and the same may be said of 
 St. Dionysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria, the two 
 Dionysii of Alexandria and Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epipha- 
 nius, Alexander of Constantinople, Damasus, Amphilochius, 
 Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, Isidore of Nitria, Meletius, 
 Optatus, &c. &c. Tillemont and Fleury, who mention the 
 miracles of the saints wherever there is any evidence for them, 
 
 11 Baillet, praefat. ad Vitas Sane- gust. Tract, xiii. in Joan. De Unit, 
 
 torum, n. 90. cited by Van Espen, Eccl. c. xix. See " A brief Dis- 
 
 ibid. course concerning the Notes of the 
 
 T " Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Church," p. 261 264. ed. London, 
 
 Euthymius, Theophylactus, probant 1688 ; Gerhard. Loc. Theol. 1. xxiii. 
 
 exemplis, etiam per alios quam ca- 8. 273. 
 
 tholicos vera miracula fieri, et hoc y Tournely, De Ecclesia, torn. i. 
 
 ipso loco multi dicent in illo die, p. 153. 
 
 &c. facile colligitur, falsos illos pro- * See chapter xi. section iii. 
 
 phetas de quibus Christus loquitur a See Nectarii Hierosol. Confu- 
 
 vera miracula fecisse." Maldonat. tatio Imperii Papae, p. 306. 337. 
 
 Comment, in Matt. vii. 321332 (ed. Lond. 1702), where 
 
 w Espencaaus in 2 ad Tim. p. 83. a multitude of signs and wonders 
 
 1 Irenseus, adv. Haeres. 1. i. c. are claimed for the Oriental church, 
 
 viii. ix. ; Cyprianus, De Unitate ; See also Leo Allatius, De Perpetua 
 
 Hieron. Com. in Galat. lib. iii.; Au- Consens. Eccl. 
 
 i 2
 
 116 Miracles, as Proofs of Sanctity. [PARTI. 
 
 appear to be silent as to any wrought by these holy men. I 
 can only allude in general to the multitude of martyrs and 
 confessors who constitute almost the whole mass of the ancient 
 saints, and scarcely any of whom appear to have wrought mira- 
 cles. History records the miracles of some individuals ; but 
 the great majority of the saints were only remarkable for holi- 
 ness of life, zeal for the faith, confession, or martyrdom. 
 
 Tillemont observes, in his notice of St. Gregory Thaumatur- 
 gus, that " there are very few saints in whom God has united 
 the external talents of eloquence and knowledge, with the 
 grace of prophecy and miracles ;" and in his life of St. Basil 
 he says, that " God, not willing that man should judge of the 
 virtue of the saints by miracles, which he seems to have 
 reserved for the defence of his truth and of his church, rather 
 than for the glory of his servants, did not grant this gift to 
 those saints whose virtue was without dispute the most eminent 
 and the most solid. We observe this in St. Cyprian, St. Atha- 
 nasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and in the other great 
 saints of the principal ages of the church, in whom we find but 
 rarely, or not at all, extraordinary and miraculous actions. 
 Their life alone was a greater miracle than any that they could 
 have performed V 
 
 It is also to be observed, that God has not made any pro- 
 mise of miracles to his church at all times. True, miracles 
 were promised to the disciples, but they were not promised 
 " for ever," like the Spirit of Truth. Accordingly, M. Bou- 
 vier, now bishop of Mans, says, after Cardinal De la Luzerne, 
 " Whether God will exhibit such divine signs of sanctity in 
 his church perpetually, we dare not define ; nor, therefore, do 
 we affirm that sanctity, thus understood, is essentially a posi- 
 tive note of the true church c ." This is most reasonable ; and, 
 at all events, no one can pretend that miracles were promised 
 always to particular churches. The fathers argue that mira- 
 cles were only essential at the commencement of the church. 
 St. Chrysostom says, " there are some in our age who inquire, 
 
 b Tillemont, Hist. Eccl. torn. ix. sentialiter esse notam verse ecclesise 
 
 p. 284. positivam. Sic ferme ' De la Lu- 
 
 c " An vero Deus divina hujus- zerne, Dissertation sur les Eglises 
 
 modi signa sanctitatis inecclesia sua Catholiques et Protestantes, t. 2 ' ' 
 
 perpetuo exhibere teneatur, definiri Bouvier, Tractatus de vera Ec- 
 
 non audemus, nee idcirco adfirma- clesia, p. 103. 
 inns sauctitatein, ita intellectum, es-
 
 CHAP, vi.] Objections. 117 
 
 why miracles are not now performed. If thou believest as 
 thou oughtst, if thou lovest Christ as he should be loved, 
 thou requirest no signs, for signs are given to unbelievers d ." 
 Gregory the Great says : " Because ye do not work miracles, 
 do ye not believe, my brethren ? But these were requisite at 
 the beginning of the church. The multitude needed to be fed 
 with miracles, that they might grow unto faith ; for we, when 
 we plant vineyards, water them until we see that they have 
 grown strong in the ground ; and when once they have taken 
 root, the watering ceases e ." 
 
 In conclusion, then, it may be said, that the question of 
 miracles cannot with propriety enter into the notes of the true 
 church. It involves too extensive enquiries into the preten- 
 sions of various communities ; and after all, if the performance 
 of signs and wonders were proved, they would not necessarily 
 establish the sanctity of those who wrought them, while sanc- 
 tity may exist without any such signs. God may surely employ 
 sinners to perform great works (as in the case of Balaam), or 
 permit the devil to deceive evil men through their means. Far 
 be it from me to affirm that real miracles have not been wrought 
 since the time of the apostles, for the confirmation of Chris- 
 tians, and especially for the conversion of the heathen. There 
 is every probability, nay, certainty, that such signs have been 
 wrought ; but we ought not, I contend, to examine them with 
 a view to discover the true church ; more especially as it does 
 not appear that any of those miracles which have the slightest 
 pretension to credibility, were wrought to determine controver- 
 sies of faith or discipline between the existing communities of 
 professing Christians. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The church can only comprise perfectly holy men ; for 
 Christ gave himself for the church, " that he might present it 
 
 d Kat yap rai vvv tlatv ol ^TOVVTIQ tis ? Sed haec necessaria in exordio 
 
 roi Xlyoirtf, Siari prj Kal vvv ffr}- ecclesise fuerunt. Ut enira fides 
 
 (itia yivtrai; it yap Triffrof I <I)f tlvai cresceret,miraculisfueratnutrienda; 
 
 XP>} fat QiXilg rbv Xpurrov o>e (J>i\fiv quia et nos cum arbusta planta- 
 
 Sit, ov xpiiav x (t c anptiw' rawra mus, tamdiu eis aquam infundimus, 
 
 E4p roTf airiffroiz liSorai. Chrysost. quousque ea in terra jam convaluisse 
 
 om. xxiv. al. xxiii. in Joann. t. videamus, et si semel radicem fixe- 
 
 viii. p. 138. rint, in rigando cessamus." Greg. 
 
 ' "Numquidnam.fratres mei, quia Horn. xxix. in Evang. 
 ista signa non facitis, minime credi-
 
 118 Universality of the Church. [PARTI. 
 
 to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or 
 any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blem- 
 ish" (Eph. v. 27). 
 
 Answer. The church is here spoken of as consisting of those 
 who alone are its essential and permanent members, and who 
 are known to God only ; but this does not infer that there 
 may not also be men who are only imperfectly members, but 
 who are, together with the righteous, in the external commu- 
 nion of the church. 
 
 II. According to Christ's will, none but saints and the rege- 
 nerate ought to be admitted into the church ; therefore those 
 who are not saints cease to be members of it. 
 
 Answer. (1.) I deny that none but visible saints are to be 
 admitted into the church, as I have before proved. (2.) As- 
 suming that visible saints only are to be admitted, yet their 
 sanctity alone does not make them members of the church. 
 They must be admitted by the ministry of others ; and so, in 
 like manner, their departure from visible sanctity does not, 
 ipso facto, deprive them of external church-membership, but 
 they must be separated by others, or by a formal act of their 
 own. 
 
 III. The reformers held the church to consist only of the 
 elect and holy ; for instance, the Confession of Augsburgh. 
 (Art. vii.) 
 
 Answer. They only meant the church considered in its per- 
 manent, internal, perfect character ; for they admitted, in the 
 Apology of the Confession, that the church comprises both 
 righteous and sinners in her external communion. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ON THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURpH. 
 
 UNIVERSALITY, of course, could not have been a characteristic 
 of the church at its commencement, when it only existed at Je- 
 rusalem ; but the testimony of Scripture, and history, and general 
 opinion, oblige us to believe that it was afterwards to become
 
 CHAP, vii.] Universality of the Church. 119 
 
 universal, and to remain so always*. It is not necessary for 
 us to suppose a physical and absolute universality, including 
 all men ; this would be inconsistent with the predictions of the 
 existence of antichristian powers. All that is here contended 
 is, that the church was to possess moral universality, to obtain 
 adherents in all the nations of the world then known, and to 
 extend its limits in proportion as new nations and countries 
 were discovered ; and that it was never to be reduced again to 
 a small portion of the world, though always subject to perse- 
 cutions, fluctuations, corruptions, and losses. 
 
 I argue from Scripture, that the church was to be morally Scripture, 
 universal, or to be propagated in all nations. The prophecies 
 relating to the kingdom of Christ all express this character : 
 " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed " 
 (Gen. xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14) ; " In the last days the 
 mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of 
 the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all 
 nations shall flow unto it " (Is. ii. 2) ; " Israel shall blossom 
 and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit" (Is. xxvii. 6); 
 *' I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou 
 mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth " (xlix. 6) ; 
 " Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inherit- 
 ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession " 
 (Ps. ii. 8) ; " All the ends of the world shall remember and 
 turn unto the Lord, and ah 1 the kindreds of the nations shall 
 worship before thee" (Ps. xxii. 27) ; " He shall have dominion 
 from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" 
 (Ps. Ixxii. 8) ; " His name shall endure for ever ; his name 
 shall be continued as long as the sun, and men shall be 
 blessed in him : all nations shall call him blessed " (verse 1 7). 
 
 Our blessed Saviour himself referred to these prophecies, in 
 his discourse with the disciples after his resurrection, saying : 
 " Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer . . . 
 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
 in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 
 xxiv. 47) ; he also declared that his disciples should be wit- 
 nesses to him "unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 
 i. 8), and commanded them to "go teach all nations" pro- 
 
 a On this subject see Archbishop ix.; Gerhard Loci Theol. 1. xxiii. 
 Potter on Ch. Government, chap, i.; s. 34. 149 152; Jurieu, Vray Sys- 
 Bishop Pearson on the Creed, art. teme de 1'Eglise, c. x.
 
 120 Universality of the Church. [PART i. 
 
 mising his presence with them " always, even unto the end of 
 the world 11 (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) b . We find, accordingly, 
 that the apostles " went forth and preached every where " 
 (Mark xvi. 20). As St. Paul says, " their sound went into 
 all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world " 
 (Rom. x. 18) ; therefore, even in the lifetime of the apostles, 
 the church was universal, and the prophecies of its diffusive- 
 ness were already fulfilled. 
 
 Now, since all these predictions were delivered, without any 
 exception or limitation as to time, we have reason to infer, 
 that they are intended to describe the permanent condition of 
 the Christian church. The character of Christianity, as de- 
 scribed by the prophets, is universality. They never contem- 
 plate any failure or overthrow : they never announce the 
 virtual extinction of the church at any future time, or its 
 reduction within narrow and insignificant limits. 
 
 That the church was not thus to fail is naturally inferred 
 from the promise of Christ himself : " On this rock I will 
 build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it 11 (Matt. xvi. 18). 
 
 Fathers. The primitive church always understood the prophecies 
 relating to the universality of Christianity, as descriptive of its 
 permanent condition ; for we find the fathers not merely 
 asserting the fact, that the church of Christ was really dif- 
 fused throughout the whole world ; but arguing, that the 
 church of which they were members must be the true church, 
 because it was so diffused, and that the societies of heretics 
 which claimed to be the only true church, could not be so, from 
 their deficiency in this essential characteristic. 
 
 Thus St. Athanasius and the bishops of the Alexandrian 
 patriarchate, writing to the Emperor Jovian, argue for their 
 own profession of the true faith and the true church, from the 
 universality of their communion, and the insignificant num- 
 bers of the Arian party c . Jerome, arguing against the Luci- 
 ferians, says : " If Christ has not a church, or has one only in 
 Sardinia, he has become greatly impoverished. And if Satan 
 possesses Britain, Gaul, the East, India, the barbarous nations, 
 the whole world, how were the trophies of the cross given to a 
 
 b The parable of the grain of sality of the church, 
 mustard-seed (Mark iv. 31, 32.) c Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. 
 sufficiently indicates the univer- c. 3.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Universality of the Church. 121 
 
 mere corner of the world d ." Optatus argues thus : " Thou 
 hast said, brother Parraenianus, that the church is only amongst 
 
 you Where, then, is the propriety of the name of 
 
 catholic, since the church is called catholic, because it is rea- 
 sonable, and diffused every where e ?" Augustine says : " We 
 hold the inheritance of Christ ; they (the heretics) do not 
 hold it : they do not communicate with the whole world, they 
 do not (i. e. refuse to) communicate with the whole commu- 
 nity redeemed by the blood of the Lord f ." Augustine cites 
 almost all the passages of Scripture adduced above, in his 
 book " De Unitate Ecclesise," against the Donatists g , to prove 
 that the church is essentially universal. In fine, the ancient 
 church considered universality as one essential characteristic 
 of the church, for the creed approved by the General Council 
 of Nice, as the confession of faith of the whole world, pro- 
 fesses belief in a "catholic 11 (or universal) " apostolic church h ." 
 
 In fact, the universality of the church is generally ad- 
 mitted. The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are received by the 
 Eastern church, and by the Roman churches, as well as by all 
 the Eeformation, and they both contain a profession of belief 
 in the " holy catholic" (or universal) " church." Hence all 
 these societies continually profess their belief in the univer- 
 sality of the church. The hymn " Te Deum," which is also 
 generally used by them, recognizes the same " The holy 
 church throughout all the world doth acknowledge thee." 
 
 Its universality is also expressly admitted by the Confession Reformers, 
 of Augsburgh \ and the Apology of the Confession J. The Hel- 
 
 d " Si ecclesiam non habet Chris- provincias, quae numerari vix pos- 
 tus, aut si in Sardinia tantum habet, sunt ubi vos non estis, non erit. 
 minium pauper factus est. Et si Ubi ergo proprietas catholici nomi- 
 Britannias, Gallias, Orientem, Indo- nis, cum inde dicta sit catholica, 
 rum populos, barbaras nationes, et quod sit rationabilis et ubique dif- 
 totum semel mundum possidet Sa- fusa ?" Optatus, liber ii. de schis- 
 tanas : quomodo ad angulum uni- mate Donatist. p. 28. ed. Du Pin. 
 versae terrae crucis trophaea collata f " Tenemus haereditatem Domi- 
 sunt?" Hieron. adv. Luciferianos, ni : illi earn non tenent: non corn- 
 torn, iv. pars ii. p. 298. ed. Ben. municant orbi terrarum, non com- 
 
 e " Earn tu frater Parmeniane municant universitati redemtae san- 
 
 apud vos solos esse dixisti guine Domini." Tract. Ui. in Epist. 
 
 Ergo ut in particula Africa?, in an- Johan. p. 846. t. iii. oper. ed. Bened. 
 gulo parvae regionis, apud vos esse f Tom. ix. p. 337, &c. ed. Bened. 
 possit : apud nos in alia parte Afri- h Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. viii. 
 cse non erit. In Hispaniis, in Ita- ' " Cum ecclesiae apud nos de 
 
 lia, in Gallia, ubi vos non estis, nullo articulo fidei dissentiant ab ec- 
 
 non erit, &c. ...... Et per tot clesia catholica." Pars ii. Prologus. 
 
 inmimerabiles insulas et caeteras j " Catholicam ecclesiam dicit, ne
 
 122 
 
 Universality of the Church. 
 
 [PART i. 
 
 vetic Confession acknowledges, that " there is only one church, 
 which we therefore call catholic, because it is universal, and 
 diffused through all parts of the world, and extends to all 
 times, being included within no particular localities or ages. 
 Therefore we condemn the Donatists, who restricted the church 
 to some corners of Africa ; nor do we approve the Roman 
 clergy, who vaunt of the Roman church alone as the catholic V 
 Calvin says, that " the universal church is a multitude 
 gathered out of all nations, which though divided and dis- 
 persed by distance of place, yet agreeth to the one true and 
 divine doctrine, and is united by the bond of a common reli- 
 gion 1 . The same doctrine of the universality of the church is 
 inculcated by the Geneva Catechism m , the Bohemian Confes- 
 sion n , the Catechism of Heidelburgh , the Declaration of 
 Thorn P, &c. 
 
 Dissenters. Even various denominations of dissenters admit the same 
 truth : thus the Presbyterians, in 1647, admitted that " the 
 visible church" is "catholic"' or "universal 11 ." The Quaker 
 Barclay acknowledges the church to be catholic r . Dr. Owen 
 
 intelligamus, ecclesiam esse poli- 
 tiam externam certarum gentium, 
 sed magis homines sparsos per to- 
 tum orbem, qui de evangelic consen- 
 tiunt, et habent eundem Christum, 
 eundem Spiritum sanctum, et eadem 
 sacramenta, sive habeant easdem 
 traditiones humanas, sive dissimi- 
 les." Apolog. Confess, iv. de Ec- 
 clesia. 
 
 k " Consequitur unam duntaxat 
 esse ecclesiam : quam propterea ca- 
 tholicam nuncupamus, quod sit uni- 
 versalis, et diffundatur per omnes 
 mundi partes, et ad omnia se tem- 
 pora extendat, nullis vel locis in- 
 clusa vel temporibus. Damnamus 
 ergo Donatistas, qui ecclesiam in 
 nescio quos Africae coarctabant an- 
 gulos. Nee Romanensem appro- 
 bamus clerum, qui solam prope 
 Romanam ecclesiam venditant pro 
 Catholica." Conf. Helvetica, cap. 
 xvii. 
 
 1 " Ecclesiam universalem esse 
 collectam ex quibuscumque gentibus 
 multitudinern, qua; intervallis loco- 
 rum dissita et dispersa, in unam 
 tamen divinse doctrinse veritatem 
 consentit, et ejusdem religionis vin- 
 
 culo colligata est. Sub hac ita com- 
 prehendi singulas ecclesias, quse 
 oppidatim et vicatim pro necessitatis 
 humane ratione dispositae sunt, ut 
 unaquaeque nomen et auctoritatem 
 ecclesias, jure obtineat," &c. Cal- 
 vin. Institut. iv. 1. s. 9. 
 
 m Catechismus Genevensis, de 
 fide. 
 
 n Conf. Bohemica, art. viii. 
 
 Catechesis Heidelburg. qusest. 
 liv. 
 
 p Declarat. Thoruniensis, vii. de 
 Ecclesia. 
 
 1 Westminster Confession, chap. 
 xxv. " The visible church, which 
 is also catholic or universal under 
 the Gospel, not confined to one 
 nation, as before under the law," 
 &c. 
 
 r He acknowledges that there is 
 " one catholic church," " out of 
 which church we freely acknow- 
 ledge there can be no salvation," 
 and that it is go because there is a 
 " universal or catholic spirit, by 
 which many are called from the 
 four corners of the earth, and shall 
 sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob." Apology for the Quakers,
 
 CHAP, vii.] Universality of the Church. 123 
 
 admits the same for the Independents, thus : " The end of all 
 particular churches is the edification of the church catholic 
 unto the glory of God in Christ *." Again : " The church that 
 confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts 
 itself off from the external communion of the church catholic; 
 nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his 
 soul to such a church V And the modern dissenters, in their 
 " Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge," also confess, that 
 there is a catholic or universal church u . 
 
 The doctrine of the Anglo-catholic churches, on this point, Anglo- 
 does not admit of any question. The creeds always used churches. 
 in these churches, from the earliest ages, profess a belief 
 in the church as " catholic ;" and not to speak of the hymn 
 " Te Deum," the Litany, which was revised and corrected at 
 the period of the Reformation, contains the following passage : 
 " That it may please thee to rule and govern thy holy church 
 universal in the right way :" and in the Prayer for the Church 
 Militant, in the office of the Holy Communion, we pray God 
 " to inspire continually the universal church with a spirit of 
 truth, unity, and concord." In another prayer we desire " the 
 good estate of the catholic church." In the bidding of prayer, 
 before sermons, we are exhorted to pray "for Christ's holy 
 catholic church." Nothing, therefore, can be more evident, 
 than that these churches have always recognized the catho- 
 licity or universality of the church ; and surely nothing could 
 have induced them to do so, but the belief that this was an 
 essential characteristic of the church, and that it had been 
 generally received on the express warrant of Scripture itself. 
 Amongst our theologians who in modern times have taught 
 this truth, Archbishop Usher says: "The catholic church is 
 not to be sought for in any one angle or quarter of the world, 
 but among ' all that in every place call upon the name of 
 Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours 1 (1 Cor. i. 2). 
 Therefore to their Lord and ours it was said, ' Ask of me, and 
 
 prop. x. p. 273. It is needless to dismissory .... and all other ex- 
 detail the strange meaning in which pressionsof regard to sister churches 
 he takes these propositions. .... are a part of the communion 
 
 * Nature of the Gospel Church, of saints, which constitutes one of 
 p. 414. the greatest blessings of the true 
 
 * Ibid. p. 413. catholic church." Essays on Ch. 
 u "Communion withotherchurch- Polity (on Church Discipline), vol. 
 
 es, in letters recommendatory or ii. p. 417.
 
 124 Universality of the Church. [PARTI. 
 
 I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,' &c. (Ps. ji. 
 8) ; and to this mystical body, the catholic church, accord- 
 ingly, ' I will bring thy seed from the East, and gather them 
 from the West ; I will say to the North, Give up ; and to the 
 South, Keep not back : bring my sons from far, and my 
 daughters from the ends of the earth v<l " (Isa. xliii. 5 7). 
 Dr. Field says, that Bellarmine " labours in vain in proving 
 that there is, and always hath been, a visible church, and that 
 not consisting of some few scattered Christians, without order 
 of ministry or use of sacraments ; for all this we do most 
 willingly yield unto ;" though some few, as he says, may have 
 held a different opinion w . Dr. Rogers speaks well of the 
 visible catholic church x . Bishop Pearson observes that, 
 " The most obvious and most general notion of this Catholi- 
 cism consisteth in the diffusiveness of the church, grounded 
 upon the commission given to the builders of it, ' Go, teach 
 all nations." 1 .... This reason did the ancient fathers render 
 why the church was called catholic ; and the nature of the 
 church is so described in the Scriptures." He afterwards 
 says, in explanation of the Creed, " I look upon this church, 
 not like that of the Jews, limited to one people, confined to 
 one nation, but by the appointment and command of Christ, 
 and by the efficacy of his assisting power, to be disseminated 
 through all nations, to be extended to all places, to be propa- 
 gated to all ages y ." 
 Universal- We are now to examine how far universality of communion 
 
 ity of com- j g an attribute and a note of the church of Christ. 
 
 munion, 
 
 how far a It has been already shown, that the church of Christ may 
 
 note of the some times be divided and exist in separate communions z ; con- 
 church. . r 
 
 sequently, the universality of the church does not imply that 
 
 each particular church will, at all times, be in communion with 
 all nations, or with churches in all parts of the world. We 
 find that many catholics, and catholic churches, have been at 
 times without such an universal communion. 
 
 Thus, the adherents of Paulinus at Antioch, in the fourth 
 century, did not communicate with any of the churches of 
 
 T Sermon before the King on Eph. ble and Invisible Church, part ii. 
 
 iv. 13. c. i. 
 
 w Field, Of the Church, book i. ? Bishop Pearson on the Creed, 
 
 c. i. art. ix. 
 
 * Rogers, Discourse of the Visi- * Chap. iv. s. 4.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Universality of Communion. 125 
 
 Egypt, Lybia, Pentapolis, Palestine, Syria, Arabia, Mesopo- 
 tamia, Media, Persia, India, Armenia, Colchis, Asia Minor, 
 Cyprus, Thrace, Scythia, &c. a The church of Italy in the 
 time of Innocent I. b , Felix II., Gelasius, Symmachus, and 
 Hormisdas , and during the Monothelite controversy, was 
 equally separated from the East, and only communicated with 
 Africa, Gaul, Spain, Britain, and some part of Illyricum. 
 In the time of Photius, she only communicated with Gaul, 
 Spain, Britain, and Germany. During the great Western 
 schism before the Council of Constance, each of the " obe- 
 diences " subject to the rival popes, communicated only with a 
 part of Europe. For a portion of that time, the churches of 
 France and Spain held communion with each other only, and 
 did not communicate with any other churches in Europe, Asia, 
 or Africa. 
 
 In all these instances, portions of the universal church were 
 without universal communion ; for it would be impossible to 
 maintain, that where the church had for many ages existed in 
 Europe, Asia, and Africa ; Europe, or a part of Europe, could 
 separate from communion with Asia and Africa, and yet pre- 
 tend that its communion was universal. 
 
 Hence we may conclude, that the mere absence of communion 
 with all nations, or of moral universality of communion ; is, of 
 itself, no note of schism or heresy. If, however, a national 
 church should pretend to be the catholic church, to the exclusion 
 of all others, as the .Donatists and Luciferians did ; it may 
 reasonably be concluded to be in schism or heresy, because 
 while it pretends to be the only true church, it is limited to a 
 corner of the world, and therefore cannot be the only true 
 church. On these grounds, the Novatians, Donatists, and 
 Luciferians were justly charged with schism by Cyprian, 
 Optatus, Augustine, and Jerome. 
 
 It may be enquired on the other hand, whether the mere 
 existence of one community of professing Christians, including 
 many nations and churches in all parts of the world, is a suffi- 
 cient note of the catholic church, so as to exclude all other 
 societies. 
 
 I admit that it is a note of the church, when every other 
 
 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xvii. s. 29; about Chrysostom. See above, p. 
 1. xxix. s. 27. 60. 
 
 b i. e. during the controversy c See above, p. 60, 61.
 
 126 Name of Catholic. [PARTI. 
 
 Christian society is not universal, and yet claims to be the 
 only true church ; because in this case the question is simply, 
 whether the universal or the limited society is the universal 
 church ; and therefore the arguments of St. Augustine and 
 Optatus against sects and heresies were valid. But the case 
 is different, when any other Christian society professes only to 
 be a portion of the universal church, and does not deny that 
 the greater communion forms another portion of the same 
 church ; because in this case, as it is possible that a mere 
 interruption of communion may have taken place d , the question 
 is not, " which of two separate communions is the true church;" 
 but " whether both do not belong to the same church." And, 
 consequently, mere universality of communion, on one part, 
 furnishes no certain proof of its constituting exclusively the 
 catholic church. 
 
 That actual universality of communion does furnish some 
 presumption in favour of the exclusive claims made by members 
 of a society which possesses it ; I do not deny. This presump- 
 tion or probability, however, would be at once subverted, if it 
 could be shown, that the communion of that society was 
 formerly not universal ; and that other societies which were in 
 existence at that time, still continue to exist in separation ; for 
 in this case it follows necessarily, that the society actually 
 possessing universal communion is still only a part of the 
 catholic church. 
 
 ON THE NAME OF CATHOLIC. 
 
 The church of Christ, being " catholic " (i. e. universal) in 
 diffusion, has from a very long period assumed and borne the 
 name of " catholic," a term which was applied to the whole 
 church, to every particular church, and to every individual 
 Christian. 
 
 Thus St. Ignatius says, " Where Christ Jesus is, there is 
 the catholic church 6 ." The church of Smyrna addressed its 
 Encyclical Epistle, containing an account of the martyrdom of 
 St. Polycarp, "to all the dioceses of the holy and catholic 
 church in all places f ." The same epistle speaks of Polycarp 
 
 d See above, ch. iv. 8. 4. rijf ayi'ag Kal KaBoXtKrje iKK\r]aiac 
 
 e "OTTOU dvy Xptoroe 'If/ffovc, EKH y irapoiKiatc;. Eccl. Smyrnensis Epist. 
 
 ica0oXiic) kfcXTjffia. Ignat. Epist. ad Inscript. Patres Apost. t ii. edit. 
 
 Smyrn. c. viii. Jacobson. 
 f Uacraic ratQ Kara travra TOITOV
 
 CHAP, vii.] Name of Catholic. 127 
 
 as bishop of " the catholic church in Smyrna*" This term was 
 afterwards adopted in the Western churches, as well as in the 
 Eastern h ; and from the third century all those who retained 
 the apostolic faith, and were members of the true church, 
 called themselves " catholics ;" and the creed of the Council of 
 Nice, A. D. 325, gives the church the name of " catholic." In 
 fine, this title has been assumed by many heretics and schis- 
 matics. The Donatists maintained that they alone were 
 catholic. The Arians, Pelagians, and other sects denied the 
 title of catholic to the church, and claimed it as appropriate to 
 themselves *. 
 
 Hence it is plain by the admission of all parties, that the 
 true church is rightfully and justly 1 called " catholic j ," and that 
 this term ought not to be applied to those who are in schism 
 or heresy. 
 
 It now remains to be considered, how far this appellation is Name of 
 a note or sign of the church. hoVfara 
 
 That it is no essential sign of the church, may be inferred note of the 
 from the silence of Revelation on the subject. For while the c 
 Scriptures teach us that the church of Christ will always be 
 catholic or universal in diffusion ; they do not either entitle 
 the church " catholic," or declare that it ought always to bear 
 that appellation, or that it shall in fact always bear it, and that 
 true believers shall always be entitled "catholics." Nor do 
 the fathers ever affirm, that true believers will, at all times, be 
 entitled " catholics." On the other hand, there is no promise, 
 that particular cases shall not occur, in which the title of 
 " catholic " may be improperly given to persons who do not 
 deserve it. The appellation of catholic is therefore no essential 
 or infallible sign of the true church. 
 
 If, however, it be uniformly conferred on a certain commu- 
 nity by others, who at the same time deny it to be any part of 
 the church, and assert that they constitute themselves the only 
 true church ; the natural inference certainly is, that the com- 
 
 g 'EiriffKoiroc ri riJQ iv 2/jupvy OoAiicoe. 
 raOoXiKijc kicXjjffiae. Ibid. c. xvi. ' Gerhard, ubi supra, s. 154. 
 
 h See Bingham, b. i. c. i. ; b. x. j Pacianus contends for the pro- 
 
 c.iv ; Pearson, on the Creed, art. ix.; priety of this appellation, and says to 
 
 King on the Apostles' Creed ; Ger- Novatian, " Nee tamen aestues frater, 
 
 hard Loci Theol. 1. xxiii. s. 149, &c. ; Christianus mini nomen est; Ca- 
 
 Vossius, Dissertatio deTribus Sym- tholicus vero cognomen." Epist. i. 
 
 bolis; Suicer. Thesaurus, voce a- ad Sympronian. Bibl. Patrum.
 
 128 Name of Catholic. [PARTI. 
 
 munity thus acknowledged to be catholic by all parties, is 
 really the church of Christ, and that those who deny it to be 
 so, are schismatics. St. Augustine presses this argument with 
 great effect. " We must," he says, " hold the Christian reli- 
 gion, and the communion of that church which is catholic, and 
 which is called catholic not only by its own members, but by 
 all its enemies. For whether they will or not, heretics and 
 schismatics when they converse with others, and not with 
 their own people, call the catholic church nothing else but 
 catholic. For they are not understood, unless they distinguish 
 her by that name, by which she is called by the whole world k ." 
 He elsewhere remarks, that amongst other things which retain 
 him in the catholic church is, "the very name of catholic, 
 which, not without reason, the church alone has so obtained 
 amidst so many heresies, that while all the heretics desire to 
 be called catholics, yet if a stranger enquires where is the 
 catholic church, none of the heretics dares to point out his 
 own church or house 1 ." 
 
 This exclusive possession of the name of catholic by a widely- 
 extended community, furnishes a probability that it alone is 
 the catholic church, when all other communities deny that it 
 forms any part of the church. But then, it must not assume 
 or be known by any other appellation which contradicts its exclu- 
 sive claim. The whole catholic community in the time of St. 
 Augustine, was not known by the world as "the church of 
 Africa," or the " African catholic " church ; nor would the 
 faithful as a body have assumed as their appropriate designa- 
 tion, the title of " Greek-catholics," or " Roman- catholics," or 
 any similar designation. It is true that we often find such 
 designations applied to particular churches in antiquity ; but 
 they always signified that those churches were only a part of 
 
 k " Tenenda est nobis Christiana Relig. c. vii. t. i. Oper. 
 
 religio, et ejus Ecclesiae communi- ' " Tenet postremo ipsum Catho- 
 
 catio quae Catholica est, et Catholica lica? nomen, quod non sine causa 
 
 nominatur, non solum a suis, verum inter tarn multas haareses sic ista 
 
 etiam ab omnibus inimicis. Velint ecclesia sola obtinuit, ut cum omnes 
 
 nolint enim ipsi quoque Haeretici et hseretici se Catholicos dici velint, 
 
 schismatum alumni, quando non cum qua?renti tamen peregrine alicui ubi 
 
 suis sed cum extraneis loquuntur, ad Catholicam conveniatur, nullus 
 
 Catholicam nihil aliud, quam Catho- haereticorum vel Basilicam suam 
 
 licam vocant. Non enim possunt vel domum audeat ostendere." 
 
 intelligi, nisi hoc earn nomine dis- August. Lib. Cont. Epist. Funda- 
 
 cernant, quo ab universe orbe nun- menti, c. iv. t. viii. oper. 
 cupatur." August, lib. de Vera
 
 CHAP, vii.] Name of Catholic . 129 
 
 the catholic church. Thus we read of the " catholic church of 
 Rome" the " catholic church of Alexandria" the " Egyptian 
 catholics," &c. Such designations always imply absolutely 
 that those who assume or receive them are only a part of the 
 catholic church. 
 
 In conclusion, it may be enquired, whether the designation 
 of a community by any other name but that of catholic, neces- 
 sarily infers that it is schismatical or heretical. I answer, 
 that it was certainly customary from the earliest times to call 
 sects and heresies by the names of their founders m ; and St. 
 Jerome says, " wherever you hear those who are said to be 
 Christians, called, not after our Lord Jesus Christ, but after 
 some one else, as the Marcionites, Valentinians, Montenses or 
 Campites, know that it is not a church of Christ, but a syna- 
 gogue of Antichrist V Yet St. Jerome does not affirm that 
 the same rule would be applicable in all future times : he only 
 lays it down as a rule at that time, and undoubtedly it was 
 then a safe rule in general. Still, however, even then it was 
 not without exceptions. The catholics at Antioch were called 
 " Meletians " and " Eustathians ." The orthodox adherents 
 of Chrysostom were called " Joannites p ." And even now, the 
 Roman-catholic church comprises within its communion " Ma- 
 ronites V' " Melchites r ," " Armenians s ," " Italo-Greeks *," 
 
 "Justin. Martyr. Dialog, cum and monks, are catholics " Milner, 
 
 Tryphone; Irenseus, lib. i. c. 23, al. end of Controversy, lett xxvi. "In 
 
 20 ; Pacianus, Epist. i. ad Sympro- Synodo Maronitarum, habita tem- 
 
 nianum. pore Gregorii XIII. eodem Ponti- 
 
 n Hieron. Dial. adv. Luciferianos, fice jubente, Synodi praeses," &c. 
 
 t. iv. pars ii. p. 306. Benedict. XIV. De Synodo Dioece- 
 
 " L'eglise d'Antioche etoit done sana, 1. vii. c. ix. s. 5. 
 
 divisee en trois : car outre les Ariens, r "Cyrillum Patriarcham Antio- 
 qui reconnoissoient Euzo'ius pour chenum Graecorum Melchitarum . . . 
 leur eveque, il y avoit deux partis pari honore (pallii) decoravimus." 
 catholiques divises par un schisme, Ibid. 1. xiii. c. 15, s. 18. 
 sans aucune diversite de creance : " " Patriarch* Armenorum in Ci- 
 savoir lesEustathiens et les Meleciens, licia pallium detulimus in Consistorio 
 &c." Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xiv. s. habito die 22 Julii, 1754." Ibid. 
 33. * "Neminemlatet, quosdam Graeci 
 p "Les catholiques, tenant toujours ritus homines ... Catholicos esse, 
 S. Jean Chrysostome pour leur veri- qui in Latinorum episcoporum dice- 
 table pasteur, ne vouloient point cesibus vivunt, quique Italo-Grceci 
 communiquer avec Arsace ... On vocantur." Ibid. 1. ii. c. 12. 
 les nomma Joannites." FJeury, 1. "Clemens VIII. voluit in urbe 
 xxi. s. 39. Roma semper adesse Episcopum 
 
 1 " All the Maronites about Mount Graecum, a quo Italo-Grceci . . or- 
 Libanus, with their bishops, priests, dines suscipere deberent." Ibid. 
 
 VOL. I. K
 
 130 Objections. [PART i. 
 
 " United Greeks," " Chaldseans," &c. In fine, the same church 
 was for ages in communion with the " church of England u ," 
 as it still is with " the Gallican church," and other churches 
 with similar designations. Consequently the use of other 
 appellations besides that of " catholic," does not afford any 
 proof that a society which bears or employs any of them, is 
 heretical or schismatical. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. If the true church must always be universal, the adhe- 
 rents of Luther could not have been the church of Christ, for 
 they were never universal, and when Luther began to preach, 
 he stood alone. 
 
 Answer. They never pretended that they constituted the 
 whole catholic church, nor did they schismatically separate 
 from the church, as I shall hereafter prove (chap. xii). It was 
 therefore needless for them to show that their communion was 
 universal. 
 
 II. The universality of the church is only to be understood 
 as a successive universality ; that is, all nations were to receive 
 the gospel successively, and not at once ; so that the church 
 of Christ might at any given time be contained within a single 
 province. 
 
 Answer. This explanation is inconsistent with the obvious 
 and direct meaning of those glorious prophecies, which speak 
 of Christ's having dominion over all nations, from one end of 
 the world to the other. In this case Christianity might never 
 have been more extended than Judaism, and the miraculous 
 incarnation and death of Jesus Christ, and all the miracles of 
 his disciples, would have produced no material improvement in 
 the condition of the world generally. But, in fact, we know 
 from Scripture and history that Christianity was, at least once, 
 morally speaking, universal ; therefore we reasonably infer that 
 this was the universality designed by the prophecies. I there- 
 fore cannot admit the principle of successive universality; though 
 it is granted by Bellarmine, Driedo, and Melchior Canus, 
 among the Romanists, by the schoolmen Occam, Cameracensis, 
 and Turrecremata v , and supported by some of our own theo- 
 
 u "Quod Anglicana Ecclesia li- Append. 
 
 bera sit " Magna Carta Regis Jo- T Field, Of the Church, book i. 
 annis, Henry's Britain, vol. hi. c. 10.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Universality of the Church. J31 
 
 logians, who too readily admitted a notion, which seemed useful 
 for the defence of the truth against their opponents. 
 
 III. The church was not universal in the time of Arius, or 
 of the Council of Ariininum, for Arianism generally prevailed 
 then. 
 
 Answer. This will be noticed in part iv. chapter x. where 
 it will be proved that the catholic church never failed in the 
 time of Arianism. 
 
 IV. The church was not universal at the first, when it was 
 confined within the city of Jerusalem; therefore universality 
 is not an essential characteristic of the true church. 
 
 Answer. Christ predicted that the church should be as a 
 grain of mustard seed at the beginning, and should afterwards 
 greatly increase ; therefore the smallness of the church at first, 
 is no objection to its subsequent universality. 
 
 V. The church is called catholic in the creed, because it 
 teaches all Christian doctrines and duties, and contains all 
 graces. Several of the fathers explain it thus. 
 
 Answer. They all assert that it is also catholic, in the ordi- 
 nary sense, here maintained. These are, therefore, moral and 
 mystical interpretations of the term, which are not intended to 
 interfere with its more direct meaning. 
 
 VI. Universality belongs to Mahomedanism, therefore it is 
 not a peculiar characteristic of the church of Christ. 
 
 Answer. (1.) Mahomedanism does not profess to be the 
 church of Christ, therefore if it were universal, it could not be 
 mistaken for the church. (2.) It is inferior to Christianity in 
 diffusion, as the latter exists wherever Mahomedanism exists, 
 and in many other countries where it does not. 
 
 VII. If the church be admitted to be visible and universal, 
 then it must be also admitted, with the Papists, that there is 
 one universal visible head of the church. 
 
 Answer. (1.) A community may be governed by a plurality 
 of rulers. It is not necessarily a monarchy. (2.) The mere 
 apparent expediency of a spiritual monarchy is no proof of its 
 actual institution by God, because we must infer on the same 
 grounds, that He ought to have continued the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Spirit, or the infallibility of individuals. 
 
 K 2
 
 132 The Church Apostolical. [PARTI. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ON THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 THE church of Christ is, by the admission of all parties, apos- 
 tolical, or derived in some manner from the apostles. I have 
 already, in a preceding chapter (chap. vi. sect, i.) observed on 
 those rules by which it may be determined, whether a society, 
 professing to be Christian, is really derived, as a society, from 
 the apostles. It was there shown, that any society which is in 
 fact derived from them, must be so, by spiritual propagation, or 
 derivation, or union a , not by separation from the apostles or 
 the churches actually derived from their preaching, under the 
 pretence of establishing a new system of supposed apostolic 
 perfection. Derivation from the apostles, is in the former 
 case an evident reality, just as much as the descent of an illus- 
 trious family from its original founder. In the latter case it is 
 merely an assumption, in which the most essential links of the 
 genealogy are wanting. 
 
 But there is another point of view in which the church is 
 apostolical. The ministry of the true church originated with 
 the apostles, and must always therefore be derived from them 
 in some way b . I shall proceed to the discussion of this ques- 
 tion, and lead it on gradually to those conclusions, which will 
 enable us to apply " the apostolicity of the ministry," as a test 
 of the true church. 
 
 (] .) THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CHURCH, 
 AND MUST ALWAYS EXIST. 
 
 It is a principle of reason, no less than of Scripture, that 
 men cannot " hear without a preacher c ." Therefore Christ 
 
 a " Ecclesias apud unamquam- siarum. Omne genus ad originem 
 
 que civitatem condiderunt (apos- suam censeatur necesse est." Ter- 
 
 toli), a quibus traducem fidei et tullian, de Prescript, adv. Haer. c. 20. 
 
 semina doctrines caeterae exinde ec- b See Archbishop Potter, on 
 
 clesise mutuatae sunt, et quotidie Church Government, ch. iv. Rose, 
 
 mutuantur, ut ecclesia? fiant : ac on the Commission and Consequent 
 
 per hoc et ipsae Apostolicae'deputan- Duties of the Clergy. 
 
 tur, ut soboles Apostolicarum eccle- c Rom. x. J4.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 133 
 
 himself became a preacher ; and at the last sent his apostles 
 to " go and teach all nations V We find the Apostles not 
 only fulfilling this office, but constituting " presbyters in every 
 church e ," and making the most ample provision, that the 
 gospel, which had been communicated to them, should be 
 taught to others also. And since Christ had promised to be 
 always with his apostles, and had sent them forth with the 
 same high commission which he had received of the Father, 
 their works were his works, their institutions his institutions. 
 Hence Scripture tells us, that when " he ascended up on high" 
 he " gave some apostles ; and some prophets ; and some 
 evangelists ; and some pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting 
 of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of 
 the body of Christ f ." This passage intimates, that the Christian 
 ministry was instituted by Christ, for the most permanent and 
 essential objects. And in fine, the pastors of Ephesus were by 
 the " Holy Ghost made overseers to feed the church of God V 
 and " teachers " are declared to be set in the church by God, 
 no less than apostles and prophets h . Hence it is clear, that 
 a true and lawful ministry is essential to the church, and that 
 any society in which there is no such ministry is not a church ; 
 and it is equally clear, that such a ministry must exist at all 
 times, because it has been proved that the church was always to 
 exist. If it be admitted that the ministry of Christ has at any 
 time ceased to exist, there can be no certainty that it now 
 exists, for the only absolute proof of its present existence is 
 derived from the Scripture, which represents it as essential to 
 the church, and which affords the promise of perpetual divine 
 aid to the apostles, and their successors in the Christian minis- 
 try. And if there has ever been a period when this ministry 
 was extinguished, it cannot be necessary to the church. 
 
 The opinions of Christians in all ages, and of all sects, has 
 always been, that the Christian ministry is essential to the 
 church. St. Ignatius declares, that " without these there is 
 no church V St. Jerome says, that a society " which has no 
 clergy is not a church j ." But without further dwelling on the 
 
 d Matt, xxviii. 20. 'Xwpte TOVTWV iKK\iiffia ovKoXttrai. 
 
 e Acts xiv. 23. Ad Trail, c. 3. 
 
 f Eph. iv. 8 15. * " Ecclesia non est, quae non 
 
 * Acts xx. 28. habet sacerdotes." Hier. adv. Lu- 
 
 h 1 Cor. xii. 28. cifer.
 
 The Church Apostolical. [PART i. 
 
 well known sentiments of the primitive church, let us come to 
 more modern times. The Confession of Augsburgh declares, 
 that, " in order that we might obtain this (justifying) faith, 
 the ministry of preaching the gospel and administering the 
 sacraments was instituted;" and adds, that "they condemn 
 the Anabaptists and others, who think that men receive the 
 Holy Spirit without the external word V 1 In the Apology of 
 the Confession it is said : " If order be understood of the 
 ministry of the word, we should without difficulty have termed 
 order a sacrament ; for the ministry of the word hath the 
 commandment of God, and hath mighty promises V &c. The 
 " Helvetic Confession" observes, that " The original institution 
 and office of ministers is most ancient, and from God himself ; 
 not a new or human appointment m ." The apostles. " ordained 
 pastors and teachers throughout all the churches in the world, 
 by the command of Christ ; by whose successors, even to the 
 present time, he taught and ruled the church n ." The Gallican 
 Confession says : " We believe the true church ought to be 
 governed with that polity or discipline which our Lord Jesus 
 Christ sanctioned; that is, there should be in it pastors ," &c. 
 The Belgic Confession employs the same language, and styles 
 the ministry "an ordinance of God P." The Bohemian Con- 
 fession q , and the Tetrapolitan r , acknowledge its divine insti- 
 tution ; and the Geneva Catechism affirms, that " he who 
 despises or refuses to hear the ministers, despises Christ 8 ." 
 Calvin argues at length in proof of the necessity of the ministry 
 
 k " Ut hanc fidem consequamur, est ordinatio." Confess. Helvet. 
 
 institutum est ministerium docendi caput xviii. 
 
 evangelii et porngendi sacramenta " Ibid. 
 
 .... Damnant Anabaptistas et alios, Conf. Gallicana, xxix. 
 
 qui sentiunt Spiritum Sanctum con- p Conf Belgica, xxx. xxxi. 
 
 tingere sine verbo externo hominibus 1 Conf. Bohemica, art. ix. 
 
 per ipsorum praeparationes et opera." r Conf. Tetrapolitana, cap. xiii. 
 
 Conf. August, pars i. art. v. The Saxon Confession, art. xii. also 
 
 1 " Si autem ordo de ministerio teaches, that without the ministry 
 
 verbi intelligatur, non gravatim vo- the church would perish utterly, 
 
 caverimus ordinem sacramentum. s "Estne igitur necesse, prseesse 
 
 JSam ministerium verbi habet man- Ecclesiis pastores ? Quin etiam 
 
 datum Dei, et habet magnificas pro- necesse est audire eos, et quam pro- 
 
 missiones." (Referring to Rom. i. ponunt Christi doctrinam, ex eorum 
 
 16, and Isaiah Iv. 11.) Apologia ore cum timore et reverentia exci- 
 
 Confess. August, vii. de nu. et usu pere. Itaque qui ipsos contemnit, 
 
 Sacrament. audireve detrectat, Christum con- 
 
 m " Ergo ministrorum origo, in- temnit, ac discessionem facit a soci- 
 
 stitutio, et functio vetustissirna et etate fidelium." Catechis. Genev. 
 
 ipsius Dei, non nova aut hominum (De Verbo Dei.)
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 135 
 
 in the church*; saying, that "the church is not otherwise 
 edified than by external preaching u :" he affirms, that " Christ 
 so ordained the office of the ministry in the church, that, were 
 it taken away, the church would perish V 
 
 The dissenters of various " denominations " also allow the 
 divine institution of the ministry. The Presbyterians, in 1647, 
 taught that to the " Catholic visible church, Christ hath given 
 the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God w ," where the 
 ministry is considered to be as much the work of God, as the 
 Bible or the sacraments. The dissenting " Library of Eccle- 
 siastical Knowledge" admits, that "the eternal happiness of 
 mankind is mainly suspended on means ; and, amongst means, 
 chiefly on a preached gospel : ' It hath pleased God, by the 
 foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe V " The 
 Christian ministry is here directly referred to ; and it follows 
 that this means of grace is, by the divine institution, to be 
 permanent in the church. This is exactly what I contend for, 
 that the Christian ministry is essential to the church ; and as 
 the church can never have failed, so the ministry can never 
 have failed. There must always have been, there must now 
 be, a Christian ministry, such as God and Christ originally 
 instituted. 
 
 (2.) A DIVINE VOCATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CHRISTIAN 
 MINISTRY y . 
 
 In the Old Testament we read of the awful punishment of 
 Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, for usurping the priests 1 office z ; 
 and King TJzziah was smitten with leprosy for daring to imitate 
 their example a . Those who undertook the prophetical office 
 without divine mission, were most severely rebuked b . In the 
 New Testament we observe the same principle of the necessity 
 
 * Calvin. Institut. iv. c. i. sect. art. iii. 
 
 5, 6. x Essays on Church Polity (the 
 
 u " Nobis vero quod ex Paulo Church the Conservator of a Chris- 
 
 citavimus tenendum est, ecclesiam tian Ministry), vol. ii. p. 349. 
 
 non aliter eedificari quam externa y The Anabaptists and Socinians 
 
 preedicatione." (Sect, v.) held that any one might assume the 
 
 T " Incumbit (Satan) ad labefac- ministerial office, without vocation, 
 
 tandum ministerium : quod tamen See Gerhard, Loc.Theol. 1. 24, s. 64. 
 
 sic in Ecclesia Christus ordinavit, z Numbers xvi. 
 
 ut illo sublato, hujus aedificatio 2 Chron. xxvi. 
 
 pereat." iv. c. i. sect. 11. b Jeremiah xxiii. 21. 32. 
 
 w Westminster Conf. chap. xxv.
 
 136 The Church Apostolical. [PART i. 
 
 of a commission from God to minister in sacred things. Our 
 Lord himself, though he had come into the world, from his 
 eternal glory, to preach the Gospel, did not assume the office 
 of the ministry, until he was anointed with the Spirit, and 
 miraculously commissioned by the Father : " Christ also glori- 
 fied not himself to be made an high-priest" (Heb. v. 5) ; but, 
 as Isaiah says : " the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, because 
 the Lord had anointed him to preach good tidings " (Is. Ixi. 
 1.) The old priesthood had been unapproachable by merely 
 human power : " No man taketh this honour unto himself, but 
 he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Heb. v. 4). The 
 ministry of the Gospel was far superior in dignity to that of 
 the law : " For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, 
 much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in 
 glory" (2 Cor. ii. 9). Hence it is to be concluded, that the 
 more glorious office was not to be assumed by men, when the 
 less glorious had been always conferred by God. Accordingly 
 it is the principle of the New Testament, that the ministry of 
 the gospel is not to be assumed by men without the authority 
 of God : " How shall they preach except they be sent ?" (Rom. 
 x. 15.) It was GOD who sent the apostles ; HE also " gave 
 pastors and teachers d ," and the HOLY SPIRIT made them 
 overseers of the church of God e : therefore they ran, only be- 
 cause they were commanded and authorized by God to run ; 
 they were HIS ministers, bearing his commission, either directly 
 and miraculously appointed to offices in his church, or indirectly 
 by means of those who were authorized to send labourers into 
 the vineyard. 
 
 The sublime and awful responsibilities of a minister of Jesus 
 Christ would, indeed, have prevented the most faithful of his 
 disciples from undertaking this office, from apprehension lest 
 they should be led into temptation. They would have felt, 
 with the apostle : " Who is sufficient for these things ?" (2 Cor. 
 ii. 16.) unless the special aid and presence of the Holy Ghost 
 had been promised to them ; and still more, unless they had 
 known themselves to be truly and rightly called by the will of 
 God to so mighty an office, they would never have under- 
 taken it. 
 
 The notion that men may undertake to be ministers of God, 
 
 c John xx. 21. d Eph. iv. 11. e Acts xx. 28.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 137 
 
 without being authorized by God, carries its own refutation 
 along with it, at the very first view. Were all men entitled 
 to assume this office at pleasure, the apostle would have asked 
 in vain, " Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers ?" 
 (1 Cor. xii. 29.) He could not have added : " God is not the 
 author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the 
 saints " (1 Cor. xiv. 33) ; for if all men were entitled, on 
 their own opinion of their fitness, to assume the office of the 
 ministry, there could be nothing but endless confusion and 
 disorder. The Scriptures, however, leave no doubt on the 
 matter : such intruders are characterized by our Lord, as 
 men " that came in their own name" (John v. 43) ; he de- 
 clares, that they are " thieves and robbers" (John x. 8). 
 
 This has been the general sentiment of all professing Chris- 
 tians : I shall reserve the testimony of the fathers for the latter 
 part of this chapter. The Reformation, in general, condemned 
 those who pretended to be ministers of God, without any 
 commission. The Helvetic Confession says : " We condemn 
 all who run of their own accord, who are not chosen, sent, 
 nor ordained f ." The same doctrine is taught by the 
 French Confession g , and by that of the Belgians, who say, 
 that " every one ought to take care not to intrude himself by 
 unlawful methods, but to wait the season in which he shall be 
 called of God, in order that he may have a testimony of his 
 vocation, and be sure that it is of God V The Bohemian 
 Confession ! and the Polish Declaration j concur in the same 
 principles. According to Calvin it was expressly provided, 
 " that no one should assume a public office in the church 
 without vocation (Heb. v. 4. and Jer. xvii. 16), lest restless 
 and turbulent men should rashly intrude themselves into the 
 teaching or government of the church. Therefore, in order 
 that any one be deemed a true minister of the church, he must 
 first be rightly called V Owen, the Independent, says : 
 " None can or may take this office upon him, or discharge the 
 duties of it, which are peculiarly its own, with authority, but 
 he who is called and set apart thereunto, according to the 
 
 f " Damnamus hie omnes, quisua * Conf. Boh. art. ix. 
 sponte currunt, cum non sint electi, j Declaratio Thoruniensis, De Or- 
 
 missi, vel ordinati." Conf. Helve- dine, 
 tica, c. xviii. k Calvin. Institut. iv. c. iii. sect. 
 
 * Conf. Gallicana, xxxi. 10. 
 
 b Conf. Belgica, xxxi.
 
 138 The Church Apostolical. [PART i. 
 
 mind of Jesus Christ.'" . . . . " The general force of the rule, 
 Heb. v. 4. includes a prohibition of undertaking any office 
 without a divine call 1 ." 
 
 (3.) AX INTERNAL VOCATION IS INSUFFICIENT ALONE TO 
 CONSTITUTE A MINISTER OF CHRIST. 
 
 There is not an instance in the sacred Scripture of any man 
 being sent forth as a minister of Christ, merely by an internal 
 impulse of the Spirit, unattested either by miracles, or by an 
 external commission from the ministers of God. The apostles 
 were all manifestly sent by our Saviour: " As my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you n ." They were hallowed by fiery 
 tongues on the day of Pentecost, and invariably performed 
 miracles. The other disciples, who acted as ministers, re- 
 ceived an external call from the apostles or their deputies, or 
 were enabled to show miraculous proofs of their mission. In 
 truth, this external calling or manifestation, must be absolutely 
 essential to the Christian ministry, because a minister of Jesus 
 Christ must be able to prove his mission to others, as well as to 
 himself. Now an inward call is no proof to others : it may be 
 counterfeited ; it may be imaginary ; it may be enthusiastic. 
 Scripture teaches us, that there shall be many false prophets, 
 and pretenders to inspiration ; and, that they " shall deceive 
 many ." It is obvious that the bold and persevering assertion 
 of an inward call, especially if accompanied by that hypocri- 
 tical pretension to sanctity, which such impostors too often 
 assume, is precisely the mode in which we might expect that 
 people would be deceived. Nor is it to be said in reply, that 
 miracles are only necessary in the case of a new Revelation, but 
 not when an old Revelation is to be preached more purely than 
 it has been. For teachers who do not profess to teach any 
 new Revelation, may pervert, corrupt, and mutilate that which 
 has been made ; and thus may, in effect, preach " another 
 gospel," 1 which the holy apostle pronounces "anathema" (Gal. 
 i. 8, 9). I do not, in any degree, doubt that the true minis- 
 ters of Jesus Christ are internally "moved by the Holy 
 
 1 Gospel Church, chapter iv. (The c. 3. 
 
 Officers of the Church), where he n John xx. 21. 
 
 strongly condemns those that in- Matt. xxiv. 11. See also 1 John 
 
 trude on the sacred office. iv. 1. Acts xx. 30. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. 
 
 m See Gerhard. Loci Theol. 1. 24. Jude.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 139 
 
 Ghost" to undertake their holy office ; but it is also the will 
 of God that they should be externally called and sent. 
 
 (4.) POPULAR ELECTION ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO CON- 
 STITUTE A MINISTER OF CHRIST. 
 
 The Scripture affords no example of a popular election of 
 ministers independently of the apostles 1 sanction : the seven 
 deacons named by the people were afterwards ordained by 
 them P. In fact, we find the apostles " ordaining elders in 
 every church" (Acts xiv. 23), and appointing pastors to the 
 churches of Ephesus and Crete, who were commissioned to 
 " ordain presbyters in every city." It is perfectly uncertain 
 whether the people had any share in these appointments. But 
 the grand and unanswerable proof that popular election alone 
 cannot constitute a Christian minister, is the fact confessed 
 by the most ardent advocates for such elections, that "No 
 case occurs in the inspired history where it is mentioned that a 
 church elected its pastor V This fact is undeniable, and it is 
 conclusive. Popular election alone, therefore, cannot consti- 
 tute a minister of Christ, and besides this, it cannot even be 
 requisite to his mission; for it is not to be supposed that 
 Scripture would omit all notice of the very essentials of the 
 Christian ministry. There is, however, one more passage in 
 Holy Scripture which demonstrates, beyond all possibility of a 
 reply, that popular elections alone cannot constitute ministers 
 of Christ. " The time will come when they will not endure 
 sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to 
 themselves teachers, having itching ears ; and they shall turn 
 away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" 
 (2 Tim. iv. 3, 4). This text shakes to its very foundation 
 the claims of those who pretend to derive their mission only 
 from popular election, because it proves that such elections 
 may be entirely unauthorized, and contrary to the will of God. 
 I do not deny that frequently, in the primitive church, the 
 people had a part in the election of their pastors, but this 
 custom was not universal r , and the ministers of Jesus Christ 
 always confirmed and ordained the pastors so elected. 
 
 p Acts vi. 6. ' See Thomassinus, Vet. et Nov. 
 
 i James, Church Member's Guide, Ecclesiae Disciplina, pars ii. liber ii. 
 p. 12, 2d ed.
 
 ] 40 The Church Apostolical. [PART i. 
 
 (5.) AN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION OF ORDINATION IS ESSEN- 
 TIAL TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 It has been already proved, that a divine commission is of 
 the essence of the Christian ministry, and that no man can by 
 his own mere assumption become a minister of Christ. It has 
 been further shown, that a merely internal vocation does not 
 constitute a Christian minister, and that popular election affords 
 no proof of his vocation according to the will of God. There 
 is, then, only one remaining mode in which men can receive a 
 divine commission for the sacred office, namely, by means of 
 ministers authorized to convey it to others. 
 
 It is evident, that if God authorized the apostles and their 
 successors to ordain ministers, and transmit to them a divine 
 commission, there would be a clear and intelligible mode in 
 which this commission could be perpetuated in the church. 
 Accordingly, Christ did so : he gave to the apostles his own 
 mission ; " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you s ;" 
 empowering them by these words to give to others the mission 
 which by the very act of conferring it on the apostles, he 
 showed to be transmissible. Those who received from the 
 apostles the mission of Jesus Christ, received a similar power 
 to transmit it to others ; and thus alone the ministers of Christ 
 were constituted. In fact, we know that those whom the 
 apostles ordained were constituted by " the Holy Ghost * ;" 
 they were "pastors and teachers" set "by GOD" in his 
 church u . Therefore they were evidently empowered by God to 
 give their own divine mission to Christian ministers ; and the 
 succession of such ministers was never to fail : " Lo, I am 
 with you (and therefore with your successors), always, even to 
 the end of the world v ." 
 
 The ministers of Christ are, according to Scriptural example, 
 to be sent forth by other ministers by the imposition of hands 
 and prayer. The apostles ordained the seven deacons by prayer 
 and laying on of hands w . St. Paul ordained Timothy in like 
 manner x , and he commanded him to "lay hands suddenly on 
 no many." Accordingly, the universal church always consi- 
 
 8 John xx. 21. w Acts vi. 6. 
 
 * 1 Cor. xii. 28. x 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 
 u Acts xx. 28. y 1 Tim. v. 22. 
 " Matt, xxviii. 20.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 141 
 
 dered the imposition of hands by the ministers of Christ 
 essential to ordination. The (Ecumenical Council of Nice z , 
 and the various synods of Antioch a , Ancyra b , Carthage , &c., 
 all recognize this rite, which is also acknowledged as apostolical 
 and essential, in the Helvetic d , the Bohemian e , the Polish f , 
 and other confessions. And the universal practice, not only of 
 the church, but of all sects, evinces the persuasion of all pro- 
 fessing Christians,, that this mode of ordination is essential. 
 Those very sects, some of whose members would argue that 
 the imposition of hands by ministers of Christ is unnecessary, 
 testify to the contrary by their conduct and rule ; and the 
 Wesleyans, whose ministers were formerly instituted by a 
 verbal commission, have lately felt it necessary to adopt the 
 imposition of hands. Such is the force and clearness of the 
 apostolical tradition. 
 
 I shall now conclude this argument. It is certain from what 
 has been said, that the Christian ministry must always exist, 
 and can never have failed. It is certain that the essence of 
 this ministry consisted mainly in a divine commission ; and 
 that the ministry of the church must have always possessed it. 
 It is equally certain that the mode by which this commission 
 was conveyed must always be essentially the same. Now, the 
 apostolic mode of ordination, by which the apostles and their 
 successors, the bishops of the universal church, sent forth the 
 ministers of Jesus Christ, by imposition of hands and prayer 
 this mode alone has always existed in the church. For many 
 ages popular elections were unheard of. The apostolic mode 
 of ordination alone prevails in all ages, and among all nations. 
 It is therefore evidently the external vocation instituted by 
 God himself. If it be not so, if it be a mode of human inven- 
 tion, it could never have constituted ministers of Christ, and 
 therefore the whole church would for many ages have been 
 without true ministers ; it would have been deficient in what 
 is essential to the church of Christ, and therefore the catholic 
 church must have entirely failed : a position which is directly 
 and formally heretical. 
 
 1 Canon ix. d Confessio Helvetica, cap. xviii. 
 
 * Canon xvii. e Confess. Boheraica, art. ix. 
 
 b Canon ix. f Declaratio Thoruniensis. (De 
 
 c IV. Cone. Carthag. (398), cap. Ordine.) 
 2, 3, 4.
 
 142 The Church Apostolical. [PART i. 
 
 Apostolical The great external sign of such a continuance of ordinations 
 
 of U the S mi- n m an J cnurcn j is derived from the legitimate succession of 
 
 nistry, a its chief pastors from the apostles ; for it is morally cer- 
 
 church t e * am > that wherever there has been this legitimate succession, 
 
 the whole body of the clergy have been lawfully commissioned. 
 
 This succession from the apostles is a certain note of a church 
 
 of Christ, unless it be clearly convicted of schism or heresy. 
 
 I shall briefly notice the doctrines of the, fathers on these 
 
 points. 
 
 St. Irenseus says, " We can enumerate those who were by the 
 apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and their successors, 
 even to us " ... " By the same ordination and succession, the 
 doctrine of the apostles in the church, and the proclamation of 
 the truth, have come even unto us g ." " Wherefore it is neces- 
 sary to obey those presbyters who are in the church, those 
 who have succession from the apostles, as we have shown, and 
 who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the 
 certain gift of truth according to the will of the Father ; but 
 as for those who depart from the principal succession, and 
 meet in any place, they are to be suspected, either as heretics 
 and men of false doctrine, or as schismatics, puffed up and 
 pleasing themselves ; or as hypocrites, impelled to such actions 
 by avarice and vain glory V 
 
 Tertullian : " If any heresies dare to connect themselves 
 with the apostolic age, pretending to be derived from the 
 apostles because they existed in their time, we may say : Let 
 them declare the origin of their churches ; let them unfold the 
 catalogue of their bishops, so descending by succession from 
 the beginning, that the first bishop had as his ordainer and 
 predecessor some one of the apostles, or of the apostolic men 
 who remained united to the apostles *." 
 
 " Habemus annumerare eos qui veritatis certum, secundum placitum 
 
 ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi Patris acceperunt," &c. Adv. User. 
 
 in ecclesiis, et successores eorum iv. c. 26 
 
 usque ad nos." Iren. adv. Haeres. ' " Caeterum si quae audent inter- 
 
 iii. c. iii. "Hac ordinatione et sue- serere se aetati apostolicae, ut ideo 
 
 cessione, ea quae est ab apostolis in videantur ab apostolis traditae, quia 
 
 ecclesia traditio, et veritatis praeco- sub apostolis fuerunt, possumus di- 
 
 natio pervenit usque ad nos." Ibid, cere: Edant ergo origines ecclesi- 
 
 h " Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia arum suarum : evolvant ordinem 
 
 sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, episcoporum suorum, ita per suc- 
 
 his qui successionem habent ab apos- cessiones ab initio decurrentem, ut 
 
 tolis, sicut ostendimus ; qui cum primus ille episcopus aliquem ex 
 
 episcopatus successione charisma apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui
 
 CHAP, viii.] Ministry of the Church Apostolical. 143 
 
 Cyprian : " Novatian is not in the church, nor can he be 
 deemed a bishop who, despising the evangelical and apostolical 
 tradition, and succeeding to no one, is sprung from himself. 
 One not ordained in the church has no church j ." " These" 
 (heretics) "are they who, of their own accord, without the 
 divine will, appoint themselves to preside over some random 
 conventicle; who without any lawful ordination, constitute 
 themselves pastors ; who without receiving it from any of the 
 bishops, assume to themselves the title of bishop k ." 
 
 Optatus : " You who pretend to claim for your own the holy 
 church, declare the origin of your episcopal see ! ! " 
 
 Ephrem Syrus : " They are to be urged again each of them 
 to show his age, which is the more ancient. Manes may claim 
 the right of primogeniture, but Bardesanes was before him, &c. 
 .,. . . Let them again be distinctly asked, from whom they 
 received the imposition of hands 2 And if they received it from 
 us, and afterwards rejected it, the truth seeks nothing more. 
 But if they took the priest's office themselves, there is enough 
 to refute them and cover them with shame ; for then any one 
 may be a priest if he pleases to lay hands on his own head m . v> 
 
 It has been shown above, that the apostolical succession of 
 the ministry is a note of the true church, and of all the parti- 
 cular churches of which it is composed ; so that no community 
 which is without this succession can be a church of Christ. It 
 remains now to be inquired, whether the mere fact of the 
 absence of such a ministry excludes any community from the 
 Christian church. 
 
 That it does not do so in all cases is evident, for it is certain Want of 
 that persons may be separated from their bishops by an unjust Apostolical 
 
 ollCCCSSlOll 
 
 excommunication, and yet remain living members of the catholic where ex-' 
 church. Catholics may also be resident in countries where cusable - 
 
 tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, temerarios convenas, sine divina 
 
 habuerit auctorem et antecessorem." dispositione, praeficiunt ; qui se prae- 
 
 Tertull. de Prescript, c. 32. positos sine ulla ordinationis lege 
 
 J " Novatianus in ecclesia non constituunt; qui nemine episcopo- 
 
 est, nee episcopus computari potest, rum dante, episcopi sibi nomen as- 
 
 qui evangelica et apostolica tradi- sumunt." Cypr, de Unit. Eccl. 
 
 tione contempta, nemini succedens, ' " Vos vestrae cathedrae originem 
 
 a se ipso ortus est : habere namque reddite, qui vobis vultis sanctam 
 
 aut tenere ecclesiam nullo modo ecclesiam vindicare." Lib. ii. cont. 
 
 potest, qui ordinatus in ecclesia Parmen. 
 
 non est." Epist. ad Magnum (ep. m Serm. xxii. adv. Haer. torn. ii. 
 
 Ixxvi.). p. 487, 488. Oper. Ephr. Syri Sy- 
 
 k " Hi sunt qui se ultro apud riace et Lat. ed. Assemani.
 
 144 Objections. [PART i. 
 
 they are unable, from some cause, to procure bishops or priests. 
 The absence of an apostolical ministry does not, under such 
 circumstances, exclude from the church, though it prevents the 
 regular organization of a* particular church in those districts. 
 If, then, it can be proved that a community is deprived of the 
 apostolic ministry without fault of its own, or by difficulties 
 which it cannot overcome, but that it is desirous of obtaining 
 such a ministry, and is in communion with the successors of the 
 apostles in other churches, the actual want of this ministry does 
 not exclude such a community from the church of Christ. 
 
 It may be further enquired, whether, if the churches of one 
 or more nations, or of a comparatively small portion of the 
 world, be separated from the communion of the successors of the 
 apostles in other churches throughout the world, such a separation 
 is a note of schism. 
 
 I reply, that since it has been already shown that the commu- 
 nion of the universal church may be interrupted (page 54, &c.), 
 and that particular churches may not be in communion with 
 churches in all parts of the world (page 124), it follows neces- 
 sarily, that the successors of the apostles may be divided, and 
 that a national church is not bound to prove that she is in 
 actual communion with the whole episcopate. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. All Christians may celebrate the praise of God, offer to 
 him spiritual sacrifices, and mutually comfort and exhort each 
 other (Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 16 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18) ; therefore 
 there is no need of any formal vocation. 
 
 Answer. These are not properly the work of the ministry, 
 but religious and charitable exercises, which are performed 
 without authority, and cannot interfere with the office of those 
 whom " the Holy Ghost hath made overseers over the flock to 
 feed the church of God " (Acts xx. 28) ; of whom it is said, 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your- 
 selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give 
 account" (Heb. xiii. 17). 
 
 II. Those who were dispersed after the death of Stephen 
 (Acts viii. 4) went every where preaching the word. 
 
 Answer. (1.) They did not preach where the church already 
 existed; therefore their preaching affords no pretext for as-
 
 CHAP, ix.] The Oriental Churches. 145 
 
 suming the office of the ministry in the church. (2.) It is not 
 said that every one preached, but only in general terms, that 
 those who were dispersed abroad did so ; and we may reason- 
 ably suppose that such persons were either ministers of the 
 church (as Philip, Acts viii. 5), or were endowed with gifts of 
 the Spirit to prove their mission. 
 
 III. The "house of Stephanas addicted themselves to the 
 ministry of the saints" (J Cor. xvi. 15). 
 
 Answer. They did so with the sanction and approbation of 
 St. Paul, and not merely from their own impulse. 
 
 IV. " It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be 
 taught of God" (John vi. 45). " Ye have an unction from the 
 Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John ii. 20). "The 
 Spirit shah" lead you into all truth " (John xvi. 13). 
 
 Answer. (1.) These passages cannot prove the Christian 
 ministry needless, because its divine institution is recorded in 
 Scripture. (2.) They speak of the high spiritual privileges of 
 Christians ; but these privileges are only conferred on him who 
 obeys God's commandments, " for he it is that loveth me ; " 
 and one of those commandments is : " Obey them that have 
 the rule over you," &c. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ON THE OHIENTAL CHURCHES. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE Oriental or Greek a Church prevails more or less in 
 Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland, European Turkey, 
 Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, 
 Cyprus, the Ionian Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, Asia 
 Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vast and numerous 
 churches of the East are all ruled by bishops and archbishops, 
 of whom the chief are the four patriarchs of Constantinople, 
 Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The Russian church 
 
 * De Maistre contends, that those designations. (Du Pape, 1. iv. 
 
 these churches cannot be called On- c. 5.) Nevertheless, he himself en- 
 
 ental or Greek, because they include titles the various churches subject to 
 
 the Russian Church and others, Rome, the " Roman Church." 
 which cannot properly come under
 
 146 The Oriental Churches. [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 was subject to a fifth patriarch from the latter part of the six- 
 teenth century ; but since the reign of Peter the Great the 
 appointment to this high office has been suspended by the 
 emperor, who deemed its power too great, and calculated to 
 rival that of the throne itself. In its place Peter the Great 
 instituted the " Holy Legislative Synod," which is directed by 
 the emperor b . I maintain that these various churches form 
 a portion of the catholic church of Christ. 
 
 Unity. 1 . It is certain that the Oriental churches maintain princi- 
 
 ples which lead to unity of communion. No one disputes that 
 they maintain the obligation of obedience on the part of the 
 faithful to their respective pastors ; and that if any one should 
 voluntarily separate himself from the church on any pretext, 
 he would be viewed as a schismatic by them. It is admitted 
 by every one, that they regard the bishops as successors of the 
 apostles c , and esteem it necessary to communicate with and 
 obey them. And accordingly, it is evident that these churches 
 are in fact generally united in themselves and with each other. 
 Although they are not actually in communion with the churches 
 in the west, many of their members are desirous of being so. 
 Thomassin says, that wherever there is liberty, "all those 
 Greeks who are supposed by some to be schismatics, show 
 that the love of unity has taken deep root in their hearts d ." 
 Trevern says, " The Greeks would reconcile themselves with us 
 if we could all come to an understanding with them on the 
 authority of the pope. They say so, even those who are the 
 best qualified amongst them to give the tone e ." We shall also 
 presently see proofs of the wishes of some of the eastern bishops 
 for communion with the English church in particular. Thus 
 there is a communion, at least in desire and tendency. Their 
 admission of the authority of the successors of the apostles, 
 furnishes a basis on which the communion of churches may 
 hereafter be reconstructed. 
 
 Nor have these churches ever separated themselves from the 
 
 b See Mosheim, vol. iv. sect. 3, Orientalis, quaest. cix. 
 
 part i. chap. 2 ; Consett's Present d Thomassin, De 1'Unite de 1'E- 
 
 State of the Church of Russia(l729), glise, pars i. c. xx. This writer main- 
 
 which contains the " Spiritual Re- tains that the eastern churches are 
 
 gulation " for the synod, composed still virtually in communion with the 
 
 by Theophanes, archbishop of No- western. 
 
 vogrod, and published by Peter the e Trevern, Discussion Amicale, 
 
 Great. t. i. p. 232. 
 
 c Orthodoxa Confessio Ecclesiae
 
 SECT, i.] The Oriental Churches. 147 
 
 communion of the great body oftlw catholic church, because, when 
 divisions took place between them and the western churches, 
 they were not inferior in number or authority to the rest of 
 the church, as we shall see hereafter ; and for the same reason, 
 they could never have been excommunicated by the majority of 
 the catholic church ; therefore they remain in the church. As 
 for their non-communion with the Roman see, the mere fact 
 proves nothing ; for if all those who are separated de facto 
 from this communion must necessarily be cut off from the true 
 church, the Roman pontiffs must be infallible and impeccable, 
 which even their own adherents do not pretend f . And besides 
 this, Roman catholics admit that the eastern churches were 
 part of the Christian community in the time of Chrysostom 
 and of Acacius, though they were then separated from the 
 communion of the see of Rome. Meletius, Cyprian, Hilary of 
 Aries, were not in the communion of Rome, and yet are ad- 
 mitted to have been catholics g . Therefore we can only deter- 
 mine the question by looking at the facts of the original divi- 
 sion ; and these, as we shall prove in the sequel, exculpate 
 both the oriental and the western churches in general from the 
 charge of schism. 
 
 2. The oriental churches maintain principles which lead to 
 unity in faith. They receive Scripture as the rule of their 
 faith h , and the apostolical traditions of the church as a guide 
 in its interpretation ! . These traditions they follow with the 
 highest reverence. They acknowledge the authority of the 
 church, and receive with perfect devotion the definitions of the 
 oecumenical councils J , to which they require the assent of the 
 
 f See part vii. chap. v. sect. ii. " Present State of the Greek Church 
 
 * See above, chap. iv. sect. iv. and in Russia," 1814. See also the 
 
 part vii. chap. v. sect. ii. Answer of Platon to M. Dutens 
 
 h Theophanes, archbishop of No- (CEuvres Melees, part 2, p. 162, 
 
 vogrod, maintains, against Bellar- &c.), commended by Methodius, 
 
 mine, that " Ita perfecta est sacra archbishop of Twer, in his " Liber 
 
 scriptura, ut oinnia vel quoad verba, Historicus de reb. in prim. Eccl. 
 
 vel virtute in se contineat, qua? Mosquae, typis sanctissimi Synodi, 
 
 nobis ad salutem sunt necessaria." 1805." Smith's book on the Greek 
 
 Orthodoxae Theologia?, t. i. p. Church is brief but useful. King's 
 
 107. ed. Lipsiae, 17Q2. "Rites of the Greek Church" is 
 
 ' Vide Acta Theol. Witeberg. et written in a Latitudinarian spirit. 
 
 Patr. Hieremiae, p. 201 ; also the j Nectarii Patr. Hieros. Confu- 
 
 Summary of Christian Divinity, by tatio Imperil Papa? in Ecclesiam, 
 
 Platon, archbishop of Moscow, pub- p. 205, &c.; Orthodoxa C'onfessio, 
 
 lished in Sclavonian, 1765, and quaest. Lxxxvi. ; Ixxii.; Acta Theol. 
 
 translated by Mr. Pinkerton, in his Witeberg. et Hieremiae, p. 56. 255 ; 
 
 L 2
 
 148 
 
 The Oriental Churches. 
 
 [p. i. cir. ix. 
 
 Sanctity. 
 
 clergy k . It is certain that they reject every heresy formally 
 condemned by the catholic church ; and if any one presume to 
 teach novelties, he is condemned and excommunicated 1 . Con- 
 sequently they have, both in principle and practice, unity of 
 faith ; and it does not appear that they differ in articles of 
 faith from the rest of the church. The Roman churches claim 
 them as agreeing with themselves on almost every point ; and 
 if we may judge by their published sentiments, we should con- 
 clude that the oriental church, as a body, denies no article of 
 the faith which we ourselves maintain 111 . They receive the 
 same three creeds, and the same six synods, which are received 
 by our churches and by those subject to Rome. But without 
 entering on the particulars of their doctrine, it is fairly to be 
 presumed orthodox or excusable on the whole, because they 
 profess a perfect adhesion to the Scripture, the apostolical tra- 
 dition, and to all the definitions of the catholic church. 
 
 3. These churches inculcate holiness l>y their doctrine*. No 
 one pretends to accuse them of denying the necessity of sanc- 
 tification. They have given birth to many of the most celebrated 
 
 Platen's Summary of Christian Di- 
 vinity ; Methodius, Liber Hist. p. 
 173. This work of the archbishop 
 of Twer is very creditable to the 
 learning of the Russian clergy, and 
 he speaks in terms of -the highest 
 commendation of Beveridge, Bing- 
 ham, Ussher, Cave, Wotton, Pear- 
 son, Bull, &c., which has greatly 
 excited the jealousy of some Roman 
 Catholics. De Maistre, Du Pape, 
 1. iv. c. i. 
 
 k See King's Rites of the Greek 
 Church (Consecration of Bishops). 
 The second synod of Nice, A. D. 
 787, which they reckon oecumenical 
 through a mistake of fact, imposes 
 on them practices with regard to 
 the pictures of saints which our 
 churches found, by bitter experi- 
 ence, liable to the most serious 
 abuses. Even Archbishop Platon 
 confesses, that the honour paid to 
 pictures " may be turned into the 
 most abominable idolatry" (p. 230). 
 His doctrine that the obeisance be- 
 fore them " we do not render to the 
 pictures themselves," but " to the 
 persons they represent" (p. 229), is 
 not exactly that of the synod of 
 
 Nice, which declares that the images 
 themselves are to receive an honour 
 which passes to the original. The 
 Oriental Church, however, has never 
 been tainted by the doctrine so ge- 
 nerally maintained in the church of 
 Rome, that Latria is due to images 
 and relics of our Saviour. See my 
 Eighth Letter to Dr. Wiseman. 
 
 I Platon, ubi supra, p. 101. 169. 
 
 m It is true that they do not re- 
 ceive the doctrine of the papal su- 
 premacy, which is with Roman Ca- 
 tholics an article of faith ; and that 
 some of them hold the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, and some other 
 points, as matters of faith, which 
 we do not receive ; but it has been 
 shown above (chap. v. sect. iii. p. 
 85 94), that the existence of such 
 errors amongst some of its mem- 
 bers, does not necessarily annul the 
 character of a church of Christ. 
 
 II Platon, p. 205, &c. They main- 
 tain the doctrine of justification by 
 faith productive of good works. Ib. 
 108. See also Acta et Scripta The- 
 olog. Witeberg. et Patr. Hieremiae, 
 p. 64. 228, &c. Witeberg, 1584.
 
 SECT, i.] The Oriental Churches. 149 
 
 saints and martyrs, whom the church reverences. Ignatius, 
 Polycarp, Justin, Clement, Dionysius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
 Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssene, Basil, Cyril 
 of Alexandria, Macarius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, John of 
 Damascus, Methodius, Nicholas, and others innumerable, were 
 all of the oriental churches. From them proceeded, in various 
 ages, most holy missionaries, who converted to the Christian 
 faith many heathen nations ; as, for example, the Abyssinians, 
 Armenians, Bulgarians, Goths, Sclavonians, Moravians, Tran- 
 sylvanians, Russians, &c. Hence it is evident that the oriental 
 churches have shown, in all ages, many proofs of Christian 
 sanctity ; and whatever may be their actual sanctity now, 
 when afflicted and degraded by the long-continued persecution 
 of the infidels, it can scarcely be inferior to that of the Roman 
 churches generally. However, admitting merely for the sake 
 of argument that it is so, this would afford no proof that the 
 oriental is not a branch of the catholic church, because parti- 
 cular churches may differ in actual holiness of life. 
 
 4. These churches are catholic. Since I only maintain that Catholicity, 
 the oriental churches are a part of the catholic church, it is of 
 course impossible, from the very terms of the proposition, to 
 attempt any proof that they are themselves universal. These 
 churches themselves only claim to be a part of the catholic 
 church ; and they do not deny that the remainder of the church 
 exists in the west. In various documents preserved in the Perpe- 
 tuite de la Foi, the oriental patriarchs and bishops style their 
 churches, " the Holy Catholic Church of the Greeks ;" " our 
 Holy Catholic Church of the East P ;" " our Oriental Church <;" 
 "the Greek Church 1 ;" "the Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church of the East * ;" " our Church of the East, Catholic and 
 Apostolic *." De Maistre remarks, that they " wish to be 
 
 Perpetuite de la Foi touchant to be a part of the church (p. 101), 
 
 PEucharistie, torn, iii p. 518. and afterwards rather to deny it (p. 
 
 P Ibid. 521. 161, 162). Nectarius, patriarch of 
 
 q Ibid. 522. Jerusalem, in his learned and most 
 
 r Ibid. 525. interesting " Confutatio Imperil 
 
 8 Ibid. 532. Papas in Ecclesiam " (Lond. 1702), 
 
 ' Ibid. 562 ; The Orthodoxa Con- reckons the Latin as a particular 
 
 fessio approved by the four eastern church, a portion of the universal. 
 
 patriarchs, includes the church of See pages 354. 357. 360. Necta- 
 
 Rome in the universal church. rius lived in the seventeenth century. 
 
 Quaest. Ixxxiv. Platon, archbishop of Methodius, archbishop of Twer, 
 
 Moscow, seems to allow the Latin seems to regard the eastern and
 
 150 
 
 The Oriental Churches. 
 
 [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 considered a portion of the catholic kingdom V In fine, there 
 have been, at various times, some marks of communion between 
 members of the oriental church and of the British v and other 
 western churches w , as I shall prove more fully hereafter. The 
 oriental churches are included in the catholic church by all our 
 theologians, though they observe with regret certain abuses, 
 corruptions, and errors amongst their members, which, how- 
 ever, do not deprive them of the character of Christian churches. 
 Bishops Jewel, Bramhall, Laud, Stillingfleet, &c., may be cited 
 to prove this ; and our primate has recently acknowledged 
 them to be a part of the catholic church x . Even Romanists, 
 
 western churches, although divided, 
 as parts of the catholic church. 
 Liher Hist. p. 79, 80. 
 
 u " Les eglises Photiennes ont 
 precisement la meme prevention : 
 elles veulent etre portion du royaume 
 catholique apres avoir abdique la 
 puissance commune." Du Pape, 
 I. iv. c. x. 
 
 T Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of 
 Constantinople, dedicated his work 
 on the " Faith and Doctrine of the 
 Eastern Church," to King Charles 
 I., and presented to him the cele- 
 brated Alexandrine manuscript. (See 
 Smith on the Greek Church.) He 
 also corresponded with the archbi- 
 shop of Canterbury. In 1653, Dr. 
 Basire, archdeacon of Northumber- 
 land, in the course of his travels in 
 the east, was invited, by the metro- 
 politan of Achaia, to preach twice in 
 the presence of the Greek bishops 
 and clergy; and at Jerusalem he 
 received from Paisius, patriarch of 
 that see, his patriarchal seal (the re- 
 gular sign of credence among them), 
 to express his desire of communion 
 with the Church of England. (See 
 Basire's Life and Correspondence, 
 by Darnell, p. 116.) He was also 
 permitted to preach frequently in 
 the Greek churches at Constanti- 
 nople ; where, in testimony of his 
 doctrine, he presented to the patri- 
 arch of Jerusalem, in the presence 
 of all the priests and people, the 
 Catechism of the Church of Eng- 
 land, which was also highly ap- 
 proved by the other oriental patri- 
 
 archs. (Ibid. p. 123, 124.) The 
 heads of the English Church have 
 recently received from several of 
 the oriental metropolitans and arch- 
 bishops, letters expressive of the most 
 friendly and Christian sentiments. 
 However, the communion between 
 the British and Oriental churches, 
 which was interrupted in the middle 
 ages by misunderstandings, has not 
 yet been restored. 
 
 w Leo Allatius, in his work De 
 Perp. Consens. Eccl. Orient, et Oc- 
 cident., shows that communion has 
 frequently existed between the Greek 
 and Latin churches. See also Tho- 
 massin, Traite de 1'Unite de 1'Eglise, 
 chap. xx. ; Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Dis- 
 ciplina, pars i. 1. i c. xv. 
 
 x The epistle commendatory from 
 the archbishop of Canterbury in fa- 
 vour of Michael Solomon Alexander, 
 bishop of our Anglo-Catholic com- 
 munion at Jerusalem (at the end of 
 a " Statement of Proceedings rela- 
 tive to the Establishment of a see at 
 Jerusalem," &c. 1841), is addressed 
 " To the most holy and beloved 
 brethren in Christ, the bishops and 
 prelates of the ancient and aposto- 
 lical churches in Syria and the coun- 
 tries adjacent :" and says, " We trust 
 that your holinesses will accept this 
 communication as a testimony of 
 our respect and affection, and of our 
 hearty desire to renew that amicable 
 intercourse with the ancient churches 
 of the east which has been sus- 
 pended for ages, and which, if re- 
 stored, may have the effect, with
 
 SECT, ii.] The Oriental Churches. 151 
 
 as will be shown at the close of this chapter, are obliged to 
 admit the claims of the eastern church. 
 
 5. These churches are apostolical. Many of them still sub- Apostoli- 
 sist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred Clt)% 
 years ; such as the churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, 
 Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others, founded 
 
 by the apostles, continued to subsist uninterruptedly till the 
 invasion of the Saracens in the seventh century, and revived 
 again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are the churches 
 of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others: from these 
 apostolical churches the whole Oriental church derives its origin 
 and succession ; for whenever new churches were founded, it 
 was always by authority of the ancient societies previously 
 existing. With these all the more recent churches hold close 
 communion; and thus, by the consanguinity of faith and 
 discipline and charity, are themselves apostolical. They are 
 also apostolical in their ministry ; for it is undeniable, that they 
 can produce a regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of 
 lawful ordinations in their churches, from the beginning. No 
 one denies the legitimacy of their ordinations. 
 
 6. Since the oriental churches have therefore all the exter- 
 nal signs of a part of the true church, it only remains to 
 examine the facts of the division between them and the 
 western churches, and from these to determine whether 
 schism or heresy is to be imputed to either party. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 ON THE DIVISION OF THE EASTERN AND WESTERN 
 CHURCHES. 
 
 1. The events in the time of Cerularius did not render either 
 the East or the West schismatical^ so as to be cut off from the 
 catholic church. In order to establish this, we must briefly 
 review the events alluded to. Though there had been, at 
 various times, occasional schisms between the particular churches 
 of Rome and Constantinople, especially in the time of Photius, 
 yet in the middle of the eleventh century the Eastern and 
 Western Churches held communion, and acknowledged each 
 
 the blessing of God, of putting an the most grievous calamities on the 
 end to divisions which have brought church of Christ" (p. 18, 19).
 
 152 The Oriental Churches. [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 other as parts of the same holy catholic church. Their inter- 
 course was interrupted in the following manner. 
 
 In 1053, Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, 
 a man of turbulent spirit, addressed a letter to the Bishop of 
 Trani, in Apulia, to be communicated to the Roman pontiff 
 and the whole western churchy. In this letter he strongly 
 inveighed against several of their rites and customs, and espe- 
 cially that of using unleavened bread in the eucharist, which, 
 he argued, must render that sacrament invalid. At the same 
 time, he closed the churches and monasteries of the Latins 
 at Constantinople. 
 
 These proceedings naturally excited indignation in the West. 
 Pope Leo wrote to complain of them ; and the Greek emperor 
 and Cerularius having expressed their wish for peace, he sent, 
 in 1054, three legates to Constantinople, of whom the principal 
 was Cardinal Humbert. A worse selection could scarcely have 
 been made with a view to concord and unity. Having pre- 
 sented to the emperor his replies to Cerularius and to Nicetas, 
 a studite monk, who had written against the Latin customs, in 
 which he bitterly retorted the charge of error on the customs 
 of the Greeks, and threatened them with an anathema z ; 
 Humbert and his colleagues proceeded to visit Cerularius, 
 whom they treated with marked rudeness, and arrogantly 
 declared, that they had not come to discuss any of the points 
 in dispute, but to insist on the adoption of their own rites and 
 customs a . This latter charge, it is true, rests on the testimony 
 of Cerularius, but it is rendered credible by their subsequent 
 conduct. Supported by the emperor, who was desirous of con- 
 ciliating the favour of the Roman see, and procuring its aid 
 
 f This epistle is found in Canisii * See the Epistle of Cerularius to 
 
 Thesaurus Monument. Eccl. torn. Peter, patriarch of Antioch, in Cote- 
 
 iii. 281. It was to be communicated lerii Eccl. Graec. Monumenta, ii. 
 
 " ad ipsum reverendissimum Pa- 138, 139- He complains of their 
 
 pam." unspeakable insolence, boasting, and 
 
 z His reply to Cerularius termi- temerity in his presence ; but what 
 
 nates thus : " Pro quibus omnibus was most offensive of all, they said, 
 
 et aliis quos longum est scripto pro- on ov Sia\Qt)cr6nsvoi fj SiaXtxdrj^o- 
 
 sequi erroribus, nisi resipueritis et pivot, TO. ivravQa KarkXaflov, d\\a 
 
 digne satisfeceritis ; irrevocabile ana- SiSd^ovrtg juaXXov irai irtiaovrif Kpa- 
 
 thema hie et in future eritis a Deo rtiv ///ac rd oy/mra TOVTUV KOI 
 
 et ab omnibus Catholicis." Cani- ravra p.tr' iZovaiac; Kai aviuaxwriaQ 
 
 sii Thesaurus, iii. 307. His reply V7rtpfia\\ovffr). P. 145. He re- 
 
 to Nicetas was equally violent. peats the same complaint in his se- 
 
 Ibid. p. 324. cond letter, p. 164.
 
 SECT, ii.] Division of the East and West. 153 
 
 against the Normans, they compelled Nicetas to abjure his 
 writings, and to anathematize " all who contradicted the faith 
 of the Roman church b ." They also themselves publicly ex- 
 communicated " all who contradicted the faith of the holy, 
 Roman, apostolical see c ." And, finally, before they left Con- 
 stantinople, they placed on the altar of St. Sophia a paper 
 containing an excommunication of Cerularius and his adhe- 
 rents, in which they made a charge of heresy on those who 
 maintained several ancient and established customs of the 
 eastern church d . Cerularius in his turn denounced anathema 
 against the authors and supporters of the excommunication e , 
 and the Roman pontiff did not disown the act of his legates, 
 so that the two churches of Rome and Constantinople, and 
 their adherents, became mutually estranged. 
 
 From this it appears evident that the fault did not rest 
 exclusively or peculiarly with either party. In fact, it would 
 be difficult to determine which were more guilty of harsh and 
 uncharitable conduct ; Cerularius, in depriving the Latins of 
 their churches, or the legates, for their arrogance, and their 
 needless and uncharitable denunciation of such customs as the 
 marriage of the clergy, and the use of the Nicene Creed 
 without the addition of " filioque," which had never been 
 received in the East, and which the Roman church itself did 
 not afterwards insist on, in its temporary reunions with the 
 oriental churches. 
 
 But blameable as the conduct of both these parties unques- 
 tionably was, still it does not follow that either was absolutely 
 separated from the catholic church ; for neither act of excom- 
 munication was known and approved by the majority of that 
 church. At most, therefore, they merely separated the parti- 
 cular churches of Rome and Constantinople from friendly 
 
 b Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 60. s. 8. Acridanus episcopus . . . . et om- 
 
 c Canisii Thesaurus, iii. 328. nes sequaces eorum in praefatis 
 
 d This excommunication is found erroribus et praesumptionibus, sint 
 
 in Canisii Thesaurus, iii. p. 326. It Anathema Maranatha, cum Simona- 
 
 begins thus : " Sancta et Romana icis, Vallesiis, Arianis, Donatistis, 
 
 prima et apostolica sedes, ad quam Nicholaitis, Severianis, Pneumato- 
 
 tanquam ad caput solicitude om- machis, et Manichaeis, et Nazarenis, 
 
 nium ecclesiarum specialius perti- et cum omnibus haereticis, imo cum 
 
 net," &c., ; and having accused Mi- Diabolo et angelis ejus, nisi forte 
 
 chael and his followers of numerous resipuerint. Amen. Amen. Amen." 
 
 heresies, on the most frivolous e Leo Allatius, de Lib. et Rebus 
 
 grounds, concludes as follows: Eccl. p. 16 1. gives this excommuni- 
 
 " Michael abusivus patriarcha neo- cation, 
 
 phytus atque cum eo Leo
 
 154 The Oriental Churches. [P. i. en. ix. 
 
 mutual communion. Nor can it be pretended that either the 
 Greeks or the Latins separated themselves from the majority 
 of the church : the Roman pontiffs, and those who accused 
 the Greeks of schism, did so on another ground, " their sepa- 
 ration from the chair of Peter." 
 
 2. The church generally did not consider either party excom- 
 municated. We find that long after the time of Cerularius, a 
 certain degree of communion still subsisted between the East 
 and West. Leo Allatius f has produced several proofs that 
 the act of Cerularius did not prevent the union of the churches ; 
 and the author of the " Perpetuite de la Foi" says, that " even 
 in the twelfth century the schism was not yet so formed as that 
 all the Greeks were generally rejected by all the Latins, and 
 all the Latins by the Greeks, and there appeared among many 
 of them marks of ecclesiastical communion *." 
 
 This is proved by the following facts, which show that 
 
 3. The Eastern church did not consider the Western as having 
 ceased to be a church. In the time of Cerularius, Peter, pa- 
 triarch of Antioch, in replying to a letter sent to him by a 
 western prelate, Dominic, archbishop of Grado, expressed 
 sentiments of Christian communion h ; and he endeavoured to 
 prevail on Cerularius to urge nothing on the Latins, whom he 
 considered as " brethren," except the removal of the addition 
 which they had made to the Creed 1 . In 1094, Simon, pa- 
 triarch of Jerusalem, wrote an epistle to the Christians of the 
 west, soliciting their aid against the Saracens, which Peter 
 the Hermit brought into Europe. In 1155, Basil, archbishop 
 of Thessalonica, in his reply to Hadrian IV. of Rome, denies 
 that the eastern church was guilty of schism, while he fully 
 admits that the western holds the orthodox faith, and forms 
 part of the universal church J. 
 
 1 Leo Allatius, de Consens. p. Graec. Monuments, torn. ii. p. 117. 
 
 624, &c. According to him, the use of unlea- 
 
 * Perpetuitd de la Foi, torn. i. p. vened bread was the only material 
 
 202. point of difference between the 
 
 h "Non adeo praefracte ac scrip- churches. Ibid, and p. 122. 
 
 sisti, sanctissimus patriarcha Con- ' Cotelerii Eccl. Graec. Monum. 
 
 stantinopolitanus (Cerularius) ves- ii. 154. aSt\rj>ol ydp icai r//i<5v otroi. 
 
 tram existimationem invadit, vosque See also p. 1 60, where he recom- 
 
 appellat cacodoxos, abscinditque a mends the question of unleavened 
 
 sancta catholica ecclesia : sed probe bread to be left indifferent, if the 
 
 cognoscens orthodoxos esse, idem- Latins will remove their interpola- 
 
 que nobiscum sentire circa solidam tion from the Creed, 
 
 theologians," &c. Cotelerii Eccl. J "Quid igitur ad nos 'errantis
 
 SECT, ii.] Division oftJie East and West. 
 
 155 
 
 According to Fleury, the Greek Emperor Manuel commu- 
 nicated with Pope Alexander, and " one cannot say that in 
 his time the schism of the Greeks was yet formed k ." In 1 199, 
 John Camaterus, patriarch of Constantinople, addressed the 
 Roman pontiff as a Christian prelate, and " his beloved brother," 
 while he wondered at his styling the Roman church "uni- 
 versal 1 ." In 1203, Demetrius Chomaterus, archbishop of 
 Bulgaria, in accordance with the opinion of many distinguished 
 men of the eastern church, condemned the decision of Theo- 
 dore Balsamon, a celebrated canonist, that the Latins were to 
 be considered as heretics; since, he says, "they have never 
 been synodically recognized as such, nor have they been pub- 
 licly cast out as heretics, but they take their meals and perform 
 their worship along with us m ." 
 
 4. The Western Church did not universally reject the Eastern. 
 
 ovis' similitude sanctissime Papa? 
 Quid imago ' amissse drachmae ?' 
 Nos enim e sinu tuo excidisse nega- 
 mus, et filiorum appellationem aut 
 pastoralem curam non refugimus, ut 
 tale convicium exprobretur. Tuto 
 autem ac firmiter, Dei gratia, steti- 
 mus in B. Petri confessione, et quern 
 ille confessus est et praedicavit, con- 
 fitemur et praedicamus, nihil ex 
 synodalibus S. Patrum innovantes, 
 nee adjicientes evangelicis et apos- 
 tolicis verbis ad unum apicem. . . . 
 Neque enim aliud novimus funda- 
 raentum, quam quod substructum 
 est, eademque tecum prsedicamus 
 et docemus, ego iique omnes qui 
 ad maguam apostolicamque sedem 
 Constantinopolitanam pertineraus. 
 Et unus qui in utrisque ecclesiis per- 
 sonat sermojidei, idemque sacrifica- 
 tur agnus .... inter Occidentals 
 Antistites qui sub tuum principale 
 culmen agunt, et nos qui ab oriente 
 sole, sublimi Constantinopolitana 
 sede, sacerdotii accipimus splendo- 
 rem." Baronius, an. 1155. 
 
 k Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 73, s. 32. 
 
 1 It begins : " Innocentio sanctis- 
 simo Papae Romano, et in Christo 
 Domino, dilecto fratri nostro, Johan- 
 nes, &c. . . amorem et pacem a Do T 
 mino nostro J. C." ... He then 
 praises Innocent for his zeal for the 
 union of the churches, and con- 
 
 tinues : " Quod autem mihi in tua? 
 sanctitatis scripto non modicam 
 superinduxit ambiguitatem, non 
 abscondam. Nam pro miro habeo, 
 quomodo unam et universalem Ro- 
 manorum vocasti ecclesiam, ut quasi 
 jam divisam in species quasdam 
 specialissimas, et haec, uno existente 
 grege, ovilium Christi, nobis quo- 
 dammodo pastoribus sub eo con- 
 stitutis, pastorum principe commu- 
 nique doctore. Et quomodo erit 
 quod apud vos Romanorum ecclesia 
 mater ut dixisti aliarum ecclesiarum, 
 et secundum quas aliquas rationes 
 et per quas unquam causas, quaero 
 addiscere dubitans." This title he 
 says properly belongs to the church 
 of Jerusalem, and he then defends 
 the Eastern church from the charge 
 of schism. Epist. Innocentii III. 
 torn. i. p. 471, edit. Baluzii. 
 
 m OVK dv iyr(i>^9r)(Tav ravra avv- 
 odiKwg, rat ovS" avrot (if cnpiaiwrai 
 air6j3\T)Toi driiioffiy, yfyovaffiv, dXXd 
 Kai ffvvta9iovaiv }/uv KOI avvii)\ovrai. 
 Demetr. Chomaterus, Respons. 
 ad Constantin. Cabasilam. Leo 
 Allatius, de Consens. lib. ii. c. 9- s. 3. 
 Even Michael Anchialus, patriarch 
 of Constant, though a violent oppo- 
 nent of the Roman pontiff, admitted 
 that the Latins had never been ana- 
 thematized as heretics. Leo Alla- 
 tius, ibid.
 
 156 The Oriental Churches. [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 When the Christians of the West took Antioch from the 
 Saracens in 1098, they restored to his see John, patriarch of 
 Antioch, and held communion with him for several years, until 
 he retired to Constantinople n ; and yet this prelate was in full 
 communion with the eastern church. In the middle of the 
 following century, Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, in an 
 epistle to St. Bernard, says, that the Greek and Latin churches 
 at that time had not separated from mutual charity, or made 
 any schism ; and accordingly he wrote to the Greek emperor, 
 John Comnenus, and to Constantine, patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, as members of the catholic church ; addressing the 
 latter as " a venerable and great priest of God," with whom he 
 holds communion by the unity of faith and charity, and whose 
 prayers and good offices he solicits for himself and the congre- 
 gation of Cluny; offering to him in return all the spiritual 
 benefits which they could impart p . Fleury, in relating that 
 William, archbishop of Tyre, in 1180, praised the Greek 
 emperor Manuel, and " said that his soul was gone to heaven, 
 and that his memory was blessed," observes, that this proves 
 that the prelate, " Latin as he was, held the emperor to be 
 catholic q ." It is evident then, that the Western church 
 generally did not reject the Eastern as heretic or schismatic. 
 
 5. The moderate and charitable sentiments manifested by some 
 members of the eastern and western churches, were not universal. 
 The patriarchs of Constantinople, and many members of the 
 eastern church, were not merely satisfied to remain separated 
 from the communion of the Koman and western churches, 
 which would have been justifiable (as I shall prove), but gra- 
 dually proceeded so far as to consider them as schismatics, or 
 even heretics. Thus Theodore Balsamon, and some more 
 
 n Guil. Tyrensis, lib. vi. c. 23. p Petrus Cluniacensis, lib. iv. epist. 
 
 Perpetuite de la Foi, torn. i. p. 196. 39 ad Johan. Imperat. Constant, also 
 
 "Nee apud modernos, ipsius epist. 40. "Venerabili etmagnopon- 
 
 sacrificii Christian! inter Grsecos et tifici Dei Constantinop. patriarchae 
 
 Latinos nota varietas, charitatem frater P. ... Quamvis et terrse re- 
 
 laedere vel schisma aliquod unitatis motio et linguarum divisio, nobis 
 
 gignere potuerit . . . Cum hoc ita invicem et vultus invideant et verba 
 
 sit, nee antiqui nee moderni, propter subducant : tamen unus Dominus, 
 
 tarn celebres et famosas usuum dis- una fides, unum baptisma, una cha- 
 
 sonantias, a charitate mutua desci- ritas, et divisa conjungere, et affectus 
 
 verunt." Petrus Cluniacensis Ab- unire, et sermones debent aliquando 
 
 has, lib. v. epist. 16 ad S. Bernar- communicare," &c. 
 
 dum. i Hist. Eccl. 1. 73, s. 32.
 
 SECT, ii.] Division of the East and West. 
 
 157 
 
 violent partizans, rejected all the Latins as heretics r . In so 
 doing they offended against the law of charity, yet it is certain 
 that they were not more culpable in this respect than many of 
 the western churches. 
 
 On the other hand, the patriarchs of Rome and their more 
 immediate partizans, generally regarded the church of Constan- 
 tinople, and all who communicated with it, as schismatical, 
 and separated from the catholic church. St. Bernard was of 
 this opinion 8 , but it is evident, that it resulted from the exag- 
 gerated notions which he entertained on the authority of the 
 Roman church *. Adrian IV. of Rome, in his letter to Basil 
 of Thessalonica, speaks of the eastern church as having sepa- 
 rated from the unity of the church, and compares it to the lost 
 sheep, and the lost piece of silver in the parables u . Innocent 
 III. V and other popes were of the same sentiments, as we 
 see not only by their epistles but by their acts. Thus on the 
 conquest of Syria in 1099, they installed at Jerusalem a Latin 
 
 1 Leo Allatius, de Consens. &c. 
 lib. ii. c. 9, s. 3. 
 
 * " Ego addo et de pertinacia Grae- 
 corum qui nobiscum sunt et nobis- 
 cumnon sunt, juncti fide, pace divisi; 
 quanquara et in fide ipsa claudica- 
 verint a semitis rectis." Bernard, 
 de Consid. ad Pap. Eugenium, lib. 
 iii. c. 1. 
 
 ' Bernardus, de Consideratione 
 ad Fap. Eugen. lib. ii. c. 8. where 
 he styles the pope of Rome " prin- 
 ceps episcoporutn, hseres apostolo- 
 rum, potestate Petrus, unctione 
 Christus," &c. " Nee modo ovium 
 sed et pastorum tu unus omnium 
 pastor," &c. 
 
 u " Ex quo per invidiam, hostem 
 antiquam, Constantinopolitana sedes 
 a sacrosancta Romana et Apostolica 
 (quod sine lachrymarum inundatione 
 vixfamur) Ecclesia seipsam separavit, 
 et hominis inimicus proprium mali- 
 tiae venenum effudit, et a matris obe- 
 dientia liberi secesserunt .... labo- 
 rem multum et studium . . . . B. 
 Petri successores adhibuerunt, ut 
 schisma de medio tolleretur, et uni- 
 tati Ecclesiae, qui se ab ea separarunt 
 redderentur . . . Ideoque ad intro- 
 ductionem liberorum in locum eccle- 
 
 siae et unitatis inventionemque amissce 
 drachma properemus .... illius ex- 
 emplo edocti qui . . . seipsum exin- 
 anivit ut ovis amissa suo gregi resti- 
 tueretur ... Da operam, ut grex cum 
 Ecclesia uniatur, et qui se ipsos 
 Dominicas oves confitentur, ad gre- 
 gem B. Petri revertantur, qui Do- 
 mini jussu eorum curam suscepit." 
 Baronius, anno 1155. 
 
 v Jn his reply to John Camaterus, 
 patriarch of Constantinople, Inno- 
 cent extols the Roman primacy as 
 of divine institution, and says, that 
 he who will not have the successor 
 of Peter for his pastor, is to be con- 
 sidered alienated from the Lord's 
 flock that the Roman, being by 
 j:..: )ointment the head and mo- 
 
 divine appc 
 ther of all 
 
 ther of all churches, no diversity of 
 rites or doctrines ought to prevent 
 them from obeying the pope devo- 
 tedly : that, however, he means to 
 summon a general synod, and if the 
 patriarch will come to it, as a mem- 
 ber to its head, and return as a 
 daughter to her mother, and be ready 
 to pay due reverence and obedience 
 to the Roman church, he will receive 
 him as a brother, &c. Innocent 
 Epist. 209, torn. ii. p. 472, &c.
 
 158 The Oriental Churches. [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 patriarch, under the obedience of the pope of Rome w . The 
 same was soon done at Antioch ; and the see of Borne regu- 
 lated all the affairs of the eastern churches, not recognizing 
 any of the legitimate bishops who were in communion with the 
 see of Constantinople. When the Latins seized Constantinople 
 in 1204, they expelled the Greek clergy, whom they violently 
 persecuted, to induce them to obey the Romish church x ; and 
 a Latin patriarch and clergy were immediately installed y . 
 They pursued the same course throughout all Greece, and 
 everywhere treated the established clergy as schismatics 2 . 
 When Cyprus came into possession of the Latins, they ex- 
 pelled and cruelly persecuted, all the bishops and clergy of the 
 eastern church, and crowded the island with Latin clergy 3 . 
 The Roman pontiffs approved and urged these proceedings, as 
 the eastern church was, in their opinion, schismatical and 
 rebellious, and separated from the divinely appointed centre of 
 unity. This leads me to the following conclusion. 
 
 6. The eastern Churches were justifiable in remaining sepa- 
 rated from the external Communion of the west. The claims of 
 the Roman pontiffs were in those ages so extravagant, and 
 their actual powers so vast, that the eastern church was 
 necessarily condemned by them as schismatic, even while it 
 merely sustained its liberties according to immemorial custom 
 confirmed by the decrees of general synods. Within twenty 
 
 w Paschal ii. Epist. 18, 19- He had made regulations for the 
 1 See Georgius Acropolita, cited eastern patriarchates of Antioch and 
 by Allatius, de Consensu, lib. 2. c. Jerusalem equally subversive of their 
 13. Du Pin, Biblioth. torn. x. p. liberty, requiring every patriarch to 
 88. take an oath to obey the pope, and 
 y Innocent III. not content with that he shall humbly defer to appeals 
 confirming the election of Morosini, to Rome. Thus were the schismatic 
 the first Latin patriarch, pretended Latin patriarchs enslaved, 
 to elect, confirm, and ordain him z An anonymous Greek writer, 
 himself ; and exacted an oath of cited by Leo Allatius, de Consensu, 
 fidelity and obedience in return for h'b.2. c.13, complains that the Latins 
 the pall. He also empowered him ejected the orthodox prelates wher- 
 to confer the pall on the archbishops ever they could, 
 subject to him, and exact from these a The same writer mentioned in 
 also a promise of obedience to the the last note says, that when the 
 pope, and enjoined his clergy and Greek monks of Cyprus refused sub- 
 people to pay him due and devoted mission, the Latins tied them on 
 obedience, saving in all things the wild horses to be dashed to pieces, 
 authority, reverence, and honour of or threw them into the flames. Alla- 
 the Roman see. Gesta Innocentii, tius by no means disapproves of such 
 60,61. Epist. i. 60, 61. edit. Baluzii. conduct.
 
 SECT. IT.] Division of the East and West. 159 
 
 years after the excommunication of Cerularius, the celebrated 
 Hildebrand filled the see of Rome. 
 
 That spiritual power which enabled him to create and depose 
 emperors and kings, and exact their homage as tributaries and 
 subjects of the Roman see, was exercised to such a degree in 
 the subversion of ah 1 ecclesiastical liberties, that even Romish 
 historians admit that he extended his spiritual sovereignty 
 beyond its just bounds, and almost annihilated the whole 
 power of bishops, and the liberties of the church b . The Roman 
 church from thenceforward claimed implicit submission from 
 all others . All patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops were 
 required to take oaths of obedience to the pontiff, who alone was 
 considered invested with the plenitude of spiritual power, which 
 he imparted in different degrees to all other prelates, who were 
 to be regarded as merely his assistants. An unlimited right 
 of appeal to the Roman see was insisted on. The confirmation, 
 ordination, and even the nomination of bishops, was also 
 claimed, and to a great extent, successfully. The decision of 
 the Roman church in matters of faith was held infallible. The 
 pope was considered invested with an authority supreme, and 
 unlimited by any canons of general councils or by any customs 
 or laws of the church d . Hence it was assumed as a matter of 
 course, that all who did not receive the Roman faith were 
 heretics, and all who did not obey the Roman see, were schis- 
 matics ; and accordingly, we find in a series of negociations 
 between the Greek emperors and the pontiffs, for the reunion 
 of the churches, that the first and most essential condition 
 required by the latter was uniformly, " entire submission and 
 obedience to the Roman see." 
 
 Of this there are innumerable proofs. In 1 1 70, the emperor 
 Manuel Comnenus proposed to Alexander III. to acknowledge 
 the primacy of the Roman see, if he would crown him emperor 
 of the east e . Michael Anchialus, who was at this time patri- 
 arch of Constantinople, says, that the papal legates who came 
 to Constantinople on the occasion, required nothing else from 
 
 b Du Pin, History of the Church, vagant. De Majoritate et Obedien- 
 
 vol. iii. century x. ch. 10. tia, cap. Unam Sanctam. 
 
 c " Subesse Romano Pontifici d See Fleury, Discours iv. sur 
 
 omni humana? creaturaB, declara- 1'Histoire Ecclesiastique. 
 
 mus, dicimus, definiraus, et pronun- e See Du Pin, t. ix. p. 128. 204 ; 
 
 ciamus, omnino esse de necessitate Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 71, s. 35. 
 salutis." Bonifacius VIII. in extra-
 
 160 The Oriental Churches. [v. i. ci-i. ix. 
 
 the Greek church but an acknowledgment of the primacy of 
 the Roman see, the right of appeals, and honourable mention 
 in the diptychs f . The emperor Alexis was only restored to 
 his throne by the Franks, on condition of reducing the Greeks 
 under the obedience of the Roman see g . Innocent III. wrote 
 to the Latin bishops at Constantinople, to urge Baldwin, the 
 Latin emperor, to reduce the Greeks under the obedience of the 
 holy see h . His legate at Constantinople, with the aid of the 
 civil power, persecuted the Greeks to submit to Rome. The 
 unfortunate clergy and monks of the eastern church were left 
 no alternative, but either to acknowledge the pope as head of all 
 the bishops, or to suffer death *. Alexander IV. sent the bishop 
 of Orvieto to the emperor Theodore Lascaris, with " the arti- 
 cles of submission to the holy see" granted by the Greek emperor 
 in the time of Innocent III. J The duke of Muscovy, in 1246, 
 seeking the title of king from the pontiff, promised, on that 
 condition, to submit his subjects to the Roman church k . In 
 1277 or 8, the pope sent legates to engage the emperor 
 Michael Paleologus, to cause the acknowledgment of papal 
 primacy, the abjuration of schism, and a promise to obey the 
 holy see, to be signed by the patriarch of Constantinople and 
 all the eastern bishops. These legates were directed to state, 
 that the Romans were surprised that the patriarch and other 
 bishops had not sought to be confirmed in their sees by the 
 pontiff' 1 . The emperor constrained many of the Greeks to 
 acknowledge the pope ; but notwithstanding this, he was ex- 
 communicated by Martin IV. " for not obeying the orders of 
 his predecessor m , v and Pere Le Quien confesses that the divi- 
 sion in this case was caused by the pontiff". In 1369, the 
 
 1 See the Dialogue of Anchialus k Fleury, Hist. liv. 92, s. 60. 
 
 with the emperor, dissuading him * Du Pin, Biblioth. x. 91. 
 
 from the proposed union, when the m Ibid. 
 
 papal delegates came r&v kicX?j<Tiuv n " I must say with pain, that the 
 
 ZrjTovvTfs rfjv tvwatv, KO.I /jujSkv sVt- union begun in the second synod of 
 
 pov TI biro TUIV Tpcuicwv cnratrovvTf , Lyons, under Michael Palseologus 
 
 ?) 7rapa%wprjaai T<p Travif rCJv Trpw- and Pope Gregory X., would per- 
 
 Tiiwv, Kal rye tKK\rjTov, Sovvai St haps have been permanent, had not 
 
 Toi>T(fj Kai TO fivrnioawov. Leo Al- certain of the points agreed on been 
 
 latius, De Consens. lib. 2, c. 12. derogated from in the time of Nico- 
 
 * Fleury, lib. 75, s 52. las III., at the instigation of Charles, 
 
 h Baronius, ad an. 1204. king of Sicily, and others." The 
 
 1 Georgius Acropolita, cited by Greeks were, in short, commanded 
 
 Allatius, De Consensu, lib. 2, c. 13. to add the filtoque to their creed, 
 
 j Du Pin, Biblioth. x. 89. contrary to the synod of Lyons,
 
 SECT, ii.] Oriental Churches not Schismatical. 161 
 
 emperor John Palaeologus came to Italy, to solicit succour 
 against the Turks, when he was compelled, as a preliminary, 
 to sign a confession of faith, asserting, among other things, 
 " the primacy of the Roman over the whole catholic church, 
 given with the plenitude of power by Jesus Christ to St. Peter, 
 of whom the Roman pontiff is the successor, to whom recourse 
 should be had in all causes which concern the church, to whom all 
 churches and all bishops owe obedience and submission" &c. m 
 
 The Roman pontiffs, therefore, required from the eastern Greeks not 
 
 church, as the condition of communion, obedience to the sphis 
 
 tics* 
 Roman see, as possessed by divine right of the primacy of 
 
 jurisdiction over the universal church. Had the eastern church 
 assented to this, their liberties would have been extinguished ; 
 their patriarchs and bishops would have been bound by oath to 
 obey the papal laws ; the discipline of their churches would 
 have been subverted by appeals to Rome ; their most estab- 
 lished customs, even those supported by the decrees of general 
 councils, would have been annulled at the nod of pontiffs who 
 claimed unlimited and irresistible power. In fine, the eastern 
 church would soon have been enslaved still more than the west, 
 because the emperors were always ready to sacrifice the liber- 
 ties of their church to any extent which was necessary to gain 
 the aid of the Roman pontiff, at that time the most powerful 
 ruler of the west. It would have been any thing but laudable 
 in the eastern church to have accepted the communion of the 
 Roman see under such conditions. They would have in- 
 flicted a lasting injury on the church of Christ by doing so ; 
 they would have stimulated a spirit of aggression and usurpa- 
 tion still more. They could not conscientiously yield at the 
 demand of the papal authority, which they and the church 
 universal in every age deemed inferior to that of general coun- 
 cils, those rights and liberties which general councils, approved 
 by the universal church, had confirmed to them. In this re- 
 spect, therefore, they are entirely free from blame ; and conse- 
 quently, even those who maintain communion with the Roman 
 see as essential, generally speaking, should admit that these 
 churches, being excluded from the external signs of that com- 
 
 " which so exasperated their minds us." Le Quien Oriens Christ, torn, 
 
 against the Romans, that no way i. p. 157- 
 was left open to reconcile them to m Du Pin, xi. 95. 
 VOL. I. M
 
 162 
 
 The Oriental Churches. 
 
 [p. I. CH. IX. 
 
 munion without their own fault, were not really separated from 
 the church n . 
 
 The eastern churches, then, were perfectly justified in re- 
 fusing to accept the proffered communion of the Roman see, 
 and of the churches which it swayed in the west, on the 
 conditions proposed. The western churches were under the 
 dominion of the Roman pontiff, partly from an exaggerated 
 reverence for the apostolical see, partly from fear of its power ; 
 therefore it was impossible for them to renew their communion 
 with the eastern church ; and though not free from blame, 
 yet their condition exempts them from the charge of formal 
 schism. 
 
 n Even the Romanist Milner says, 
 " Nor is the vindication of the rights 
 of an ancient church, at any time, a 
 denial of the pope's general supre- 
 macy." End of Controversy, Pre- 
 fatory Address, p. xii. The senti- 
 ments and mode of argument com- 
 mon in those ages, are exemplified 
 in the conference at Constantinople 
 in 1137, between Anselm, bishop of 
 Havelburg, in Saxony (ambassador 
 from the emperor Lothaire), and 
 Nechites, archbishop of Nicomedia. 
 On the primacy of the Roman church 
 Nechites said, " We do not refuse 
 her the first rank among her sisters 
 the patriarchal churches, and we ac- 
 knowledge that she presides in a 
 general council; but she separated 
 from us by her pride, when, exceed- 
 ing her power, she invaded the 
 monarchy, and (the empire being 
 divided) separated the churches of 
 the east and west. When she cele- 
 brates a council of Western bishops 
 without us, they ought indeed to 
 receive and observe the decrees made 
 by their own advice and consent ; 
 . . . but as for us, though not di- 
 vided from the Roman church in 
 the same catholic faith, .... how 
 could we receive its decrees made 
 without our knowledge ? For if the 
 pope pretends to send us his orders, 
 fulminating from his lofty throne, 
 to judge and dispose of us and our 
 churches without our advice, at his 
 own discretion, and according to his 
 
 good pleasure, what fraternity or 
 what paternity is there in that ? . . . 
 We should only be slaves, not chil- 
 dren of the church. . . . The Roman 
 church alone would enjoy liberty, 
 and give laws to all others, without 
 being subject to any herself. .... 
 We do not find in any creed that we 
 are bound to confess the Roman 
 church in particular, but one, holy, 
 catholic, and apostolic church. This 
 is what I say of the Roman church, 
 which I revere with you ; but I do 
 not with you believe it a duty to 
 follow her necessarily in every thing, 
 whose authority you have proposed 
 as being so eminent ; that we ought 
 to relinquish our rites, to receive 
 her usage in the sacraments, without 
 examining it by reason or the Scrip- 
 tures,'' &c. The Greek prelate al- 
 together argued in a very rational 
 and convincing manner, but the 
 Latin interrupted this discourse, 
 "not being able to endure," he said, 
 that the Greek archbishop should 
 speak so disrespectfully of the Ro- 
 man church. He could offer no 
 reply, however, except to assure him 
 that the most perfect reliance might 
 be reposed in the religion, sincerity, 
 equity, goodness, &c. of the Roman 
 church. Vide Anselmi Havelbur- 
 gensis Dialogorum, 1. iii. c. 8, 9 ; 
 Dacherii Spicilegium, t. iii. p. 196, 
 ed. Paris. 1723 ; Fleury, Histoire 
 Eccles. liv. 69, sect. 42.
 
 SECT, ii.] Oriental ChurcJtes not in Heresy. 163 
 
 7. The eastern churches are free from heresy. It would have Greeks not 
 been absurd in the western churches to have accused the * 
 Greeks of heresy after the division in the time of Cerularius, 
 for they taught no doctrines which they had not taught for 
 ages before, when the east and west were in full communion. 
 They had uniformly objected to the addition made to the 
 Nicene Creed by the western churches, and they had not on 
 this account been deemed heretics ; yet this was the only point 
 relating to faith which was in controversy between the east 
 and west, as we learn from St. Anselm , from Gregory VII. of 
 Eome p , and from his successor, Innocent III. The latter 
 speaks twice of the Procession of the Holy Ghost as the only 
 point of difference between the churches q ; but this difference 
 had been tolerated for at least two centuries before the time of 
 Cerularius ; and the reason of this was, because the difference 
 was rather verbal than real. That it was so is maintained by 
 the Master of the sentences, by Thomas Aquinas, Bandinus, 
 Bonaventure, Scotus, Grosteste, among the scholastics; and 
 in more modern times by Bellarmine, Clichtovseus, Tolletus, Azo- 
 rius, Fricius, Thomas a Jesu, of the Roman communion, and by 
 Field, Laud, and other Anglo-catholic theologians 1 . There- 
 fore both the eastern and the western churches are free from 
 heresy in the question of the Procession. 
 
 It may be objected, that the Eastern churches are heretical, 
 since they have not received the definitions of faith concerning 
 the papal primacy, purgatory, &c., made in the several synods 
 of Lyons, Florence, &c. ; but, as I shall elsewhere prove, 
 synods do not possess sufficient authority in themselves to 
 make absolutely binding decrees in controversies of faith 8 ; 
 and if the Eastern churches were a part of the catholic church 
 at all, their consent was absolutely necessary to give validity to 
 those synods ; for the Western churches were not evidently 
 greater and more numerous than the Eastern, and therefore 
 their acceptance of the above synods was not a sufficient proof 
 of the approbation of the majority of the catholic church. 
 This position is of so much importance that it deserves a more 
 particular notice. 
 
 Perpetuite de la Foi, torn. i. 154. See also Raynaldus, an. 1205. 
 
 p. 176. n. 10. 
 
 P Ibid. Baronius, ad an. 1074. r See Field, Of the Church, p. 50, 
 
 n. 54. &c. ; Laud, Conference, s. 9. 
 
 Innocentii III. Epist. lib. vii. s See part iv. chap. vii. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 The Oriental Churches. [P. i. CH. ix. 
 
 8. There is no reason to suppose that the western church was 
 greater than the eastern, at the period of the separation, or that 
 the number of its bishops exceeded those of the eastern church. 
 The ancient churches of the countries which were at this time 
 divided between the eastern and western church, were about 
 equally numerous on each side. 
 
 Number of According to the " Notitia," compiled in the time of the 
 Eastern patriarch Photius, and the emperor Leo Sapiens, about A.D. 
 891, compared with other accounts collected by Bingham, the 
 Asiatic bishoprics under the patriarchate of Constantinople, 
 including the province of Isauria, which had been taken from 
 the patriarchate of Antioch, were in number 432 ; the Euro- 
 pean bishoprics in Illyricum, Dacia, Thrace, Macedonia, 
 Greece, &c. were 1 60 ; those under the patriarchs of Antioch 
 and Jerusalem were 240 ; under the patriarch of Alexandria, 
 108; in Cyprus, 15; making a total of 955, besides the dio- 
 ceses in Armenia, Assyria, Chaldea, and other dominions of 
 the Persians, in which alone twenty-four bishops suffered mar- 
 tyrdom about the same time ; and among the Homerites, 
 under the archbishop of Tephra, the Indians, and the Sara- 
 cens, who had probably a bishop in each tribe. It will not be 
 unreasonable to calculate, that there might be seventy bishops 
 in these different barbarous nations beyond the Roman empire ; 
 so that we may state the whole number of the eastern dioceses 
 at upwards of 1020. 
 
 Number of Let us now turn to the western church. In Africa there 
 Western were ^gg bishoprics, in the time of St. Augustine ; in Italy, 
 Sicily, and the adjoining isles, 293 ; in Spain, 76 ; in Gaul and 
 Germany, to the Rhine, 122; in Britain and Ireland, perhaps 
 nearly 70 ; making also a total of upwards of 1020 sees. Such 
 was the ancient state of the eastern and western churches, as 
 nearly as possible equal in numbers. In fact, it is impossible 
 to determine which was the more numerous or great. 
 
 But it will be alleged, that many of these ancient eastern 
 bishoprics had been lost before the eleventh century, by the 
 invasions of the Saracens, and by the Nestorian and Euty- 
 chian heresies. It is true that great losses had been sus- 
 tained from these causes, but it is quite uncertain whether the 
 western church had not suffered equally. 
 
 Africa, with its 466 churches, had disappeared from Chris- 
 tianity. Spain, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, were occupied by the
 
 SECT, ii.] Magnitude of the Oriental Churches. 165 
 
 Saracens. In Italy itself, the depopulation was so great, from 
 the inroads of barbarians and infidels, that not nearly one-half 
 of the bishoprics remained in those parts which had been most 
 populous. It is uncertain what losses the eastern church 
 may have sustained by this time, but it is scarcely probable 
 that they were greater than those of the west. 
 
 It is certain that Christianity long continued to maintain 
 itself in the east, under the Saracens. Le Quien, in his 
 " Oriens Christianus," mentions the names of many bishoprics 
 as occurring occasionally in the history of the times, and 
 doubtless others which he has not noticed may yet be disclosed 
 by further researches, while many may remain hid in obscurity. 
 
 But perhaps it may be said, that the new conversions of the 
 barbarous nations of the west must be considered to have 
 given the western churches the superiority in number. The 
 Saxons, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians, 
 had certainly now been added to the western church, though 
 Christianity was still very imperfectly settled in some of these 
 nations. But if the western church had made converts, the 
 eastern was not less successful. The Greeks had converted, or 
 received into their communion, the Bulgarians, Sclavonians, 
 Aretani, Servians, Gazarians, Mcesians, Bohemians, Mora- 
 vians, Hungarians, Transylvanians, Moldavians, Wallachians, 
 and (what alone was equal to all the conversions of the west) 
 the Russians. There is, therefore, no probability that the 
 eastern church, in the middle of the eleventh century, and 
 even long afterwards, fell short of the western, either in the 
 number of its bishops, the extent of its jurisdiction, or the 
 number and variety of the nations it embraced. It is impos- 
 sible to determine precisely the number of bishops on each 
 side ; but there is neither proof nor presumption, that the 
 majority of the church took part with the Roman pontiff 
 against the Greeks ; and it is impossible to affirm, with any 
 certainty, that the western churches were greater than the 
 eastern, up to the period of the Reformation. 
 
 9. In fine, the eastern church is still a part of the Christian 
 church, by the admission of those icho are not actually in her 
 communion. I have already (p. 150) mentioned the senti- 
 ments of our theologians ; but even Roman Catholics are 
 obliged, in opposition to their own principles, to admit the 
 Christianity of the eastern church.
 
 166 The Oriental Churches. [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 1. They are unable to refuse it those ancient appellations of 
 the " Greek" or " eastern 1 '' church, which prevailed for ages 
 before the division, and which at once attest the catholicity of 
 the church to which they are given, and negative the exclusive 
 claims put forward by Romanists. Some of the most intelli- 
 gent adherents of the papacy have ineffectually attempted to 
 alter this system. De Maistre, in reference to this subject, 
 remarks, that " it is the duty of all Catholic writers never 
 to give any other title in their writings to the churches sepa- 
 rated by Photius, but that of ' Photian," 1 in order that these 
 churches, continually recalled to their origin, may read their 
 nullity in it." . . . . " Let them beware," he says, " of giving 
 the Photian churches the name of Greek or oriental church : 
 
 nothing is so false as these denominations Since they 
 
 have expressed an independent existence, they are not tolerable, 
 and ought no more to be employed *." 
 
 But notwithstanding this remonstrance, the whole world 
 still continues to call these churches by their ancient appella- 
 tions, and were any one to speak of " Photian" churches, he 
 would be unintelligible. Roman Catholics themselves form no 
 exception to the rule ; while at the same time they are obliged 
 to distinguish their own communion as the " Latin," " Roman," 
 or " western church u ." 
 
 2. Nor is this in all cases a mere nominal admission of the 
 catholicity of the eastern churches ; we find instances in 
 which all that we contend for is conceded in the amplest 
 manner. 
 
 Goar, in the Preface to his edition of the Greek Ritual says : 
 
 * De Maistre, Du Pape, lib. iv. morem Diversam utriusque 
 
 c. iv. Ecclesiae hac in re considerans Pater 
 
 u " The Greek churches in gene- Drovet," &c. Ibid. c. x. art. iv. 
 
 ral, no less than the Latin church, " Orientales Ecclesia a Romano, sepa- 
 
 retain the original pure Greek ratee." Delabogue, De Ecclesia, p. 
 
 tongue in their Liturgy." Milner, 45. The work of Leo Allatius, "De 
 
 End of Controv. Letter 47. "Sa- perpetuaConsensioneEcclesiae Occi- 
 
 cramentum confirmations ab Eccle- dentalis et Orientalis," and of Arca- 
 
 sia GrfEca nunc penitus exulare, dins, " De Concordia Ecclesiae Oc- 
 
 multis nominibus absurdissimum, cidentalis et Orientalis," are addi- 
 
 recte ostendit Goarius." Benedict, tional proofs of the same custom. 
 
 XIV. De Synod. Diceces. 1. vii. c. ix. See also chapter xi. sect iii., where 
 
 art. 2. " Hanc tamen discipline it will be shown, that Roman Ca- 
 
 mutationem, justis de causis in ec- tholics are obliged to assume deno- 
 
 clesiam Latinam invectam, non est minations which recognize the ex- 
 
 amplexa Ecclesia Orientalis ; ea istence of the church beyond their 
 
 quippe retinet etiam nunc veterem communion.
 
 SECT, ii.] The Oriental Churches. 167 
 
 " I represent to you in the Enchologium, the Greek church. 
 I undertake only to set before you no inconsiderable part of the 
 whole church, not a different church, but one which, though 
 it appears separated from ours in customs and usages (and 
 would that it were not also in affections), nevertheless formerly 
 came forth from the pierced side of the Lord Jesiis Christ. . . . 
 The Latin church shares the world with the Greek? It is 
 plain from the above, that Goar was speaking of the Oriental 
 church, properly so called, which is estranged from the Eoman 
 communion, and that he acknowledges it to be a part of the 
 universal church v . 
 
 According to Leo Allatius, " the eastern and western 
 church are one, like their faith, though called by different 
 names, and it would be wrong to say that one has separated 
 from the other, unless it could be demonstrated that one has 
 separated from the faith defended by the other w ." The object 
 of his work is to show, that the Greek and Latin churches 
 have been always united, and he finds in the former, saints, 
 miracles, and martyrs. 
 
 Thomassin, feeling himself pressed by the argument derived 
 from the absence of communion with the eastern apostolic 
 churches, which had been so much dwelt on by Optatus and 
 Augustin, endeavours to show that the eastern churches are 
 virtually or actually in communion with Rome, and are thus a 
 part of the catholic church. 
 
 " The Greek church," he says, " manifested its union with 
 the Roman in the council of Lateran, and afterwards in that 
 of Florence. Nothing has since occurred to prove the con- 
 trary Whenever there is liberty, public or private, all 
 
 those Greeks, whom some think to be all schismatics, show that 
 the love of unity, and veneration of the Roman church, have 
 
 taken deep root in their hearts Most of these churches 
 
 have frequently reunited themselves to the Roman church 
 
 lately If the separation of states divides and separates 
 
 them from our communion, the present disposition of their 
 hearts reunites them." So that, in fine, " the Oriental, West- 
 
 T Goar, Enchologium Graec. Pa- that he was speaking of the Orien- 
 
 ris, 1648. Praefat. p. 1, 2. A saving tal church in general, 
 clause is inserted, referring the above w Leo Allatius, De Consens. Eccl. 
 
 to the Greeks in communion with Orient, et Occident. 1. i. c. 1. See 
 
 Rome, but the whole context shows also 1. iii. c. xii.
 
 168 The Oriental Churches. [P. i. CH. ix. 
 
 ern, Northern, and Southern churches, compose, at present, 
 the Catholic church x ." 
 
 Nothing more can be needed than these confessions of the 
 adversaries of the Greek churches, to establish their catho- 
 licity, and to subvert, at the same time, the extravagant claims 
 of the adherents of the papacy. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The eastern church has not unity of doctrine, because 
 (1.) Methodius, archbishop of Twer, in a Latin work, edited 
 by authority of the holy synod ?, testifies that many of the 
 Russian clergy incline to the Calvinistic discipline ; and calls 
 Calvin "a great man 2 ." (2.) The Greek church has also 
 changed her doctrines in many points ; thus, formerly, she 
 admitted the primacy of the pontiff, and believed the Holy 
 Ghost to proceed from the Son, but now rejects these doc- 
 trines a . 
 
 Answer. (1.) Admitting that Methodius alludes to members 
 of that church (he says nothing of the " clergy"), I ask 
 whether there are not clergy in the Roman churches who are 
 inclined to Jansenism, which Romanists affirm to be the same 
 as Calvinism I Methodius, indeed, calls Calvin a great man, 
 and no reasonable person can deny that he was so ; but he 
 blames him for " daring to administer sacred things " without 
 ordination b . (2.) The eastern church has not varied on the 
 primacy ; for she does not deny that the pontiff might fairly be 
 considered the first of the bishops, subject to the customs and 
 laws of the church ; but she has never admitted that this pri- 
 macy is divino jure. The eastern church does not substantially 
 differ from the west on the procession, as we have seen. 
 
 II. The eastern church has not unity of ministry ; for the 
 four patriarchs are independent of each other, and the Russian 
 church of all ; therefore they do not constitute one fold, under 
 one shepherd c . 
 
 Answer. There is but one Head of the catholic church 
 
 1 Thomassin, Traitede 1'Unitede z De Maistre, Du Pape, 1. iv. c. 1. 
 
 1'Eglise, part i. chap. xx. a Bouvier, Tract, de Vera Eccle- 
 
 y Method. Archiep. Twer, Liber sia, p. 141. 
 
 Histor. de Rebus in Primitiva Eccl. b Ubi supra, 
 
 p. 108. Mosquae, 1805. c Bouvier, p. 141.
 
 SECT, ii.] Objections. 169 
 
 according to the divine appointment, who is invisible, but who 
 administers the affairs of His church by means of all the pas- 
 tors who succeed the apostles. It will elsewhere be proved 
 that there is no visible head of the whole church, of divine 
 or human appointment d . 
 
 III. They have not unity of jurisdiction, for they have no 
 supreme and infallible authority, the patriarchs being indepen- 
 dent ; and a general council cannot be convened or enforced e . 
 
 Answer. They are guided by the ancient decisions, laws, 
 canons, and customs of the church, which each bishop admin- 
 isters ; and each patriarch takes cognizance of all causes in his 
 patriarchate. The primitive church directed all causes to be 
 terminated in provincial synods ; and it could scarcely ever be 
 necessary to convene general synods, or seek the judgment of 
 the whole church, in questions of discipline f . 
 
 IV. The Greeks probably have not sanctity, because this 
 sanctity is chiefly to be proved by miracles ; but the Greeks 
 cannot prove such, or at least not more numerous than in the 
 Latin church *. 
 
 Answer. (1.) The Greeks claim miracles with as much 
 apparent reason as the Romanists h . (2.) If they had none 
 they might still be a part of the catholic church, because no 
 particular portion of the church is promised miracles, or bound 
 to show them. 
 
 V. Its founders were not holy, that is, Photius and Ceru- 
 larius ; for their immoderate ambition in assuming the title of 
 (Ecumenical Patriarch, led to the separation '. 
 
 Answer. (1.) Photius and Cerularius did not found the 
 eastern church. (2.) Bingham proves that the title of (Ecu- 
 menical Patriarch was given to the patriarch of Constantinople 
 by Justinian, more than three hundred years before the time 
 of Photius, and five hundred before that of Cerularius j . (3.) 
 
 d Part vii. Consens. Ecclesise Orient, et Occi- 
 
 e Bouvier, p. 142. dentalis. 
 
 1 The notion that any perpetual ' Bouvier, p. 143. 
 
 tribunal is requisite in the church, j Le Quien, in his Oriens Cbris- 
 
 will be refuted in part iv. chap. v. tianus, torn. i. p. 67, shows that the 
 
 * Bouvier, p. 143. patriarchs of Constantinople were 
 
 h See Nectarii Hierosol. Confuta- styled (Ecumenical Patriarchs in the 
 
 tio Imperil Papae (p. 306, 307. 321 reign of Justin, 518, and in 536, as 
 
 332), where a multitude of miracles well as by Justinian. See also Tho- 
 
 are claimed for the oriental churshes. massin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. 
 
 See also Leo Allatius, De Perpet. t. i. 1. i. c. xi.
 
 170 The Oriental Churches. [P. i. CH. ix. 
 
 The separation is attributable as much to the Roman patri- 
 arch's ambition as to that of the patriarch of Constantinople. 
 
 VI. The eastern church has not produced such eminent 
 saints as the western church k . 
 
 Answer. All the greatest saints of antiquity were of the 
 eastern church, as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athauasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Gregory Nyssene, Cyril, and others too numerous to mention. 
 The missionaries of the eastern church converted to the faith 
 many heathen nations, as the Russians, Bohemians, Poles, 
 Moravians, Wallachians, Moldavians, Bulgarians, &c. They 
 have recently converted many thousands of the heathen in the 
 north-eastern part of the Russian empire. And according to 
 modern historians, many examples of virtue and piety are to be 
 found among them. Their monastic institute is more strict 
 than that of the Latins, and has not degenerated into the 
 luxury and immorality which are found in many of the Latin 
 convents ! . 
 
 VII. It is not universal, having no societies in Africa or 
 America. 
 
 Answer. There are churches in communion with the eastern 
 churches in North America and Egypt ; but I do not pretend 
 that the eastern churches alone are churches of Christ, there- 
 fore they do not require universality. 
 
 VIII. The Greek church is not apostolical, for she bears 
 manifest indications of change ; e. g. she was formerly, for 
 many ages, united and subject to the Roman church, but after- 
 wards separated from her; then the union of the churches 
 having been twice completed, in the synods of Lyons and Flo- 
 rence, the Greeks twice departed from that union m . 
 
 Answer. (1.) It is denied that the Greek church was sub- 
 ject to the Roman jurisdiction at any time. (2.) The separa- 
 tion was as much the fault of the Roman as of the Greek 
 church. (3.) The separation of the Greeks after the synod of 
 Lyons, was caused, as Pere Le Quien says n , by the unreason- 
 able conduct of the Roman pontiff, in requiring conditions 
 which the synod of Lyons had not required. (4.) The eastern 
 churches judged the terms of reconciliation, conceded by some 
 
 k Bouvier, p. 143. m Bouvier, p. 143. 
 
 'See Smith's Account of the Greek n Oriens Christ, torn. i. p. 157. 
 church, p. 93106.
 
 SECT, ii.] Objections. 171 
 
 of their bishops who attended the synod of Florence, to be 
 unreasonable and improper ; and they were not bound by the 
 decrees of that synod in any respect . 
 
 IX. It is inconsistent in any member of the Church of Eng- 
 land to admit the Greeks to be orthodox, or to be a part of 
 the catholic church, for they practise the invocation of saints p . 
 
 Answer. Though we found long ago, by experience, that 
 this custom leads to the grossest superstition and idolatry, yet 
 the practice of invoking the saints to pray for us to God, is 
 rather superfluous and tending to idolatry, than actually idola- 
 trous (strictly speaking) ; and we, therefore, cannot exclude 
 the eastern churches from the catholic community. The abo- 
 lition of this practice in our own churches, does not imply that 
 we reject from the pale of Christianity all who may act differ- 
 ently from ourselves. 
 
 XI. They pay a relative honour or worship to pictures, 
 which is idolatrous in the judgment of the Church of England. 
 
 Answer. I grant that, in some instances, it must become 
 idolatrous, because the ignorant cannot distinguish between 
 the latria due only to the Divine nature, and the inferior 
 degree of honour, which the second synod of Nice attributes to 
 images, and which is supposed to pass to the original. But 
 still, as they maintain that divine worship is only due to God, 
 and an inferior honour to the cross and to images q , they can- 
 not be charged with formal idolatry, in principle or univer- 
 sally ; and therefore, while with the whole western church, 
 from the time of Charlemagne, and with the synod of Frank- 
 fort r , we reject all worship of images whatsoever, as tending to 
 idolatry, there is no reason why we should not also, as they 
 did, admit the eastern church to be a part of the catholic com- 
 munity. We must also consider, that the Orientals imagine, 
 through a mistake in the question of fact, that the universal 
 church enjoined the veneration of pictures in the second synod 
 of Nice, which I shall prove hereafter not to have been truly 
 oecumenical, nor of any binding authority. But their mistake 
 is founded on arguments of no inconsiderable weight. 
 
 XII. They maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation in 
 the eucharist. 
 
 See part iv. chap. xi. s. 5. q See the Orthodoxa Confessio, 
 
 p Orthodoxa Confessio, pars iii. pars iii. qu. 56. 
 qua?st. 52. T See part iv. chap. x.
 
 172 
 
 The Oriental Churches. 
 
 [p. i. CH. ix. 
 
 Answer. (1.) Admitting that they use the term transub- 
 stantiation, and that many of them receive the doctrine in the 
 Romish sense s , it is not certain that all do. Archbishop Plato 
 says : " Ecclesia Catholica Orientalis, et Graeco-Russica, ad- 
 mittit quidem vocem Transubstantiatio, Graece jueroucrt'wcnc ; 
 non physicam illam transubstantiationem et carnalem, sed 
 sacramentalem et mysticam ; eodemque sensu hanc vocem 
 Transubstantiatio accipit, quam quo antiquissimi Ecclesiae 
 Grsecse patres has voces jueraXAoyJ], /ura0crie, /itrao-rot^etwo-tc 
 accipiebant V It would seem as if the term transubstantia- 
 tion was employed by him merely to signify a real change, and 
 a real presence, not to define its mode. Methodius, archbishop 
 of Twer, uses language, with reference to the eucharist, incon- 
 sistent with the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, which 
 denies the eucharist to be bread. He says the disciples " com- 
 ederant panem et biberant vinum, Christo utrumque conse- 
 crante et prsebente ; idque ea lege, ut primum, hunc cibum et 
 potum sumentes, se sumere corpus et sanguinem Domini cre- 
 derent, deinde ut hoc in commemorationem sive gratam memo- 
 riam Domini facerent u ." (2.) The Romish doctrine of tran- 
 
 s The language used on this and 
 several other points by a synod held 
 at Bethlehem in 1672, and in two 
 or three other documents sanctioned 
 by the principal authorities in the 
 Greek church about the same time, 
 is certainly what we cannot ap- 
 prove ; but as these points were not 
 defined by any oecumenical synod, 
 they cannot have any binding autho- 
 rity. And De Maistre says, that 
 the assertion " that the Russians and 
 Reformed agree in many articles of 
 faith, while they differ from the Ro- 
 man church," is not true, "si Ton 
 s'en tient aux professions de foi 
 ecrites ;" but that it is true, " si Ton 
 en vient a la pratique et a la croy- 
 ance interieure. . . . Chaque jour la 
 foi dite Grecque s'eloigne de Rome, 
 et s'approche de Wittemburg." 
 Du Pape, 1. iv. c. i. He even main- 
 tains, "que 1'eglise dont il s'agit 
 est Protestante." Ibid. Thomassin 
 says, " que tous ces eveques Grecs 
 et leurs peuples .... ignorent pre- 
 sentement quel a etc le sujet des 
 differends entre les deux eglises ; et 
 
 quand on le leur explique, ils n'y 
 comprennent presque rien." Unite 
 de 1'Eglise, p. i. c. xx. See also 
 Smith on the Greek Church, page 
 152. 
 
 1 See the answer of Platon, arch- 
 bishop of Moscow, to M. Dutens, 
 on the doctrines of the oriental 
 church. Dutens, (Euvres Melees, 
 part ii. p. 171, ed. 1797. This an- 
 swer is referred to as of high autho- 
 rity, by Methodius, archbishop of 
 Twer, in the preface to his " Liber 
 Historious de Rebus in Primitiva 
 Ecclesia." 
 
 u Methodii Liber Histor. p. 207- 
 The Count De Maistre observes, 
 that Methodius " attaque ouverte- 
 ment la doctrine des sacremens," 
 i. e. the Romish view. Du Pape, 
 liv. iv. c. i. The language of Theo- 
 phanes, archbishop of Novogorod, 
 is still stronger. He says, " Hie 
 vero Romanenses maxhne in censum 
 
 veniunt Quidam eorum glori- 
 
 antur se esse creatores Creatoris, et 
 vi consecrationis sua? corpus Christi 
 de ccelo in panem devocare se fin-
 
 SECT. IT.] Objections. Transubstantiation. 173 
 
 substantiation is an error ; but it is not an error of such a 
 sort as, in the judgment of our theologians, ought to prevent 
 communion. Bishop Burnet says : " We think that neither 
 consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, however ill-grounded 
 soever we take them to be, ought to dissolve the union or com- 
 munion of churches v ." Archbishop Bramhall places the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation among " the opinions of the schools, 
 not among the articles of our faith w ." And besides this, our 
 theologians generally acknowledge that the western church, 
 before the Reformation, was a part of the church of Christ, 
 though it is certain that the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
 very commonly held in it. 
 
 XIII. The Eastern church admits the doctrine of seven 
 sacraments, which we do not. 
 
 I reply, that although they commonly do so, they do not 
 restrict the term, as Romanists do. Theophanes, archbishop 
 of Novogorod says : " Quamquam septem sacramenta vulgo 
 admittamus, non ita tamen huic septenario numero adhseremus, 
 ut ab eo, ne latum quidem unguem, recedere velimus, et quasi 
 pro aris et focis pro eo dimicandum nobis putemus V 
 
 It may be added, as in the last instance, that our theologians 
 have acknowledged the Latin to be a part of the Christian 
 church, though this doctrine has been commonly received by 
 its ministers. And the reason of this is, that the doctrine in 
 question is not contrary to any article of the faith, but is merely 
 an error. 
 
 The same may be said of other points of difference. And, 
 
 gunt, calicem laicis eripiunt." the sixteenth century ; and that the 
 
 " Omnes itaque qui sacris Romanis word was probably surreptitiously 
 
 imbuti sunt, modum praesentiae cor- introduced into the " Orthodoxa 
 
 poris et sanguinis Christi in eucha- Confessio " by Latinizing Greeks, or 
 
 ristia enucleasse sibi videntur, dum by the Romanists. Ibid, 
 saepe saepius vocabulum transubstan- T Burnet on the xxviiith article, 
 
 tiationis usque ad nauseam crepant, near the end. 
 
 sed toto, ut dicitur, ccelo, errant. w Bramhall, Answer to Militiere, 
 
 Cum enim modum hujus mysterii p. 1. 
 
 exponereconantur.nae ilium modum, x Theophanes, Orthod. Theol. lib. 
 
 quern in rebus divinis servare tenen- xii. c. 3. The same writer remarks, 
 
 tur, excedunt." Theophanes, Or- that Jeremias, patriarch of Constan- 
 
 thodox. Theol. 1. xii. c. vi. He re- tinople, calls baptism and the eucha- 
 
 marks that the word " transubstan- rist, " praecipua et primaria sacra- 
 
 tiation" was first used in the Greek menta ; posteriora quinque ex eccle- 
 
 church by Gabriel Severus, archbi- sice institutione deducit, et pricribus 
 
 shop of Philadelphia, at the end of postponit." Ibid.
 
 174 The British Churches. [P.I. CH. x. 
 
 in fine, it must be remembered that the Oriental churches, 
 with us, reject the papal supremacy, purgatory x , communion 
 in one kind y , the celibacy of the clergy z ; which are consi- 
 dered either as articles of faith, or as regulations of the highest 
 possible importance by Romanists. Yet, as we have seen, 
 they are acknowledged by various members of the Roman 
 communion to be a portion of the Christian church. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ON THE BRITISH CHURCHES. 
 
 THE catholic and apostolic churches of England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland, are strictly united with many flourishing branches 
 of the church of Christ, in the United States of America, in 
 Canada, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and other parts of North 
 America; in the islands of the West Indies, and in South 
 America ; on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in Syria, 
 Hindostan, Ceylon. Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and 
 Southern Africa. I propose to show in this chapter, that the 
 British churches form a portion of the Catholic church of 
 Christ, by applying to them the notes of the true church. 
 
 I. The British churches preserve unity of communion among 
 themselves and in each particular church. Every member of 
 these churches is taught that the commandment of God re- 
 quires him to " submit himself to his governors, teachers, and 
 spiritual past or 8*." Each of these pastors is obliged "reve- 
 rently to .obey his ordinary, and other chief ministers, unto 
 whom is committed the charge and government over them V 
 Each bishop is bound to " correct and punish such as be 
 unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within his diocese c ." Thus 
 it is evident that the church of England requires and provides 
 for unity and order within all her boundaries. Besides this, 
 she does not hesitate to denounce those who separate from her 
 
 1 Vide Orthodox. Confessio, pars E Catechism in the Book of Com- 
 
 i. qu. 66. mon Prayer. 
 
 y Ibid. qu. 107; Acta Theol. Wit. b Ordination of priests and dea- 
 
 et Hieremise, p. 129. cons. 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 129. c Consecration of bishops.
 
 SECT, i.] Unity of the British Churches. 175 
 
 as guilty of most grievous sin. Her canons pronounce that 
 " whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the com- 
 munion of saints, as it is approved by the apostles 1 rules in the 
 church of England, and combine themselves together in a new 
 brotherhood," accounting the church of England unfit to be 
 joined with in Christian profession, shall be excommunicated, 
 and not restored till " after their repentance and public revo- 
 cation of such their wicked errors A " Those even who shall 
 maintain such schismatics, and allow them the name of a Chris- 
 tian church, are equally excommunicated by the church of 
 England e . Schism is condemned in every way. Its authors, 
 maintainers, conventicles, the supporters of its laws, rules, and 
 orders, are all subjected to excommunication, and regarded as 
 " wicked f ." Can any more convincing proof be afforded that 
 the church of England provides assiduously for the mainte- 
 nance of entire unity of communion g ? But this is not the 
 whole. The church of England, by her principles, prevents all 
 pretences for disturbance or separation. She declares that 
 whoever " through his private judgment willingly and pur- 
 posely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the 
 church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be 
 ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be 
 rebuked openly," &c. h ; and the canons subject them to ex- 
 communication l . She holds that " any particular or national 
 church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremo- 
 nies or rites of the church ordained only by man's authority, 
 so that all things be done to edifying j ." In fine, she declares 
 that " the church has power to decree rites and ceremonies, 
 and authority in controversies of faith k ." Now it is evident 
 that these principles are calculated altogether to prevent dis- 
 turbance and schism. The dissenter Micaiah Towgood con- 
 fesses, that "if the church hath really this authority and 
 power, then all objections of the dissenters about sponsors, the 
 cross in baptism, kneeling in the Lord's Supper, and every 
 other thing, are impertinent and vain : the church having this 
 authority, ought reverently to be obeyed 1 ." The church, how- 
 
 A Canon ix. 1603. h Article xxxiv. 
 
 e Canon x. ' Canon xxvii. 1603. 
 
 f Canon ix. xii. j Article xxxiv. 
 
 See also, chap. iv. sect. ii. p. k Article xx. 
 
 44, 45 ; and chap. i. sect. iii. p. 14 ' Towgood on Dissent, p. 2. 
 16.
 
 176 The British Churches. [P. i. cir. x. 
 
 ever, unquestionably claims this power, whether well or ill- 
 founded, and therefore her principle is altogether subversive 
 of schism and separation. That she does claim it is shown by 
 Towgood himself, who remarks, that although it is said in the 
 twentieth article, that " the church may not ordain any thing 
 contrary to God's word, nor so expound one Scripture as to be 
 repugnant to another, yet of this repugnance and contrariety 
 the church alone, you will observe, and not every private 
 person, is allowed to be the proper judge : for otherwise the 
 article is absurd ; it actually overthrows itself, and takes away 
 with one hand what it gives with the other," &c. He admits 
 that " it does claim for the church some real authority," &c. m 
 Such are the principles of unity maintained by the British 
 church. They may be accused of severity by those who do 
 not believe as she does, that salvation is offered only in the 
 church n , and that she herself is decidedly and unquestionably 
 the church of God in these countries. 
 
 II. These churches also continue, or desire to continue, in the 
 unity of communion with the rest of the catholic church. It is, 
 and always has been, an article of their belief, that there is a 
 visible and universal church of Christ, out of which there is no 
 salvation : consequently, they believe it in the highest degree 
 sinful to separate from that universal church ; and I have 
 already shown this to be the doctrine of our theologians . Is 
 it credible, then, that if we had voluntarily departed from the 
 universal church, we should continue always to profess our 
 "belief" in that "catholic church," to pray for its "good 
 estate," to desire its " unity," to entreat that it may be " ruled 
 and governed in the right way," to confess that it acknow- 
 ledges, " throughout all the world," the holy and ever-blessed 
 Trinity 1 *? How improbable is it, that if we had separated 
 ourselves from the universal church, we should make so many 
 confessions condemnatory of ourselves. The church of Eng- 
 land, in fact, does not imagine for a moment, that she has ever 
 separated from the catholic church, or been separated by its 
 authority. We altogether reject the former notion, as totally 
 unfounded ; without the shadow of a proof. It is evident to 
 those who have perused her history, that the church of England 
 
 m Ibid. p. 6, 7. See above, p. 1416, 4445. 
 
 n See chap. i. s. iii. v See above, p. 123.
 
 SECT, ii.] Unity of the British Churches. 177 
 
 never did at any time, by any voluntary act whatever, separate 
 herself from the communion of the universal church q . We defy 
 our adversaries to produce such an act. Let them name any 
 English synod, any article, any authentic document whatever, 
 which proves that the church of England did, either in act or 
 intention, voluntarily separate or cut herself off from the 
 communion of the rest of the universal church. No such act 
 has been, or ever can be, produced. 
 
 It is also certain, that the great body of the church never 
 excommunicated our churches. It has been already shown, 
 that neither the eastern nor the western churches were excom- 
 municated by any binding decree up to the period of the Re- 
 formation r . Consequently, the British churches were not cut 
 off from the catholic church up to the Reformation, though 
 they were not actually in communion with the eastern churches ; 
 but the papal bulls against our sovereigns, and the decrees of 
 the council at Trent 8 , which caused the separation of the 
 Roman churches from ours, were not confirmed or received by 
 the eastern churches. No decree of excommunication, then, 
 was passed by the universal church against us at the period of 
 the Reformation ; and besides this, we know that the theolo- 
 gical opinion then prevalent in the Roman churches was, that 
 the Roman see was absolutely and always the centre of unity 4 ; 
 whence they considered us schismatics merely on this preju- 
 dice, without examining the cause, and their judgment was, 
 accordingly, informal, null, and void. 
 
 Our adversaries contend, that our churches must necessarily 
 be cut off from the church of Christ, because they are sepa- 
 rated from the communion of the Roman pontiff. But they 
 cannot consistently argue thus, for they admit that the Roman 
 pontiffs are liable to error in doctrine and discipline, and to 
 ambition, anger, pride, injustice, avarice ; in a word, to all the 
 passions and infirmities of human nature. The separation 
 between the pontiff and our churches may have arisen from 
 such faults on his part, and therefore we may be altogether 
 blameless. If this be denied, then the pontiff must be impec- 
 cable and infallible ; and, moreover, must be invested with all 
 power, temporal as well as spiritual, which is absurd, and denied 
 
 q See Part II. chap. ii. churches, is proved, Part iv. c. 12. 
 
 r See last chapter. ' It has been shown above (p. 85), 
 
 s That the council of Trent was that a mistaken opinion may prevail 
 
 not even a judgment of the Roman generally for a time. 
 
 VOL. I. N
 
 178 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 by all our adversaries. " Who," says the learned Du Pin, 
 doctor of the Sorbonne, " would say that Meletius, Cyril, and 
 the other Orientals, who supported him, were schismatics, 
 because they did not communicate with the Roman church ; 
 or who, on the contrary, would not confess that Paulinus and 
 his adherents incurred the peril of schism, though they were in 
 communion with the Roman church ? Who would dare to say, 
 that Athanasius and the rest were schismatics, and the Arians 
 in the church, because Liberius admitted the latter to his 
 communion, and rejected the former ? No one ever held 
 Atticus of Constantinople, and all the Oriental patriarchs, 
 schismatics and excommunicated, although they were for a 
 time divided from the communion of the Roman church V 
 Therefore nothing can be more vain and futile than the pre- 
 tence that we are necessarily schismatical, because we are not 
 in commuion with the Roman see v . The church of England 
 removed the jurisdiction of the pontiff, but did not separate 
 from his communion. The act of excommunication was entirely 
 on his part, and if, long afterwards, the civil power prohibited 
 communication with the Roman see, it was a measure of self- 
 defence, caused by the restless intrigues of that see, for the 
 subjugation of our churches, and the control of our state. 
 
 It is also alleged, that we became schismatics by removing 
 the jurisdiction of the see of Rome, which extends, by Divine 
 right, over the universal church. But here we have the sup- 
 port of the whole eastern church, which rejects the doctrine of 
 the Papal Supremacy as we do ; and it can be easily proved, 
 even from Roman Catholic divines, that the popes have no 
 such supreme jurisdiction by Divine right, and have never 
 enjoyed it x . The bishop of Rome, therefore, cannot claim 
 any jurisdiction over us, de jure Divino ; and as for his pre- 
 tended patriarchal rights, it is certain that no ecumenical 
 synod ever gave him such rights over our churches ; that his 
 assumption of such a power was contrary to the canons ; that 
 the church was bound to remove it when it had been usurped ; 
 and that in assenting to its suppression, we acted according to 
 the principles and practice of the catholic church y . 
 
 " Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Disci- * See Part VII. 
 
 plina, p. 256. y See "The Episcopacy of the 
 
 T See Part vii. chap. v. sect, ii., British Churches vindicated against 
 
 where this subject is more fully Wiseman," sect. i. xii. 
 considered.
 
 SECT, in.] Unity in Faith of the British Churches. 179 
 
 Nor is it any proof whatever that our churches are schis- 
 matic, to allege that they are 'not actually in communion with 
 churches in all nations ; because I have before proved, that 
 different portions of the catholic church may for a time be 
 separated from mutual communion z ; that though the eastern 
 churches are not at present in communion with us, or with any 
 other western churches, neither party is in schism a ; and that 
 the Roman churches are generally under the influence of an 
 erroneous opinion of the papal authority, which prevents them 
 from communicating with us. 
 
 If we are not in communion with the bishops of all churches 
 throughout the world, this is no sign of schism, as I have 
 already shown (p. 144). 
 
 In fine, it should be remarked, that we are actually in com- 
 munion with numerous churches in all parts of the world ; that 
 we have been partially in communion with the East ; that there 
 is a tendency to re-union b ; and that the real adherents of the 
 Foreign Reformation, who were unjustly excommunicated by 
 the see of Rome, are not separated from our communion. 
 Thus we are either wholly or partially in communion with many 
 nations. 
 
 The British churches pray continually for the union of the 
 
 Catholic church " That it may be so guided that 
 
 all who profess and call themselves Christians, may be led 
 into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in 
 the bond of peace c ;" and that " the universal church" may be 
 inspired " with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord" and 
 " live in unity and godly low d ." 
 
 III. The British churches continue in the unity of faith, both 
 as regards themselves and the rest of the catholic church. The 
 principle of the church of England with respect to faith is, 
 that " whosoever will be saved, before all things he must 
 believe the catholic faith, which faith, except every one do 
 keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish ever- 
 lastingly V She accordingly regards heretics as cut off from 
 the church, and out of the way of salvation. This I have also 
 
 1 Chap. iv. sect. iv. of Common Prayer. The eighth 
 
 a Chap. x. Article says of this and the other 
 
 b See above, p. 150. creeds, that they "ought thoroughly 
 
 c Prayer for all Conditions of Men. to be received and believed: for 
 
 d The Holy Communion. they may be proved by most certain 
 
 e Athanasian Creed in the Book warrants of holy Scripture." 
 
 N 2
 
 180 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 shown to be the doctrine of our most eminent theologians d . It 
 does not seem possible that the necessity of an orthodox faith 
 can be more strongly enforced by a church. She also makes 
 provision for preserving the unity of faith by her practice. No 
 one is admitted to her communion by baptism until, either by 
 himself or his sponsors, he promises " to believe all the articles 
 of the Christian faith e ." Her children are, from the earliest 
 age, diligently instructed in the divine truths of religion, by 
 pastors especially authorized by the church. All her members 
 are obliged to hear and assent to several creeds and formularies 
 of the catholic faith in her various offices f ; and to profess all 
 the Christian doctrines, which are assiduously interwoven in 
 her prayers, anthems, hymns, &c. g The clergy themselves 
 are required to subscribe their assent, without any reservation 
 whatever, to the body of faith and religious truth contained in 
 the thirty-nine Articles of religion. And further, we do not 
 in any degree separate ourselves from the common faith of the 
 universal church. The injunction of the English church to 
 her preachers is, that they " shall not teach any thing to be 
 religiously held or believed, except what agrees with the doc- 
 trine of the Old or New Testament, and what the catholic 
 fathers and ancient bishops have collected from the same doc- 
 trine V This recognizes most fully the guidance of tradition 
 in matters of faith ; and in matters of discipline the same is 
 also admitted ; for the three orders of the sacred ministry are 
 received by the church of England, because their apostolic 
 antiquity is proved by "ancient authors," as well as "holy 
 Scripture ;" and because they " were evermore had in reverend 
 estimation in the church 1 ." 1 In short, the reverence of the 
 catholics in England for the tradition of the universal church 
 in all matters of doctrine and discipline is so manifest, that 
 Walchius accounts them " excessive in their reverence for the 
 fathers j ;" and they were entitled "the church of the Tradi- 
 tioners" by the puritans k . 
 
 Thus the Anglo-catholic church has a fixed rule to guide 
 
 d Chap. v. sect. ii. art. iv. trines of Christianity with which it 
 
 e Office of Baptism. abounds. 
 
 f e.g. the Nicene, Apostolic, and h Canons 1572. 
 
 Athanasian Creeds. ' Preface to the Ordinal. 
 
 Arians and Socinians bitterly j See Part II. chap. vi. "On the 
 
 complain of this, and urge the alter- Principles of the English Reforma- 
 
 ation of the ritual by force, in order tion." 
 
 to divest it of those distinctive doc- k Strype's Life of Parker, ii. p. 284.
 
 SECT, in.] Unity in Faith of the British Churches. 181 
 
 her in the interpretation of Scripture, and a rule which is 
 acknowledged also by all the rest of the catholic church. And 
 hence it is probable that, in reality, she agrees in matters of 
 faith with other churches : at all events, it is not to be sup- 
 posed that, acknowledging, as she does, the authority of catholic 
 tradition, she should, designedly or evidently, contradict it by 
 her doctrines. Were the doctrines of the fathers and councils 
 clearly condemnatory of her doctrines, did they esteem matters 
 of faith what she esteems error or heresy, would it not follow 
 that our theologians must, in process of time, have revolted 
 against antiquity, and represented it as entirely unworthy of 
 credit ? We know what the universal conduct of sectarians 
 has been. The Socinians, the Independents, and all other 
 dissenters ; in a word, almost all other " denominations'" calling 
 themselves Christian, deride, despise, and reject the traditions 
 of the universal church. How widely different is the conduct 
 of our theologians, who are only desirous to follow in the 
 footsteps of antiquity, and ever ready to give an answer to any 
 one that asketh them concerning their adherence to the doc- 
 trines of the universal church. Let the works of Jewell, 
 Usher, Taylor, Pearson, Hammond, Field, Stillingfleet, Beve- 
 ridge, Bull, attest our confidence in the support of the catholic 
 church. 
 
 But there is another principle of the Anglo-catholic church 
 which is in the highest degree calculated to preserve her in 
 unity of faith. That principle is contained in our twentieth 
 article : " THE CHURCH HATH .... AUTHORITY IN CONTRO- 
 VERSIES OF FAITH.' 1 The Romanist Milner himself is com- 
 pelled, by the force of truth, to confess that our churches do 
 admit authority in the church. " You do very right, sir," he 
 says to Dr. Sturges, " in classing Protestants with Catholics, 
 when you speak of those who admit a proper authority in the 
 church .... with respect both to faith and rites ; as it is easy 
 to show that this is no less the doctrine of the Church of England 
 than it is of catholics, from the writings of her most learned 
 divines, from her present established terms of communion (the 
 church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and autho- 
 rity in controversies of faith, Art. XX. inter 39.), and from 
 her repeated practice in holding synods at home, and in send- 
 ing representatives to those abroad, particularly to the famous 
 synod of Dort, in the reign of James I., when we all know
 
 182 Tlie British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 that religious questions were decided in as high a tone of 
 authority as they were in the council of Trent 1 ." Now admit- 
 ting, as we do, the authority of the church generally, is it 
 credible, is it possible, that we could designedly or knowingly 
 oppose ourselves to the judgments and decisions of the universal 
 church? Surely not. The Church of England could never 
 have established, or at least retained, such a principle, if she 
 was not firmly convinced that the authority of the church is 
 not against her. It may be supposed, perhaps, that she is 
 mistaken as to the question or fact. Some opinion which she 
 holds may be imagined really to have been condemned by the 
 universal church. But if so, the Church of England does not 
 know it ; she is persuaded to the contrary by strongly pro- 
 bable reasons ; but the authority of the universal church, when 
 clearly manifested, she never rejects. Therefore it is impos- 
 sible to deny that, in principle at least, we depart not in the 
 slightest degree from the unity of the catholic faith. And if it 
 comes to the question of fact, whether we really do receive all the 
 doctrines, and allow all the definitions made by the authority of 
 the universal church, I reply without the least doubt or hesitation, 
 that we do. The Church of England, in fact, rejects every doc- 
 trine that the universal church has condemned, and believes every 
 thing which that church has declared to be an article of faith ; 
 and as a member of the Church of England, and in the strictest 
 conformity with her principles, / receive every decree, council, 
 doctrine, which the catholic church receives ; and anathematize 
 every heresy which she anathematizes. It is pretended that our 
 doctrines were condemned by the church at the synod of 
 Trent ; but it is clear that the universal church made no judg- 
 ment in that synod ; for the eastern churches and our own 
 were neither present there nor ever received its decrees. And 
 it is capable of POSITIVE PKOOF, that at that time theological 
 opinions were universally prevalent amongst those who received 
 the decisions of that synod, which rendered it impossible for 
 them to take cognizance of the controversy in a legitimate 
 manner ; that is, to examine its merits ; and therefore their 
 reception of the synod of Trent was a mere registration of the 
 
 1 Milner's Letters to aPrebendary, deputies to the synod of Dort; they 
 
 Lett. ii. The last assertion is not were sent by King James I.; and 
 
 strictly correct, as the Church of the act of this monarch alone could 
 
 England did not, in fact, send any not bind the Church of England.
 
 SECT, in.] The British Churches free from Heresy. 183 
 
 decrees of a certain number of bishops assembled there, and 
 not the approving judgment of the Roman church m . As to 
 other synods previously held which are alleged against our 
 doctrines, we are prepared to show that they were not con- 
 firmed by any binding authority ; and moreover, that several 
 of those objected, in no degree differ from our belief n . This is 
 the position we sustain ; but to enter into a particular exami- 
 nation whether it is well or ill-founded, cannot be requisite. 
 Suffice it to say, that we are prepared to prove, that the 
 catholic church has never condemned any doctrine which we 
 maintain. This being the case, there can be no presumption 
 of our heresy in any point. 
 
 It may be alleged, however, that the Anglo-catholic does 
 actually differ in several points of doctrine from the oriental 
 and Roman churches ; and therefore, that either one party or 
 the other must be in heresy. But I have proved before, that 
 there may be some differences of doctrine in the universal 
 church ; and that even, under peculiar circumstances, these 
 differences may extend to matters of faith, without heresy p . 
 Consequently, the mere fact of differences in religion proves 
 nothing as to the heresy of either party ; and the Anglo- 
 catholic and other churches which differ in some points from 
 her, may yet hold one catholic faith, either actually or virtually. 
 Our adversaries themselves, however reluctantly, are obliged to 
 bear witness to the general orthodoxy of our faith. The very 
 points on which we are assailed by some Romanists, are relin- 
 quished by others. Are we charged by Bossuet with denying 
 the authority of the church, and rendering it subservient to 
 the civil power? Milner replies to him that the Church of 
 England holds, on these points, the principles of the catholic 
 church q . Are we accused of denying the real presence ? 
 Milner and Horny hold acknowledge our perfect belief of that 
 doctrine r . I will not here dwell at length on these things ; it 
 is sufficient to add, that the articles of the Church of England 
 have been approved in almost all points, by Davenport s and 
 Du Pin * ; and that various Romanists of note have held the 
 
 m See part iv. chap. xii. hold's Real Principles of Catholics, 
 
 n Ibid. chap. xi. p. 243. 
 
 See above, p. 85. " Franc. Davenport, al. a S. 
 p P. 86. 95. Clara, Paraphrastica Exposit. Artie. 
 q Milner's Letter to a Preben- Confess. Anglicanae. See also Barnes, 
 
 dary, Letter II. Catholico-Romanus Pacificus. 
 
 1 Ibid. Letter VIII. Horny- ' Mosheiin, EccL Hist. vol. vi.
 
 184 
 
 The British Churches. 
 
 [P. I. CH.X. 
 
 difference between us to be so small, as to render a re-union of 
 the churches by no means impossible u . It has also been fre- 
 quently shown, that in most of the points of difference, our 
 doctrine or practice has been sanctioned or defended by many 
 divines of the Roman communion v . All this proves, that 
 although Romanists remain separate from our churches, and 
 accuse them of heresy, there can be no certainty of the justice 
 of such an imputation, even among themselves. 
 
 There is one other way in which the adversaries of our 
 churches bear testimony, involuntarily, to their orthodoxy. 
 The cause of the church is, in every point of controversy, 
 defended by a number of those who have separated from her. 
 Her doctrines are defended against Romanists by dissenters, 
 against dissenters by Romanists, and by one sect of dissenters 
 against another. It has long been the privilege of the catholic 
 church to derive confirmation to her faith from the dissensions 
 
 where the heads of Du Pin's Com- 
 monitorium are stated in the corre- 
 spondence relative to Archbishop 
 Wake. 
 
 u Especially the late Dr. Doyle, 
 who, in his letter to Robertson, (see 
 Catholic Miscellany, 1824, p. 234, 
 &c.) observed, " This union is not 
 so difficult as appears to many. It 
 is not difficult ; for in the discus- 
 sions which were held, and the cor- 
 respondence which occurred on this 
 subject early in the last century, as 
 well that in which Archbishop Til- 
 lotson (Wake) was engaged, as the 
 others which were carried on be- 
 tween Bossuet and Leibnitz, it ap- 
 peared that the points of agreement 
 between the churches were nume- 
 rous ; those on which the parties 
 hesitated few, and apparently not the 
 most important. The effort which 
 was then made was not attended 
 with success; but its failure was 
 owing more to princes than priests ; 
 more to state policy than a differ- 
 ence of belief." He states, that the 
 chief points in discussion are, the 
 canon of the sacred Scripture, faith, 
 justification, the mass, the sacra- 
 ments, the authority of tradition, of 
 councils, of the pope, the celibacy 
 of the clergy, language of the li- 
 turgy, invocation of saints, respect 
 for images, prayers for the dead. 
 
 " On most of these," he adds, " it 
 appears to me that there is no essen- 
 tial difference between the 'Catholics' 
 and ' Protestants.' The existing di- 
 versity of opinion arises, in most 
 cases, from certain forms of words, 
 which admit of satisfactory explana- 
 tion ; or from the ignorance or mis- 
 conceptions which ancient preju- 
 dices and ill-will produce and 
 strengthen, but which could be re - 
 moved." Such was Dr. Doyle's 
 confession. Dr. Charles O'Conor, 
 by far the most learned writer who 
 has arisen among the papists of 
 these countries in modern times, 
 says, " I am confident that above 
 three parts of those debates which 
 separate ' Protestants ' from ( Catho- 
 lics ' might be laid aside ; that they 
 serve only to exasperate and alienate 
 us from each other ; and that if our 
 church were heard canonically, she 
 would not only reject with horror 
 the false doctrines and notorious 
 abominations so often imputed to 
 her, but she would also smooth 
 many other difficulties which lie in 
 the way of reconciliation and peace." 
 Columbanus, Letter III. p. 130. 
 
 T See Bishop Morton's Catholique 
 Appeal ; Birkbeck's Protestants' 
 Evidence; Gerhardi Orthodoxa Con- 
 fessio; Field, Of the Church, Ap- 
 pendix to book Hi.
 
 SECT, iv.] Sanctity of the British Churches. 185 
 
 of those around her. So it was in the days of St. Hilary of 
 Poictiers, and so it still continues to be. " All the heretics 
 advance against the church ; but while they all prevail against 
 each other, they prevail not at all ; for their victory is but the 
 triumph of the church over all, since each heresy contends 
 against some other, in that point which the church's doctrine 
 condemns (for they believe nothing in common) ; and mean- 
 while, by their contradictions, they confirm our faith V 
 
 IV. The British churches are holy. Their doctrine is calcu- 
 lated to promote holiness, and its fruits are abundantly mani- 
 fested. The necessity of holiness, in order to salvation, is 
 maintained firmly by these churches ; it forms a portion of 
 their creed. They profess that " all men shall rise again with 
 their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And 
 they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting ; and 
 they that have done evil, into everlasting fire V It is impos- 
 sible to express more strongly the necessity of sanctification ; 
 and this, too, in the very creed of the church, which she pro- 
 poses to all her members to be " thoroughly received and be- 
 lieved." The Articles indeed declare, that we are justified, or 
 accounted righteous before God, " not for our own works and 
 deservings," but for the merit of Christ, and by means of 
 faith ; but it is a lively faith, which is necessarily productive of 
 good works, as the same Articles intimate y . In fact, the 
 church does not admit any new member to her communion 
 without exacting from him a vow or promise " to renounce the 
 devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, 
 with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of 
 the flesh, so that he will not follow nor be led by them ;" and 
 " obediently to keep God's commandments, and walk in the 
 same all the days of his life z ." 
 
 She requires him afterwards, at confirmation, to renew, in 
 the presence of God and the church, that solemn vow made at 
 baptism ; and to acknowledge himself " bound to believe and 
 do accordingly a ." She forbids sinners to approach the holy 
 table b ; and if their sins are notorious, commands her minis- 
 ters to repel them from it c . Her prayers, her hymns, all her 
 
 w Hilarius Pictav. de Trinitate, Office of Confirmation. 
 
 1. vii. p. 917, ed. Bened. b Exhortation in Communion 
 
 1 Athanasian Creed. Office. 
 
 * Articles XI. XII. c Rubric at the head of the Com- 
 
 1 Office of Baptism. munion Office.
 
 186 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 services, breathe an horror of sin, and an ardent desire for 
 spiritual holiness and perfection. 
 
 And as this has always been the doctrine of our churches 
 from the time of the apostles, so they have in every age been 
 the fruitful parents of saints and holy men. The stream of 
 ages carried in its course the names of martyrs, saints, and 
 holy missionaries who derived their Christianity from our 
 catholic churches. In the third century Alban was our proto- 
 martyr. In the following ages, Palladius, Patrick, David, 
 Augustine, Columba, Birinus, Chad, Swithin, Colman, Cuth- 
 bert, Columbanus, venerable Bede, king Edward the Confessor, 
 Alphege, Odo, Anselm, Osmund, arid others innumerable, car- 
 ried on the line of sanctity in our church. In later ages, Hugh 
 of Lincoln, Richard of Chichester, Grosteste, Hampole, Ock- 
 ham, Ridley, Hooker, Andrewes, Usher, Hammond, Ferrar, 
 Leighton, Sanderson, Beveridge, Ken, Wilson, carried on the 
 succession of Christian sanctity. From these churches have 
 proceeded many eminent and holy missionaries in different 
 ages. Columbanus preached in France and Germany. Gallus 
 converted Switzerland. Kilianus went from us to convert the 
 Franks ; Willibrod to preach to the Batavians, Frieslanders, 
 and Danes ; Winfred, or Boniface, to Germany, where he 
 founded extensive churches. Lebuin we sent to Saxony and 
 Friesland ; Guthebald to Norway ; and Sigfrid to Sweden. 
 Nor has the missionary spirit of our churches failed to show 
 itself at various later times, in establishing missions for the 
 conversion of the heathen ; and many holy and devoted ser- 
 vants of Christ' have spent their lives in labouring to enlarge 
 the kingdom of Christ, even to the present day d . Thus it is 
 evident that our churches have all the marks of sanctity which 
 
 d Romanists sometimes contrast ported or aided by the temporal 
 the extent and success of their mis- power, whereas their missions in 
 sions with the limited extent of ours. America and elsewhere, were strenu- 
 It should be remembered, that our ously supported by the Spanish and 
 missions are comparatively recent, Portuguese governments ; and even 
 for our oldest missionary society has in China they were eriginally sane- 
 existed for little more than a cen- tioned by the state. In fine, they had 
 tury, while their missions have ex- the great advantage of addressing 
 isted for three centuries, in full vi- themselves to the heathen, without 
 gour. Our missions, too, emanate any opposition from other professing 
 from a communion considerably Christians ; whereas we, in the pre- 
 less numerous than theirs, and sent day, are opposed by many 
 therefore could not be so extensive, sects. 
 Our missions have not been sup-
 
 SECT, v.] The British Churches Catholic. 187 
 
 can be expected in any part of the catholic church ; and with- 
 out making invidious comparisons, it is pretty clear that the 
 tone of public morality, and zeal for Christianity, is at least 
 not inferior amongst us to that of any other part of the church. 
 In what country do we behold more numerous institutions for 
 those who are in sickness and in poverty ? And where does 
 the cry of famishing or persecuted humanity meet with a more 
 abundant and charitable relief! Finally, in what portion of 
 the church are holier efforts made by religious men, to provide 
 spiritual instruction and consolation for the scattered sheep of 
 Christ ? It is the Church of England which has fixed the tone 
 of public morality amongst us. It is the wealth, the charity 
 of her children, who constitute the vast majority of our popu- 
 lation, and the whole of our higher classes, which has been so 
 beneficently distributed. The reception which the bishops and 
 clergy of the old Gallican church, exiled for their conscientious 
 refusal to submit to the dictation of an infidel Convention ; the 
 liberality, and still more, the generous sympathy which they 
 experienced from the clergy, the universities, the laity of our 
 church, ought to have secured from the taunts and calumnies 
 of Romanists, a religion which could inspire all the sentiments 
 and actions of genuine charity. 
 
 V. The British churches are catholic. Of course, we do not 
 pretend that our particular churches constitute the whole church 
 of Christ. We believe that the catholic church exists in all 
 parts of the world ; and therefore it is absurd to ask us to 
 prove that the Church of England is universal ; it is sufficient 
 if we are able to point out churches in all nations which we 
 acknowledge to be parts of the one catholic church. This we 
 are perfectly willing and able to do. We communicate wholly 
 or partially with many nations, and can account for the inter- 
 ruption of communion with other churches, without proving 
 ourselves or them guilty of formal heresy or schism. 
 
 Our churches are catholic, because they acknowledge the 
 catholic church, respect its authority, receive its faith, and 
 have never been cut off from it. Thus they have all the quali- 
 ties of catholicity which particular churches can have. The 
 Gallican church cannot have more, nor the Greek, nor the 
 Russian, nor the Spanish. None of these churches are in 
 themselves universal ; none of them communicate with all 
 churches ; they are all parts of the catholic church, and so
 
 188 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 also are our churches. In fine, we use the name of catholic as 
 appropriate to our churches d , while we give other titles to the 
 various denominations which have separated from us ; as Inde- 
 pendents, Quakers, Swedenborgians, Baptists, Romanists or 
 Papists, Huntingdonians, Methodists, Socinians, Unitarians, 
 &c. None of these communities assume this name except 
 Romanists ; and their impudent pertinacity induces sometimes 
 the ignorant or the inconsiderate to countenance their claim in 
 some degree ; but all who are sufficiently informed do not re- 
 cognize them under this appellation c , because they know not 
 any other catholics in these countries, strictly speaking, except 
 the members of our apostolical churches. 
 
 VI. The British churches are apostolical. These societies 
 were originally derived, if not from the actual preaching of the 
 apostles, at least from the churches founded by the apostles ; 
 and they are the parent stem from which all other communities 
 of professing Christians in this country fell, or were cast forth 
 as withered branches. 
 
 We read of the existence of the Christian churches in 
 Britain, in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Atha- 
 nasius, and Hilary f . Theodoret attributes their foundation to 
 
 d For example, in the order for to decline or vary from the congre- 
 
 prayer before sermons in 1535, the gation of Christ's church in any 
 
 preacher was to " pray for the whole things concerning the very articles 
 
 catholic church of Christ, &c., and of the catholic faith of Christendom." 
 
 specially for the catholic church of The English ritual contains prayers 
 
 this realm," and for King Henry for the " catholic " church only. 
 
 VIII., the supreme head " of this See Dr. Hook's "Call to Union, on 
 
 catholic church of England." See the Principles of the English Re- 
 
 Burnet, vol. hi. Records, n. 29- In formation." 
 
 the Act against appeals to Rome e The Acts of Parliament style 
 (24 Henry VIII. c. 12.), it is said them " Popish Recusants," " Pa- 
 that the clergy of the realm shall pists," and " Roman Catholics." 
 administer all sacraments, &c., This last appellation, which is used 
 " unto all the subjects of the same, by themselves, is fatal to their ex- 
 as catholic and Christian men owen elusive claims, because it discrimi- 
 to do." In the Act against Annates nates their particular communion 
 (23 Henry VIII. c. 33), it is said from the whole catholic church, 
 that the king and all his subjects, f Tertullian contr. Juda3os, c. /. 
 " as well spiritual as temporal, been Origen in Ezech. horn. iv. in Luc. 
 as obedient, devout, catholic, and c. 1. horn. vi. Athan. Apologia, 
 humble children of God and holy Hist. Arian. ad monachos. Hilarius 
 church, as any people be within any Pictav. de Synodis. See also Stil- 
 realm Christened." The Act 25 lingfleet's Antiquities of the British 
 Henry VIII. c. 21, against Peter- Churches, Usserii Brit. Eccl. Anti- 
 pence, declares that the king and quitates. 
 people of England " do not intend
 
 SECT, vi.] Antiquity of the British Churches. 189 
 
 the apostles * ; but however this may be, it is at least certain, 
 that they were, even from the second century, recognized as a 
 portion of the great Christian community, by all churches. In 
 the year 314, the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln, sat 
 as representatives of the British churches in the synod of 
 Aries, convened by the emperor Constantine from all the 
 western churches, to take cognizance of the Donatist contro- 
 versy h . In the year 359, the British bishops were present at 
 the synod of Ariminum, where bishops from all parts of the 
 West were assembled { . In the following century, the British 
 churches still continued, and they were aided in their efforts to 
 repress the Pelagian heresy, by Germanus and Lupus, bishops 
 of Gaul, who were sent for that purpose by the Gallican synod, 
 and perhaps with the authority of Coelestinus, bishop of Rome k . 
 About the same time the Irish churches were founded by 
 Patrick ; and these churches were acknowledged immediately, 
 by all the Christian world, to form part of the catholic church. 
 The British churches were afterwards subject to severe perse- 
 cution and depression, in consequence of the invasion and sub- 
 jugation of England by the heathen Saxons. Christianity for 
 a time flourished only in the western parts of Britain ; but it 
 still continued in some degree visible even among the heathen 
 invaders 1 . In the following century, the venerable Augustine 
 was sent by Gregory the great, bishop of Eome, to convert the 
 Anglo-Saxons, which the British churches had been unable to 
 effect ; and, by his exertions, several churches were either 
 founded or revived, before or about the year 600, such as the 
 churches of Canterbury, Rochester, London, &c. m Many 
 more churches were founded among the Anglo-Saxons by Irish 
 missionaries ; such as the churches of Lindisfarn, or Durham, 
 Lichfield, York, &c. n In fine, Scotland received Christianity, 
 
 * Theodoret. torn. iv. Serm. ix. and conferred with St. Augustine, 
 
 p. 610. Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 2. 
 
 h Sirmond. Concilia Gallic, torn. Theonus was bishop of London, 
 
 i. p. 9. and Thadiocus of York, among the 
 
 1 Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Eccl. Saxons, about A.D. 586. Usserii 
 
 lib. ii. Brit. Eccl. Antiq. c. 5. Kentigern, 
 
 k Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 17- about the same time, ruled the 
 
 Prosper. Chronicon, ann. 429. Stil- British church in Glasgow and 
 
 lingfleet argues, and apparently with Cumberland. Ibid. c. 14, 15. 
 
 reason, that these bishops were sent m See Godwin " de Pra?sulibus 
 
 by the Gallican synod only. Antiq. Anglise." 
 
 p. 192. n Beda, Historia, lib. iii. c. 3. 5, 
 
 1 Seven British bishops assembled 6. 21, 22.
 
 190 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 and visible churches were founded there by- the Irish and Saxon 
 churches . Some disagreements between the ancient British 
 and Saxons having been removed ; the church was perfectly 
 united in all parts of Britain and Ireland, and was acknowledged 
 by all the Christian v orld, as a branch of the catholic church. 
 These societies conti i uod always to exist : history records 
 their acts in every a o, he ordination of their bishops, the 
 synods which they hel for the correction of abuses, and the 
 enforcement of disciplin P; the charters of monarchs con- 
 firming in many ages their liberties and rights, their convoca- 
 tions, their reformation, the dangers and persecutions which 
 they have suffered, their adversity and their prosperity. All 
 our churches were originally founded by the labours of holy 
 missionaries, who, in obedience to the divine command, having 
 received their commission from the church of Christ, came 
 into these lands, and gathered churches of Christ from amidst 
 their heathen inhabitants. The societies thus formed by 
 peaceful derivation from the Christian body, or by incorpora- 
 tion with it, and in no case by separation from any more 
 ancient Christian society in their locality, have in all ages, 
 without interruption, continued visibly to profess Christ, to 
 administer Christian rites and sacraments, to be guided by a 
 ministry professing to be Christian and apostolical, and to aid 
 continually new members to themselves by baptism. The 
 church of Canterbury has continued as a Christian society in 
 unbroken succession for more than twelve centuries q ; that of 
 Armagh has existed for fourteen centuries r ; those of Menevia 
 and others in Wales, for at least the same time ; and all these 
 churches were derived by spiritual descent, and fraternal asso- 
 ciation, from still more ancient churches in Britain, Gaul, and 
 Rome. 
 
 Thus then it is clear that they are apostolical in their succes- 
 sion as Christian societies. And further, their ministry is also 
 descended from the apostles. They alone, of all societies around 
 
 Beda, lib. iii. c. 4. bishops in regular succession from 
 
 * See Wilkins' " Concilia Magnse St. Peter to the present time, have 
 
 Britannise," where the acts of the presided over the primitive Roman 
 
 British churches are recorded in church, and over that of Canterbury, 
 
 regular succession, from A.D. 440, derived from it in the sixth century, 
 
 to A.D. 1717- r Sir James Ware's history of 
 
 q See the catalogue of all its arch- the Irish bishops, with additions by 
 
 bishops in Godwin " de Praesulibus Harris. 
 Angliae." A hundred and fifty
 
 SECT, vi.] The British Churches Apostolical. 191 
 
 us (with the single exception of the Romanists), claim this 
 apostolical succession. All other communities evince their 
 want of such a succession by the derision and scorn with which 
 they treat the notion, and their abuse of all who maintain it. 
 This is a convincing proof that they themselves neither have 
 this succession, nor can by possibility pretend any right to 
 it. We have then only to meet the objections advanced by 
 Eomanists. Now in the first place, it is well to lay as a 
 foundation, their admission, that the church of England claims 
 an apostolical succession of the ministry. Dr. Miller says, the 
 church of England " teaches that the orders of her ministers 
 have descended from the apostles, and are appointed by God ; 
 and that the power given to them in the ceremony of ordina- 
 tion is communicated by the Holy Ghost ; moreover, that the 
 form of episcopacy is divine, and essentially necessary to her 
 existence." This he proves from h'er formularies, and from 
 various historical facts, which he says, " may be alleged in 
 proof of the church of England's opinion concerning the neces- 
 sity of regular and uninterrupted succession from Christ and his 
 apostles in the sacred ministry 8 ." 1 The claim then of the 
 church of England is manifest ; but the Romanists argue that 
 it is ill-founded. Now there are two arguments which prove 
 that they themselves do not believe that there is any defect in our 
 succession. 
 
 First, it appears from the history of the controversy, that 
 new objections were continually invented by them, as their 
 former objections were found untenable. Originally it was 
 denied, that our bishops at the Reformation had received any 
 ordination. After forty years, it was pretended that the ordi- 
 nation was only performed by a presbyter. Sixty years after 
 that, it was pretended that the form of ordination was invalid. 
 New tales were continually devised as the old ones were proved 
 to be fabrications ; and all this leads to the conclusion, that 
 the apostolical succession of our ordinations was denied from 
 a motive of prudence, and in order to obtain benefits to the 
 cause of the Romish party, not from any real doubt or dif- 
 ficulty. Difficulties were got up, invented, sought for : which is 
 a sufficient proof that they all arose from the spirit of party *. 
 
 Letters to a Prebendary, Lett ' See Part VI. Chapter X. " On 
 VIII. p. 220, 221. English Ordinations."
 
 192 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 The second argument is, that some of the most eminent 
 divines of the Roman obedience have acknowledged the validity 
 of our orders. Bossuet himself, the prince of their controver- 
 sialists, was thoroughly convinced of it; Courayer expressly 
 and ably defended it ; and many others have fully concurred in 
 the same opinion u . Therefore on the whole, the probability 
 is entirely in our favour ; for what but the force of truth could 
 have compelled our very adversaries to confessions so favour- 
 able to us ! When to this we add the inconsistency, and the 
 evident design of those who have invented objections; no 
 rational doubt can remain that our ministry is derived from 
 the apostles, as the church of England believes it to be. It is 
 surely not credible that, believing as she does, even by our 
 adversaries 1 confession, the necessity of such a succession, she 
 should have failed to maintain it, or have risked it in any way. 
 It may be very possible, that during the great struggle which 
 took place at the Reformation, some of the usual formalities 
 may have been dispensed with, as a matter of necessity ; but 
 this need not have interfered in the least with the apostolical 
 succession of our ordinations, and we are prepared to justify 
 them in all respects, whenever our adversaries please. We, 
 however, can retort on the Romanists their objections much 
 more easily; and prove from the doctrines of their most 
 eminent theologians, that they are themselves without any 
 legitimate ordinations in these countries x : and while we can 
 trace an unbroken succession of bishops in all the churches ; 
 they are unable to show more than two or three sees in which 
 a succession of their pastors has existed from the sixteenth 
 century : and those were merely usurpers and intruders into 
 sees already filled y . 
 
 VII. Since then it is certain that our churches preserve 
 the unity of communion both in themselves, and as respects 
 the catholic church ; since they equally preserve the unity of 
 faith ; since they have never been in any way separated from 
 the unity of the catholic church ; since they have all the 
 characteristics of Christian holiness which necessarily belong 
 
 u See Part VI. Chapter X. See r See their " Ordo" for Ireland, 
 
 also Episcopacy vindicated against cited in Brit. Magazine for 1836, p. 
 
 Wiseman, sect. viii. xii. xiv. 615, &c. See also Part II. Chapter 
 
 * See Part VI. Chap. XI. ; Epis- IX. " On the Reformation and 
 
 copacy vindicated, &c. sect, xviii. Schism in Ireland."
 
 SECT, vii.] The true Church of Christ in England. 193 
 
 to a branch of the true church ; since they communicate with 
 many nations either wholly or partially, and have never been 
 cut off from the whole Christian world ; and since their 
 ministry is derived in regular and valid succession from the 
 apostles ; there can be no reasonable doubt that they are 
 indeed churches of Christ. The probability is so great, that 
 it should be sufficient to determine all their members to adhere 
 to them, until they can be distinctly proved guilty of heresy or 
 schism. And this duty becomes more solemn and cogent, 
 when it is remembered that no fact in history is more clear 
 than this; that every other community or denomination of 
 professing Christians amongst us, originally separated itself, or 
 was cut off from our churches. This is a peculiar character 
 which distinguishes the church, and marks her amongst us as 
 " that city set upon a hill which cannot be hid." Her antiquity, 
 superior by full FOURTEEN CENTURIES to that of all the com- 
 munities around her : her orthodoxy, confirmed by the admis- 
 sions, and still more by the contests and mutual differences of 
 all her rebellious children : her perpetuity amidst the persecu- 
 tions of sects and of temporal powers; all prove, that of a 
 truth, the arm of the Lord is with her, and the blessing of 
 God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, rests upon her. 
 If there be any church of God amongst us, it can be none 
 other than this : for the marks and characteristics of the true 
 church belong to her alone, amongst all the communities 
 which profess Christianity in these realms. Does any society 
 except ours even pretend to apostolical and perpetual succes- 
 sion in these countries ? The Romanists alone do so, and they 
 are instantly overthrown by the notorious fact, that their 
 societies were gathered out of the churches of England and 
 Ireland, by Jesuits and missionary priests in the reign of queen 
 Elizabeth. They existed then for the first time, and gained 
 existence only by separating from an older Christian society. 
 Nothing could justify this act but a clear proof that the church 
 from which they separated was guilty of heresy or schism ; 
 that she opposed herself to the decrees of the universal church ; 
 or had separated voluntarily from the universal church ; or 
 had been excommunicated by the universal church. I have 
 already shown that there is not any presumption against the 
 English church in any of these respects. The Romanists, 
 therefore, could not have had any valid reason for their separa- 
 VOL. i. o
 
 194 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 tion ; and they deserted us for a communion in which many 
 grievous errors, heresies, and idolatries, were widely received. 
 Their pretence then the necessity of separating from a com- 
 munion in which errors existed, was overthrown by their union 
 with Rome. 
 
 If some members of our churches doubted the real presence, 
 was their error greater than that of worshipping images and 
 relics with latria the very worship paid to God ? Whatever 
 may have been the mistakes of some members of our churches, 
 they, at least, were not more questionable, or more erroneous, 
 than the doctrine of the papal supremacy, of purgatory, tran- 
 substantiation, communion in one kind, the sacrifice of Christ 
 continued or reiterated in the mass, and many other points 
 which are either erroneous or heretical, and which were widely 
 received in the church of Rome. Romanists, therefore, could 
 never have been justified in forsaking the communion of the 
 catholic and apostolic church in England. 
 
 That church, on the other hand, presents such claims to our 
 adherence, that until she be manifestly and plainly convicted of 
 heresy ; until it is clearly proved that all her members are bound 
 to profess heretical doctrines ; and until it is equally clearly shown, 
 that the Roman communion cannot be charged with errors as great 
 and as prevalent as any which are alleged to exist in the com- 
 munion of the Anglo-catholic church ; until all this has been 
 clearly demonstrated, the claims of our apostolical churches on 
 the adherence, the obedience, and the filial love and devotion, 
 even unto death, of all their members, cannot be rejected 
 or evaded without deep sinfulness, and consequent peril of 
 salvation. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The church of England cannot pretend to be spiritually 
 descended from the ancient British and English churches, be- 
 cause she changed her faith at the Reformation. 
 
 Answer. It has been before proved a , that all differences in 
 doctrine are not differences in faith ; and that differences in 
 faith do not always involve heresy b . Consequently, the church 
 of England may differ, in some points, from her former self, 
 and yet may always have continued free from heresy. It has 
 
 a Chap. v. p. 84, 85. b Ibid. p. 85, 86.
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Divisions. 195 
 
 also been shown, that heresies and idolatries may sometimes 
 exist extensively within the comrmmion of the church c ; and 
 under such circumstances, a reformation may seem to be a 
 change of the church's faith, whereas it is, in reality, a correc- 
 tion of old and general abuses. Tn fine, it is admitted by our 
 opponents that the Latin and the English churches were 
 churches of Christ at the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 yet it is certain that they had changed in many respects from 
 the doctrine and discipline of primitive times. (See P. II. c. 
 vii. Append.) 
 
 II. The British church does not possess unity of doctrine, 
 for several of her theologians, such as Hoadly, Clarke, Black- 
 burne, &c., were infected with Arian or Socinian notions, con- 
 trary to her doctrines. 
 
 Ansicer. Every church, without exception, is occasionally 
 troubled by false brethren. Jansenism, Infidelity, and Indiffer- 
 ence, exist in the bosom of the Roman churches d . Hoadly 
 escaped punishment only by his arts, and the interference of 
 the civil power ; Clarke was censured by the convocation ; the 
 others generally avoided open contradiction to the doctrines of 
 the church. In fine, it is certain, by the confession and the 
 practice of Romanists, that the church is sometimes obliged to 
 tolerate heretics, but she does not regard them as her chil- 
 dren e . 
 
 III. There are parties in the British churches (evangelical 
 and orthodox) which differ in doctrine : therefore they have 
 not unity of faith. 
 
 Answer. There have been similar divisions in the Roman 
 churches, between the Dominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits, 
 the Ultramontanes and the Gallicans, the Jansenists and 
 Jesuits. Our case is not worse than that of the Corinthian 
 church in the time of St. Paul, or of the catholic church 
 during the Arian and Monophysite controversies. 
 
 c Chap. v. p. 87 94. homines tolerat Ecclesia, id est, no- 
 d See the Appendices to the next minatim a communione sua non 
 chapter. arcet, concede : eos habet ut filios, 
 e Bailly, a Roman theologian, in nego. Aliquando Ecclesia, pruden- 
 reply to the objection, that the Ro- tiae causa, ut pejora devitet, atque ut 
 man church sometimes tolerates he- facilius ad meliora reducantur, tole- 
 retics in her bosom ; and suffers rat nonnullos suis definitionibus ad- 
 some, who resist the definitions of versantes," &c. Tract, de Eccl. 
 the church, to unite with the faithful Christi, cap. vi. prop. iv. inter ob- 
 in sacred offices, says : " Ejusmodi jectiones. 
 
 o 2
 
 196 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 IV. The church of England is admitted, by its own writers, 
 to have separated from the catholic church. Bishop Jewell, 
 in his Apology, says : " We have departed indeed from them, 
 and for that thing we offer thanks to God, and exceedingly 
 
 congratulate ourselves f ." " Though we have departed 
 
 from that church which they call catholic, and for that reason 
 they cause hatred towards us among those that cannot judge, 
 yet it is sufficient for us, and ought to be for any prudent and 
 pious man, that we have departed from that church which 
 might err," &c. g 
 
 Answer. Jewell corrects himself elsewhere, and says, that 
 we rather departed from the errors of the Roman church, than 
 from the church itself h ; and in another place he says, " We 
 have not so much departed from them, as been ejected by 
 curses and excommunications '." Chillingworth observes with 
 truth, that " It is not all one to forsake the errors of the 
 church, or to forsake the church in her error, and simply to 
 
 forsake the church The former, then, was done by 
 
 protestants, the latter was not done. Nay, not only not from 
 the catholic, but not so much as from the Roman, did they 
 separate per omnia ; but only in those practices which they 
 conceived superstitious or impious k ." Hooker says : " We 
 hope that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done 
 amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the church we were of 
 before. In the church we were, and we are so still V 
 
 V. The fruits of sanctity are not found in the British 
 churches, for none of the saints were of their communion ; 
 they have no monastic institutions, and the practice of fasting 
 is neglected among them. 
 
 Answer. (1.) I have already proved that many eminent 
 saints have arisen in these churches ; and to assert that none 
 of these saints were of our communion, is to assume the point 
 in debate ; for if the church of England be a part of the 
 catholic church, all the saints belong to us. (2.) The catholic 
 church had no monastic institutions for the first three centu- 
 
 1 Juelli Apologia, p. 141. ed. England ; and cites Hooker, Laud, 
 
 1606. and Sir R. Twysden, in proof that 
 
 Ibid. 56. See Dr. Words- we did not separate from the church, 
 
 worth's Christian Institutes, vol. iv. h Ibid. p. 98. 
 
 p. 313, for some very excellent ob- ' Ibid. p. 145. 
 
 servations on this subject. Dr. W. k Chillingworth, chap. iii. s. 11. 
 
 shows that Jewell has not, in this J Ecclesiastical Polity, Works, vol. 
 
 place, done justice to the church of i. p. 437. ed. Keble.
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Want of Sanctity. 197 
 
 ries ; and monasteries have been abolished, even in many 
 countries subject to the Roman jurisdiction, as well as amongst 
 us. Besides this : such institutions are commonly very dege- 
 nerate amongst Romanists ; and a truly ascetic spirit may be, 
 and doubtless is, preserved in many churches without them. 
 (3.) As to the practice of fasting, it is true that the design 
 and commands of our churches are not sufficiently attended to 
 in this respect. The Romanist Milner himself proves, that 
 the duty of fasting is established by the church of England m : 
 but it is certain, that every church is deficient sometimes in 
 some points of discipline ; and there is none which has greater 
 deficiencies than the Roman itself. Van Espen, one of their 
 most learned writers, deplores the utter neglect of discipline 
 among them, and the multitude of offences and crimes suffered 
 to pass without rebuke n . In fine, there is no necessity what- 
 ever to prove our churches superior, or even equal, in all 
 respects, in sanctity to other branches of the catholic church ; 
 because churches of Christ may differ in actual sanctity. But 
 we do not fear that comparison with other churches, on the 
 whole, will turn to our disadvantage in this respect, and I shall 
 show this in the next chapter. 
 
 VI. The reformers of the church of England were not holy. 
 Henry VIII. was a tyrant, and a prey to his passions. Cran- 
 mer was in several respects unholy. 
 
 Answer. Romanists affirm that the only alteration introduced 
 by Henry VIII. was the suppression of the papal jurisdiction. 
 Therefore they cannot regard him as properly the reformer of 
 the church of England. But, however, admitting that Henry 
 and Somerset, and others who aided in the reformation of 
 abuses in our churches, were not free from serious offences, 
 still it does not follow that the measures which they supported 
 were in themselves unholy. By no means : Bossuet himseh 
 admits the reverse. " Who doubts," he says, " that God has 
 made use of very evil princes to accomplish great works 2" 
 
 Letters to a Prebendary, lett. iii. ut vix vestigium supersit : vitiaque 
 
 He proves it from the Homilies, the omnia ubique ita invaluisse et abun- 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, the Whole dare, tit pro nihilo reputentur; et 
 
 Duty of Man, and the works of populus iniquitatem quasi aquam 
 
 Bishops Patrick, Beveridge, and bibere videatur." Van Espen, Jus 
 
 Gunning. Canonicum, pars i. tit. xx. d. i. s. 1 1 . 
 
 11 " Hoc sat constat . . . Eccle- " M. Burnet prend beaucoup de 
 
 six disciplinam ita esse collapsam, peine a entasser des examples de
 
 198 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 Therefore the characters of Henry, Somerset, &c., afford no 
 presumption against the church of England : and Cranmer is 
 easily defended from all those accusations of crimes which have 
 been so industriously fastened on him by our opponents p . 
 
 VII. The argument of St. Augustine and of Optatus against 
 the Donatists, urging that they could not be the true church, 
 because their communion was limited to the single region of 
 Africa, is equally applicable to the British churches, which are 
 also of a limited extent. 
 
 Answer. I have before proved (p. 54 64), that communion 
 may be interrupted in the universal church, and that particular 
 churches are sometimes not actually in communion with the 
 great body of the church (p. 124, 125). Our position is con- 
 trary to that of the Donatists, who pretended that they alone 
 constituted the church of Christ. We do not make any such 
 claim ; but we admit that there are churches in all parts of 
 the world, and account for the absence of communion between 
 ourselves and many of them, without imputing heresy, schism, 
 or apostasy to them, or to ourselves. In fine, we are actually 
 or virtually in communion with churches in all parts of the 
 world. 
 
 VIII. These churches are not in communion with the great 
 body of bishops throughout the world, and, therefore, must be 
 separated from the catholic church. 
 
 Answer. The interruption of communion in the universal 
 church, and the absence of communion between some churches 
 and the majority of the Christian world, infers the same divi- 
 sions in the episcopate. 
 
 IX. These churches are not apostolical, because various 
 writers of their communion, such as Middleton, Casaubon, 
 &c., have admitted that the doctrines and practice of the early 
 church recorded by the fathers, were opposed to the church of 
 England. 
 
 Answer. These writers are generally to be regarded as un- 
 sound members of our churches, who endeavoured to open a 
 way for the subversion of the catholic faith, which is so strongly 
 confirmed by the doctrine of the early church. Middleton 
 resolved the account of the fall of man into a mere allegory, 
 thereby undermining the whole fabric of Christianity. 
 
 princes tres-deregles dont Dieu s'est doute ?" Variations, liv. vii. s. xlix. 
 servi pour de grans ouvrages. Quien f See Part II. chap. viii.
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Greater Safety in Popery. 199 
 
 X. Where was the religion of the church of England before 
 the reformation ; that is, where was there any society of pro- 
 fessing Christians, in which the doctrines of the Thirty-nine 
 Articles were acknowledged and approved ? 
 
 Answer. The doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles was that 
 of the universal church before the reformation ; for all that is 
 of faith in those articles, was of faith in the catholic church ; 
 and all that is of opinion, was also matter of opinion in the 
 catholic church. 
 
 XL Romanists do not admit that the members of the British 
 churches can be saved, while the latter allow that Romanists 
 can be saved. Therefore it is plain that there is greater safety 
 in the Romish communion. 
 
 Answer. The argument may be reversed thus : Romanists 
 allow that the members of the church can be saved. They 
 cannot allow that Romanists are in the way of salvation ; 
 therefore the communion of the church is safer than that of 
 the Romish schism. 
 
 I prove the first two propositions thus : (1.) Dr. Milner 
 says, " Catholic divines and the holy fathers, at the same time 
 that they strictly insist on the necessity of adhering to the 
 doctrine and communion of the catholic church, make an 
 express exception in favour of what is termed invincible igno- 
 rance Our great controvertist, Bellarmine, asserts that 
 
 such Christians, in virtue of the disposition of their hearts, 
 belong to the catholic church V Accordingly, he elsewhere 
 says, that " all the young children who have been baptized " in 
 the church of England, &c. "and all invincibly ignorant Chris- 
 tians who externally adhere to them, really belong to the Ca- 
 tholic church 1 ." (2.) On the other hand, the Church of 
 England excommunicates any one who shall dare to affirm that 
 the Romish community in these countries is a true church 8 . 
 As we, therefore, cannot allow Romanists to be in the true 
 church ; and as we have no right to admit that any persons 
 out of the church are or can be in the way of salvation *, it is 
 plain that there is much the greatest safety in adhering to our 
 
 q End of Controversy, letter xviii. noted Romanist, cited by Archbi- 
 
 The t-ame doctrine of the salvability shop Bramhall, Works, p. 100. 
 of some of those who are externally r Milner, letter xxvi. 
 separated from the Roman commu- s Canon x. 
 nion, is taught by Dr. Bishop, a ' Chapter i. section iii.
 
 200 The British Churches. [p. T. CH. x. 
 
 communion, in which alone both parties allow that salvation 
 may be obtained. 
 
 XL The Church of England, in acknowledging the eccle- 
 siastical supremacy of the king, renounces the commission 
 given by Christ to his apostles ; and her ministers derive all 
 their authority from the crown, which has, at various times, 
 made ordinances with regard to ecclesiastical matters, worship, 
 discipline, &c., and thus usurped the church's office; conse- 
 quently there is no apostolical ministry in the church of 
 England. 
 
 Answer. As this is the grand argument of papists against 
 our churches, I shall endeavour to answer it here in such a 
 manner as shall help to close their mouths on the subject. 
 (1.) I must insist upon it, that the principles of the Church of 
 England with reference to the authority of the civil magistrate 
 in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be determined in any way by the 
 opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of acts of parliament. 
 We no where subscribe to either one or the other. (2.) The 
 opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in 
 ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opi- 
 nions, are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church 
 of England on these points. We are not bound to adopt such 
 opinions, or approve such acts of temporal rulers, nor even to 
 approve every point of the existing law. (3.) The clergy of 
 England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the king, A.D. 
 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso, 
 " quantum per Christi legem licet u ;" which original condition is 
 ever to be supposed in our acknowledgment of the royal supre- 
 macy. Consequently we give no authority to the prince, 
 except what is consistent with the maintenance of all those 
 rights, liberties, jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, which " the 
 law of Christ " confers on his church. (4.) The Church of 
 England believes the jurisdiction and commission of her clergy 
 to come from Grod, by apostolical succession, as is evident from 
 the Ordination Services, and has been proved by the papist 
 Milner himself (Letters to a Prebendary, Letter viii.) ; and it 
 is decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theo- 
 logians. (5.) The acts of English monarchs have been objected 
 
 11 Romanists admit that " the ob- neutralized by the qualifying clause." 
 vious tendency of the claim on the Dublin Review, May, 1840, p. 341. 
 part of the king, was completely 
 
 V
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Regal Supremacy. 201 
 
 in proof of their views on the subject. We are not bound to 
 subscribe to those views. If their acts were wrong in any 
 case we never approved them, though we may have been obliged 
 by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But 
 since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the 
 matter a little on another side. I ask, then, whether the par- 
 liaments of France did not, for a long series of years, exercise 
 jurisdiction over the administration of the sacraments, com- 
 pelling the Eoman bishops and priests of France to give the 
 sacraments to Jansenists, whom they believed to be heretics ? 
 Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of faith, viz. as to 
 the obligation of the bull " Unigenitus ?" Did they not take 
 cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a degree, 
 that they were said to resemble " a school of theology ?" I ask 
 whether the clergy of France, in their convocations, were not 
 wholly under the control of the king, who could prescribe their 
 subjects of debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dis- 
 solve, &c. ? Did they not repeatedly entreat in vain, from the 
 kings of France, for a long series of years, to be permitted to 
 hold provincial synods for the suppression of immorality, heresy, 
 and infidelity I Is not this liberty still withheld from them, 
 and from every other Roman church in Europe? I further 
 ask, whether the emperor Joseph II. did not, while in full 
 communion with the church of Rome, enslave the churches of 
 Germany and Italy ? whether he did not suppress monasteries, 
 suppress and unite bishoprics ? whether he did not suspend the 
 bishops from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obe- 
 dience to all his measures, present and future ; issue royal 
 decrees for removing images from churches, and for the regula- 
 tion of divine worship, down to the minutest points, even to 
 the number of candles at mass ? Whether he did not take on 
 himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against persons 
 of unsound faith ? Whether he did not issue decrees against 
 the bull " Unigenitus," thus interfering with the doctrinal deci- 
 sions of the whole Roman church ? I ask whether this con- 
 duct was not accurately imitated by the grand duke of Tus- 
 cany, the king of Naples, the duke of Parma ? Whether it did 
 not become prevalent in almost every part of the Roman 
 church \ and whether its effects do not continue to the present 
 day ? I again ask, whether " Organic Articles " were not 
 enacted by Buonaparte in the New Gallican church, which 
 placed every thing in ecclesiastical affairs under the govern-
 
 202 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 ment? Whether the bishops were not forbidden by law 
 to confer orders without the permission of government ? 
 Whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests, 
 even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers ? And 
 in fine, whether those obnoxious " Organic Articles " are not, 
 up to the present day, in almost every point in force ? I again 
 inquire, whether the order of Jesuits was not suppressed by the 
 mere civil powers in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, &c. ? 
 Whether convents, monasteries, confraternities, sodalities, 
 associations, friars, canons, monks, and nuns, of every sort and 
 kind, have not been extinguished, suppressed, annihilated, by 
 royal commissions, and by the temporal power, in France, Ger- 
 many, Austria, Italy, Sicily, Spain, Portugal, &c., and in oppo- 
 sition to the petitions and protests of the pope and the bishops \ 
 I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does not, in his " Tri- 
 bunal of the Monarchy," up to the present day, try ecclesias- 
 tical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve ? Whether this 
 tribunal did not, in \l\.%,give absolution from episcopal excom- 
 munications? and whether it was not restored by Benedict 
 XIII. in 1728? Is there a Roman church on the continent 
 of Europe where the clergy can communicate freely with him 
 whom they regard as their spiritual head ; or where all papal 
 bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a rigorous sur- 
 veillance on the part of government, and allowed or disallowed 
 at its pleasure? In fine, has not Gregory XVI. himself been 
 compelled, in his Encyclical Letter of 1832, to utter the most 
 vehement complaints and lamentations at the degraded condi- 
 tion of the Roman Obedience ? Does he not confess that the 
 church is " subjected to earthly considerations,'''' " reduced to 
 a base servitude" " the rights of its bishops trampled on ? " 
 These are all certain facts ; I appeal in proof of them to the 
 Romish historians, and to many other writers of authority v ; 
 and they form but a part of what might be said on the subject. 
 
 T See Memoires pour servir a the Regulations of Roman Catholic 
 
 1'Histoire Eccl. &c. xviii 6 Siecle ; Subjects in Foreign Countries " 
 
 Memoires sur les Affaires Ecclesiast. (Parliamentary Papers, 1816). This 
 
 de France ; La Mennais, Reflexions report contains a mass of authentic 
 
 sur PEglise en France; Essai sur 1'In- documents of the highest impor- 
 
 difference ; Affaires de Rome ; Me'- tance, which it is impossible to find 
 
 moires Historiques sur Pie VI. et elsewhere. L'Ami de la Religion, a 
 
 son Pontificat (by Bourgoing); Bou- religious periodical published at 
 
 vier, Episc. Cenomanensis, de Vera Paris, and which has existed ever 
 
 Ecclesia, Appendix ; and the " Re- since the restoration of the Bour- 
 
 port from the Select Committee on bons, is also full of valuable details.
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Regal Supremacy. 203 
 
 Romanists should blush to accuse the church of England for 
 the acts of our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters ; they should 
 remember those words, " Thou hypocrite, first cast out the 
 beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to 
 cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." 
 
 But it will be objected, all this was contrary, at least, to the 
 principles of the Roman church ; while English theologians, on 
 the contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate 
 in ecclesiastical affairs. I admit unequivocally that some of 
 our theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject ; but 
 can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican 
 writers, of modern canonists, and reforming theologians in the 
 Roman church, whose object is to overthrow the papal power, 
 and to render the church subservient in all things to the state ? 
 Do Romanists imagine that we are ignorant of the principles 
 of Pithou and the Gallican school, of Giannone, Van Espen, 
 Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Stoch, Rechberger, 
 Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others, 
 who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us ? 
 Do they forget that their clergy, in many parts, have peti- 
 tioned princes to remove the canonical law of celibacy ? In 
 fine, is it not well known that there is a conspiracy among 
 many of their theologians, to subject the discipline of the 
 church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much for 
 Romanists to assail us on the very points where they are them- 
 selves most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly 
 suffering. Our churches, though subject to some inconve- 
 niences, and lately aggrieved by the suppression of bishoprics 
 in Ireland, contrary to the solemn protests of the bishops and 
 clergy, are yet in a far more respectable and independent posi- 
 tion than the Roman churches. Those amongst us who main- 
 tain the highest principles on the spiritual jurisdiction of the 
 church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen 
 to the level of the church of Rome. 
 
 OBJECTIONS OF DISSENTERS. 
 
 XIII. The church of England contradicts Scripture, (Eph. 
 i. 22.) which declares that Christ alone is the head of the 
 church ; for she makes the king her head. 
 
 Answer. (1.) She does not acknowledge the king as head of 
 the universal church, which alone is spoken of in that passage.
 
 204 The British Churclies. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 (2.) She only attributes to him temporal and external autho- 
 rity, but no jurisdiction purely spiritual, which belongs to the 
 ministers of God by divine institution. (3.) The church of 
 England, as I have already said, is not bound to approve all 
 the opinions or acts of civil governors or of lawyers : they may 
 perhaps exaggerate the authority of temporal rulers in eccle- 
 siastical affairs ; but the church of England is not obliged to 
 subscribe to any of their opinions. (4.) Dissenters admit 
 that from the time of Constantine the Great, the civil 
 magistrate exercised various powers over the church. And 
 not merely the unreformed churches of the east and west, 
 but the foreign Reformation generally, and Presbyterians, 
 universally acted on, and adopted the principle of the authority 
 of the civil magistrate in some ecclesiastical affairs. The 
 Puritans of England availed themselves of the aid of the civil 
 power ; and the community of Independents alone exclaimed 
 against all authority of the magistrate in ecclesiastical matters. 
 (5.) Dissenters cannot consistently bring this objection against 
 the church of England ; for the ministers of every dissenting 
 denomination, without exception, actually subscribed to the royal 
 supremacy as explained in the Thirty-nine Articles up to the year 
 1779*. 
 
 XIV. The church of England is merely a human institution, 
 founded and maintained by act of parliament. Therefore it 
 cannot be a part of the church of Christ. 
 
 Answer. I positively deny that the church of England was 
 founded by act of parliament, and require the act to be pro- 
 duced which pretended to found it. If it be said that our 
 
 * By the Act of Toleration ( 1 Will, authority in controversies of faith." 
 and Mar. c. 18.), confirmed 10 Anne, No objection was allowed to the 
 c. 2, dissenters were exempted from XXXVIIth Article, concerning the 
 the penalties of the law, only on con- civil magistrate, including the doc- 
 dition of their subscribing and re- trine of the royal supremacy. See 
 peating the declaration against tran- Grey's Eccl. Law, p. 170 172. Ana- 
 substantiation, invocation of saints, baptist teachers were obliged to per- 
 and the sacrifice of the mass, made form the same conditions : except 
 by parliament, 30 Car. II. c. i. And that they were excused from sub- 
 tneir teachers were only qualified by scribing the XXVIIth Article con- 
 making and subscribing the said de- cerning infant baptism. Quakers 
 claration, and declaring their appro- were obliged to subscribe the above 
 bation of, and subscribing the Thirty- declaration, a declaration of fidelity 
 nine Articles, except the XXXI Vth, to the king, and of his supremacy ; 
 XXXVth, and XXXVlth, and ex- and a profession of their belief in 
 cept also those words of the XXth the doctrine of the Trinity, and the 
 Article, " The church hath power to inspiration of the Scripture. Ibid, 
 decree rites and ceremonies, and
 
 OBJECT.] Objections. Imposition of Creeds and Articles. 205 
 
 church was founded in the time of Henry VI II., I reply by 
 adducing the first act of parliament in the controversy between 
 England and the Roman pontiff. The act against appeals 
 acknowledges that " there were in the spirituality, as there had 
 been at all times, men of such integrity and sufficiency, that 
 they might determine all doubts within the kingdom," and 
 that " the king's most noble progenitors, and the antecessors 
 of the nobles of this realm, have sufficiently endowed the said 
 church y." The act for the royal supremacy declared, that the 
 king had been acknowledged supreme head of the church of 
 England z , thereby proving that the church was already in 
 existence ; and in fine, the act for the deprivation of Cam- 
 pegius and Hierome again declares, that " before this time the 
 church of England, by the king's most noble progenitors, and the 
 nobles of the same, hath been founded, ordained, and esta- 
 blished in the estate and degree of prelatic dignities, and other 
 promotions spiritual," &c. a Therefore the church of England 
 had been founded before the time of Henry VIII., even by the 
 admissions of parliament itself ; and not founded by parliament. 
 The perpetual existence of this church is further proved by 
 the Magna Charta of king John, confirmed by every one of 
 the succeeding kings of England, the first article of which 
 guarantees the rights of " the church of England." In fine, it 
 is well known to every one, that the bishops, chapters, and 
 clergy of the present day, are, in the eye of the law, the 
 legitimate successors of those who lived six hundred years 
 ago ; and that legal evidence of their rights at that time, is in 
 many cases offered and admitted in proof of the rights of the 
 present incumbents. Therefore it is altogether ridiculous to 
 pretend that the church was founded by the civil power in the 
 reign of Henry VIII., Edward VI., or Elizabeth. 
 
 XV. The imposition of creeds and articles of faith is an 
 invasion of the kingly prerogative of Christ, and is anti- 
 christian. Consequently the church of England cannot be a 
 church of Christ. 
 
 Answer. If it be antichristian to impose creeds and articles 
 of faith, it must be equally antichristian to subscribe them : 
 but all dissenting ministers whatever, up to the year 1779, 
 
 y Burnet's Reformation, vol. i. p. 90 92. 
 
 232. (Oxford ed. 1816.) 25 Hen. VIII. act v. See Bur- 
 
 1 Ibid. vol. i. p. 205. vol iii. p. net's Records, vol. i. part ii. p. 189.
 
 206 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 subscribed the Articles and Creed of the church of England*. 
 Therefore they must, on this principle, have been antichris- 
 tian ; and what are we to think of all the dissenting churches 
 which communicated with them, in which they presided, and 
 which are derived from them ? Nor is this all. The very act 
 of 1779 compelled them to declare solemnly their belief in the 
 inspiration of Scripture, to take the oath of supremacy, and 
 make the declaration against transubstantiation, &c. c So that 
 they were still involved in the very same practices which they 
 object to us: and perhaps continue so to the present day. 
 Besides, they themselves exact professions of faith from their 
 ministers before ordination d . 
 
 XVI. The church of England cannot be a Christian church, 
 because she does not maintain apostolical discipline in the 
 censure and expulsion of such members as offend against the 
 laws of Christian sanctity. 
 
 Answer. (1.) The church of England does so, at least in 
 principle. No laws can more strictly enjoin discipline than 
 the canons of 1603, and her ministers are directed to refuse 
 the Sacrament to notorious offenders. However, it must 
 always require judgment and caution to apply such severe 
 remedies, and if the conversion of sinners can be accomplished 
 by the milder method of persuasion, it is on all accounts much 
 more desirable. Yet instances do occur occasionally in which 
 this discipline is put in force, though it must be acknowledged 
 that the wishes of the church are not fully attended to in these 
 respects. But however this may be, dissenters cannot con- 
 sistently deny the church of England to be a true church 
 because discipline is neglected by some of her members ; for, 
 (2.) Dissenters are liable to the very same objection them- 
 selves. They acknowledge that in their own churches the 
 
 b By the Act of Toleration, 1 Will, terests of the church of Christ." 
 
 and Mary, c. 18. above alluded to. Library of Eccl. Knowledge (Reli- 
 
 c Adam's Religious World, vol. gious Creeds, p. 127.) In short, we 
 
 iii. p. 40. are apostate, because our clergy are 
 
 d " We conceive the conduct of required to confess the faith in the 
 those bodies which require a specific church's words; dissenters are Chris- 
 confession of faith from the indivi- tians because their ministers are re- 
 dual who is proposed as their in- quired to make the same confession 
 structor, while they do not pre- in their own words. The question 
 viously prescribe a certain fixed and of Christianity does not in the least 
 systematic standard of sentiment as depend on doctrine, but on the far 
 the sine qua non most accordant more important consideration of the 
 with Scripture, reason, and the in- right of extemporary composition !
 
 APPEND.] Indifference in Religion. 207 
 
 same defects of discipline exist : " A much greater evil, how- 
 ever, is to be found in the retaining of persons as church- 
 members, when their character plainly unfits them for such a 
 station. Instances have not been wanting in which persons of 
 NOTORIOUS IMMORALITY, such as habitual drunkards and 
 others, have remained in undisturbed possession of their mem- 
 bership e . v 
 
 XVII. The ordinations of the British clergy being derived 
 from the popish and antichristian church, cannot be apostolical 
 or Christian. Therefore the British church cannot be a true 
 church, having no true ministry. 
 
 Answer. The ordinations of the church of England are 
 derived by regular succession within herself in all ages from 
 the apostles. But I have already denied that this church ever 
 became apostate, though for a time grievous abuses prevailed 
 amongst us. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAP. X. 
 
 ON INDIFFERENCE IN RELIGION. 
 
 One of the common objections of Romanists against the 
 church of England is founded on the existence of religious 
 indifference among some of her members, or the persuasion 
 that all sects and doctrines are equally secure, and that no 
 particular belief or communion is necessary to salvation. 
 Bossuet, Milner, and others, have asserted that this system is 
 extensively prevalent amongst us, and have employed it as a 
 proof that our churches are not Christian. 
 
 The origin of religious indifference may be traced indirectly 
 to the denial of all church authority, and the assertion of the 
 unlimited right of private judgment, which arose among the 
 Socinians a , and were sometimes incautiously maintained even 
 by members of the foreign reformed societies ; whence the 
 Independents and dissenters also derived them. It is plain 
 however, that although, in the imagined exigencies of contro- 
 
 * Library of Eccl. Knowledge, in general the truth and authenticity 
 vol. ii. p. 185. Essays on Ch. Polity, of the history of Christ, and adhere 
 
 Mosheim says they " permit to the precepts the Gospel lays down 
 every one to follow his particular for the regulation of our lives and 
 fancy in composing his theological actions." Eccl. Hist. cent. xvi. sect, 
 system, provided they acknowledge 3. part ii. ch. 4. s. 16.
 
 208 The British Churches. [P. i. CH. x. 
 
 versy for defence of the truth, some individuals during the 
 time of the Reformation may have let fall expressions, which, 
 in their legitimate consequences, might actually remove the 
 necessity of adhering to particular tenets, those consequences 
 were not known or allowed by them ; for all the reformed 
 communities subscribed and imposed confessions of faith, in 
 which the absolute necessity of believing certain doctrines is 
 asserted, and heretics are consigned to perdition. There can 
 be no doubt indeed, that in the sixteenth century, any one who 
 had advanced openly the doctrine of indifference, would have 
 been regarded by the reformed as an infidel, and most probably 
 experienced the fate of Servetus b . Chillingworth, in practically 
 denying to the church all authority in matters of faith, leaving 
 each man to form his own religion from the Bible only, by his 
 independent inquiries, removed some of the strongest barriers 
 against the intrusion of heresy c ; and his doctrine, that Scrip- 
 ture was so clear in all necessary matters, that he who received 
 it as his rule of faith, could not be a heretic, opened a way for 
 the doctrine of indifference. Still, as he did not draw the con- 
 clusions which led to this result, his principles were unsuspect- 
 ingly adopted by many, who would have shrunk with horror 
 from the conclusions which others afterwards deduced from 
 them. The history of indifference, in England, properly begins 
 with Hoadly ; who, in the early part of the eighteenth century, 
 first rendered this system known. The doctrines maintained 
 by him and his disciples, were as follows : 
 
 b The dissenters observe of the tural result of such views, measures 
 " first reformers," that " the views were adopted for the suppression of 
 they entertained of the constitution what was esteemed heresy, and the 
 of the church were deficient in some defence and extension of the truth, 
 important respects. The right of over which piety must ever mourn." 
 the civil magistrate to control its Library of Eccl. Knowledge. (Cor- 
 proceedings, and to visit the delin- rect Views of the Ch. p. 21.) After 
 quencies of its members with tern- this, it is strange the dissenters can 
 poral inflictions, was very generally pretend that they hold the principles 
 admitted. The terms of fellowship of the Reformation, 
 were rendered narrower and more c Whether Chillingworth himself 
 sectarian, than in the primitive was tainted with the Arian heresy 
 church. Uniformity of opinion, ra- or not, is a matter of dispute; but 
 ther than unity of spirit, was sought; it is certain that he has been the 
 and public formularies and systems idol of Arians and Socinians, as well 
 of faith had an importance attached as of other dissenters. Micaiah Tow- 
 to them, superior to that with which good, an Arian, in his Defence of 
 the word of God, in many cases, ap- Dissent, extols him most highly, 
 peared to be invested. As the na-
 
 APPEND.] Indifference in Religion. 209 
 
 I. That the true church of Christ being invisible, it is not a 
 matter of necessity to be of any particular visible church. 
 
 II. That Christ being the only lawgiver and judge in his 
 church, there is no other authority in the church in matters 
 of faith and practice, affecting salvation. That it is therefore 
 needless to hold any particular creed or interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, and sinful to require from others the belief of any. 
 
 III. That sincerity, or our own persuasion of the correct- 
 ness of our opinions (whether well or ill-founded), is the only 
 condition of acceptance with Grod. 
 
 IV. That the apostolical succession of the clergy, minis- 
 terial benedictions, and generally the sacraments and rites of 
 the church, are trifling, ridiculous, or unnecessary. 
 
 V. That Christ's kingdom not being of this world, all 
 temporal support of the church is contrary to the Gospel. 
 
 These were really the doctrines of Hoadly, as may be easily 
 seen by any one who reads his " Sermon on the Kingdom of 
 Christ," and his " Preservative against the principles, &c. of 
 Nonjurors ;"" though he endeavoured to explain away his ex- 
 pressions, when in danger of punishment d . The fifth position 
 was not generally sustained by his disciples, but was adopted 
 by the dissenters, and forms the whole basis of their argument 
 against church establishments. Their arguments in favour of 
 dissent, and against the church of England, are altogether 
 derived from the preceding principles of Hoadly 6 . These 
 
 d They were ably refuted by Law, has surrendered a great part of the 
 
 in his " Three Letters to Hoadly," leading points of controversy, which 
 
 and by a multitude of orthodox the ' catholic' authors of the two 
 
 theologians. preceding centuries had loaded the 
 
 c Micaiah Towgood on Dissent, shelves of libraries in endeavouring 
 and all the modern dissenters, take to prove. Your most learned and 
 no other ground. They prove that able writers have seen and lamented 
 the church of England does claim the event." Letters to a Preben- 
 authority in matters of religion, dary, lett. viii. It would be easy 
 They exaggerate the authority of the to show the correctness of this state- 
 temporal magistrate, in relation to ment. Hoadly's doctrine on the 
 the church; and thence, on Hoadly's eucharist was directly Socinian, as 
 principles, argue that it is unlawful Bishop Cleaver remarked in his Ser- 
 to communicate with us. They also mon on the Sacrament, before the 
 expressly cite Hoadly and his dis- University of Oxford, Nov. 25, 1787. 
 ciples, in proof of dissenting prin- (2nd. ed. p. 7 ) However, if we 
 ciples. Not only the dissenters, but have had a Hoadly, Romanists have 
 the Romanists were supported by had a Soanen, a Ricci, a de Hon- 
 Hoadly's errors. The acute contro- theim, a Geddes, and a Voltaire, as 
 versialist Milner, says : " It is an in- we shall see. 
 contestable fact, that Bishop Hoadly 
 
 VOL. I. P
 
 210 The British Churches. [p. i. CH. x. 
 
 principles were deemed so objectionable and dangerous by the 
 convocation of the church of England, that a committee of 
 the lower house was appointed to select propositions from 
 Hoadly's writings, and procure his censure by regular autho- 
 rity ; but before his trial could take place, the convocation was 
 prorogued by an arbitrary exercise of the royal prerogative, 
 and has not been permitted to deliberate since. 
 
 Blackburn, in his anonymous book, " The Confessional," 
 published in 1766, carried out these principles most fully; 
 contending that the imposition of creeds and Articles of Faith 
 was an infringement on Christ's office ; that it was unlawful 
 to submit to it , that the church of England was inconsistent 
 in requiring assent to any Creeds, Articles, &c. ; and that 
 each individual may, if he pleases, separate from all religions 
 and churches on earth ! That Blackburn was obliged to 
 conceal his name, is another proof of the general and strong 
 sentiment of the church of England f ; and an additional proof 
 was afforded in 1772, when some clergy having been so far 
 deluded as to petition parliament to be exempted from sub- 
 scription to the Articles, their request was refused g . A few 
 writers, in later times, carried these views to a still greater 
 length ; affirming, though still with no small degree of caution, 
 that truth in religion is merely the opinion of each individual ; 
 that all theological doctrines are human inventions ; that 
 revelation contains no doctrines, but is merely a collection of 
 historical facts, or a code of ethics ; that all religions are 
 equally safe ; and that no religious errors whatever ought to be 
 censured or condemned h . This class of doctrines was again 
 condemned, in the writings of Dr. Hampden, by the University 
 of Oxford, in 1836. 
 
 The system of religious indifference has, however, only been 
 avowed by a mere handful of persons ; and although they have 
 embraced some of its positions, they have not yet drawn the 
 
 f The judgment of the dissenters, in despair of effecting any alteration 
 
 as to his doctrine, was unequivocally in the church of England, avowed 
 
 manifested. The dissenting con- their heresy, and separated from her 
 
 gregation in the Old Jewry, on the communion. 
 
 death of Dr. Chandler, their minister, h It will he curious to contrast 
 
 who was an Arian, actually invited these maxims of modern philosophy, 
 
 Blackburn to be his successor ! with the conduct and principles of 
 
 * Lindsey, Disney, Jebb, Wake- the Reformation. (See Chapter XII. 
 
 field, Evanson, and other Socinians, sect, iii.)
 
 APPEND.] Indifference in Religion. 211 
 
 conclusions, which would at once open the door to infidelity. 
 If all existing doctrines, ordinances, worships, and commu- 
 nions, are matters of indifference, and we may adopt any or 
 none, according to our individual taste or choice, whether well 
 or ill-directed ; if all are equally safe, the conclusion of course 
 is, that all are equally true and equally false ; and, therefore, 
 that Christianity itself must be either obsolete or fabulous. 
 What other conclusion can follow, if it is not necessary to 
 believe any particular, definite doctrine ; if all that is said to 
 exist of Christian faith and morality, may be disputed, denied, 
 or maintained at pleasure ? Christianity can on these principles 
 be nothing but one philosophy amongst the many, or rather 
 one name, under which all imaginable contradictions and false- 
 hoods may find refuge. 
 
 But, to meet the objection of our adversaries, as to the 
 existence of such opinions, I would observe, first, that the 
 Romanist Milner himself has fully proved, that Hoadly's 
 tenets were entirely opposed to the religion of the church of 
 England ' ; and it is plain, that his school were so far from 
 being friendly to this church, that they justified all sects who 
 separated from her, and in return were hailed by them as 
 friends and auxiliaries, threw contempt on her ordinances, 
 accused her of inconsistency and actual impiety, in prescribing 
 the belief of scriptural and apostolical doctrines, and engaged 
 in a crusade against her Creeds and Articles. Secondly, the 
 church was only prevented by the interference of the civil 
 powers, from extirpating indifference when it first showed 
 itself ; and as it has only occasionally arisen since, so it has, 
 on two several occasions, been checked by the arm of autho- 
 rity. Thirdly, the catholic church was obliged to endure the 
 presence of the Arian heresy during the greater part of the 
 fourth century, during which it struggled to free itself from 
 that infidelity ; and it is admitted, by Romanists themselves, 
 that the church is often obliged, by various good motives, to 
 tolerate heretics for a time ; but that she does not regard them 
 as her children. Fourthly, the Roman churches themselves 
 are infected with the very same evil, for we learn from the 
 encyclical letter of Gregory XVI. A.D. 1832, that indifference 
 prevails among them to a great extent k . Fifthly, those who 
 
 1 Milner's Letters to a Prcben- k See the following Chapter, 
 dary, lett. viii. 
 
 p2
 
 212 The Roman Obedience. [P. i. CH. XT. 
 
 hold the doctrines of indifference, are as few in number, in 
 proportion to the church generally, as the Arians were at the 
 council of Nice ; and their doctrines would have perished long 
 ago, but for the support of the civil magistrate. For, through 
 the merciful protection of God, the clergy and people of our 
 churches have no inclination for sceptical principles even under 
 a disguise, but remain deeply rooted and grounded in the 
 simplicity of faith. We may say, with the holy martyr 
 Cyprian : " Nee vos moveat, fratres dilectissimi, si apud quos- 
 dam in novissimis temporibus, aut lubrica fides nutat, aut Dei 
 tirnor irreligiosus vacillat, aut pacifica concordia non perse- 
 verat. Prsenunciata sunt hsec futura in sseculi fine .... Viderit 
 vel praevaricatorum numerus vel proditorum, qui nunc in 
 ecclesia contra ecclesiam surgere, et fidem pariter ac veritatem 
 labefactare coeperunt. Permanet apud plurimos sincera mens 
 et religio integra, et non nisi Domino et Deo suo anima devota, 
 nee Christianam fidem aliena perfidia deprimit ad ruinam, sed 
 magis excitat et exaltat ad gloriam ; secundum quod beatus 
 Apostolus Paulus hortatur et dicit : Quid enim si exciderunt 
 a fide quidam eorum, nunquid infidelitas illorum fidem Dei 
 evacuavit ? Absit V 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 ON THE CHURCHES OF THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE. 
 
 THERE are four questions for consideration with regard to the 
 churches and societies of the Roman Obedience. First ; whe- 
 ther they continued to be churches of Christ up to the refor- 
 mation ? Secondly ; whether they remained churches of Christ 
 after the reformation ? Thirdly ; whether they constitute ex- 
 clusively the catholic church ? Fourthly ; whether all their 
 societies are free from schism and heresy ? Of the churches 
 and societies in communion with Rome, some are of ancient 
 foundation, viz. those of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Ger- 
 
 1 Cyprianus, Epist. ad Clerum et Mart. p. 167. ed. Pamel. 
 Plebes, in Hispania, de Basilide et
 
 SECT, i.] The Roman Obedience. 213 
 
 many, Hungary, Austria, Poland. Some are of modern foun- 
 dation, viz. those of South America, Mexico, part of the West 
 Indies, two or three in India, the Philippine Islands, and 
 China. Others, of which I shall hereafter speak, have been 
 formed within the jurisdiction of the catholic churches of the 
 east and of Britain. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 WHETHER THE WESTERN CHURCHES CONTINUED TO BE 
 CHURCHES OF CHRIST TILL THE REFORMATION. 
 
 I only speak now, and in the two next sections, of the Roman 
 churches which have not been founded within the jurisdiction 
 of other churches, and of these I maintain, that they continued 
 to be a part of the Christian church up to the period of the 
 reformation. 
 
 Every one admits that these churches were, in the earliest 
 ages, a part of the catholic church. They continued in com- 
 munion with the east till the eleventh century, and afterwards. 
 In fine, no time can be assigned at which they ceased to be 
 churches of Christ. Scarcely any thing can be objected to 
 them during these ages, which would not apply equally to the 
 eastern church. Their mere connexion with the see of Rome 
 could not make them apostate, for the whole catholic church, 
 until the eleventh century, communicated with that see. They 
 possessed every external mark of the Christian church, and 
 were regularly continued from age to age by the ordinations of 
 clergy and the admission of new members by baptism. They 
 maintained the same creeds which the universal church had 
 sanctioned, adhered to the definitions of faith made by the 
 catholic church, continued the use of rites which we believe to 
 descend from the apostles. On what reasonable ground, there- 
 fore, can it be pretended that the western churches did not 
 continue always to be churches of Christ? It is confessed 
 that errors, corruptions, and even heresies and idolatries, pre- 
 vailed widely in them in latter ages ; but it has been already 
 observed, that the existence of such evils within a church does 
 not necessarily annul its character a ; and, as in the present 
 case, it seems to have arisen partly from want of information 
 
 See above, chapter v. p. 82 94.
 
 214 Western Churches continued [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 and discussion ; and, besides, no article of the faith b appears to 
 have been formally or authoritatively denied or corrupted by 
 these churches, there seems no just reason to deny their 
 Christianity. 
 
 In fact, this has been admitted by all wise and charitable 
 men. The adherents of Luther acknowledged that the Ro- 
 man church, even in their time, was a part of the church c . 
 Luther himself reckons Bernard, Francis, and Bonaventure 
 among the saints, though they lived in times when great cor- 
 ruptions existed" 1 . The Apology of the Confession of Augs- 
 burgh reckons Bernard and Francis as saints e . In the 
 Confession of Augsburgh, the character and authority of the 
 catholic, and even the Roman church, are acknowledged f . 
 Luther himself, in 1534, seventeen years after he had begun 
 his career, acknowledged, unequivocally, the Christianity of the 
 churches in obedience to Rome. " That true church of Christ," 
 he says, " the pillar and ground of the truth, is the holy place 
 wherein the abomination stands. And in this church God 
 miraculously and powerfully preserved baptism ; moreover, in 
 the public pulpits and Lord's day sermons, he preserved the 
 text of the Gospel in the language of every nation ; besides 
 remission of sins and absolution, as well in confession as in 
 public. Again, the sacrament of the altar, which at Easter 
 time, and twice or thrice in the year, they offered to Christians, 
 though deprived of one species. Fifth, vocation and ordina- 
 tion to parishes, and the ministry of the word, the keys to 
 bind and loose, and to console in the agony of death. For 
 among many this custom was observed, that those who were in 
 
 b The Confession of Augsburgh the colloquy of Poissy in 1561. See 
 
 says of the reformed doctrine : also Archbishop Bramhall, Replica- 
 
 " There is nothing in it which differs tion to the Bishop of Chalcedon. 
 
 from the Scriptures or the catholic Works, p. 151. 
 church, or the Roman church, as far c This appears by their continual 
 
 as is known from her writers." appeals to a general council, and 
 
 Confess. August, pars i. art. 22. their protests that they did not sepa- 
 
 And elsewhere : " Since the church- rate from the Roman church. See 
 
 es among us differ concerning no the next chapter, sect. i. 
 article of faith (de nullo articulo d Lutheri Theses, 1522, Oper. 
 
 fidei) from the catholic church, but torn. i. p. 377, &c. ; De Abrog. 
 
 only omit some abuses, which are Missae Priv. torn. ii. p. 258, 259; 
 
 novel, and received contrary to the De Votis Mon. ibid. 271, 278. 
 canons, by the fault of the times," e Apolog. Conf. August. De Vot. 
 
 &c. Pars ii. prolog. This Confes- Mon. 21. 
 sion of Augsburgh was received by f Ut supra, 
 the Calvinists about 1557, and at
 
 SECT, i.] Christian up to the Reformation. 215 
 
 their last agony were shown the image of Christ crucified, and 
 admonished of the death and blood of Christ. Then, by a 
 divine miracle, there remained in the church, the Psalter, the 
 Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments. Like- 
 wise many pious and excellent hymns, as well Latin as German, 
 such as ' Veni Sancte Spiritus,' and ' Emitte lucis tuse radium,'' 
 &c. These hymns were left to posterity by truly spiritual 
 and Christian men, though oppressed by tyranny. Wherever 
 were these truly sacred relics, the relics of holy men, there 
 was and is the true, holy church of Christ, and therein re- 
 mained the saints of Christ ; for all these are ordinances and 
 fruits of Christ, except the forcible removal of one species 
 from Christians. In this church of Christ, therefore, the 
 Spirit of Christ was certainly present, and preserved true 
 knowledge and true faith in his elect. These relics, indeed, 
 were but small, and the true church lay miserably injured and 
 oppressed by the tyranny and infinite deceptions of the false 
 
 church The miserable, afflicted, and oppressed church 
 
 was to be pardoned by God, because one species of the sacra- 
 ment was taken away from her, unwilling and captive, and 
 denied to her. If even the elect and saints lived all their 
 lives in infirmity and error, yet in death He liberated them, as 
 it were, from the furnace of Babylon, such as St. Bernard, 
 Gregory, Bonaventure g ." 
 
 But such notions are not limited to Luther ; they are those 
 of the church of England, and of all her most eminent divines. 
 The several formularies of doctrine, published by authority in 
 the reign of Henry VIIL, acknowledged the churches of the 
 Roman Obedience to be parts of the catholic church h . The 
 canons of 1 603 speak of the other western unreformed churches 
 in such terms as evidently imply a recognition of them as 
 churches, though fallen from their ancient integrity or perfec- 
 tion. " It was so far from the purpose of the church of Eng- 
 land to forsake and reject the churches of Italy, France, Spain, 
 
 Lutherus, de Missa Privata, ford ed. p. 55.) The Necessary 
 
 torn. vii. p. 236, 237- Doctrine," approved by the bishops 
 
 h " The Institution of a Christian in 1543, includes in the catholic 
 
 Man," approved by twenty-one hi- church the particular churches of 
 
 shops in 1537, acknowledges the England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Por- 
 
 churches of Rome, France, Spain, tugal, and Rome. (Ibid. p. 247.) 
 
 &c. to be members of the catholic See also Part II. chap. ii. 
 church. (Formularies of Faith, Ox-
 
 216 Western Churches continued [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 Germany, or any other suck like churches, in all things which 
 they held and practised ; that, as the Apology of the church of 
 England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those cere- 
 monies which do neither endamage the church of God, nor 
 offend the minds of sober men ; and only departed from them 
 in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from 
 themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical 
 churches which were their first founders V In strict accord- 
 ance with these principles, it is maintained by our theologians, 
 that the churches of the west continually remained a portion 
 of the catholic church, up to the period of the reformation. 
 Dr. Field says : " Touching the Latin church likewise, we are 
 of the same opinion, that it continued still a part of the 
 catholic church, notwithstanding the manifold abuses and su- 
 perstitions which in time crept into it, and the dangerous and 
 damnable false doctrine that some taught and defended in the 
 midst of it k ." Bishop Hall teaches the same. " The Latin or 
 western church, subject to the Roman tyranny, was a true 
 church, in which a saving profession of the truth of Christ was 
 found V Archbishop Ussher, in reply to the question, " where 
 was your church before Luther f says : "Our church was even 
 there where now it is. In all places of the world where the 
 ancient foundations were retained, and those common princi- 
 ples of faith, upon the profession whereof men have ever been 
 wont to be admitted by baptism into the church of Christ, 
 there we doubt not but our Lord had his subjects, and we our 
 fellow servants. For we bring in no new faith, nor no new 
 church" In reply to the question, " what we may judge of 
 our forefathers who lived in the communion of the church of 
 Rome f he says : "I answer, that we have no reason to think 
 otherwise, but that they lived and died under the mercy of God. 
 For we must distinguish the papacy from the church wherein it is, 
 as the apostle doth antichrist from the temple of God wherein 
 he sitteth m . r> He shows elsewhere, that the ordinary instruc- 
 tion appointed to be given in those ages to men on their death- 
 beds was, that they should " put their whole trust in the death 
 of Christ :" " trust in no other thing, confide themselves entirely 
 to his death, cover themselves with it ;" "place the death of 
 
 ! Canon xxx. ' Hall, Of the Old Religion, p. 202. 
 
 k Field, Of the Church, book iii. m Sermon before the King, on 
 ch. 6. Eph. iv. 13.
 
 SECT, ii.] Christian after the Reformation. 217 
 
 the Lord Jesus Christ between themselves and God's judg- 
 ment ;" " offer the merit of his most worthy passion instead 
 of the merit which they had not themselves V Among other 
 theologians who maintained the Christianity of the western 
 churches before the reformation, were Hooker, Bramhall, 
 Laud, Chillingworth, Hammond, &c. Dr. Field cites Calvin, 
 Bucer, Melancthon, Beza, Philip Mornay, as all acknowledging, 
 in a certain sense, that the western churches before the re- 
 formation were really churches of Christ, though oppressed by 
 the papacy, and by several superstitions . Calvin, however, 
 seems to be inconsistent in his views on this subject p . 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 WHETHER THE CHURCHES OF THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE CON- 
 TINUED TO BE PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER 
 THE REFORMATION. 
 
 There are different opinions as to whether the Eoman 
 remained a part of the catholic church after the Reformation ; 
 and Jewel, Field, and others deny it, with some degree of 
 probability. We see that many errors, heresies, and idolatries 
 exist in the communion of Rome, and exist extensively, and 
 apparently with the sanction of authority ; and it seems that 
 those errors are defended with the greatest pertinacity, after 
 abundant discussion and information. Under these circum- 
 stances, it cannot be wondered at, that in the opinion of many 
 persons, the churches of the Roman obedience are heretical 
 and apostate ; nor can we condemn those who judge from such 
 circumstances. There is not even any intolerable inconveni- 
 ence in the supposition ; because the true church, even on this 
 
 n Usser. de Christian. Eccl. Sue- end of the chapter he says : " Anti- 
 
 cessione et Statu, c. 7. sect. 21, 22. christum in templo Dei sessurum 
 
 Of the Church, Appendix, part prsedixerunt Daniel et Paulus : il- 
 
 iii. p. 880. lius scelerati et abominandi regni 
 
 p He says (Lib. iv. c. 2. sect. 1, 2.) ducem et antesignanum apud nos 
 
 "Si vera Ecclesia columna est ac facimusRomanutnPontificem. Quod 
 
 firmamentum veritatis, certum est sedes ejus in templo Dei collocatur, 
 
 non esse ecclesiam, ubi regnum occu- ita innuitur, tale fore ejus regnum 
 
 pavit mendacium et falsitas. In quod nee Christi nee ecclesiae nomen 
 
 eum modum quum res habeat sub aboleat. Hinc igitur patet no* mi- 
 
 Papismo, intelligere licet quid eccle- nime negare, quin sub ejus quoque 
 
 siee illic supersit," &c. But at the tyrannide Ecclesue maneant."
 
 218 Roman Churches [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 supposition, still subsists in the east and west, though in many 
 parts of it, in a shattered and disorganized state. 
 
 But to me it appears safer to adopt the opinion of those who 
 consider the Roman churches, though labouring under most 
 serious corruptions, yet still to continue a portion of the 
 Christian church. Hooker reckons among the errors of the 
 Presbyterian or Puritan schismatics in his time, their " suffer- 
 ing indignation at the faults of the church of Rome to blind 
 and withhold their judgments from seeing that which, withal, 
 they should acknowledge, concerning so much nevertheless 
 still due to the same church, as to be held and reputed a part 
 of the house of God, a limb of the visible church of Christ a ." 
 And he elsewhere says, that " touching those main parts of 
 Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly 
 acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ ;" and 
 that " as there are which make the church of Rome utterly no 
 church at all, by reason of so many, so grievous errors in her 
 doctrines ; so we have them amongst us, who under pretence 
 of imagined corruptions in our discipline, do give even as hard 
 a judgment of the church of England itself V 
 
 Archbishop Laud, in his controversy with the Jesuit, says, 
 " I granted the Roman church to be a true church ; for so 
 much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me, 
 and the truth cannot deny it." He refers for proofs to Hooker, 
 Junius, Reynold, and even the separatist Fr. Johnson c . Dr. 
 Hammond says, " As we exclude no Christian from our com- 
 munion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with 
 us, being ready to admit any to our assemblies that acknow- 
 ledge the foundation laid by Christ and his apostles ; so we 
 as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedom of ex- 
 ternal communion with all the members of all other Christian 
 
 churches and would most willingly, by the use of the 
 
 ancient method of literce communicatorice, maintain this com- 
 munion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble, 
 and particularly with those which live in obedience to the 
 church of Rome d ." Bramhall, Andrewes, Chillingworth, Til- 
 lotson, Burnet, &c., might also be cited in acknowledgment 
 that the Roman is still a portion of the catholic church, though 
 it comprise within its communion much error and idolatry. 
 
 * Works, ii. 478, ed. Keble. Conference, s. 20, nu. 3. 
 
 b Works, i. 438. d Of Schism, ch. ix. s. 3.
 
 SECT, ii.] Christian after the Reformation. 219 
 
 The objection which was stated at the beginning, and which 
 leads to a contrary conclusion, may be thus answered : That 
 the Romanists were not obstinately pertinacious or heretical in 
 upholding the errors alluded to, I argue, first, because they 
 were deeply impressed with an opinion of long standing in the 
 western church, that the Roman pontiff was the divinely- 
 appointed centre of unity, and that every one who did not com- 
 municate with him was cut off from the church. This opinion 
 was of such antiquity, and supported by such forgeries, frauds, 
 and usurpations, that it was difficult to perceive its error e . 
 But from this doctrine it followed, that the western was the 
 whole catholic church of Christ, and that whatever western 
 councils had authorized was obediently to be received by Chris- 
 tians. Now, some doctrines and practices rejected by the 
 Reformation had apparently been so authorized ; therefore the 
 Romanists did not, without strong reasons, oppose the truth. 
 Secondly, the doctrines and practices of some of the adherents 
 of the Reformation were apparently innovations in some cases, 
 as being either not commonly received in the church for some 
 time before, or as being in fact and truth innovations on very 
 ancient customs, which had been abused and become inexpe- 
 dient and prejudicial to piety. And many churches were afraid 
 of innovations and changes, and deemed it most prudent to 
 remain as they were. Thirdly, the opponents of Romanism 
 were not exempt from faults and errors themselves, in doctrine 
 as well as discipline ; and their divisions naturally excited a 
 prejudice against their system. The language of some leaders 
 
 e So deeply rooted was this pre- separated from the communion of 
 
 judice long afterwards, even in the the whole church. Some persons 
 
 most enlightened part of the Roman believe they can easily reply to this 
 
 church, that the learned Du Pin, difficulty, by saying that those should 
 
 doctor of the Sorbonne, was com- be reputed schismatics and excom- 
 
 pelled to abstain from publishing to municated who were separated from 
 
 the world his belief that non-com- the communion of the Roman church 
 
 munion with the Roman see was no and bishop. As for me, while I 
 
 proof of schism. This curious fact doubt not that the authority of the 
 
 was discovered by Jurieu, who, in bishop of Rome, who is the primate 
 
 his work De 1'Unite de 1'Eglise, p. of the church, and therefore the 
 
 211, has printed the suppressed pas- centre of unity, has always been very 
 
 sages of Du Pin's treatise De An- great ; I am nevertheless obliged to 
 
 tiqua Eccl. Disciplina, p. 256, where abandon the opinion of those who 
 
 he spoke thus-: " When churches say, that all those who are separated 
 
 or bishops break mutual peace, from the Roman see have always 
 
 there may be a doubt which is in been reputed schismatics, and ought 
 
 schism, and which ought to be held now to be considered such."
 
 220 Roman Churches [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 of the Reformation was occasionally too violent and harsh in 
 relation to the Roman church, and kept alive feelings of irrita- 
 tion and estrangement; while the principles of unbounded 
 liberty and licence of private opinion which at length appeared 
 amongst the Protestants, raised an additional obstacle to the 
 progress of truth, which it threatened ultimately to subvert. 
 Fourthly, the reformed, in many parts of the church, were in 
 a difficult and unfavourable condition, from being apparently in 
 opposition to the existing bishops and pastors of the church ; 
 and it was natural, and not blameable, that the people should 
 prefer to adhere to their pastors, and be apprehensive of being 
 cut off from their communion. Fifthly, the synod of Trent, 
 though not, according to the true principles of the catholic 
 church, invested with any authority strictly binding on the 
 conscience, had yet, according to the opinions universally pre- 
 valent amongst Romanists at that time, a good title to be con- 
 sidered equal in authority to the ancient oecumenical councils ; 
 and therefore, though they were mistaken in point of fact f , it 
 would seem that they cannot fairly be accused of heresy in 
 admitting its decrees. 
 
 It appears to me that these considerations should exculpate 
 many members of the Roman church from such pertinacious 
 opposition to the evident truth as would properly constitute 
 heresy. It is true that their church is in error on several 
 points, perhaps even in matters of faith ; and without doubt 
 very many heresies and idolatries exist and are allowed in their 
 communion ; but it seems that they were prevented by so 
 many excusable circumstances from seeing the right way, that 
 we ought not to judge too harshly, and to exclude from the 
 church of Christ so vast a multitude of believers, so many 
 nations, and such a crowd of ancient churches. 
 
 That these churches should even still be regarded as part of 
 the church universal, I argue for the following reasons : First, 
 they have been always visible from the most remote antiquity, 
 having existed in perpetual succession in the countries where 
 they are found, and having never separated from any older 
 Christian churches in those countries. Secondly, it is undeni- 
 able that these churches preserve unity of communion among 
 themselves, both in principle and practice. They urge its 
 
 f See part iv. chap. xii.
 
 SECT, ii.] Always continued Christian. 221 
 
 necessity as a matter of religious duty, and inflict punishment 
 on those who offend against unity. There is no evidence that 
 they have ever been excommunicated by the majority of the 
 catholic church, or that they have voluntarily separated from 
 it ; and if they have unjustly expelled some from their com- 
 munion, it can be shown that it was under the influence of pre- 
 conceived opinions, or from ignorance. Thirdly, there cannot 
 be a doubt of their zeal to maintain the unity of Christian 
 truth ; they acknowledge the authority of the universal church 
 in faith, receive the apostolical tradition in principle, and en- 
 deavour in practice to sustain the catholic faith. Nor is there 
 evidence that any of the doctrines which they are bound to 
 receive, as members of the Roman church, have been formally 
 and clearly condemned by the universal church. Some of their 
 theologians so explain and teach the doctrines in dispute, that 
 the difference, as represented by them, is, in most points, not 
 considerable g . It is true that they esteem the synod of Trent 
 oecumenical, and are thus tied, in fact, to certain errors, not- 
 withstanding all their explanations ; but I have already ob- 
 served that they are, in some degree, excusable in this. And 
 it is also true that heresies and idolatries are allowed amongst 
 them ; but I have already proved that the existence of such 
 corruptions does not annul the character of a church. Fourthly, 
 they inculcate the duty of holiness, and endeavour, by a certain 
 sort of discipline and by religious exercises, to promote it ; and 
 it is certain that many men of zeal and piety have adorned 
 their communion. Fifthly, if they were excluded altogether 
 from the church, Christianity would hardly have that univer- 
 sality which the prophecies intimate. Sixthly, they possess a 
 ministry descended by regular succession from the apostles. I 
 conclude from this, that they are really to be considered part 
 of the universal church, though they are certainly full of cor- 
 ruptions and abuses. 
 
 * There is scarcely a point in de- Morton's Catholic Appeal ; Birck- 
 
 bate between us in which our doc- beck's Protestants' Evidence ; and 
 
 trine might not be proved simply Joannes Gerhard. Confessio Catho- 
 
 from Romish theologians. See Bp. lica.
 
 222 Roman Churches [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 WHETHER THESE CHURCHES CONSTITUTE EXCLUSIVELY THE 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 The exclusive claim which Roman Catholics make for their 
 branch of the church, asserting that it constitutes the whole 
 catholic church, has been adduced as affording in itself a pre- 
 sumption of its correctness. But it is forgotten that the 
 Donatists and the Luciferians made the same claim ; and no 
 one will pretend that it afforded any presumption in their 
 favour. The proofs by which Romish theologians attempt to 
 sustain this position, are classed under the four heads of 
 "Unity, 11 " Sanctity," "Catholicity," and " Apostolicity." After 
 what has been already said of the oriental and the British 
 churches, it will be seen in a moment that most of these argu- 
 ments are mere baseless assertions. 
 
 UNITY. 
 
 It is asserted that the Roman church alone has not sepa- 
 rated herself from any more ancient church ; she alone has 
 efficacious principles calculated to preserve unity, for her prin- 
 ciples are these that the faith of all Christians ought always 
 to be the same ; that by the force of Christ's promises there 
 ought always to be a tribunal for the decision of controversies 
 in the church ; and that the rewards of eternal life are only to 
 be obtained in the church. Accordingly, the Roman church 
 alone has always been inflexible in matters of faith, and never 
 connived at schism or heresy. Her children always obey the 
 judgments made by her infallible authority in matters of faith. 
 Among them no disputes exist except on matters of mere 
 opinion, not decided by the church. In fine, she alone pos- 
 sesses a most efficacious principle of unity, in maintaining the 
 Roman pontiff to be by divine appointment head of the church 
 and the centre of unity a . 
 
 Answer. I deny that the Roman church alone has not 
 separated from any more ancient church ; or that she alone 
 
 a See Bouvier, Delahogue, Milner, Trevern, Tournely, Bailly, &c.
 
 SECT, in.] Not exclusively invested with Sanctity, 223 
 
 has the efficacious principles of unity spoken of. These are 
 attributes equally of the oriental and British churches, as I 
 have shown. They do not indeed affirm, that a tribunal for 
 the decision of controversies by irrefragable authority must 
 always be in a state of organization, and ready to issue its 
 decrees ; because most controversies can be terminated without 
 any such authority b . But they admit that such a tribunal has 
 been constituted before now, and will be again, whenever the 
 Divine Head of the church shall judge it necessary to the pre- 
 servation of the true faith. As to the peculiar inflexibility of 
 the Roman church in matters of faith, it would be impossible 
 to prove that in this respect she stands, above the rest of the 
 church. It is pretty clear that she connives at heresy and 
 idolatry, and that they exist abundantly in her communion c . 
 The existence of JANSENISM in all parts of the Roman com- 
 munion up to the present day, although it was condemned as a 
 heresy two hundred years ago d ; the prevalence of INFIDELITY 
 and INDIFFERENCE, are sufficient proofs that actual unity of 
 faith is no essential characteristic of the Roman church e . The 
 introduction of SCHISMATICS to her communion in the persons 
 of the constitutional bishops, proves that there is no perfect 
 unity of discipline f ; and the very PAPAL AUTHORITY, which is 
 represented as so efficacious a principle of unity, is systemati- 
 cally and violently assailed by members of the Roman church %. 
 " This our Roman see of the most blessed Peter, in which 
 Christ laid the foundation of his church," says Gregory XVI. 
 " is most grievously assailed ; and the bonds of unity are daily 
 more and more weakened and broken." He accordingly ad- 
 monishes the bishops thus : " Therefore, in order to repress 
 the audacity of those, who either dare to infringe the rights of 
 this holy see, or to destroy the union of the churches with her, a 
 union from which alone they derive support and existence, 
 inculcate an exceeding zeal and veneration for her,' 1 &c. h This 
 last pretended principle of unity is well known to have divided 
 
 b See Part IV. Chap. v. where observes that, " ce qui frappe d'abord 
 the notion of a perpetual tribunal dans la Rome actuelle, c'est le de- 
 is refuted. faut presque absolu d'action, et sa 
 
 c See Appendix IV. dependence humilianle des souve- 
 
 d See Appendix I. raintes temporelles." Affaires de 
 
 e See Appendix II. Rome, ch. ii. 
 
 f See Appendix III. h See Appendix V. 
 
 K Appendix I. and V. La Mennais
 
 224 Roman Churches [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 the eastern from the western churches; and it continues to 
 form the grand impediment to their reunion, as it does to the 
 reunion of the British and Roman churches. Therefore it is a 
 principle of division rather than of union '. 
 
 SANCTITY. 
 
 Peculiar and exclusive sanctity is claimed for the Roman 
 church on the folio wing grounds. (1.) As she alone has not 
 separated from a more ancient church, she is the very same 
 which was founded by the apostles, and therefore her founders 
 alone were holy. (2.) She alone invites her children to holi- 
 ness, and affords efficacious means of sanctifi cation in her 
 sacraments, &c. (3.) All the martyrs of Christ, all the 
 doctors, all the saints of every age, sex, and condition, belong 
 to her only. (4.) From her alone have proceeded all the 
 missionaries and apostles of various nations. (5.) In her alone, 
 even to the latest times, are seen missionaries and saints 
 whose miracles are admitted by all. (6.) The monastic insti- 
 tute is found in her only k . 
 
 Answer. I deny the truth of every one of these propositions. 
 (1.) The eastern and British churches never separated from 
 any older churches. (2.) They equally maintain the necessity 
 of holiness, and administer all the means of grace of divine 
 institution. It is certain that there are many doctrines and 
 practices prevalent in the Roman communion, which tend to 
 diminish Christian sanctity and morality, as our theologians 
 have proved in the case of purgatory, indulgences, repentance 
 at the point of death, attrition, auricular confession, expiatory 
 masses, the distinction of mortal and venial sins, the doctrine 
 of probability, opus operatum, equivocation, mental reservation, 
 vain repetitions, idolatrous worship of saints and images \ &c. 
 Doubtless some of their members reject the worst part of these 
 things, but it is held and practised by the majority without 
 
 1 See Part VII. chap. v. sect. ii. moralis" of Ligorio, bishop of S. 
 
 k See the works of Tournely, Agatha, who was not long ago 
 
 Bailly, Delahogue, Bouvier, Collet, canonized as a saint by one of the 
 
 Milner, &c. &c. Roman pontiffs. The details of this 
 
 1 Bp. Taylor's Dissuasive from work are truly revolting. The 
 
 Popery, chapters ii. and iii. ed. Card- writers on moral theology in the 
 
 well. The grossly immoral tendency Roman churches seem to forget the 
 
 of Dens' Theology, which has been apostolic words : " Qua? enim in 
 
 so well exposed of late, is rivalled or occulto fiunt ab ipsis, turpe est et 
 
 surpassed by that of the " Theologia dicere." Eph. v.
 
 SECT, in.] Not invested with exclusive Sanctity. 225 
 
 censure, and the Roman churches never take any effectual steps 
 to correct prevalent abuses. We see but little sanctity in 
 practice. The learned Van Espen, professor of canon law in 
 the university of Louvain, states, that " the discipline of the 
 church is so collapsed, that scarcely a vestige remains : and all 
 sorts of vices have so prevailed everywhere, and are so abundant 
 that they are regarded as nothing ; and the people drink in 
 iniquity like water m ." Without disputing that there are many 
 good men among them, it may be asserted as a matter of 
 public notoriety, that the state of morals in all orders of 
 society, in the Roman churches of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and 
 France, is immeasurably degraded and corrupt n ; and what is 
 worse, that the very persons whose lives are spent in the most 
 infamous vices, are assiduous in their attendance on all the 
 offices of the church; that they are constant at confession, 
 communicate at Easter, and then revert to their usual habits, 
 without any sense of compunction for the profanations of which 
 they have been guilty. The banditti of the Abruzzi are re- 
 markable for attention to their devotions. The harlots and 
 assassins of Spain confess, communicate, and return to their 
 sins. In Ireland, it has been observed, that murderers have 
 frequently been found assiduous in all the services of their 
 religion. I ask, can that be a sound or wholesome system 
 which teaches men to look with indifference on sin ; and must 
 there not be something wrong in a mode of moral instruction 
 which can lead to such detestable profanations ? It is a 
 melancholy but a certain truth, that in no part of the world do 
 the crimes of assassination, robbery, murder, adultery, suicide, 
 rebellion, so fearfully abound, as in those countries where the 
 Roman church holds sway. Such is the actual sanctity of this 
 church in too many of her members ; and it certainly places 
 
 m Van Espen, ubi supra, p. 197. qu'un temoinage tropunanime pour 
 " La Mennais observing on the etre revoque en doute accuse de par- 
 external devotions of the Italians, ticiper au reldchement general des 
 says : " Cette devotion s'allie, dans moeurs." Ibid. ch. iii. " I ly a la, 
 le plus grand nombre, avec une pro- on doit le dire, un deplorable affai- 
 fonde corruption morale, qui ne blissement du sens interieur chre'- 
 choque presque personne, tant elle tien, une espece de retour aux idees 
 est commune." Affaires de Rome, paiennes . . Dans les Abruzzes . . le 
 ch. ii. With reference to the clergy brigandage n'a rien qui cheque, et 
 of Spain and Portugal, he remarks s'exerce meme devotement." Ibid 
 that there is " une portion du clergt, 
 
 VOL. I. Q.
 
 226 
 
 Roman Churches. 
 
 [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 her beneath both the oriental and the British churches. (3.) 
 It is a mere assumption to say that all the saints, martyrs, and 
 doctors, belong only to the Roman church. We claim them 
 absolutely as ours, and will not consent to lose one of them. 
 They belong to every part of the catholic church. (4.) I have 
 already shown the pious and successful missionary labours of 
 the eastern and British churches. (5.) The miracles of Romish 
 saints are admitted only by Romanists generally. Certain it 
 is, by their own admission, that vast numbers of so-called 
 miracles among them have been either fictitious or not properly 
 miraculous . Miracles have been pretended to by the Janse- 
 nists from the middle of the seventeenth century P, and about 
 the year 1731 they appealed to about two hundred miracles 
 performed at the tomb of the Abbe Paris q . Soanen, Barch- 
 man, Quesnel, Rousse, Levier, Desangins, Tournus, and many 
 other Jansenists, performed miracles (as they called them), 
 which their party boast of to the present day r . I have already 
 
 No authority on this subject 
 can be superior to that of the late 
 Dr. Milner. He said : " I admit 
 that a vast number of incredible 
 and false miracles, as well as other 
 fables, have been forged by some, 
 and believed by other catholics in 
 every age of the church, including 
 that of the apostles. I agree with you 
 in rejecting the ' Legenda aurea' of 
 Jacobus de Voragine, the ' Specu- 
 lum' of Vincentius Belluacensis, the 
 ' Saints' Lives' of the Patrician Me- 
 taphrastes, and scores of similar 
 legends, stuffed, as they are, with 
 miraclesof every description." End 
 of Controversy, letter xxiv. The 
 fact is, that Romish miracles are 
 almost proverbially impostures; and 
 their very mention provokes a smileof 
 incredulity. The falsehood of many 
 of these tales was also acknowledged 
 by Vives, Melchior Canus, Linda- 
 nus, &c. 
 
 p Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. vol. v. p. 
 211. They claimed miracles in their 
 favour in 1656, 1661, and 1664. 
 
 1 Memoires Eccles. xviii. siecle, 
 torn. ii. p. 83. 
 
 r Ibid. p. 89. 93. The Jansenists 
 again pretended to miracles in 1761 
 
 and 1785, of which the four holy 
 sisters and Bonjour, cure of Fareins, 
 near Trevoux, were the performers. 
 Mem. Eccl. xviii. siecle, ii. p. 399. 
 The Pere Lambert, a Dominican, in 
 1806 published " I' Exposition des 
 predictions" &c. in which he speaks 
 of these Jansenistic miracles as " a 
 heavenly sign which God has raised 
 in the church for 66 years," &c. 
 Ibid. 402. See also Mosheim, vol. 
 v. p. 211. The " venerable" Labre, 
 a French mendicant, who died at 
 Rome 1783, and at whose tomb it is 
 said the most wonderful miracles 
 were wrought, appears to labour 
 under very reasonable suspicions of 
 having been a Jansenist. The bishop 
 of Boulogne sent to Rome one of 
 his letters, in which he recommend- 
 ed to his parents a work of Lejeune, 
 who was a disciple of Quesnel. It 
 is said that in his last hours, being 
 invited to take the sacrament, he 
 had replied that " it was unneces- 
 sary." It is easy to see Jansenistic 
 principles in this. His parish-clergy- 
 man declared that Labre would 
 never perform his Easter duties, i. e. 
 receive the communion, &c. in his 
 parish. His miracles were laughed
 
 SECT, in.] Not invested with exclusive Sanctity. 227 
 
 observed, however, that miracles are not amongst the essential 
 characteristics and signs of the true church 8 . (6.) The 
 monastic institute of the order of St. Basil, in the oriental 
 churches, is preserved with a sanctity, severity, and simplicity 
 which might put to shame the western convents *. It is well 
 known that religious fraternities have been perpetually degene- 
 rating in the west, and scarcely any age has not witnessed 
 reformed congregations who have returned to the ancient dis- 
 cipline from the corruption and luxury of monastic life. Many 
 of the monastic orders in France had fallen into scandalous 
 abuses before the revolution. For example, the Benedictines 
 of St. Germain-des-Pres presented a petition to the king, in 
 1765, requesting " to be disembarrassed of their habit, and 
 freed from the nocturnal office, and the observance of maigre^ 
 Their clothing, they said, made them " ridiculous /" ..." For 
 many years a great laxity had been observed in some monas- 
 teries. Dissipation, idleness, and love of luxury and of the 
 world, had taken the place of retirement, labour, and the spirit 
 of poverty," &c. ..." Finally, this partly prevailed in the 
 
 Benedictine congregation Disorders broke out in many 
 
 houses. There they abolished without formality the use of 
 maigre ; here they retrenched the nocturnal office. Elsewhere 
 repasts, fetes, concerts, profaned a place destined to penitence 
 and prayer 11 ." I doubt not that virtuous and holy men are to 
 be found in some of these communities, but it is certain that 
 too many of them have been rather a disgrace than an honour 
 to their church. In Spain and Portugal especially, the immo- 
 rality of the monastic orders is notorious and scandalous. If, 
 therefore, the religious of our churches do not unite in peculiar 
 fraternities, religion amongst us is at least free from many of 
 the scandals which it has experienced in the Roman church. 
 
 CATHOLICITY. 
 
 The Romish theologians argue, from the extent of their 
 communion, that they alone are in possession of that attribute 
 of the true church catholicity or universality. 
 
 at in Spain, and not believed gene- Romanists among us to this day. 
 
 rally in France (Mem. de Pie VI. et ' See above, p. 1 14 117. 
 
 son Pontifical, ii. ch. 5.) These l Smith's Account of the Greek 
 
 Jansenist miracles, however, con- church, p. 93, &c. 
 
 verted an American dissenter, named u Memoires Eccl. xviii. siecle, ii. 
 
 Thayer ; and are boasted of by p. 477, 478. 
 
 Q2
 
 228 Roman Churches. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 I do not deny that their churches exist at present in a great 
 part of Europe, in America, and in a small part of Africa and 
 Asia. They are now more numerous than either the Greek or 
 the British communions. But we must here lay down a prin- 
 ciple, which is of the utmost importance in determining the 
 claim of any church to catholicity. Catholicity then, is, by the 
 universal consent of Romanists v , a permanent attribute of the 
 church. The catholic church is to be at all times universal. 
 It is represented, in its permanent condition, as " a great moun- 
 Church of tain which filled the whole earth w ." Now, it must be remem- 
 aiways bered that, from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, the 
 universal. Roman communion was limited to Europe; it numbered no 
 permanent adherents in Africa or Asia ; and America was as 
 yet unknown. The Latin churches of the east, transplanted 
 by the crusaders, existed but for a short time, and to a very 
 limited extent. It may be pretended that, now and then, 
 reconciliations took place between the Roman church and the 
 Greeks, or the Eutychians; but these reunions were only 
 momentary, scarcely sincere, and by no means general. It is 
 plain, therefore, that the Roman communion was not then uni- 
 versal ; and therefore it could then only have constituted a 
 part of the true church ; and as the remainder (viz. the oriental 
 church) has always continued to exist, it is evident that the 
 churches of the Roman obedience can only be a part of the 
 catholic church, notwithstanding their present extent. 
 
 That the Roman communion was only a part of the universal 
 church, was admitted in those ages even by the popes and 
 western synods, notwithstanding the extravagant claims which 
 were usually made by the see of Rome. The " schismatical " 
 Greeks, on these occasions, became "the oriental church," 
 while the Roman obedience assumed the modest title of " the 
 western church" or " the Roman church ;" and its members 
 entitled themselves, not " Catholics," but " Latins.' 1 '' This 
 language was employed by popes Gregory IX. X and Eugenius 
 
 T See Delahogue, Tract, de Eccle- tore bonorum omnium profundis 
 
 sia Christi, pars ii qusest. iii. propo- suspiriis petimus . . . . ut ipse .... 
 
 sitio i. ; Bouvier, pars i. c. 2. sect, suam sanctam atque catholicam ec- 
 
 3. prop. 3. See also Tournely, clesiam redintegrando uniat, et uni- 
 
 Bailly, &c. endo redintegret j in sinu ejus populis 
 
 w Daniel ii. 35. universis, Latinis et Graecis speci- 
 
 * Gregorius IX. Epistola ad Mi- aliter adunatis." Labb. Concilia, 
 
 chael. Palaeolog. Imper. Graecorum. t. xi. col. 942. 
 " Hoc est enim quod ab ipso Largi-
 
 SECT, in.] Only a, Part of the Catholic Church. 229 
 
 IV.y, by the council of Basle 2 , and by many writers in the 
 middle ages. If, then, the Roman obedience was only the 
 western church, its subsequent increase in heathen countries 
 cannot have transformed it into the universal church. 
 
 Romanists further argue that their communion constitutes Name of 
 the whole catholic church, because they are so peculiarly in Catholic ' 
 possession of the name of " Catholic, 11 that if any one should 
 enquire which is the " catholic church, 11 he would be directed 
 to them, even by members of other denominations. 
 
 I would observe, first, that this argument, however specious, 
 cannot be sound, because it is certain, from what has been said, 
 that the Roman or Latin communion is only a part of the 
 catholic church. In the next place, if Romanists contend that 
 they are exclusively catholics because they are so catted by 
 their opponents, they are bound equally to admit, that they are 
 not exclusively catholics, because they call themselves " Latins, 11 
 and " Roman catholics, 11 and thus testify that they are but a 
 part of the catholic church. Their own admission is surely 
 more than sufficient to counterbalance their adversaries 1 con- 
 fession. 
 
 Allowing, then, that they have latterly, partly by their own 
 pertinacious assumptions, and partly by the over-courtesy, the 
 ignorance, or carelessness of their opponents, obtained the 
 
 ' Eugenii papae Salvus-Conductus Deo, in regions nostra Occidentali, 
 
 pro Graecis. " Quia, annuente Do- et obedient ia ecclesice Romance est 
 
 mino, in Italia fiet universalis et universalis .... synodus celebranda 
 
 catholica synodus, in qua . . . Occi- in qua .... tarn Occidentalis quam 
 
 dentalis et Orientalis ecclesia conve- Orientalis ecclesia conveniat 
 
 nient. . . . Concedimus vobis impe- Haec sancta synodus Basileensis, 
 
 ratori et Patriarchae prsedictis (the nomine et vice totius ecclesiae Occi- 
 
 Greek emperor and the "patriarch of dentalis, dat et concedit serenissimo 
 
 Constantinople ") aliisque venera- imperatori Graecorum, reverendissi- 
 
 bilibus fratribus, Alexandrine, Anti- mis ^a/riarcAts,ConstantinopoIitano, 
 
 ocheno,Hierosolymitano,^>aruzrcAis, &c faciendi et tractandi quae 
 
 &c. . . . omniaque alia . . . faciendi pro unions ecclesiarum Christi eis ex- 
 
 et exponendi quae ad unionem eccle- pedire videbitur .... omni impedi- 
 
 siarum Christi illis conferre vide- mento reali et personali cessante, 
 
 buntur. . . . Item si hcec unio (quod penitusque remote, etiamsi talis unio 
 
 Deus avertat) non sequeretur, &c. . . (quod absit) non sequeretur . . . Non 
 
 Mandamus itaque omnibus . . . per- obstantibus . . . quibuscumque dif- 
 
 sonis, cujuscumque gradus vel prae- ferentiis, discordiis, et dissensionibus 
 
 eminentiae existant, quae Romance et ad prcesens vigentibus, et quae in fu- 
 
 Occidentali ecclesiae sint subjectae," turum oriri et vigere possent inter 
 
 &c. Labbe, Cone. t. xiii. col. 848, dictas ecclesias Occidentalem et Ori- 
 
 849. entalem." Labb. Cone. t. xii. col. 
 
 1 Concilii Basil. Salvus-Conduc- 568, 569. 
 tus pro Graecis. " Quia, auctore
 
 230 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 title of " Catholics ;" it is nevertheless certain that they are 
 only a part of the universal church, for previously to the 
 Reformation, as I have just shown, the Roman pontiffs and 
 councils entitled themselves " Latins, 1 ' and their church " the 
 Roman or Western church." To suppose that during those 
 ages, they were known in the east by the title of " Catholics, 1 ' 
 would be altogether absurd. They are still, up to the present 
 day, entitled "Latins" by their own writers. They them- 
 selves assume the denomination of " RoniMn catholics," thus 
 testifying, whether they will or no, that there are other catho- 
 lics, who are not of the Roman communion. They call their 
 communion " the Roman church," or " the Roman catholic 
 church," terms which indicate that it is only a part of the 
 catholic church a . 
 
 Unlike the catholic community in the time of St. Augustine, 
 which was so exclusively known by the title of catholic, that 
 one who spoke of it by any other appellation would not have 
 been understood (see p. 1 28), they are known to all the world 
 by different denominations. Every one understands the mean- 
 ing of such terms as " the church of Rome" or " the Roman 
 church," or " the Roman catholic church." The terms " Ro- 
 manist " and " Papist " are understood in all parts ; and the 
 latter has been received with pride and exultation by many 
 members of the Roman communion b . In some parts of the 
 
 a " Si quis dixerit . . . sola fide tolic," subscribed by eighteen Ro- 
 
 amissam justitiam recuperare sine mish bishops at various times. "Sola 
 
 sacramento poenitentiae, prout sancta ecclesia Romano, est vere catholica." 
 
 Romana et universalis ecclesia .... Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 65. 
 
 hue usque professa est," &c. Con- " Praeter ecclesiam Romanam sen ec- 
 
 cil. Trident. Sessio VI. can. 29. clesiam catholicam .... nullae sectae 
 
 " Why do we call the church Ro- ausae quidem fuerint sibi usurpare 
 
 man? Because the visible head of nomen ecclesiae catholicae." Per- 
 
 the church is the bishop of Rome." rone, Praelect. Theol. vol. i. p. 256. 
 
 Butler's Catechism. "The church " Hanc utramque catholicitatetn 
 
 above described ... is that which is habet ecclesia Romana." Bouvier, 
 
 called the Roman-catholic church." De Ecclesia, p. 155 " Les rascol- 
 
 Faith of Catholics, p. 80. "The nics en masse protestent centre 1'e- 
 
 archbishops and bishops of the Ro- glise Russe, comme celle-ci proteste 
 
 man-catholic church in Ireland avail contre 1'eglise Romaine." De Mais- 
 
 themselves with pleasure," &c. tre, Du Pape, lib iv. c. iii. 
 Declaration signed by thirty Romish b " Cum primis id tibi gloriosum 
 
 bishops, in 1826, appended to Dr. fore puta si Papista vocatus fueris." 
 
 Doyle's Essay on Catholic Claims. Cardinalis Hosii Opera, t. i. p. 
 
 "Neither the pope nor any other 735. " Sathanistam libere pronun- 
 
 prelate or ecclesiastical person of the ciat (Hieronymus) qui non vult esse 
 
 Roman-catholic church," &c. De- Papista " Ibid. p. 736. " A Papa 
 
 claration of English " vicars apos- Papistas dici nee veremur, nee eru-
 
 SECT, in.] Only a Part of the Catholic Church. 231 
 
 world they assume and are exclusively known by this denomi- 
 nation c ; therefore, if the indolence or courtesy of others per- 
 mit them to assume the title of " Catholics " almost exclusively, 
 their own practice establishes most clearly that they are but a 
 large branch of the universal church. 
 
 This want of universality in the Roman communion for five 
 centuries, furnishes also an absolute demonstration that the 
 see of Rome is not the centre of catholic unity ; for were the 
 supremacy of this see an essential element in the church of 
 Christ, it must always have been received universally ; it must 
 have possessed the same universality of diffusion as the church 
 itself; but for five centuries it was, generally speaking, only 
 received in a part of Europe ; therefore it is not an essen- 
 tial element in the catholic church. 
 
 We of course, on principle, do not deny the title of " catho- 
 lics " to the members of those Roman churches which exist in 
 places where they have not separated from any older Christian 
 society. We also regard the title of "catholic "as properly 
 belonging to the members of the British and Oriental churches. 
 But as these churches do not pretend that they alone are 
 catholic, while Romanists assume this title to discriminate 
 themselves from other branches of the church ; it follows 
 necessarily, that the ignorant, who observe the title of " catho- 
 lic" usurped exclusively by the one party, and not denied 
 absolutely by the other, should often give that title, under cir- 
 cumstances where a right discrimination and competent know- 
 ledge would dictate a contrary course. For instance, no one 
 
 bescimus." Job. Lorinus in Comm. pists. When at Kintaya, Attalia, 
 Act. x. v. 30, cited by Gerhard, Or- and even frequently at Jerusalem, I 
 thodoxa Confessio, lib. ii. art. v. c. asked some of the above-mentioned 
 iv., where other similar passages in native Christians, ' Are you CHRIS- 
 various authors are referred to. One TIANS ? ' they replied ' No : but we 
 of their popular books is " TbePapist are PAPISTIAN.' " Wolff's Journal, 
 misrepresented, and represented." from 1827 to 1838, p. 225. Another 
 c The eminent missionary Wolff curious fact deserves to be noticed : 
 states, " that the Greeks, Armenians, "Our servant Antonio went into 
 Syrians, Abyssinians, Copts, and the church of the Latin convent . . . 
 Chaldeans, call themselves catholic The superior came up to him and 
 Christians ; whilst . . those who have desired him to go out. He answered, 
 been drawn over to the Romish he was not a Turk, he was a Chris- 
 church protest (especially those Ar- tian. The superior answered, ' A 
 menians and Greeks turned Roman- Christian ! A Greek ! Pooh ! get 
 ists, and residing in Anatolia) against out, we do not want you here.'" 
 the name of catholic Christians, but Ibid. p. 224. 
 call themselves Papistian, i. e. Pa-
 
 232 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 of sufficient information could recognize the appellation of 
 " catholics " as assumed by any separatists in Great Britain, 
 Ireland, or America. He knows of no catholics in these 
 countries except those who are members of our catholic and 
 apostolic churches ; and he would not profane the holy name 
 of catholic by conferring it on those who have separated from 
 the apostolic church. To do so knowingly would indeed be 
 highly sinful, and would come under the condemnation of them 
 " that call evil good, and good evil d ." 
 
 APOSTOLICITY. 
 
 The Roman church alone is apostolical, for history proves 
 that she has existed from the time of the apostles. The unin- 
 terrupted series of her bishops can be shown, extending from 
 St. Peter to the present pontiff; and unlike other churches, 
 she alone has not separated from any more ancient Christian 
 society ; therefore she alone is apostolical. 
 
 Answer. The particular church of Rome has existed from 
 the time of St. Peter ; and many other of the Roman churches, 
 derived originally peaceably from this or other apostqlical 
 churches, may also justly be considered as apostolical. But 
 the very same may be said of the eastern and British churches, 
 which constitute the original Christian societies in their respec- 
 tive localities ; consequently, the Roman churches are not alone 
 apostolical. It is further contended, that the Roman churches 
 only have an apostolical ministry. But I have already shown 
 that the eastern and British churches are exactly in the same 
 position. 
 
 In conclusion, then, it may be affirmed certainly, that the 
 churches of the Roman obedience form only a part of the 
 catholic church of Christ ; that their authority, institution, 
 sanctity, &c., are not essentially different from those of other 
 churches ; and that, in several respects, they are even inferior 
 to the rest of the catholic church. The picture drawn of their 
 position by Gregory XVI., in his encyclical letter to all the 
 bishops in 1832, is truly deplorable, though it embraces but a 
 part of the evils which afflict that church. 
 
 " We speak, venerable brethren, that which ye behold with 
 your own eyes ; which, therefore, we deplore with united tears. 
 An unrestrained wickedness, a shameless science, a dissolute 
 
 d Isaiah v. 20.
 
 SECT, in.] Present Condition of the Roman Churches. 233 
 
 licentiousness, are triumphant. The sanctity of holy things is 
 despised, and the majesty of divine worship, which possesses 
 such great power, and is of so great necessity, is blamed, pro- 
 faned, derided by wicked men. Hence sound doctrine is per- 
 verted, and errors of all kinds are daringly disseminated. The 
 laws of sacred things, the institutions, the very holiest disci- 
 pline, are not safe from the audacity of those who speak 
 unrighteously. This our see of the most blessed Peter, in 
 which Christ laid the foundation of his church, is most griev- 
 ously assailed ; and the bonds of unity are daily more weakened 
 and broken e . The divine authority of the church is impugned ; 
 and her rights being torn away, she is subjected to earthly 
 considerations; and reduced to a base servitude*, she is most 
 unjustly exposed to the hatred of the people. The obedience 
 due to bishops is infringed, and their rights are trampled on. 
 The academies and schools resound in a dreadful manner with 
 new and monstrous opinions, by which the catholic faith is no 
 longer assailed secretly and by mining, but a horrible and im- 
 pious war is now openly waged against it. For when, by the 
 instruction and example of the teachers, the minds of youth 
 are corrupted, the destruction of religion is vast, and the vilest 
 corruption of morals becomes general." He afterwards alludes 
 thus to the opinions of the reforming party in the Komish 
 church : " It would be unlawful, and altogether contrary to 
 that respect with which the laws of the church are to be 
 received, to condemn, by an insane love of judging, the disci- 
 pline sanctioned by her ; which includes the administration of 
 sacred things, the rule of morals, and the rights of the church 
 and its ministers ; or to represent it as hostile to certain prin- 
 ciples of the rights of nature ; or to pronounce it defective and 
 imperfect, and subject to the civil magistrate g . As it is certain 
 
 e This probably alludes to the bishops, but chiefly to the civil ma- 
 dissemination of anti-papal princi- gistrate. See Appendix I. 
 pies in Italy, Austria, and Germany, f The servitude to which the Ger- 
 where the maxims introduced by man, Austrian, and Italian churches 
 De Hontheim, Van Espen, Eybel, were reduced in the time of Joseph 
 and all the school of modern canon- II., has continued ever since. The 
 ists under the influence of Joseph Gallican church is equally enslaved 
 II. Leopold, grand duke of Tus- by the " Organic Articles " which 
 cany, Tanucci, &c., still prevail, and ISapoleon annexed, by his own au- 
 are encouraged by the governments thority, to the Concordate of 1801, 
 of those countries. These principles by which Christianity was restored 
 reduce the papal power to a mere in France. See Appendix III. 
 name, and transfer it partly to the g This is a manifest allusion to
 
 234 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 . . . that the church was taught by Jesus Christ, &c. ... it 
 is evidently absurd, and most injurious to her, to put forward 
 a certain restoration or regeneration, as necessary to provide for 
 her security and increase ; as if she could be supposed liable 
 to defect, or obscuration, or other evils of that kind. By which 
 attempts the innovators have it in view to lay the foundation 
 of a new human institution ; and that what St. Cyprian detested 
 may occur ; namely, that what is divine, may become a human 
 church V . . . . " And here we wish to excite your constancy 
 for religion against a most shameful conspiracy, formed against 
 clerical celibacy, which you know every day to become more 
 vehement, some even of the ecclesiastical order uniting with 
 the most abandoned philosophers of our age ; and who, forget- 
 ful of their character and office, carried away by the blandish- 
 ments of pleasure, have proceeded to such a pitch of licence, 
 that in some places they have dared to address public and 
 reiterated petitions to princes, to destroy this holy discipline '." 
 Such is the state of the Roman church ; full of infidelity, im- 
 morality, division, uneasiness, innovations, enslaved by the 
 civil powers, and divided internally by Jansenism, heresy, 
 schism, and indifference. If she alone constituted the catholic 
 church, Christianity would indeed be at a low ebb, and the 
 gates of hell would almost have prevailed against it. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 SOCIETIES OF THE ROMAN COMMUNION OF THE MODERN 
 FOUNDATION. 
 
 Hitherto I have spoken of the ancient churches of the Ro- 
 man obedience, which were not founded by an act of separation 
 from older Christian societies, but were originally gathered 
 from the heathen world. I am now to speak of modern com- 
 munities, under the title of churches, established or protected 
 
 the principles promulgated by all ' In Baden and other parts of 
 
 the new canonists and reforming Germany. See an article on the 
 
 theologians in the Roman church Church in Silesia, Foreign Quarterly 
 
 from the middle of last century. Review for 1827, p. 515, &c. The 
 
 h The allusion here is to the Jan- original of these passages, from the 
 
 senistic principles and practices bull of Gregory XVI., will be found 
 
 which will be detailed in Appen- in Appendix V. 
 dix I.
 
 SECT, iv.] Boman Societies of modern Foundation. 235 
 
 by the care of the Boman pontiffs, in localities where there were 
 previously existing branches of the catholic and apostolic 
 church ; and of other modern Roman societies. In order to 
 judge rightly of these societies, we must discriminate several 
 different cases. 
 
 First, if members of the Latin churches should find them- Latins in 
 selves resident in the regions of the oriental churches, and 
 should be unable, from ignorance of the language or from some 
 other inconvenience, to receive the full benefit of administration 
 in the oriental church, it would not be schismatical in them to 
 call in the aid of the Latin priests, with consent of the eccle- 
 siastical authorities of the east. Accordingly, it is known that 
 Latin convents existed in Constantinople, Jerusalem, and other 
 parts of the east, before the division of the eastern and western 
 churches. 
 
 Secondly, if the Latins of the east were separated by the 
 Greeks from their communion afterwards, as appears to have 
 been the case, it could not be schismatical in them to provide 
 priests for themselves, and even bishops, to administer ordina- 
 tion and confirmation. This would be justified by the necessity 
 of the case ; and being in its nature only a temporary and pro- 
 visional arrangement, would not interfere with the essential 
 principles of unity j . Hence we cannot altogether condemn 
 the Latins for appointing some Latin priests and bishops in 
 Palestine and Syria, in the time of the crusaders, and for 
 retaining some convents and priests there still. 
 
 Thirdly, any eastern heretics who chose to unite themselves 
 with the Roman communion, and who were on that account 
 not acknowledged by the oriental churches, were still not in 
 schism. Hence the Maronites of Syria, who renounced the 
 Eutychian errors, and the Indians of St. Thomas, who re- 
 nounced the Nestorian heresy, and remain to this day united 
 to the Roman see, are not cut off from catholic unity, though 
 they do not communicate with the other oriental churches. 
 
 Fourthly, it was wholly unlawful for the Latins to eject the 
 Greek bishops or priests, or to force them by persecution to 
 submit to the Roman see. It was equally unlawful to ordain 
 Latin bishops in their place, and to treat them as heretics or 
 
 j The same rule justifies the re- Anglo-catholic communion at Jeru- 
 cent appointment of a bishop of the salem, and any similar acts.
 
 236 Roman Sectaries. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 schismatics. But this was done in Cyprus, and many of the 
 islands of the Archipelago, and in Greece. Therefore all the 
 Latin societies thus formed had a schismatical origin ; and this 
 fault could not be healed by the encouragement which the 
 Roman pontiffs afforded to these proceedings, which was in 
 itself blameable, and proceeded from false and exaggerated 
 notions of their own rights. 
 
 English Fifthly, when certain individuals, in obedience to the exhor- 
 
 and Irish Cations f papal emissaries, or to the directions of Roman pon- 
 
 Jtvoniamsts. 
 
 tiffs, separated themselves from the communion of the catholic 
 
 church of their country ; when they established rival altars, 
 a rival priesthood, and endeavoured to withdraw the faithful 
 from obedience to their legitimate pastors ; then it is plain 
 that such men were guilty of schism. Such was the conduct 
 of the Romish party in England and Ireland, who fell from the 
 catholic church in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and have not 
 ceased to rage against her ever since. This subject will be 
 enlarged on elsewhere, and the original of these sects will be 
 developed k . 
 
 American Sixthly, schismatics do not cease to be so by a mere change 
 Q f gom^y^ Therefore the papists who went from this country 
 to establish colonies in the United States of North America, 
 were schismatics when they arrived there ; and always remain- 
 ing separated from that branch of the catholic and apostolical 
 church which was established there, they only perpetuated their 
 schism. In fine, when America received bishops from our 
 churches, the schismatics constituted a rival episcopacy ', and 
 so remain to this day separated from the true church. 
 
 k See part ii. chapters ii. and x. rival bishopric of Baltimore ; and 
 
 1 Dr. Seabury, bishop of Connec- nominated to it Dr. John Carroll, 
 
 ticut, was consecrated by the most who was consecrated in England, 
 
 reverend primus, Dr. Kilgour, and 1790, and headed the schism in 
 
 other bishops of Scotland, AD. 1784. America. In 1808, the pontiff raised 
 
 Dr. Provost, Bishop of New York, the see of Baltimore to be archiepis- 
 
 and Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, copal, and pretended to erect sees of 
 
 were consecrated by Dr. Moore, the New York, Philadelphia, Boston, 
 
 most reverend primate of all Eng- and Beardstown, in opposition to 
 
 land, and other English bishops, in the previously-existing churches of 
 
 1787; as was Dr. Madison, bishop those localities. There are very se- 
 
 of Virginia, in 1790. The dioceses rious difficulties affecting the ordi- 
 
 of Maryland, South Carolina, Mas- nation of the above-mentioned Car- 
 
 sachusetts, &c., which had all been roll, and all the Romish clergy in 
 
 previously constituted, received bi- the United States derived from him ; 
 
 shops about the same time The in consequence of his ordination 
 
 Roman pontiff erected, in 1789, the having been performed by only one
 
 OBJECT.] Language of the Homilies. 237 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 I. The Homilies of the church of England deny that the 
 Roman is a part of the Christian church. Having defined the 
 true church, and explained its notes or marks, it is said : " If 
 you will compare this with the church of Rome, not as it was 
 in the beginning, but as it is at present, and hath been for 
 the space of nine hundred years and odd, you shall well per- 
 ceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the 
 true church, that nothing can be more m ." 
 
 Answer. This is said in the course of an argument against 
 the position of the popes of Rome, that they " are the chief 
 heads and the principal part of the church, therefore they have 
 the Holy Ghost for ever ; and whatsoever things they decree 
 are undoubted verities and oracles of the Holy Ghost" Being 
 intended to guard the people against the papal emissaries, such 
 expressions must be considered in some degree popular and 
 rhetorical, and are not to be taken literally and strictly, as 
 expressing the formal sense of the church. 
 
 II. The Homilies elsewhere speak of the " idolatrous 
 church," as " a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot (for she is 
 indeed of ancient years)," &c. n 
 
 Answer. We may most properly understand these expressions 
 to apply to that prevalent party in the Roman church, which is 
 involved in idolatry, not to every member of that church. 
 Besides, these expressions are only used obiter, and not in the 
 way of formal doctrine or definition, therefore we are by no 
 means bound to them in every point. It is also true, in a 
 certain sense, that the church of Rome is idolatrous ; that is, 
 idolatry is very prevalent in her communion, and it is allowed 
 by her authorities. 
 
 III. The Homily against Peril of Idolatry says, that " not 
 only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise ; not 
 the people only, but the bishops ; not the sheep, but also the 
 shepherds themselves . . . being blinded by the bewitching of 
 images, as blind guides of the blind, fell both into the pit of 
 
 titular bishop, Dr. Walmsley, who See also part vi. ch. xi. 
 
 appears to have laboured under a m Sermon for Whitsunday, pt. ii. 
 
 similar irregularity or deficiency n Sermon against Peril of Idola- 
 
 himself. See Memoires Eccl. xviii. try, part iii. 
 
 siecle, torn. iii. p. 142. 145. 485.
 
 238 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. XT. 
 
 damnable idolatry. In the which all the world, as it were, 
 drowned, continued until our age, by the space of above eight 
 hundred years, unspoken against in a manner. ... So that 
 laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and 
 degrees of men, women, and children, of whole Christendom 
 (a horrible and most dreadful thing to think), have been at 
 once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most 
 detested of God, and most damnable to man, and that by the 
 space of eight hundred years and more . 1 ' 
 
 Answer. The meaning is, that multitudes in every class were 
 guilty of idolatry, which is very certain ; but not that the 
 whole church, strictly speaking, fell into damnable idolatry, so 
 that all its members were idolaters. 
 
 IV. The errors of the Roman churches, contrary to the 
 doctrine and morality of the Gospel, are destructive of their 
 character as churches of Christ. 
 
 Answer. Doubtless those churches are full of corruptions, 
 but not so as to annul their character altogether ; for, as 
 Chillingworth says : " Those revelations, the church of Rome 
 not seeing, by reason of the veil before their eyes, their churches 
 supposed infallibility ; I hope the denial of them shall not be 
 laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and 
 stubble on the foundation, not overthrowing the foundation 
 itself*." 
 
 V. The Roman pontiff is antichrist, the beast, and the man 
 of sin ; therefore all who have the sign of the beast, that is, all 
 of the Roman communion, are cut off from the true church of 
 Christ, which was driven into the wilderness. 
 
 Answer. It is disputed by many of our theologians, whether 
 those prophecies really relate to the Roman pontiffs : but sup- 
 posing that they do, I deny absolutely the conclusion which is 
 attempted to be drawn from them, for all who apply these 
 prophecies to the Roman see affirm, that the reign of Anti- 
 christ had begun, at latest, in the eighth century ; but the 
 universal church held communion with the see of Rome till the 
 eleventh century at least ; therefore, according to this objec- 
 tion, the whole church must have failed and become apostate 
 for several centuries, which is a decidedly heretical position, 
 contrary to the Christian faith. Therefore we may assume it 
 
 Sermon against Peril of Idola- p Chillingworth, chap, iii. s 21. 
 try, part iii.
 
 OBJECT.] Antichrist. 239 
 
 as certain, that mere communion with the Roman see is no 
 sign of apostasy from Christ. 
 
 VI. The adoration of the host, practised in the Eoman 
 church, is grossly idolatrous, and as every one is compelled to 
 unite in this act, the whole Roman church must be idolatrous 
 and apostate, and cannot be a part of Christ's church. 
 
 I answer, First, that although the council of Trent declares 
 that " the worship of latria, due to the true God," ought to be 
 paid " to this sacrament q ;" from which it may be inferred, 
 that the elements of bread and wine are to be worshipped ; 
 the same council elsewhere directs this worship to Christ him- 
 self T ; and accordingly, Roman theologians maintain, without 
 any censure, that the worship " is wholly referred to Christ 
 himself, not to the signs and outward appearances, which 
 although they be honoured with the same religious worship, 
 yet are not honoured with that supreme one of latria s . < " It is 
 impossible to maintain that there is any idolatry in this. 
 
 If Christ be in a special and mysterious manner present in 
 these " holy mysteries *," as the infinite majority of Christians 
 have at all times firmly and fervently believed, according to 
 the more simple and unrestrained interpretation of Holy 
 Scripture ; the truly religious man cannot but be profoundly 
 impressed with sentiments of awe and veneration in the more 
 immediate presence of the Divine Saviour of the world. He 
 will feel with the patriarch : " How dreadful is this place ! 
 this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of 
 heaven." Nor will he need the voice of God to say : " Put 
 off thy shoes from thy feet ; for the place whereon thou 
 standest is holy ground"." 
 
 Since, therefore, the members of the Roman communion are 
 not obliged to worship the bread and wine with divine honours, 
 that church cannot be fairly said to be wholly idolatrous or 
 apostate ; and notwithstanding her practical corruptions, may 
 still remain a part of the Christian church. 
 
 " Concil. Trident. Sessio xiii. cap. tia, t. i. p. 307. See also Bellarmin, 
 
 v. de Sacr. Euchar. 1. iv. c 30. 
 
 r Ibid. can. vi. * Exhortation in the Office of the 
 
 8 " Adoratio autemilla tota refer- Holy Communion, 
 
 tur ad Christum ipsum ; non ad u See Gerhard. Loci Theolog. 1. 
 
 symbola et species externas, quae xxii. 204; Confessio Orthodoxa, 
 
 licet cultu aliquo religiose sint ho- lib. ii. part. ii. art. xiv. cap. vii. ; 
 
 norandae, non tamen supremo et Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, t. 
 
 Latriae." Tournely, de Eucharis- iv. 1. vii. cap. i.
 
 240 Roman Churches. [p. i. OH. xi. 
 
 Secondly, it is not to be denied that the elements themselves 
 are, in many cases, made the object of superstitious and even 
 idolatrous worship ; as has been shown by various writers 
 from the works of Gregory de Valentia, Bellarmine, Coster, 
 Vasquez, &c. v But it does not seem that these corruptions 
 are universal ; though they certainly prevailed so much, that 
 it was extremely necessary to remove the elevation and other 
 rites which led to such serious evil in the church. 
 
 It would seem that the elevation and its accompanying rites 
 were not always understood as acts of worship to the elements, 
 or to Christ present in the sacrament. 
 
 Elevation The elevation is, comparatively speaking, not an ancient rite. 
 
 of the Host. The Roman ritualists, Bona x , Merati ?, Benedict XI V. z , Le 
 Brun % &c. acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence 
 before the eleventh or twelfth century in the west. The Ordo 
 Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, and Micrologus, make 
 no mention of the rite, though the last of these ritualists lived 
 at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is, that no certain 
 documents refer to it, until the beginning of the thirteenth 
 century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in the 
 twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop 
 of Paris, about 1 200, appoint this elevation b , and it was pro- 
 bably then first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent 
 III., who wrote on the ceremonies of the mass at the begin- 
 ning of the thirteenth century, does not speak of it, but in the 
 time of Honorius III. it had come into use, for he mentions it 
 in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the patriarchate of 
 Antioch, A.D. 1219, where he commands that at the elevation 
 the people should reverently low. " Sacerdos quilibet fre- 
 quenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum 
 elevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet c ." This 
 was inserted in the decretals (c. sane de celebratione mis- 
 sarum) by Gregory IX., his successor, and thus became the 
 law of the west. It is spoken of by Bonaventure d , Durand e , 
 
 T See Stillingfleet's Discourse of &c. 
 
 the Idolatry practised in the church " Le Brun, Ceremonies de la 
 
 of Rome, p. 112, 113; Gerhard. Or- Messe, torn. i. p. 469, &c. 
 thodoxa Confessio, lib. ii. part ii. b Harduini Concilia, torn. vi. p. 
 
 art. xiv. cap. viii. 1946. 
 
 1 Bona, Rer. Liturgic. lib. ii. c. c See Raynaldus, ad an. 1219. 
 13. d De Myst. Missse, oper. vii. 83. 
 
 y Gavanti Thesaurus a Merati. e Rationale Div. Off. iv. c. 41. 
 
 1 Lambertinus, de Missa, p. 115,
 
 OBJECT.] Adoration of the Host. 241 
 
 and the council of Lambeth f in the latter part of the same 
 century; and cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this 
 rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.8 
 
 We know then, that in the thirteenth century the host was 
 elevated, and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. 
 But if we are to judge by the authorities referred to by the 
 Roman ritualists themselves, the writers of that, and the fol- 
 lowing ages, did not always interpret this as designed for the 
 adoration of the elements, or even of Christ in the eucharist. 
 Bonaventure (A.D. 1270) assigns eight reasons for the eleva- 
 tion h , some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the 
 people on the occasion ; but he does not notice the adoration 
 of the elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered 
 a bell to be rung at the elevation, that the people might be 
 excited to pray, not to worship the host. " Prsecipitur quod 
 in celebratione missarum, quando corpus Christi elevatur, in 
 ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana pulsetur, sicut alias 
 fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem excitentur 1 ." 
 Cardinal Guido (A.D. 1265) ordained, that at the elevation all 
 the people should pray for pardon. " Bonam illic consue- 
 tudinem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiae omnis populus in 
 Ecclesia ad sonitum nolae veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis 
 benedictionem prostratusjaceret k ." The synod of Cologne (A.D. 
 1536) explained the people's duty at the elevation to consist, 
 in remembering the Lord's death, and returning him thanks with 
 minds raised to heaven. " Post elevationem consecrati corporis 
 ac sanguinis Domini . . . turn videretur silendum, et ab omni 
 populo mortis Dominicae commeraoratio habenda, prostratis- 
 
 f Lyndwood, Provinciale Anglise. ses, and Camaldulite monks, which 
 
 Const Peckham, 1281. he alleges to prove its existence in 
 
 * Raynaldus, ann. 1203. This the twelfth century, were most pro- 
 date, assigned in Raynaldus' Annals, bably added to in later times. (Le 
 is obviously an error, as both Fleury Brun, Ceremonies de la Messe, i. 
 and he himself afterwards speak of 469.) Honorius (Gemma Animae, 
 this very cardinal on the same mis- 1. i. c. 46) speaks of some elevation, 
 sion in Germany, A.D. 1265. These but it is doubtful whether he means 
 are the first authentic notices of the this, or the lesser elevation at the 
 elevation ; for the passages adduced end of the canon, when there is no 
 by Le Brun from Robertus Paululus, adoration. 
 
 or Hugo S.Victor, and from Hilde- h De Myster. Missae, opera, torn, 
 
 bert, who lived in the twelfth century, vii. p. 83. 
 
 are (as he admits) not sufficiently ' Binii Concilia, t. vii. pars i. p. 
 
 clear to be of use unless aided by 536. 
 
 other evidence; and the "customs" k Raynaldus, ann. 1203. 
 of the Carthusians, Premonstraten- 
 
 VOL. I. R
 
 242 Roman Churches. [p. i. CH. xr. 
 
 que humi corporibus, animis in ccelum erectis, gratise agendas 
 Christo Redemptori, qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque 
 redemit V 
 
 On the other hand, Durand m (1286), Lyndwood n (1430), 
 the diocesan synod of Augsburg (1548), and cardinal Hosius, 
 one of the papal legates at the synod of Trent, understood the 
 prostration of the people as designed for the adoration of 
 Christ as present in the Eucharist. Certainly this has latterly 
 become the common opinion, but from what has been said 
 above, it appears that before the Reformation, and afterwards, 
 many persons at the elevation directed their worship to God 
 and Christ simply, without any exclusive reference to the 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 
 
 VII. It may be further objected that the declaration against 
 transubstantiation, prescribed by act of parliament (30 Car. 
 II. c. 1), affirms the Roman churches to be idolatrous. " I, 
 A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, pro- 
 fess, &c that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin 
 
 Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as 
 they are now used in the church of Rome, are superstitious 
 and idolatrous" &c. 
 
 Doubtless the adoration of saints actually practised so gene- 
 rally in the church of Rome, is idolatrous ; and the invocation 
 of saints amongst them is superstitious. The sacrifice of the 
 mass is also encumbered by superstitious rites and ceremonies. 
 All this is true : but it does not oblige us to maintain that the 
 Roman church compels all her members to be idolaters, and 
 that she is no part of the church of Christ. 
 
 VIII. The XlXth Article of the church of England de- 
 clares that " the church of Rome hath erred, not only in their 
 living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." 
 Therefore it cannot be a part of the Christian church. 
 
 Answer. The article only affirms that the Roman church 
 has erred in matters of faith, e. g. in the case of Liberius and 
 Honorius ; there is no assertion that it does now err in faith. 
 The object is clearly to deny the infallibility of the particular 
 church of Rome, which was so generally maintained when that 
 article was composed. 
 
 1 Synodus Colon, pars ii. can. 14. Missarum. c. Altissimus v. Eleva- 
 m Rationale Div. Off. iv. 41. tione. 
 
 " Provinciale, de Celebratione
 
 OBJECT.] Various Difficulties. 243 
 
 IX. If the Roman churches be churches of Christ, it must 
 be unlawful for any one to separate himself from them, and 
 become a protestant in France, Germany, &c. 
 
 Answer. It is always right to embrace the truth ; and if, in 
 consequence of maintaining the truth, any one should be 
 unjustly excommunicated, he is not in schism, and may law- 
 fully consort with those who are not themselves involved in 
 schism, and by whom the truth is maintained. But he ought 
 not to forsake the communion of his pastors and his brethren, 
 unless it should appear evidently that they obstinately incul- 
 cate idolatry or heresy. 
 
 X. If the Romish be true churches, then it is unlawful to 
 send missionaries among them, in order to establish any rival 
 worship, to seek for converts among them, &c. 
 
 Answer. The rule of fraternal charity encourages different 
 parts of the church to aid, if possible, in the dissemination of 
 perfect Christianity among all their brethren. Therefore, what- 
 ever can be done by writings and conferences, managed without 
 acerbity, and without intrusion on the appointed sphere of 
 others, may be lawfully resorted to. But it seems inconsistent 
 with the true principles of catholic unity for any branch of the 
 church to send missionaries with a view to raise a rival wor- 
 ship, and seek for converts in the bosom of another. This has 
 been the conduct of the Roman pontiffs in relation to our 
 churches. It is not schismatical, however, to provide for the 
 worship of our own people who may travel in foreign lands, 
 supposing that through some error or prejudice, they are not 
 received by the churches of those countries ; nor should we 
 refuse communion to any who have been unjustly excommuni- 
 cated, or be unwilling to supply their spiritual wants ; or con- 
 demn those who have separated from the communion of 
 heretics or idolaters, or of those who are probably such. In 
 fine, it must always be borne in mind, that the schismatical 
 communities raised by the pontiffs in these countries, are to 
 be viewed and treated as sects altogether cut off from the 
 catholic church. 
 
 XI. If the Roman be true churches, and if (as you allege) 
 it is not necessary to institute an examination into particular 
 doctrines, but we are to be guided in a great measure by the 
 church ; it follows that if an Englishman were resident in 
 France or Spain, he ought to join in communion with the
 
 244 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. XT. 
 
 Roman churches there, and in order to do so, ought to sub- 
 scribe the creed of Pius IV. in which the invocation of saints, 
 purgatory, the papal supremacy, &c. are included. For accord- 
 ing to you, there is no necessity to examine the truth of these 
 doctrines : they should be received on the authority of the 
 church. 
 
 Answer. He should earnestly desire that the communion 
 between the church of England and those churches should be 
 restored on such terms as may afford security for the truth ; 
 but he could not lawfully, as a member of the Anglo-catholic 
 communion, unite himself to another communion by his indi- 
 vidual act, when such a union would amount to a renunciation 
 of the Anglo-catholic church, and to a virtual approbation of 
 all those abuses and errors which exist in the Roman commu- 
 nion. He also cannot lawfully subscribe or profess the creed 
 of Pius IV. (which is a necessary preliminary to any such act 
 of union), for the following reasons. (J .) This creed is pro- 
 posed to him as a heretic. It is designed to exact from him 
 the condemnation of that branch of the catholic church in which 
 he has hitherto lived. (2.) The Roman church, in exacting 
 from him the profession of this creed, as the condition of com- 
 munion with her, evidently expects that the particular doc- 
 trines therein contained shall be professed explicitly, after 
 examination, for otherwise she would have only exacted a 
 general adhesion to all the doctrines of the Roman church. 
 Now it is impossible, consistently with a due regard to Chris- 
 tian truth, to profess explicitly all points of this creed, espe- 
 cially as matters of faith, because several of them are uncertain 
 and erroneous, and disputed in many parts of the catholic 
 church. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 ON JANSENISM. 
 
 To those who are acquainted with the history of the Roman 
 churches, in connexion with Jansenism, few things can appear 
 more absurd, than the air of triumph with which modern 
 Romish theologians vaunt the unity of their church in faith, 
 its sole and exclusive possession of authority for the termi- 
 nation of religious controversies, and its freedom from all heresy. 
 According to Bouvier, bishop of Mans, the Roman church has
 
 APPEND, i.] Vaunts of Romish Theologians. 245 
 
 perfect unity of doctrine, " for whosoever denies the very least 
 article of faith, is ipso facto separated from her, and regarded 
 as a heretic : no opportunity is afforded for examination or 
 disputation ; learned and unlearned are bound to submit them- 
 selves immediately, heart and soul, to the same definition once 
 pronounced, under the penalty of anathema; therefore it is 
 impossible that unity of faith should not be preserved among 
 them," &c. a "When debates rise among 'Catholics 1 con- 
 cerning points of faith," says Milner, " the pastors of the 
 church . . . fail not to examine them by the received Eule of 
 Faith, and to pronounce an authoritative sentence* upon them. 
 The dispute is thus quashed, and peace is restored" &c. b " The 
 church never changes her doctrine, nor suffers any persons in 
 her communion to change it, or to question any part of it" &c. c 
 The dogmatical tone of these assertions is highly imposing; 
 but it is not sustained by facts. The truth is, that no branch 
 of the catholic church has been more divided in points of faith, 
 and more troubled, and exposed to greater perils in conse- 
 quence, than the Roman, during the last two hundred years. 
 
 I. Romanists commonly regard the followers of Jansenius 
 and Quesnel as heretics. Their theologians have clearly shown 
 that the judgment of the whole body of pastors of the Roman 
 obedience has been repeatedly pronounced in condemnation of 
 Jansenism. Without speaking of the censure of Jansenius 1 
 book, entitled Augustinus, by Urban VIII. in 1641, the five 
 principal tenets of Jansenism (which approximate to the doc- 
 trine of Calvin) were condemned by a bull of Innocent X. in 
 1653; again by Alexander VII, in 1656, whose subsequent 
 bull of 1665 prescribed a formulary, to be signed by all the 
 clergy, receiving the above bulls and condemning the proposi- 
 tions in the sense of Jansenius. This was followed, in 1705, 
 by the bull of Clement XI. confirming the former, and con- 
 demning the subterfuges of the Jansenists. In 1713 the bull 
 
 De Vera Ecclesia, p. 145. amongst all its countless millions" 
 
 b End of Controversy, p. 102. . . . . " Unity like this is indispen- 
 
 c Ibid. p. 147. Dr. Baines is sable in any church which claims to 
 
 equally positive in his assurance of teach the uniform and unchangeable 
 
 the unity of faith in the Roman doctrines of Christ. Need I add, 
 
 communion. " The doctrines of the that you will in vain seek for it in 
 
 catholic religion are every where the any other communion or sect." 
 
 same. Not a difference will be found Sermon at Bradford, 1825. 
 on any single article of faith (sic)
 
 246 Jansenism. [p. j. CH. xi. 
 
 Unigenitus was fulminated by Clement XI. against the doc- 
 trines of Quesnel, a Jansenist ; this was confirmed by the bull 
 Pastoralis Officii, the papal Synod of Rome 1 725, and by other 
 bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. of succeeding pontiffs. The Romish 
 theologians prove, that these various bulls were addressed to 
 the universal church, that they were received by the infinite 
 majority of the Roman bishops, that in consequence all who 
 held Jansenist doctrines were heretics, that Jansenism is in 
 fact a damnable heresy, &c. 
 
 II. Notwithstanding all this, it is a matter of absolute 
 certainty, that Jansenism has, in opposition to all these con- 
 demnations, and in spite of the persecution of the temporal 
 powers, continued to exist for nearly two hundred years. 
 
 The Jansenist party is thus described by the historian of 
 this church in the eighteenth century. " Active, intriguing, 
 obstinate, it produced a crowd of writings which wounded 
 charity and perpetuated dissensions. Condemned by the body 
 of pastors, it took shelter in the arms of the secular power, 
 and found support in some of its branches . . . The continual 
 declamations in which they indulged, against the pope and the 
 bishops, abased the ecclesiastical power. The obstinacy with 
 which they sustained false miracles, led Deists to cast doubts 
 even on those which support Christianity. This party offers 
 to the impartial observer, all the features of a real sect . . . the 
 church was troubled wherever it existed ; she was only tran- 
 quil where it existed not. During fifty years it rent the church 
 of France, producing a multitude of incidental disputes, foment- 
 ing deplorable illusions, exciting a spirit of opposition, of mu- 
 tiny, and slander against the bishops. From France this 
 spirit passed to other countries ; and in the latter half of the 
 eighteenth century, Germany and Italy saw it develope itself in 
 their bosom, under the protection of some deceived princes, or 
 some seduced ministers. To the same influence must be attri- 
 buted the changes introduced into the schools of those coun- 
 tries, the errors of their canonists, the reforms attempted at 
 Vienna, Florence, and Naples, the instruction of the university 
 of Pavia, so many writings against the holy see, and that 
 secret but active conspiracy to effect universal alteration in the 
 church, and to place it under the secular arm d ." Such was the 
 
 d Memoires pour servir a PHistoire This work is commended by Cardinal 
 Eccles. xviii. siecle. Preface, iv vi. Paccain his Memoirs, torn. ii. p. 113.
 
 APPEND, i.] Jansenism in the Gallican Church. 247 
 
 boasted unity of the Roman church during the eighteenth 
 century ! 
 
 III. I proceed to verify these observations by facts, and to 
 show that Jansenism has continued always to exist in the 
 communion of the Roman church. 
 
 I shall, in the first instance, remark its condition during 
 the seventeenth century, and afterwards proceed to trace its 
 progress in the various countries of Europe, from the beginning 
 of the eighteenth century to the present age. The Jansenist 
 party was soon headed, or supported, by many of the most 
 distinguished men in France; as Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, 
 Launoy, whose writings, even at the present day, are cited by 
 all Romanists, as among the most learned which their church 
 has ever produced. The strength of their party was shown at 
 once, by the letter of eleven French bishops to Innocent X. in 
 1 653, imploring him not to condemn the work of Jansenius e . 
 The divisions were not terminated even by the bull of Alex- 
 ander VII. in 1665, prescribing the signature of the Formu- 
 lary condemning Jansenism. M. de Gondrin, Archbishop of 
 Sens, subscribed ; but his friends said that he had not changed 
 his opinions f . In short, many of those who subscribed were 
 of opinion, " that they might sign, though they did not believe 
 internally the fact " (that Jansenius had taught the condemned 
 propositions) ; Arnauld says, this " was the opinion of a great 
 number of persons in some learned communities 8 ." Others 
 signed with various restrictions ; and thus the party continued 
 to possess their benefices in tlw Gallican church. Four bishops 
 published mandates, in which they only required a respectful 
 silence as to the questions of fact, thus adopting the Jansenist 
 distinction ; and when an attempt was made to punish them 
 by the opposite party, nineteen other bishops, headed by the 
 Archbishop of Sens, wrote to Clement IX. in their favour h . 
 This again shows the strength of the Jansenist party in the 
 church. The result was, that the four Jansenist bishops were 
 allowed to subscribe the formulary in such a manner, " that they 
 and their partizans did not really abandon their sentiments." 1 
 They profited by the opportunity to strengthen their party, 
 and " Port Royal became the place of assembly of the enemies 
 
 e Ibid. p. cclxv. g Ibid. 
 
 f cclxxix. h cclxxxvii.
 
 248 Jansenism. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 of authority i ." At the same time we learn, that Flanders 
 " was also a prey to the new opinions V The very first bull 
 against the book of Jansenius had encountered opposition in 
 the university of Louvain k . Afterwards Arnauld, Nicole, 
 Quesnel, and other heads of the Jansenists resided in Belgium, 
 and amongst their partizans are mentioned, P. Honore de 
 S. Marie, John Opstraet, and " many others 1 ." In fine, Dr. 
 Van Espen, professor of canon law in the university of Lou- 
 vain, and " the most learned canonist of his time," ..." gave 
 himself up to this same party of which we have been speaking. 
 ... In general this writer is little favourable to the Holy See, 
 and prone to exaggerate the power of princes in the church. 
 These dispositions increased with his devotion for the cause 
 he had embraced. He always showed himself at the head of 
 the refractory Flemings, and spent his old age in writing in 
 their favour m ." It appears from this, that Jansenists were in 
 the communion of the church in Belgium. The same may be 
 observed of Holland. M. de Neercassel, bishop of Castoria 
 and vicar apostolic in Holland, was " connected with some of 
 the Jansenist party, 11 . . . . " having given access to many Jan- 
 senists, he permitted them to exercise influence over his clergy, 
 among whom they contrived to make partizans. The evil 
 appeared to increase under M. Codde his successor . 11 M. 
 Codde was accused of Jansenism, suspended and deposed by 
 the pope, but the Jansenist party prevented any one from 
 assuming his place . 
 
 IV. I now proceed to the progress of Jansenism in the 
 eighteenth century, and first, in FRANCE. On the appearance 
 of the bull " Unigenitus^ in 1713, six of the French bishops 
 did not publish it, as was required. The bishops of Metz and 
 Sisteron, and the archbishop of Embrun, published explanatory 
 mandates, not receiving it simply. "Fourteen bishops formally 
 opposed the bull. 11 Three or four pursued a middle course p . 
 So strong was the Jansenist party in the Gallican church. 
 Cardinal de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, was now at the head 
 of the Jansenists q , and continued so for fifteen years. On the 
 
 ' ccxciv, v. n cl. 
 
 j ccxcv. cli, clii, cliii. 
 
 k cclxiii. cclxvii. p Memoires, torn. i. p. 97. 
 
 1 cxlii. > 100. 
 m cxlvii, cxlviii.
 
 APPEND, i.] The Appellants. 249 
 
 accession of the regent Orleans (1715), Noailles came into 
 power, and was made president of a council for ecclesiastical 
 affairs. His influence made itself felt, and "the dignities of 
 the church even became the recpmpence of zeal for the cardinal 
 and his adherents," i. e. the Jansenists. " The abbes de Lor- 
 raine, Bossuet, d^Entraigues, &c. were nominated to bishop- 
 rics 1 .' 1 '' These Jansenist prelates after much opposition, 
 actually obtained their bulls, and became bishops of the Galli- 
 can church 8 . In 1717, the bishops of Mirepoix, Senez, Mont- 
 pelier, and Boulogne, signed an appeal from the constitution 
 " Unigenitus " to a general council. To this appeal the faculty 
 of theology at Paris adhered*. They were followed by the 
 faculties of arts and law ; by rectors, canons, monks, nuns, 
 laymen. Noailles encouraged these proceedings u ; and soon 
 after, sixteen bishops, of whom he was the principal, suspended 
 in their dioceses the effects of the bull. They were supported 
 by the three universities of Paris, Rheims, and Nantes, and by 
 some thousands of ecclesiastics, and many lay men v ; and thus 
 the Jansenist party, called Appellants (as appealing from the 
 bull Unigenitus to a general council), were still within the 
 bosom of the Roman church, and continued to maintain their 
 preferments, in spite of the anathemas launched against them. 
 In 1720, seven French bishops wrote to Innocent XIII. against 
 his predecessor and the bull Unigenitus ; " a judgment," they 
 said, "so irregular that pagan Rome itself would not have 
 suffered it w ." In 1726, M. Soanen, bishop of Senez, was an 
 appellant, and published a Jansenist Instruction, which in- 
 volved him in difficulties. He ordained Jansenists for Hol- 
 land 1 . In 1728, a number of Gallican bishops wrote to the 
 Roman pontiff to complain of the excesses of the Jansenists. 
 " The spirit of criticism," they said, " becomes the dominant 
 spirit. How many persons erect themselves into judges of 
 what they do not understand ! There is a party in open revolt 
 against the church. It gains credit every day ; acquires new 
 followers ; receives with avidity and scatters with profusion ; 
 vaunts to excess the numberless books which are written to 
 authorize it, and neglects nothing to strengthen its errors and 
 
 r Memoires, torn. i. p. 116. T 126. 
 
 149. w 187. 
 
 * 124. * Tom. ii. p. 20. 
 u 125.
 
 250 Jansenism. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 its disobedience y ." Nevertheless this party was still within 
 the church itself. M. Soanen having been suspended by the 
 provincial synod of Embrun, twelve bishops interceded again 
 and again for him. They were, like him, opponents of the 
 bull 2 . M. Soanen, however, though a Jansenist, remained 
 still in the Roman church. The diocese of Paris at this time 
 was full of Jansenist priests a . In 1 730, the king issued an 
 ordonnance requiring all the clergy to subscribe their adhe- 
 rence to the bull on pain of losing their benefices ; but the 
 parliament of Paris, under the influence of the Jansenist party, 
 frustrated its execution, and maintained them in possession of 
 their benefices b . The celebrated Jansenist journal, " Les 
 Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques," which was first published in 1729, 
 and continued to subsist for more than sixty years , having 
 been condemned by the archbishop of Paris, 1 732, twenty-two 
 of his clergy in Paris, who were appellants, refused to publish 
 the condemnation, and many of the people retired from the 
 churches where it was published d . 
 
 The parliaments of Paris, Rouen, Aix, Toulouse, &c., were 
 the steady friends of Jansenism in France. About 1 749, some 
 of the clergy having refused to administer the sacrament to 
 Jansenists, the latter appealed to the law. The parliaments 
 punished, with fine, imprisonment, and perpetual exile, those 
 clergy who refused to give the sacrament to Jansenists e . The 
 king in vain opposed these proceedings ; the parliaments almost 
 invariably triumphed. In 1754, and the following years, the 
 archbishops of Paris and Aix, the bishops of Orleans, Troyes, 
 S. Pons, and many other bishops, were exiled, condemned, 
 their goods seized, &c., by order of the parliaments, in conse- 
 quence of their opposition to Jansenism f . The parliament of 
 Paris " held the faculty of theology under its yoke for many 
 years g ." The Jansenists inflamed the public mind against 
 the Jesuits in 1760, and under their influence the parliaments 
 suppressed that order h . In 1765, the faculty of law at Paris 
 was still appellant against the bull * ; and the parliament con- 
 
 y Memoires, torn. ii. p. 44. also De Barral (Archeveque de 
 
 z 45. Tours), Defense des Libertes de 
 
 a 54. 1'Eglise Gall. p. U3. 
 
 b 74. f Mem. torn. ii. 288293. 329. 
 
 c 105. 329. 
 
 d 109. h 387. 389. 
 
 c 220. 234. 253. 260. 354. See ! 4/4.
 
 APPEND, i.] Reforming Principles of De Hontheim. 251 
 
 tinued long after to punish any of the clergy who refused com- 
 munion to the Jansenists j . In 1780, the works of Bossuet 
 were published with Jansenist annotations by Deforis, a monk 
 of the Benedictine monastery of Blancs-Manteaux, at Paris, 
 " well known for its attachment to the tenacious party," &c. k 
 But it is time to consider the state of other parts of their 
 church. 
 
 V. GERMANY. The reforming spirit prevalent in Germany 
 from the middle of the eighteenth century, is connected with 
 the influence of Jansenism by the Romish historian of the 
 period. (See above, p. 246.) In 1720, the Jansenists had 
 adherents at Vienna 1 . The work of M. de Hontheim, bishop 
 of Myriophita, and suffragan of Treves, which was entitled, 
 " Justini Febronii de statu prsesenti Ecclesiae, liber," and pub- 
 lished 1763, produced an extraordinary effect in Germany. 
 " Already for many years Vienna had been full of reforming 
 theologians, who took the trouble to reconstruct the instruc- 
 tion of the church. M. de Hontheim completed their work ; 
 and a sort of revolution took place in the public mind m ." Fe- 
 bronius is said to have been "entirely conformable to the 
 notions of the new canonists, who undertake to dispose of the 
 government of the church, to destroy the legitimate authority 
 of the holy see, and to renew all the maxims of the Protestants 
 against the ecclesiastical power n ." The system of instruction 
 at Vienna is said to have been " more in accordance with the 
 notions of some innovators than with the ancient and common 
 doctrine. Men who had studied Fra Paolo, and Van Espen, 
 and others of this stamp, more than the books and principles 
 authorized in the church, devoted themselves to propagate the 
 lessons of their masters ; and pretended, in adopting them, to 
 revive the best days of Christianity The church, accord- 
 ing to them, was in a state of desolation and ruin, its govern- 
 ment was vicious, its laws tyrannical, its usages superstitious, 
 its discipline full of abuse, its doctrine even disfigured." They 
 despoiled the Roman see of all its rights. " They reduced to 
 nothing this principal chair . . . this centre of unity, to which it 
 is necessary to remain attached, to be reputed catholic," &c. 
 " De Hontheim, one of the most celebrated partizans of this 
 
 3 Memoires, torn. ii. p. 508. m ii. 650. 
 
 k iii. 18. n 454. See Biographie Univer- 
 
 1 Tom. i p. 187. selle, art. Hontheim.
 
 252 Jansenism. [p. I.CH. xi. 
 
 system, saw nothing in the church but a sort of republic, in 
 which the pope could not, without usurpation, have arrogated 
 the powers he enjoyed. Authority he held to belong to the 
 entire body of the church, which committed its exercise to the 
 pastors. He allowed scarcely more privileges to the successor 
 of St. Peter than to other bishops ; contested the right of the 
 church to condemn books ; and reduced her to be, even in that 
 which properly concerns her, the slave of the civil power" &c. 
 Such were the tenets, heretical in the opinion of Romanists 
 generally, which existed in the bosom of their church in Ger- 
 many ; and which, notwithstanding the condemnation of Fe- 
 bronius by Clement XIII. in 1764, gained ground and pre- 
 vailed, and have continued to be held in that church to the 
 present day. Such is the absolute unity of the Roman church 
 in faith ! 
 
 But we shall presently see Jansenism appear more openly on 
 the stage. Even during the lifetime of Maria Teresa, the 
 future emperor, Joseph, " gave the signal for innovations. The 
 professors of theology were changed in many places, to substi- 
 tute others who had contrary ideas. They went so far as to 
 deprive the bishops of the direction of their seminaries, and the 
 choice of theologians to teach there." On the accession of 
 Joseph (1781), a multiplicity of laws on ecclesiastical matters 
 were published. " The religious orders were forbidden to obey 
 foreign superiors ; many convents were suppressed ; they were 
 prohibited from receiving novices. The Protestants were 
 favoured ; the clergy required to give an account of their reve- 
 nues. It was no longer permitted to have recourse to Rome 
 for dispensations of marriage. The imperial placet was pre- 
 scribed for all bulls, briefs, or rescripts from Rome. The 
 bishops were forbidden to confer orders for some time. In fine, 
 there was an uninterrupted series of regulations, which changed 
 all usages and subverted discipline. The attention of the 
 reformer extended to the most minute objects ; he suppressed 
 confraternities, abolished processions, retrenched holy days, 
 prescribed the order of the offices, regulated ceremonies, the 
 number of masses, the manner of saying the saluts, even the 
 quantity of wax-lights to be used in the service p ." This re- 
 forming emperor was all the time in the communion of the 
 
 ii. 453 457. v iii. 20, 21.
 
 APPEND, i.] Proceedings of Joseph II. 253 
 
 Eoman church, which was obliged to submit to all his regula- 
 tions. So secure are the members of that communion against 
 innovations in doctrine and discipline ! 
 
 But to proceed : Joseph " left the bishops nothing more to do, 
 seized their revenues, excluded them from the states of their 
 province, and destroyed their sees*" The superiors of the 
 seminary of Brunn, lately appointed by his choice, " were 
 accused of following the same principles as the appellants (Jan- 
 senists), of disseminating their books, and of seeking to intro- 
 duce into Germany the quarrels and dissensions which had so 
 much agitated other countries " . . . " Many bishops denounced 
 the new professors. Joseph took cognizance of this question " 
 of doctrine ; " declared the three professors absolved ; deprived 
 their accuser of his place of archdeacon of Olmutz ; . . . blamed 
 strongly those ecclesiastics who had dared to sustain the consti- 
 tution Unigenitus ; interdicted the pulpit for ever, and in all 
 places, to those preachers who had spoken against the accused ; 
 declared that the bulls Unigenitus and In Cozna Domini, having 
 never yet been, nor hereafter to be received, should be removed 
 from all the liturgical books where they were found," &c. In 
 fine, he commanded the seminary of Vienna, for the education 
 of the clergy, to be given to one of the accused r . In short, 
 Jansenism was triumphant. Presently " a new decree ordered 
 an absolute silence on the constitution Unigenitus ;" but never- 
 theless, the court theologians were permitted to declaim against 
 it, and to spread books in favour of the appeal 8 . It was in 
 vain that several prelates, aided by the papal nuncio, remon- 
 strated with the emperor, and represented that the bull " Uni- 
 genitus " was a judgment of the universal church. It was in 
 vain that Pius VI. himself took the unprecedented step of 
 going to Vienna, to obtain the cessation of these obnoxious 
 proceedings. He obtained only some trifling modifications ; 
 and had the mortification to learn, on his return to Rome, that 
 Joseph had issued an edict assuming the patronage of all the 
 
 i 22. He went so far as to issue Ib. 23. This Imperial Consti- 
 a decree " qui obligeoit tous les tution, commanding silence concern- 
 faeques des Etats hereditaires a pro- ing the bull Unigenitus, was still in 
 mettre d'obeir a tous les ordres qui force in the Austrian empire in 1809. 
 etoient deja emanes de 1'empereur, See Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. 
 ou qui pourroient en emaner par la Eccl. Austriaci, cited in " Report of 
 suite ! ! " Memoires sur Pie VI. et Committee on Roman Catholic sub- 
 son Pontifical, tome i. p. 236. jects in foreign countries" (18l6j, 
 
 r Mem. Eccl. ibid. p. 112.
 
 254 Jansenism. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 sees of Lombardy, which had hitherto belonged to the Roman 
 see. Presently he made a new circumscription of all the bishop- 
 rics of his states. He even issued a decree " to remove images 
 from the churches.' 1 '' This was, of course, heretical in the judg- 
 ment of Eomanists, and directly contrary to the decrees of the 
 synods of Nice and Trent, which they regard as ecumenical. 
 Nevertheless, this heresy was openly avowed and acted on by 
 Joseph, without any censure, and in the bosom of their church. 
 He next " suppressed some impediments to marriage, esta- 
 blished others, and permitted divorce in certain cases." This 
 again was contrary to the discipline of the Roman church. 
 The archbishop of Goritz having opposed these innovations, 
 the emperor " suppressed his see, commanded him to send in his 
 resignation, and on his refusal, ordered him to set off for 
 Rome V " He reserved the dignities of the church for the ad- 
 mirers of his system ; he engaged writers to undertake its de- 
 fence. He protected at Pavia a society of theologians who, 
 like Ricci at Pistoia, sought to lower the holy see, and to 
 reform the system of instruction ; revived the writings of the 
 French appellants (i. e. Jansenists) ; cried up their doctrine ; 
 and formed a spirit of opposition, complaint, and declamation, 
 the effect of which was to trouble, to weaken, and to enslave 
 the church. Pius VI. complained more than once of the 
 imprudent protection which was given to these ardent and 
 restless theologians. No regard was paid to his complaints u ." 
 Thus we see the Jansenist doctrine, a hundred and thirty 
 years after its condemnation, existing in the bosom of the 
 German and Italian churches, and propagating itself every 
 where openly, under the protection of the state. Such is the 
 freedom of the Roman church from heresy ! Such the infallible 
 certainty with which all controversies are immediately termi- 
 nated among them ! And such their independence of the civil 
 power ! The new system advanced in Germany. The arch- 
 bishop elector of Saltzburg, in 1 782, had published a Pastoral 
 Instruction " against the luxury of churches, against images 
 . . .pretended that the worship of saints is not an essential point 
 
 1 The memoirs of Pope Pius VI. clemency. In fine, he was ordered 
 
 add the sequel. He was compelled to go to his diocese, and put the 
 
 to take an oath of obedience to the royal edicts in execution. Mem. de 
 
 emperor's orders ; to confess that Pie VI. i. 262. 
 he had grossly disobeyed those or- u Mem. Eccl. iii. 36, 3/. 
 ders ; and to throw himself on his
 
 APPEND, i.] Jansenism and Reform in Germany. 255 
 
 of religion," &c. v These doctrines, accounted heretical by 
 Romanists, were thus avowed in their own communion ; and, 
 in I 785, the same archbishop and elector, with his brethren 
 of Cologne, Treves, and Mayence, agreed to a model of eccle- 
 siastical reform, drawn ' up by their vicars at Ems, which was 
 in many respects remarkable. It declared, that the bishops 
 having an unlimited power of binding and loosing, no recourse 
 should be had to Rome, passing over the immediate prelates. 
 The exemptions of the religious orders were annulled ; they 
 were no longer to depend on foreign superiors. Every bishop 
 was to dispense, even in cases reserved to the pope, to absolve 
 the religious from their vows. Papal bulls to be of no obliga- 
 tion, unless received by the bishop, $c. " They decided on 
 abolishing the oath of bishops to the pope" If the pope " re- 
 fused to confirm the bishops, they would find in the ancient 
 discipline means to preserve their office, under the protection 
 of -the emperor" This plan was objected to by several of the 
 German bishops, but the four archbishops proceeded to put its 
 regulations in force in their dioceses w . The pope remonstrated 
 in vain. Eybel, professor of canon law at Vienna, having pub- 
 lished books against auricular confession, and against the papal 
 power, his writings were condemned by Pius VI., in 1784 and 
 1 786, as containing heresies ; but the emperor ordered the sup- 
 pression of the papal decree, and Eybel, although a heretic, 
 remained in communion with the Roman church x . . The prin- 
 ciples laid down at this time have ever since prevailed more 
 and more in Germany. Similar proceedings in favour of 
 Jansenism took place in Belgium under Joseph II., who in 
 1781 commenced a series of ecclesiastical reforms in this 
 part of his dominions 7 . The privileges of the faculty of 
 theology in the university of Louvain were suppressed, in 
 order to introduce into it " sentiments more conformable with 
 the views of the prince." " The signature to the formulary, 
 and the bull ' Unigenitus, 1 were abolished z ;" and thus Jan- 
 senism was suffered to intrude. General seminaries for the 
 clergy were established to promote the spread of the new 
 opinions ; and directors of the four faculties at Louvain were 
 sent from Vienna, one of whom " had been expelled from 
 
 T Mem. Eccl. iii. 61. * 75. 
 
 6065. 76. 
 
 * 81 87.
 
 256 Jansenism. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 Vienna for his heterodoxy" He was made " president of the 
 general seminary" for the clergy a . The Belgians, however, 
 were so angry at these proceedings, that Jansenism could not 
 gain a firm footing there. 
 
 VI. ITALY. Jansenism and reform went hand in hand 
 through Italy during the latter half of the eighteenth century. 
 The ' Exposition of Christian Doctrine' by Mesengui, in 
 which, " under the name of Christian doctrine, the dogmas of 
 a party (Jansenism) were frequently taught, and in which the 
 condemned propositions were renewed," had been censured in 
 1757 by Benedict XIV. Clement XIII. published a brief 
 against it in 1761. "At this time the disturbers of the 
 church began to make partizans in Italy. They brought into 
 vogue an extraordinary and novel system of instruction. 
 Hatred of the holy see, and change of all the ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline, formed its basis. It was but an emanation from the 
 doctrine of the French appellants, who were from that time 
 closely connected with the innovators of Italy. Both spoke 
 only of abuses, reforms, exclaimed against the despotism of 
 the pope and bishops, and wished to introduce into the church 
 a system more to their taste. The kingdom of Naples espe- 
 cially was full of these reforming theologians. . . . The minister 
 Tanucci was little favourable to the church of Rome. Serrao 
 preached there the doctrine of the appellants." He afterwards 
 wrote in praise of the Exposition of Mesengui b . Thus we see 
 Jansenism openly taught in the Italian church. 
 
 In NAPLES, the minister, Marquis Tanucci, in 1776 sup- 
 pressed seventy-eight monasteries of Sicily at once, united 
 some bishoprics, and gave abbeys without the pope's consent . 
 Serrao, the Jansenist before mentioned, was named by the 
 king, bishop of Potenza, and, notwithstanding the jealousy of 
 the pope, succeeded by artifices, and the royal support, in 
 actually obtaining that see d . 'It is needless to enter in detail 
 on the various reforms effected at Naples in imitation of the 
 emperor Joseph. It may be observed, that Cortez, bishop of 
 Motula, who was at the head of a royal commission for hearing 
 an appeal in a cause of marriage, which ought, according to 
 the former system, to have gone before the Roman see, " re- 
 
 Mem. Eccl. iii. 76, 77. c iii. 1 15. 
 
 b Tom. ii. p. 403, 404. d 117.
 
 APPEND, i.] Innovations of Leopold and Scipio de Ricci. 257 
 
 nounced the ordinary formulary by which bishops are accus- 
 tomed to begin their ordinances, ' bishop by the grace of the 
 holy apostolic see.' M. Cortez had in fact suppressed this 
 formula in imitation of some old French prelates favourable to 
 the appeal*." Jansenism and reform had partizans, it seems, 
 in the Neapolitan church, as well as elsewhere. 
 
 In TUSCANY, Jansenism was equally troublesome. The 
 archduke Leopold " followed blindly the counsels of Scipio 
 Ricci, who was made, in 1 780, bishop of Pistoia and Prato." 
 Ricci " resolved to introduce into Italy the opinions to which 
 France owed a century of disputes." By his counsel the prince 
 issued frequent and proh'x circulars, sent " catechisms to the 
 bishops, directed the books which they should place in the 
 hands of the faithful, abolished confraternities, diminished pro- 
 cessions, regulated divine worship and ceremonies" &c. Ricci 
 filled his diocese " with men subservient to his notions, whom 
 he invited from ah" parts. He caused ecclesiastical academies 
 to be established where the new theology was taught. He 
 wrote against devotion to the heart of Jesus, against indul- 
 gences, which he reduced to be nothing but the relaxation of 
 the canonical penance formerly imposed for sins f . He changed 
 rites, reformed discipline, overthrew the system of instruction, 
 &c. A faithful imitator of the appellants of France, he pro- 
 posed them as his models. Under his pen Soanen became ' a 
 holy bishop, 1 Quesnel ' a learned and pious martyr of the 
 truth,' other Jansenists ' lights of the church. 1 He caused 
 their writings to be translated into Italian." Pius VI. re- 
 monstrated in vain against all this g . 
 
 In 1 786, a royal edict was published, " in which nothing was 
 forgotten concerning discipline, instruction, worship, ceremonies, 
 &e. The smallest articles were entered into with the most 
 minute exactness 11 ." Ricci soon after held a synod at Pistoia 
 to effect reforms. " He invited from Pavia, that school then 
 fertile in friends of the new theology professor Tamburini," 
 
 e 120, 121. Instead of this he eighteenth century. See " Catholic 
 
 took the title of " bishop by the Miscellany," vol. i. for 1822, p. 585. 
 
 grace of the king." Butler has been charged with Jan- 
 
 f This doctrine, which was main- senisra by Plowden, another Re- 
 tained by Luther, and for which he manist. 
 was condemned, was also maintain- f Mem. Eccl. lii. 1 4. 
 ed by Mr. Charles Butler, an Eng- h 69. 
 lish Romanist in the latter part of the 
 
 VOL. 1. S
 
 258 Jansenism. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 and others of the same party, viz. " Vecchi, Guarisci, Monti, 
 Bottieri, and Palmieri." In the first session 234 priests were 
 present. They decreed that " in the latter ages a general 
 obscurity has overspread the most important truths of religion, 
 which are the bases of Christian faith and morality V They 
 afterwards adopted the doctrines of Baius and Quesnel, and 
 all the Jansenists J . They made a decree in which " they 
 rejected the devotion of the heart of Jesus, images, and other 
 pious practices k ." The bishops of Colle and Arezzo held 
 their synods after the example of Eicci *. In 1 788, Leopold 
 " abolished all the authority of the papal nuncios, forbad all 
 appeals to the holy see, and marked himself the tribunals to 
 which ecclesiastical causes should be carried." It was not 
 till 1794 that Pius VI. condemned the synod of Pistoia as 
 heretical: but there was still a Jansenist party in the Italian 
 church. " Two bishops of Tuscany showed themselves un- 
 favourable to the bull." Solari, bishop of Noli, in the state of 
 Genoa, " offered a public and formal opposition to the bull, 
 and wrote against it V Another Italian author is mentioned, 
 who supported this bishop by writings u in which he showed 
 himself a faithful copyist and admirer of the French appel- 
 lants" &c. We are probably to attribute to the secret 
 influence of Jansenism, the ecclesiastical edicts of the duke of 
 Parma, in 1764-7; which established "regulations conform- 
 able to the system which began to prevail, to restrain more 
 and more the authority of the holy see, and to enervate the 
 ecclesiastical power," &c. p Italy has continued ever since 
 under the influence of these reforming principles, and the civil 
 magistrate governs the Italian church with perfect and absolute 
 power q . 
 
 VII. Even PORTUGAL was not exempt from the novel 
 opinions. The ministry of the marquis of Pombal was dis- 
 tinguished in this respect. " He was seen to introduce even 
 
 
 
 '71. 1'eglise a beaucoup & souffrir .... 
 
 3 71,72. Nulle part, excepte peut-etre en cer- 
 
 k 73. taines parties de 1'A.llemagne, les 
 
 1 74. eveques ne sont plus dependants de 
 
 m 17. Pautorite seculiere, et malheureuse- 
 
 n 269. ment il en est peu qui paraissent 
 
 270. sentir le poids de cette honteuse de- 
 
 P Tom. ii. p. 530. pendence." La Mennais, Affaires de 
 
 " Hors des Etats Pontificaux, Rome, p. 253.
 
 APPEND, i.] Jansenism in Portugal and Holland, 259 
 
 into the church his reforming views, to change, destroy, 
 enslave the bishops to his will, to declare himself an enemy of 
 the holy see, to protect authors and books which preached 
 novelties, to form in Portugal a system of theological instruc- 
 tion altogether different from that which had been previously 
 followed, and in fine to open a door to systems and illusions of 
 evil doctrines, in a country hitherto peaceable and religious r ." 
 The bishop of Coimbra having issued (1768) a mandate against 
 the perusal of evil books, which were circulated under the 
 protection of some government agents, was imprisoned, and 
 the chapter of Coimbra was obliged by the king to appoint an 
 administrator of the see s . Among the books circulated were 
 Febronius (which was reprinted in Portugal), and Du Pin's 
 writings, which sufficiently shows that reform and Jansenism 
 had partizans in Portugal also. 
 
 VIII. The Jansenists of HOLLAND alone seem to be out of 
 the communion of the Roman church, but they exhibit every 
 wish to be connected with it, and profess themselves some of 
 its best members. In 1723 the Jansenist clergy of Holland 
 having been for some time without any bishop, since the death 
 of M. Codde in 1710, elected Steenoven archbishop of Utrecht. 
 This see, it is true, had long been extinct, but they were 
 encouraged to restore it by the advice of " many doctors 
 of the Sorbonne," and by Van Espen and other doctors of 
 Louvain *. They were supported by some Gallican bishops u . 
 Varlet, suffragan bishop of Babylon, having fallen under the 
 suspicion of Jansenism, was obliged to return to Europe, and 
 resided at Amsterdam, where he consecrated Steenoven in 
 1724, assisted only by two canons; "which is contrary to 
 the discipline observed in the church, and which is not per- 
 mitted except with dispensations that were not asked v ." 
 Varlet ordained successively four archbishops of Utrecht. 
 Among the successors of Steenoven are mentioned Barchman 
 1725 W , Vandercroon 1734*, Meindartz 1739 y , (under whom 
 a Jansenist synod was held at Utrecht in 1763, at which 
 their bishops of Utrecht, Haarlem, and Deventer were pre- 
 
 ' Mem. Eccl. ii. 367- T 200. 
 
 " 545, 546. w Tom. ii. p. 8. 
 
 * Tom. i. p. 197. x 137- 
 
 u 198. r 166. 
 
 s2
 
 260 Jansenism. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 sent 2 ,) Van Nieuem-huysen who died in 1797, Van Rhyn 
 elected the same year 3 , Van Os consecrated 181 4 b . These 
 Jansenist bishops have continued to the present age, assisted 
 by fifty or sixty priests and a few thousand followers. They 
 always pretend to be united with the Roman church, duly 
 informing the pontiff of their elections, &c. in a most fraternal 
 manner, and occasionally addressing epistles to him , to all 
 which they receive no other reply than bulls of excommunica- 
 tion, deposition, censure, &c. which they do not seem much to 
 regard. 
 
 IX. The Romanists of the BRITISH EMPIRE have been by 
 no means exempt from Jansenism. Without speaking of 
 certain priests in England about 1707, who instructed their 
 converts to speak irreverently of the pope, of the invocation of 
 saints, and of indulgences, and kept in their oratories the por- 
 traits of Arnauld and St. Cyran (noted Jansenists) ; or of the 
 Jansenistical books then translated from the French ; or of a 
 priest in Durham who taught his scholars to read " the Pro- 
 vincial Letters, &c. d ;" without dwelling on these and other 
 facts, which might be adduced to show the existence of Jan- 
 senism among the Romanists of these countries, in the earlier 
 part of the last century : it is pretty clear that towards the 
 latter part of that century, and in the present, Jansenism has 
 lurked in the Romish communion. Berrington, Charles Butler 
 (the chief popish writer for a long time), Sir J. Throckmorton, 
 Dr. Charles CTConor, their most learned author, and many 
 others, have been openly charged with Jansenism by other 
 papists, and with very great probability. Mr. PJowden, a papist 
 of considerable note, cites from Berringtons Memoirs of Panzani 
 (published 1793) passages which evince an evident partiality 
 for Jansenism 6 . He also shows the same tendency in Dr. 
 O'Conor, the author of the Letters of Coltimbanus, and in Mr. 
 C. Butler. The latter, it will be remembered, held the same 
 doctrine on indulgences as that of Scipio de Ricei, the Jan- 
 senist bishop of Pistoia, for which he was vehemently assailed 
 by the priest Milner. His writings entitled the " Blue Books" 
 
 1 440. d Plowden's Historical Letter, 
 
 iii. 4089. p. 278. Dublin, 1812. 
 
 b 629. e Ibid. 
 c ii. 506.
 
 APPEND, i.] English Jansenists. 261 
 
 gave vast offence to the strict papists, from their depreciation 
 of papal authority ; and Sir J. Throckmorton is said by the 
 Romish historian of the last century to have published a 
 " Letter to the Catholic Clergy on the Nomination of Bishops, 
 1792," in which " he showed himself little favourable to the 
 holy see, whose prerogatives and rights he attacked, and he 
 spoke on this subject like the constitutionalists of France." 
 These sentiments are easily connected with Jansenism : and 
 Mr. Plowden, in 1812, gave a striking account of the con- 
 tinued existence and prevalence of this condemned heresy 
 amongst the Romanists of these countries. The genuine 
 feeling which appears in his observations, precludes all possi- 
 bility of doubt as to the sincerity of his belief in the fact : 
 while his means of information leave nothing to be desired. 
 
 " The direct opposition to God's revealed truth, is resistance 
 to the authority he has commissioned to teach it. To this is 
 traceable that prominent feature of Jansenism, contemptuous 
 hostility to the council of Trent. Abbe S. Cyran, the founder 
 of that subtle and pernicious sect in France, held it to be only 
 a political convention, and in no shape a true council ; a mere 
 assemblage of some school divines by the pope, where there 
 was nothing but intrigue and cabal. The manifestation of this 
 symptom proves the prevalence of the disorder at this hour 1 . 
 Would to God the remedy were as obvious as the disease is 
 evident ! No man professes himself a Jansenist. We can dis- 
 cern them only by their fruits . . . / tremble and shudder at the 
 ravages which I see that terrible disorder making amongst some 
 of the catholic flocks within the dominions of his majesty. But 
 as insensibility of infection and danger is one general symptom 
 of the disorder, I yield to more even than my historical duty 
 in sounding the alarm, in manifesting the progress and mis- 
 chief of the disease, and in warning every pastor of a catholic 
 flock throughout the British Empire, that there is infinitely 
 less danger of destruction to their flocks from the overt errors 
 of Arians, Socinians, Calvinists, Lutherans, or any avowed 
 separatists, than from the disguised poison of the Jansenists, who 
 
 { He cites O'Conor's assertion trine of Walsh, another papist, that 
 
 (Columbanus v. 125), that the coun- the council of Trent " was neither 
 
 cil of Trent has never been received oecumenical, nor occidental, nor 
 
 either as to doctrine or discipline, free." Appendix 28, &c. 
 in Ireland or France ; and the doc-
 
 262 Ravages of Jansenism. [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 with unrelenting perseverance lurk among the catholics g I 
 
 openly and loudly profess my wishes and intentions, but lament 
 that I cannot strengthen my feeble efforts to extinguish the 
 fire concealed under the treacherous embers, ere it burst forth 
 into a flame that may reduce the better part of the empire to 
 
 annihilation I earnestly invoke every individual who 
 
 tenders the purity of catholic faith and church government V 
 X. I pause here. It is clear that these gentlemen who 
 vaunt so exceedingly the perfect unity, the irrefragable autho- 
 rity, the unalterable orthodoxy of their churches, and who 
 build on these assumptions the conclusion, that they alone con- 
 stitute the catholic church of Christ ; it is clear, I say, that 
 they have been, and are infected with HERESY, condemned and 
 execrated by the authorities of their church ; and so much in- 
 fected, that perhaps no part of the church has been equally 
 troubled. Jansenism still exists in the Romish churches of 
 the continent. It would be easy to cite many works containing 
 its principles and published in the present age. The spirit of 
 reform which accompanies it still troubles their community. 
 In Germany it cries against the celibacy of the clergy, and the 
 withholding of the cup from the laity. It produces prayers in 
 the vernacular tongue there and in England 1 . It removes 
 images from their churches in various places, and in all, con- 
 tinues to enslave the Roman church to the civil magistrate, of 
 which we continually hear bitter complaints. To the influence 
 of the same causes we may doubtless attribute the conduct of 
 such men as Leander Von Ess, Weissemburgh, and other 
 liberal Romish priests, who form connexions with the Bible 
 Society, contrary to the rules of their church, or introduce 
 various reforms and new systems of theology j . But there are 
 
 * Ibid. Appendix p. 28, 29. the principles of Joseph II. flou- 
 
 h p. 37. rished in all their rank luxuriance. 
 
 1 For abundant and most interest- By its shallow semi-rationalism, its 
 
 ing information on the reforming Febronian maxims of ecclesiastical 
 
 party in the Roman churches, see discipline this university spread 
 
 an article on the state of the Roman a destructive miasma not only 
 
 catholic church in Silesia, in the through Baden and Wurtemburg, 
 
 Foreign Quarterly Review for 1827, but through other states of catholic 
 
 p. 515, &c. This article was from Germany." The clergy educated 
 
 the pen of my lamented friend, the here are said to be " most neglectful 
 
 Rev. Hugh J. Rose. of their duties, imbued with doc- 
 
 J The Dublin Review for August, trines subversive of ecclesiastical dis- 
 
 1841, p. 63, says that in the univer- cipline, and not unfrequently, scan- 
 
 sity of Freyburg, " until very recently, dalously profligate in their conduct.
 
 APPEND, ii.] Infidelity in the Roman Church. 
 
 263 
 
 worse doctrines than those of Jansenism lurking in the Roman 
 church. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 ON INFIDELITY AND INDIFFERENCE IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 To trace the existence of infidel principles in the Roman 
 churches is a painful task ; but while I deeply lament their exist- 
 ing condition, facts must be stated in consequence of the vaunt- 
 ings of Romish theologians, who pretend that their churches are 
 united in the true faith, to a degree unparalleled in any other 
 Christian community. We are represented as devoid of set- 
 tled faith. We alone are supposed to be troubled by the 
 presence of heretics or infidels ; while the Roman church is to 
 bear away the palm of immoveable faith and invariable ortho- 
 doxy. It is a certain fact that many of the worst infidels in 
 
 It was in Baden and Silesia that the 
 . . . Antictflebetaires who agitated the 
 church of Germany ten years ago, 
 and received from his present holi- 
 ness such an indignant rebuke in 
 the Encyclical Letter of 1832, found 
 their chief support. This party of 
 unworthy ecclesiastics affect an ex- 
 traordinary patriotism, clamour for 
 a German liturgy, a German patri- 
 arch with a mere nominal depend- 
 ence on the pope, and, last, though 
 not least, German wives." 
 
 That the church of Rome is not in- 
 vested with power enough to secure 
 unity of faith within its communion, 
 is also shown by the recent contro- 
 versies on the doctrines of Hermes, 
 professor at the university of Bonn. 
 In 1835 the pope formally con- 
 demned his writings as " containing 
 many absurd things remote from the 
 doctrine of the catholic church," 
 and as including propositions " con- 
 ducing to scepticism and indifference, 
 erroneous, subversive of divine faith, 
 savouring of heresy, and condemned 
 by the church." (L'Ami de la Reli- 
 gion, t. 87, p. 130, 131.) The result 
 shall be stated in the words of the 
 Dublin Review for 1838 (vol. iv. p. 
 233) : " Very soon a difference of 
 opinion manifested itself between the 
 clergy of the four dioceses of the 
 
 Rhenish provinces, and those of 
 Westphalia where the doctrines of 
 Hermes had been widely spread. . . 
 Whilst the larger part of the clergy 
 submitted to the decision of the 
 papal see, others declared that the 
 brief was not binding on them, as it 
 had not been published according to 
 the forms required by the law of 
 Prussia, namely, with the approba- 
 tion of the king. The catholic pro- 
 fessors at the university of Bonn . . 
 continued to teach it. Thus was the 
 decision of Rome held in contempt, and 
 heretical opinions continued to form 
 the basis of instruction in catholic 
 theology " 
 
 In the same Review (August, 
 1841, p. 60) it is stated, that "the 
 Hermesians " are " numerous and ac- 
 tive " in the dioceses of Cologne and 
 Treves ; and (p. 101) that "covert 
 and insidious, but not less danger- 
 ous attacks are directed against the 
 church by the Hermesian party in the 
 dioceses of Cologne, Treves, and 
 more particularly Breslau." The 
 Roman church therefore finds as 
 much difficulty as other churches in 
 suppressing heresy within her com- 
 munion. Her chief authorities pub- 
 lish formal censures ; and those 
 censures are despised.
 
 264 Infidels in the Roman Church. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 the last century were members of the Roman church, that they 
 received its sacraments, and even officiated as ministers at its 
 altars. Without speaking of the infidel publications of several 
 French clergy, such as the Abbes de la Baume, de Marsy, &c. 
 during the middle part of that century, it is sufficient to remark 
 that VOLTAIRE himself was, during his whole life, a member, 
 and even a COMMUNICANT of the Roman church ! Yes : he, 
 whose unceasing cry against our ever-blessed God and Saviour 
 was, Ecrasez Tinfame ! was, horrible to relate, a communi- 
 cant of the Roman church. In 1754 he received the eucharist 
 at Colmar 3 . He again received it in 1761, "precisely at 
 the time when his correspondence and his writings had the 
 most marked taint of irreligion V He again communicated 
 in 1768, and preached in the church on theft . At the same 
 time he wrote to d'Alembert with reference to his communion 
 at Easter, " that he had already done it often, and, please God, 
 would do it again d ." In 1769 being ill, he received the Via- 
 ticum from the cure of Ferney, and delivered him a declaration 
 in which he said that " he owed it to truth, to his honour, and 
 to piety, to declare that he had never ceased to respect and to 
 
 practise the catholic religion professed in the kingdom 
 
 that he had lived, and wished to die in the observance of all 
 the laws of the kingdom, and in the catholic religion" &c. e 
 In 1778 he sent for the Abbe Gauthier, and signed a writing, 
 in which he declared that " he had confessed " to this eccle- 
 siastic, " and wished to die in the catholic religion" &c. In 
 fine, he was buried in the Abbey of Scellieres in Champagne f . 
 So that Voltaire, amidst all his assaults on religion, and while 
 actually engaged in a war of extermination against Christianity, 
 lived and died in the communion of the Roman church ! 
 
 His example was not lost on his followers. Amongst the 
 infidel association of the " Illuminati " we learn that there 
 were cures, priests, and one who was raised to high dignities in 
 the German church g . Cardinal de Brienne was connected with 
 d'Alembert and the infidel philosophers, and was supposed to 
 share their sentiments 11 . And who, I would ask, were those 
 
 a Memoires pour serv. a 1'Hist. d 540. 
 
 Eccl. pendant le xviii 6 . siecle, torn. ii. e 541. 
 
 535. f 638. 
 
 b 536. * 618, 619. 
 
 c 537. h 503.
 
 APPEND, ii.] Dreadful Prevalence of Indifference. 265 
 
 men, Talleyrand bishop of Autun, De Savines of Viviers, De 
 Jarante of Orleans, the infamous Gobel bishop of Lydda and 
 afterwards of Paris, Miroudet of Babylon, Gay- Vernon, Lindet, 
 Lalande, Seguin, Chabot, Massieu, Marolles, Torne, Pelletier, 
 Thibault, Minee, Heraudin, Huguet, Lefessier, Panisset, and 
 the other constitutional bishops, who renounced their func- 
 tions, sent to the Revolutionary Convention their letters of 
 orders, mitres, and episcopal ornaments, and declared that 
 there ought to be no worship but that of reason, liberty, and 
 equality * ? Who were these men, I say, but bishops, or at 
 least priests, of the Roman church ? They had received in 
 that church their ordinations. They had imbibed in her com- 
 munion the principles of infidelity, and though they were par- 
 tizans of an institution which was under papal censure (the 
 constitutional church), they were not excommunicated up to the 
 period of their open apostasy J . A multitude of priests followed 
 the example of these bishops. Infidel and Jacobin priests and 
 bishops were also found in Italy k . La Mennais says that, 
 after deducting from the Roman church those who have aban- 
 doned all belief (" and every one knows how they have multi- 
 plied within a century ") and those who are but half-converted 
 from idolatry, " On est effraye de leur solitude sur cette terre 
 promise tout entiere au Christ . . Chaque jour la religion gemit 
 sur de nouvelles pertes que sont bien loin de compenser les 
 progres qu'elle fait dans d'autres contrees. A partir d^une 
 epoque deja ancienne, elle a visiblement, et sans interruption, 
 tendu a dtcliner 1 " 
 
 But the irreligion of members of the Roman churches sinks 
 deeper even than direct infidelity. I shall here avail myself of 
 the testimony of the Abbe La Mennais : " What do you per- 
 ceive everywhere, but a profound indifference as to duties and 
 creeds, with an unbridled love of pleasure and of gold, by 
 means of which anything can be obtained ? All is bought, 
 for all is sold ; conscience, honour, religion, opinions, dignities, 
 power, consideration, respect even : a vast shipwreck of all 
 truths and all virtues." ..." Atheism," said Leibnitz, " will 
 be the last of heresies, and in effect, indifference which 
 marches in its train, is not a doctrine, for genuine Indifferents 
 
 1 iii. 242 253. ' La Mennais, Affaires de Rome, 
 
 J 200. p. 240. 
 
 k 3689.
 
 266 Dreadful Prevalence of Indifference, [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 deny nothing, affirm nothing ; it is not even doubt, for doubt 
 being suspense between contrary probabilities, supposes a pre- 
 vious examination : it is a systematic ignorance, a voluntary 
 
 sleep of the soul Such is the hideous and sterile monster 
 
 which they call indifference. All philosophic theories, all 
 doctrines of impiety have melted and disappeared in this 
 
 devouring system From this fatal system, BECOME ALMOST 
 
 UNIVERSAL, has resulted under the name of tolerance, a new 
 sort of temptation," &c. m He observes that "the state to 
 which we are approaching, is one of the signs by which will be 
 recognised that last war announced by Jesus Christ : ' Never- 
 theless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on 
 the earth n T r Nor is this merely the statement of one indi- 
 vidual. It is supported by the pastoral letter of the bishop of 
 Troyes, on the occasion of his entry into his diocese, where it 
 is said, with reference to the carelessness and disdain of indif- 
 ference : " Such is now the great wound of the church, or, to 
 employ the language of the holy Scriptures, her desperate 
 wound ; ' Desperata est plaga ejus. 1 For what can we oppose 
 
 to this state of things ? We know well the remedy for 
 
 bodily maladies, but the remedy for this epidemic malady of 
 minds, who shall find it f This evil therefore afflicts the 
 Roman church : it is within her own bosom. Even the Head 
 of that church has been compelled to lay open the condition of 
 his community to our view. Gregory XVI. in 1832 addressed 
 an encyclical letter to all the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, 
 and bishops of his Obedience, in which the following remark- 
 able passage occurs. " We come now to another most abun- 
 dant cause of evils with which we grieve to see the church 
 afflicted, that is to say, indifference, or that perverse opinion, 
 which, through the frauds of wicked men, has become common 
 everywhere, that eternal salvation can be obtained by any pro- 
 fession of faith, provided the morals be correct and honest. 
 But in a case so clear and evident, you will easily expel 
 from the people committed to your care this most destructive 
 error," &C.P 
 
 m Essai sur 1'Indifference, torn. i. Ibid. 28, 29. 
 
 Introduction, p. 21. 24, 25. P See Appendix V. 
 
 " Ibid. 25.
 
 APPEXD. in.] Schismatics in the Roman Communion. 267 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 ON THE SCHISMS OF 1791 AND 1801. 
 
 The anti-papal principle of Jansenism lurking in the Roman 
 communion, combined with the revolutionary mania, developed 
 in 1790 the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy "in France, 
 under which false appellation the constituent assembly effected 
 extraordinary alterations in spiritual matters. M. Bouvier, 
 the present bishop of Mans, remarks that this constitution 
 " abounded with many and most grievous faults." " First," 
 he says, " the national convention, by its own authority, with- 
 out any recourse to the ecclesiastical power, changes or reforms 
 all the old dioceses, erects new ones, diminishes some, increases 
 others, &c.; (2.) forbids any Galilean church or citizen to 
 acknowledge the authority of any foreign bishop, &c. ; (3.) in- 
 stitutes a new mode of administering and ruling cathedral 
 churches, even in spirituals ; (4.) subverts the divine authority 
 of bishops, restraining it within certain limits, and imposing on 
 them a certain council, without whose judgment they could do 
 nothing," &c. &c. a The great body of the Gallican bishops 
 naturally protested against this constitution, which suppressed 
 one hundred and thirty-five bishoprics, and erected eighty-three 
 in their stead, under different titles b . The convention insisted 
 that they should take the oath of adhesion to the civil consti- 
 tution in eight days, on pain of being considered as having 
 resigned ; and on the refusal of the great majority, the new 
 bishops were elected in their place, and consecrated by Talley- 
 rand, bishop of Autun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda, 
 and Miroudet, of Babylon c . 
 
 M. Bouvier proves, from the principles of his church, that 
 this constitution was schismatical ; that all the bishops, rectors, 
 curates, confessors, instituted by virtue of it, were intruders, 
 schismatics, and even involved in heresy; that the taking of 
 the oath to observe it was a mortal sin ; and that it would 
 have been better to have died a hundred times than to have 
 done so. 
 
 De Vera Ecclesia, p. 411. Eccl. xviii*. sidcle, torn. iii. p. 149. 
 
 b Memoires pour serv. a I'll 1st. c 171.
 
 268 Schismatics in the Roman Communion, [p. i. CH. xi. 
 
 Nevertheless, these schismatics and heretics were afterwards 
 introduced into the communion of the Roman church itself, in 
 which they propagated their notions. On the signature of the 
 concordate between Buonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for 
 the erection of the new Gallican church, the first consul made 
 it a point that twelve of these constitutional bishops should be 
 appointed to sees under the new arrangements. He succeeded. 
 " He caused to be named to sees twelve of those same consti- 
 tutionals who had attached themselves with such obstinate per- 
 severance, for ten years, to the propagation of schism in France. 
 .... One of the partizans of the new concordate, who had 
 been charged to receive the recantation of the constitutionals, 
 certified that they had renounced their civil constitution of the 
 clergy. Some of them vaunted, nevertheless, that they had 
 not changed their principles ; and one of them publicly declared 
 that they had been offered an absolution of their censures, but 
 that they had thrown it into the fire d ." The government 
 forbad the bishops to exact retractations from the constitutional 
 priests, and commanded them to choose one of their vicars- 
 general from among that party. They were protected and 
 supported by the minister of police, and by Portalis, the 
 minister of worship 6 . In 1803, we hear of the "indiscreet 
 and irregular conduct of some new bishops, taken from among 
 the constitutionals, and who brought into their dioceses the 
 same spirit which had hitherto directed them." Afterwards it 
 is said of some of them, that they " professed the most open, 
 resistance to the holy see, expelled the best men from their 
 dioceses, and perpetuated the spirit of schism f ." In 1804, 
 Pius VII. being at Paris, procured their signature to a decla- 
 ration, approving generally of the judgments of the holy see 
 on the ecclesiastical affairs of France. But this vague and 
 general formulary, which Bouvier and other Romanists pretend 
 to represent as a recantation, was not so understood by these 
 
 d 421. See also Mem. Eccl. de Ibid. p. 101. 
 
 France, torn. i. ch. 5 and 7. Lecoz, e 422. It appears that the in- 
 one of them, is there said to have structions of the government re- 
 been " extremely attached to Jan- quired that one-third of the clergy 
 senism." He was named archbi- should be taken from the constitu- 
 shop of Besancon, and was sur- tionals. Mem. Eccl. de France, t. 
 rounded by all the old constitutional i. p. 65. 
 bishops, who formed a sort of synod. f 433.
 
 APPEND, in.] Creation of the New Galilean Church. 269 
 
 bishops g ; and thus the Gallican church continued, and pro- 
 bably still continues, to number schismatical bishops and priests 
 in her communion. Such is the boasted and most inviolable 
 unity of the Roman church ! 
 
 I am now to speak of the concordate of 1801, between Buo- 
 naparte, first consul of the French republic, and Pope Pius 
 VII. The first consul designing to restore Christianity in 
 France, engaged the pontiff to exact resignations from all the 
 existing bishops of the French territory, both constitutional 
 and royalist. The bishoprics of old France were 135 in num- 
 ber ; those of the conquered districts (Savoy, Germany, &c.) 
 were 24 ; making a total of 159 h . The constitutional bishops 
 resigned their sees * ; those also who still remained in the con- 
 quered districts resigned them to Pius VII. Eighty-one of 
 the exiled royalist bishops of France were still alive ; of these 
 45 resigned, but 36 declined to do so*. The pontiff derogated 
 from the consent of these latter prelates, annihilated 159 
 bishoprics at a blow, created in their place 60 new ones, and 
 arranged the mode of appointment and consecration of the new 
 bishops and clergy, by his bulls Ecclesia Christi and Qui 
 Christi Domini k . To this sweeping concordate the French 
 government took care to annex, by the authority of their 
 " corps legislatif, 11 certain " Organic Articles, 11 relating to the 
 exercise of worship. According to a Romish historian, they 
 " rendered the church entirely dependent, and placed every 
 thing under the hand of government. The bishops, for exam- 
 ple, were prohibited from conferring orders without its consent ; 
 the vicars-general of the bishops were to continue, even after 
 his death, to govern the diocese, without regard to the rights 
 of chapters ; a multitude of things which ought to have been 
 left to the decision of the ecclesiastical authority, were minutely 
 regulated, 11 &c. The intention was, " to place the priests, 
 even in the exercise of their spiritual functions, in an entire 
 
 K 453, 454. to justify these unheard-of proceed- 
 
 h 404. 419. Bouvier, de Vera ings, was fear lest the government, 
 
 Ecclesia, p. 420. disappointed in its arrangements 
 
 ' Memoires, 405, 406. Mem. Eccl. with Rome, should establish the 
 
 de France, torn. i. c. 3. Constitutionals, or even the Luthe- 
 
 1 410. Bouvier, 420; Memoires rans. So great was the evil deemed 
 
 Eccl. de France, torn. i. c. 2. of losing the patronage of the state, 
 
 k Mem. xviii e . siecle, 418, 419. that in order to obtain it, all the 
 
 Mem. Eccl. de France, torn. i. c. 4. canons were broken through. 
 One of the principal reasons adduced
 
 270 Degradation of the French Clergy, [p. i. CH. xr. 
 
 dependence on the government agents V The pope remon- 
 strated against these articles in vain ; they continued, were 
 adopted by the Bourbons, and, with some modifications, are in 
 force to this day ; and the government of the Galilean church 
 is vested more in the Conseil d'Etat than in the bishops. Buo- 
 naparte assumed the language of piety, while he proceeded 
 to exercise the most absolute jurisdiction over the church. 
 " Henceforward nothing embarrasses him in the government of 
 the church ; he decides every thing as a master ; he creates 
 bishoprics, unites them, suppresses them m ." He apparently 
 found a very accommodating episcopacy. A royal commission, 
 including two cardinals, five archbishops and bishops, and some 
 other high ecclesiastics, in 1810 and 1811, justified many of 
 the " Organic Articles " which the pope had objected to ; ac- 
 knowledged that a national council could order that bishops 
 should be instituted by the metropolitan or senior bishop instead 
 of the pope, in case of urgent circumstances; and declared 
 the papal bull of excommunication against those who had 
 unjustly deprived him of his states, null and void n . 
 
 These proceedings were by no means pleasing to the exiled 
 
 1 420. The reply of the govern- not fall lower than this. Buona- 
 ment to the papal remonstrance was, parte and his ministers also judged 
 that " the French sovereigns re- it expedient to publish the catechism 
 garded themselves as les evdques du of Bossuet, with numerous alterations 
 dehors ; that they had always exer- and improvements, even in point of 
 cised a real power in matters of dis- doctrine, for the use of the whole 
 cipline, public worship, and on the Galilean church. It was not sub- 
 conduct of the clergy." Mem. Eccl. mitted to the examination of the 
 de France, torn. i. p. 71. It was af- prelates; and the report was, that 
 terwards said by the government, it had been drawn up by the empe- 
 that " the Conseil d'Etat succeeded ror and his generals. But it was, in 
 the parliaments in ecclesiastical mat- fact, prepared in common by the 
 ters." Ibid. p. 276. Every one papal legate and some theologians, 
 knows the powers assumed by the under the supreme control and theo- 
 parliaments ; they were proverbially logical dictation of Napoleon him- 
 excessive. The minister of state, self! Ibid. torn. ii. c. 17. During 
 Portalis, directed the bishops as to all these proceedings, the bishops of 
 the administration of the sacraments, France were issuing charges, letters, 
 and forbade the use of tickets of &c., in which Napoleon was de- 
 confession. Ibid. c. 15. In fact, scribed as "a man sent by God;" 
 the correspondence between him and and in which all the terms of a most 
 the clergy, resembles that of a pope fulsome adulation were lavished on 
 or a metropolitan with his subjects, the emperor. 
 
 One of the most degrading obliga- m 504. Mem. Eccl. de France, 
 
 tions of the clergy was to read aloud ii. p. 317. 
 
 the " bulletins of the grand army of n Mem. 523 530. Mem. Eccl. 
 
 France" in their churches !!! Ibid, de France, ii. 327> &c. 350, &c. 
 
 torn. ii. p. 41. Degradation could 399, &c.
 
 APPEND, in.] Schism in tlw Galilean Church. 271 
 
 French bishops, who had not resigned their sees, and yet 
 beheld them filled in their own lifetime by new prelates. They 
 addressed repeated protests to the Koman pontiff in vain . 
 His conduct in derogating from their consent, suppressing so 
 many sees, and appointing new bishops, was certainly unprece- 
 dented ; it was clearly contrary to ah 1 the canons of the church 
 universal, as every one admits. The adherents of the ancient 
 bishops refused to communicate with those whom they regarded 
 as intruders. They dwelt on the odious slavery under which 
 they were placed by the " Organic Articles p ;" and the Abbes 
 Blanchard and Gauchet, and others, wrote strongly against 
 the concordate, as null, illegal, and unjust ; affirmed that the 
 new bishops and their adherents were heretics and schismatics, 
 and that Pius VII. was cut off from the catholic church* 1 . 
 Hence a schism in the Roman churches, which continues to this 
 day, between the adherents of the new Gallican bishops and 
 the old. The latter are styled by their opponents, " La petite 
 Eglise r ." The truly extraordinary origin of the present Gal- 
 lican church, sufficiently accounts for the reported prevalence 
 of Ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, contrary 
 to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the inces- 
 sant efforts of Napoleon 8 and the Bourbons to force on them 
 the four articles of the Gallican clergy of 1682. They see, 
 plainly enough, that their church's origin rests chiefly on the 
 unlimited power of the pope. 
 
 411. Mem. Eccl. de France, bers proved refractory, and in obe- 
 
 i. 310. dience to their will, the pope cut 
 
 p 423. Mem. France, i. 312. down the number to thirty new 
 
 q Mem. 506, &c. Mem. France, sees. 
 
 iii. 220. * The Organic Articles contain an 
 
 T Bouvier, de Vera Ecclesia, Com- express provision that the four Gal- 
 
 pendium Histor. ii. par. ii. p. 424, lican articles should be acknow- 
 
 &c. Mem. Eccl. de France, torn. i. ledged by all heads of seminaries. 
 
 ch. 17. I may here add, that on The same condition was made in es- 
 
 the return of the Bourbons, the tablishing the University of France, 
 
 Gallican church, which had formerly 1808. Mem. Eccl. de France, t. ii. 
 
 boasted of 135 sees, found herself p. 268. An edict (25 Feb. 1810) 
 
 reduced to 50. Louis XVIII. and declared these articles the law of the 
 
 the pope made a new concordate empire, and ordered them to be ob- 
 
 (1817), by which the latter actually served by all archbishops and bishops, 
 
 erected 42 new bishoprics ; and the universities, directors of seminaries, 
 
 king nominated a number of bishops and schools of theology. Ibid. p. 
 
 accordingly. But the French cham- 363.
 
 272 EomisJi Idolatries and Heresies. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 IDOLATRIES AND HERESIES IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 In the preceding pages it has been shown that unity in doc- 
 trine and discipline is no invariable attribute of the Roman 
 communion, and that its members have no reason to boast of 
 their superiority to other churches in this respect ; I shall now 
 show that the unity which exists amongst them amounts, in 
 many cases, to a toleration and sanction of idolatry and heresy ; 
 and therefore, that the Roman communion is full of corrup- 
 tions, and that the salvation of its members is endangered. 
 
 Veron *, and many other Romish theologians, argue, that the 
 idolatries and heresies objected to Romanists, cannot be ob- 
 jected to their church, because they have not been formally 
 defined by the council of Trent, or by any other binding autho- 
 rity, and because they may be and are rejected by various 
 members of their communion. This argument, so far as it 
 tends to show that the Roman is still a part of the universal 
 church, may be admitted ; but it cannot clear that church from 
 the charge of corruption and guilt in allowing the inculcation 
 of tenets contrary to the Gospel ; or prove that the doctrines 
 taught within her communion are not dangerous to the salva- 
 tion of her members. If idolatry and heresy be widely incul- 
 cated in a church, without censure from authority or strong 
 opposition from her sound members, it is impossible that the 
 souls of the people should not be endangered ; and while we 
 may not maintain that such a church has absolutely ceased to 
 be Christian, we cannot admit her claim to be a safe guide in 
 religion, or hold that her members are bound to continue in 
 communion with those who are actually guilty of idolatry or 
 heresy. 
 
 It is in vain, therefore, that Romanists assert that the errors 
 with which they are charged are not de fide amongst them, 
 and that different tenets may be held. This does not clear 
 their church from guilt, or prove that it is safe to enter her 
 communion, and to accept the doctrines inculcated by her 
 ministers. 
 
 ' Veronii Regula Fidei.
 
 APPEND, iv.] Eomish Idolatries and Heresies. 273 
 
 I shall now mention some of the idolatries and heresies 
 which are held without censure in the Roman communion. 
 
 I. It is maintained without censure that LATRIA, or the 
 worship paid to the Divine nature, is also due to 
 
 Images of Christ ; 
 
 Images of the Trinity ; 
 
 Images of God the Father ; 
 
 Eelics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of Christ ; 
 
 Eelics of the true cross ; 
 
 Belies of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen 
 cloth, napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscrip- 
 tion on the cross, and other instruments of the passion ; 
 
 Images of the cross ; 
 
 The Bible ; 
 
 The blessed Virgin. 
 
 All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught 
 commonly and without censure in the Roman communion, to 
 receive the very worship paid to God u . 
 
 II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and 
 to all the saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly 
 shown that they are addressed in exactly the same terms in 
 which we ought to address God ; that the same sort of con- 
 fidence is expressed in their power ; that they are acknowledged 
 to be the authors of grace and salvation. These idolatries are 
 generally practised without opposition or censure v . 
 
 III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to 
 God the Son, and to command him. She is represented as the 
 source of all grace, while believers are taught to look on Jesus 
 with dread. The work of redemption is said to be divided 
 between her and our Lord w . 
 
 IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner 
 subject to the wrath and vengeance of God. 
 
 V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused 
 by the wrath of an angry God. 
 
 u I have examined this subject in w Usher's Controversy with a Je- 
 
 " An Eighth Letter to N. Wiseman, suit, chap, ix.; Letters I. and V. to 
 
 D.D." Dr. Wiseman ; and the Appendix of 
 
 T See the Rev. T. H. Home's ex- Dr. Pusey's Tract " On the Articles 
 
 cellent little work entitled, " Mario- treated of in No. 90 of the Tracts 
 
 latry ;" also Mr. Tyler's " Primitive for the Times." 
 Christian Worship." 
 
 VOL. 1. T
 
 274 Roman Churches. [P. i. CH. xi. 
 
 VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after 
 death x . 
 
 VII. That the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated or 
 continued in the eucharist. 
 
 These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated 
 within the communion of the Roman church, without censure 
 or open opposition ; besides which, there are other pernicious 
 tenets more or less commonly received. Thus, the Jesuits 
 teach that it is lawful to practise mental reservations and equi- 
 vocations, and even to commit crimes for the accomplishment 
 of a good end ?. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GREGORY XVI. 
 
 This letter presents so remarkable a view of the present con- 
 dition of the Eoman church, and it has been so frequently 
 referred to in this chapter, that I subjoin a selection of those 
 passages which are likely to be most interesting. It is entitled, 
 " Sanctissimi Domini nostri Gregorii, Divina Providentia Papse 
 XVI., Epistola Encyclica ad omnes Patriarchas, Primates, 
 Archiepiscopos, et Episcopos," and after a preface proceeds 
 thus : 
 
 " Moerentes quidem, animoque tristitia confecto, venimus ad 
 vos, quos pro vestro in religionem studio, ex tanta, in qua ipsa 
 versatur, temporum acerbitate maxime anxios novimus. Vere 
 enim dixerimus, horam nunc esse potestatis tenebrarum, ad 
 cribrandum, sicut triticum, filios electionis. Vere ' luxit, et 
 
 defluxit terra infecta ab habitatoribus suis, quia trans- 
 
 gressi sunt leges, mutaverunt jus, dissipaverunt foedus sempi- 
 ternum.' 
 
 " Loquimur, venerabiles fratres, quse vestris ipsi oculis con- 
 spicitis, quse communibus idcirco lacrymis ingemiscimus. Ala- 
 cris exultat improbitas, scientia impudens, dissoluta licentia. 
 Despicitur sanctitas sacrorum, et quse magnam vim, mag- 
 namque necessitatem possidet, divini cultus majestas ab homi- 
 nibus nequam improbatur, polluitur, habetur ludibrio. Sana 
 
 1 See Letters II. III. IV. VI. to most instructive book ; Taylor's Dis- 
 Wisemau. suasive. 
 
 y Pascal, Lettres Provinciales, a
 
 APPKND. v.] Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI. 275 
 
 hinc pervertitur doctrina, erroresque omnis generis dissemi- 
 nantur audacter. Non leges sacrorum, non jura, non instituta, 
 non sanctiores quselibet disciplinse tutse sunt ab audacia loquen- 
 tiura iniqua. Vexatur acerrime Komana hsec nostra beatissimi 
 Petri sedes, in qua posuit Christus ecclesise firmamentum ; et 
 vincula unitatis in dies magis labefactantur, abrumpuntur. 
 Divina ecclesise auctoritas oppugnatur, ipsiusque juribus con- 
 vulsis, substernitur ipsa terrenis rationibus, ac per summam 
 injuriam odio populorum subjicitur, in turpem redacta servitu- 
 tem. Debita episcopis obedientia infringitur, eorumque jura 
 conculcantur. Personant horrendum in modum academise ac 
 gymnasia novis opinionum monstris, quibus non occulte amplius 
 et cuniculis petitur catholica fides, sed horrificum ac nefarium 
 ei bellum aperte jam et propalam infertur. Institutis enim 
 exemploque prseceptorum, corruptis adolescentium animis, in- 
 gens religionis clades, morumque perversitas teterrima per- 
 crebuit. 
 
 " Ad eorum itaque retundendam audaciam, qui vel jura 
 sanctse hujus sedis infringere conantur, vel dirimere ecclesiarum 
 cum ipsa conjunctionem, qua una esedem nituntur et vigent, 
 maximum fidei in earn ac venerationis sincerse studium incul- 
 cate, inclamantes cum S. Cypriano ' falso confidere se esse in 
 ecclesia, qui cathedram Petri deserat," 1 &c. 
 
 " Nefas porro esset, atque ab eo venerationis studio prorsus 
 alienum, qua ecclesise leges sunt excipiendse, sancitam ab ipsa 
 disciplinam, qua et sacrorum procuratio, et morum norma, et 
 jurium ecclesise ministrorumque ejus ratio continetur, vesana 
 opinandi libidine improbari ; vel ut certis juris naturse principiis 
 infestam notari, vel mancam dici atque imperfectam, civilique 
 auctoritati subjectam. Cum autem, ut Tridentinorum Patrum 
 verbis utamur, constet, ecclesiam ' eruditam fuisse a Christo 
 Jesu, 1 &c. . . . absurdum plane est, ac maxime in earn injurio- 
 sum, restaurationem ac regenerationem quamdam obtrudi, quasi 
 necessariam, ut ejus incolumitati et incremento consulatur, 
 perinde ac si censeri ipsa possit vel defectui, vel obscurationi, 
 vel aliis hujuscemodi incommodis obnoxia ; quo quidem moli- 
 mine eo spectant novatores, ut, recentis humance institutionis 
 jaciantur fundamenta, illudque ipsum eveniat, quod detestatur 
 Cyprianus, ut, quas divina res est, ' humana fiat ecclesia. 1 Per- 
 
 T 2
 
 276 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xu. 
 
 pendant vero, qui consilia id genus machinantur, uni Romano 
 pontifici, ex S. Leonis testimonio, canonum dispensationem 
 esse creditam. . . . 
 
 " Hie autem vestrara volumus excitatam pro religione con- 
 stantiam adversus foedissimam in clericalem coelibatum conju- 
 rationem, quam nostis effervescere in dies latius, connitentibus 
 cum perditissimis sevi philosophis nonnullis etiara ex ipso eccle- 
 siastico ordine, qui personse obliti munerisque sui, ac blanditiis 
 abrepti voluptatura, eo licentise proruperunt, ut publicas etiam 
 atqne iteratas aliquibus in locis ausi sint adhibere principibus 
 postulationes, ad disciplinam illam sanctissimam perfringendam. 
 
 " Alteram nunc persequimur causam inalorum uberrimam, 
 quibus afflictari in prsesens coraploramus ecclesiam, indifferen- 
 tismum scilicet, seu pravam illam opinionem, quse improborum 
 fraude ex omni parte percrebuit, qualibet fidei professione 
 seternam posse animse salutem comparari, si mores ad recti 
 honestique normam exigantur. At facili sane negotio in re 
 perspicua, planeque evidenti, errorem exitiosissimam a populis 
 vestrse curse concreditis propelletis. 
 
 " Neque Isetiora et religioni et principatui ominari possemus, 
 ex eorum votis, qui ecclesiam a regno separari, mutuamque 
 imperii cum sacerdotio concordiam abrumpi discupiunt. Con- 
 stat quippe pertimesci ab impudentissimse libertatis amatoribus 
 concordiam illam, quse semper rei et sacrse et civili fausta 
 extitit ac salutaris." 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE FOREIGN REFORMATION. 
 
 THE churches a of the Lutheran Reformation, which adhere to 
 the confession of Augsburgh, and call themselves evangelical or 
 
 a The term "church "is here used plying that these communities are 
 in a general signification, not as irn- possessed of the proper organiza-
 
 SECT, i.] Luther not a Separatist. 277 
 
 protestant, exist in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Fin- 
 land, Courland, Prussia, Hanover, Hesse, Wirtemburg, 
 Saxony, Hungary, Austria, France, the West India Islands, 
 North America. Other churches, which are usually called 
 " reformed," exist in Switzerland, Holland, France, some 
 parts of Germany, Transylvania, Poland, Lithuania, America, 
 and the Asiatic Islands. These various churches or societies 
 are accused of schism and heresy by the Romanists, in 
 separating themselves from the catholic church, denying her 
 authority, rejecting tradition, and allowing private judgment 
 to an unlimited extent. I propose to examine then, in this 
 chapter, whether these communities did voluntarily separate 
 from the church ; whether they maintain principles subversive 
 of unity in faith and discipline ; and whether they constitute 
 any part of the church. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 WHETHER LUTHER AND HIS ADHERENTS SEPARATED FROM 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 This is a question which can only be determined by reference 
 to the facts of history, and these prove conclusively, that 
 Luther and his adherents did not, either in intention, or by 
 act, separate from the catholic church ; that they were always 
 desirous of a reconciliation, and that they were disposed to 
 make great sacrifices for that object. 
 
 First then, it does not seem that Luther had the slightest Luther did 
 notion of separating from the church, or rejecting its authority. not sepa ~ 
 It is well known that he was roused by the abuses of Tetzel in 
 the preaching and sale of indulgences, abuses which are ad- 
 mitted by Romanists themselves. In 1517 he wrote to the 
 archbishop of Mayence, and the bishops of Brandenburgh and 
 Mersburgh, urging them to repress the evil conduct of Tetzel b . 
 In 1518 he transmitted his theses on indulgences to the bishop 
 of Brandenburgh, his diocesan, protesting at the same time, 
 
 tion and advantages of the church, church" in the house of Nymphas, 
 
 The Epistle of S. Clement is ad- Col. iv. 15, which could not have 
 
 dressed T$ tejcX;<ri'p rov Qtov ry Trap- been an organized church. 
 oiKovvy K6piv0ov, though the Co- b Gerdesii Historia Evangelii re- 
 
 rinthians had deposed their clergy ; novati, torn. i. p. 90. 
 and we read in Scripture of " the
 
 278 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xii. 
 
 that he did not mean to determine them dogmatically, but 
 that they were merely for discussion and disputation, as was 
 customary in the schools, and that he submitted himself to the 
 judgment of his bishop c . In the same year he wrote to pope 
 Leo X. with the greatest humility and respect, stating the 
 excesses of the preachers of indulgences, his having informed 
 the bishops, and his disputation against the dogmata of Tetzel, 
 which he justified by his academic right of doctor of divinity, 
 and by the faculties he held from the pope himself; concluding 
 with an assurance that his theses were merely for academical 
 disputation, and were not intended to go abroad to the world ; 
 and finally, that he submitted himself entirely to the pontiff d . 
 
 Nothing could be farther from any appearance of schisma- 
 tical conduct than this. It is obvious that Luther paid the 
 highest respect and submission to the ordinary and existing 
 authorities in the church, and that his principles and conduct 
 contradict the notion that he designed to separate from it. 
 Even writers of the Roman communion are obliged to confess, 
 that for more than three years, that is, until he was excom- 
 municated by Leo X., all his discourses were full of similar 
 protestations e . Writers of another sort are too often disposed 
 to pass over these circumstances, as if they were in some way 
 discreditable to Luther ; but the simple truth is, that he was 
 duly impressed with the obligation of preserving unity, and had 
 no wish to separate from the church. 
 
 Leo X. having appointed cardinal Cajetan to be judge in 
 Luther's case, who was now accused of heresy, a conference 
 ensued at Augsburgh, in which Cajetan insisted that Luther, 
 without any discussion to ascertain the truth or falsehood of 
 the positions he had advanced, should at once, in obedience to 
 the papal authority (which he exaggerated in the highest 
 degree), retract his errors. Luther, in reply, protested that 
 he would submit to the judgment of the church ; but declined 
 to retract his positions until their error had been shown, 
 because he had advanced them not dogmatically, but merely 
 in the way of discussion ; that he had said nothing in them 
 " contrary to the Scripture, the councils, and fathers ;" and 
 that he was ready to submit to the decision of the church. He 
 
 Gerdesii Historia Evangelii re- c Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 125. s. 
 novati, torn. i. p. 221. 73. 
 
 d Ibid. 221, 222.
 
 SECT, i.] Luther not a Separatist. 279 
 
 treated Cajetan with the greatest respect, and even offered to 
 be silent on the subject in future, if his adversaries Eckius, 
 Cochlseus, De Prierio, Hochstrat, &c. were also required to be 
 silent f . In conclusion, finding that cardinal Cajetan had 
 orders to arrest him and bring him to Rome, if he did not 
 renounce his doctrines unconditionally, he withdrew from 
 Augsburgh, but addressed a letter to Cajetan, offering again 
 to be silent if his adversaries would be so, and expressing his 
 readiness to retract if his errors should be proved g . At the 
 same time he appealed (as the university and parliament of 
 Paris did almost contemporaneously h ) from the expected sen- 
 tence against him, to the pope letter informed 1 . In all this, 
 Luther's desire of peace is evident, and it is impossible to 
 blame him for declining to retract as errors or heresies, without 
 any discussion or ecclesiastical judgment, what he had merely 
 advanced in the way of academical discussion. 
 
 Cajetan, nevertheless, at once treated Luther as a heretic, 
 writing to the elector of Saxony, and urging him to give up 
 Luther to the papal power, or at least to expel him from his 
 dominions ; but the elector most justly replied, that Luther 
 ought not to be treated merely by the way of authority, and 
 be compelled to retract before his cause was examined and 
 judged, but ought first to be lawfully convicted of error j . Still 
 Luther, though well aware of the designs for his destruction, 
 did not attempt to revolt against the church, but offered to 
 accept any German bishop as his judge k . 
 
 Leo X. presently issued a bull approving of indulgences, and 
 condemning all who disputed the doctrine relating to them 
 which he there laid down 1 . This decree obliged Luther to 
 take the farther step of appealing formally from the pope to a 
 general council (a mode of proceeding perfectly legitimate, and 
 practised perpetually in the Koman obedience). But he denied 
 at the same time that he intended " to depart from the senti- 
 ments of the church" or to " doubt the primacy and authority 
 of the Roman see m ." In farther testimony of his wishes, he 
 again wrote, in March 1519, to Leo X. (though the pontiff 
 
 ' Fleury, liv. 125. s. 7984. J Ib. s. 86, 87. 
 
 * 84. k 88. 
 
 h 54. See also Gerdes, torn. i. ' 89. 
 
 Appendix, p. 60. m 90. 
 ' Fleury, s. 85.
 
 280 The Foreign Reformation. [p. i. CH. xn. 
 
 had already written to the elector of Saxony against him as a 
 heretic, urging his banishment"), declaring in the most sub- 
 missive terms that he had never designed to injure the authority 
 of the Roman church, that he would not trouble the church for 
 trifling matters, and would submit to all that was required of 
 him for the sake of peace . He also acquiesced in the proposal 
 of Miltitz, the papal nuncio, to be judged by the archbishop of 
 Treves. At the beginning of his discussion with Eckius, in 
 the same year, Luther and his friends declared that they did 
 not wish to remove the doctrines of the catholic church, to 
 which they always desired to be attached?. In 1520 he wrote 
 to the archbishop of Mayence and the bishop of Mersburgh, to 
 excuse himself, and to request them not to believe him a heretic 
 without hearing him^. Nor was this the last testimony afforded 
 by Luther of his desire to remain in communion with the 
 church. He had actually engaged Seckingen to procure him 
 an honourable reconciliation with Rome, as cardinal Pallavicini 
 Luther ex- acknowledges r , when, in 1520, Leo X. issued a bull against 
 
 c omnium 
 
 cated. Luther, in which it is declared that unless he shall revoke the 
 errors therein attributed to him within sixty days, he and all 
 his adherents shall be deemed to have incurred all the penalties 
 denounced against heresy, that no Christian shall hold com- 
 munion with them, and commands that their persons be 
 seized, &c. 8 Finally, in January 1521, another bull formally 
 excommunicated Luther and all his adherents, all who should 
 support and protect him, who follow his sect, or grant him 
 their favour. All are to be regarded as heretics whose com- 
 pany the faithful are commanded to avoid. All places where 
 they reside are laid under an interdict, all bishops, &c. com- 
 manded to denounce them in their churches as heretics, &c.* 
 
 These certain and unquestionable facts prove beyond dispute 
 that Luther and his adherents did not separate from the 
 Roman churches, but that they were excommunicated and 
 forcibly expelled by the Roman pontiff. The German bishops 
 received and acted on the bull, and therefore the Lutherans 
 were in fact separated from the external communion of the 
 
 n Liv. 126. s. 9. i. c. 21. Fleury, s. 63. 
 
 Ib 12. B Gerdes, torn. i. Appendix, p. 
 
 p Ib. 25. 131, &c. 
 
 " Ib. 51. Gerdes, t. ii. App. p. 15, &c. 
 
 r Pallavicini Hist. Cone. Trid. 1.
 
 SECT, i.] The Protestants not Separatists. 281 
 
 German church. But this by no means closed their connexion 
 with the church generally, either in their own opinion, or in 
 that of all others. 
 
 It has been already said, that Luther appealed from the 
 Roman pontiff to a general council. This was still to acknow- 
 ledge the authority of the church, and to allow that the western 
 was a true church. To this appeal Luther and his friends 
 steadily adhered. They renewed it in the diet of Spires 
 (1529) u , and in the diet of Augsburgh (1530) they again 
 appealed ; they declared that they had not established any 
 new sect, or separated from the church ; that they did not differ 
 in any article of faith from the Roman church, but merely as 
 to some abuses lately introduced ; that the bishops ought to 
 continue, &c. v In 1531 the king of France understood them 
 honestly to call for a general council, and held communications 
 with them. They continued their appeal in the following 
 year w . In 1535 Francis I. was desirous of inviting several of 
 their theologians to France, in order to make some accommo- 
 dation about religion ; he actually did invite Melancthon, but 
 was induced to desist by the cardinal de Tournon*. Yet 
 Melancthon writes to cardinal Du Bellay, bishop of Paris, as a 
 Christian prelate, and expresses his wish that the power of 
 
 u Fleury, liv. 132, s. 65, 66. they would not urge us to observe 
 T Fleury, liv. 133, s. 24. 26, 27. traditions which cannot be kept with 
 30. The Confession of Augsburgh a good conscience. . . . There is no 
 (pars i. art. 22 ) says, there is nothing design to deprive the bishops of 
 in this doctrine " which differs from their authority, but this only is 
 the Scriptures, or the catholic church, sought, that the Gospel be permit- 
 or the Roman church," (pars ii. pro- ted to be purely taught, and a few 
 log.) They " differ concerning no observances be relaxed," &c. The 
 article of faith from the catholic Apology of the Confession says (art. 
 church, but only omit some abuses," vii.) : " Moreover, we here again 
 &c. It says of bishops (pars ii. art. wish to testify, that we will willingly 
 vii.): " According to the Gospel, or preserve the ecclesiastical and ca- 
 jure ditino, bishops, as such, i. e. nonical polity, if the bishops will 
 those who have the ministry of the only cease from persecuting our 
 word and sacraments, have no other churches. This our wish will ex- 
 jurisdiction than to remit sins, to cuse us both in the presence of God, 
 take cognizance of doctrine, and to and of all nations to all posterity; 
 reject doctrine different from the so that it may not be imputed to us, 
 Gospel, and to exclude sinners of that the authority of bishops is over- 
 known impiety from the communion thrown, when men shall read and 
 of the church without human force, hear that we, deprecating the unjust 
 Hence the churches ought neces- cruelty of the bishops, could obtain 
 sarily, and jure divino, to obey them." no relief." 
 &c. ..." The bishops might easily w Fleury, liv. 134, s. 5. 30. 
 retain their legitimate obedience, if * Ib. 1. 135, s. 73, &c.
 
 282 The Foreign Information. [p. i. CH. xn. 
 
 bishops should be preserved y . The king of France approved 
 the appeal of the Lutherans, in 1537, against the assembly of 
 a council at Mantua. In all this there is abundant proof that 
 the Protestants did not consider themselves to be really sepa- 
 rated from the church, and that they wished to be united with 
 it. It is evident besides, that they did not generally consider 
 their own position and tenets so fixed, as that there might not 
 be an accommodation between them and the church. Thus, 
 in 1535, a correspondence took place between them and 
 Francis L, and they sent twelve articles containing their 
 religious tenets, declaring that they were ready to retract if in 
 error, and expressing their readiness to concede much for the 
 sake of peace z . They acknowledged that there ought to be 
 bishops, and some even went so far as to approve the authority 
 of the Roman see a . The assembly of Smalcald, in 1537, did 
 not allow the papal authority, but it approved of that of 
 bishops b . 'Even in 1540 there were conferences in the diet of 
 Worms, with a view to adjust the matters in controversy, not- 
 withstanding the opposition of Vergerio and Campegio, the 
 papal emissaries; who, however, finally succeeded in putting 
 an end to them c . Another conference with the protestants 
 was solicited at Haguenau, but objected to by Cochlseus, a 
 Romish theologian, because the very act of agreeing with 
 them, in seeking some middle course, was, in his opinion, 
 schismatical d . Notwithstanding this, the conferences between 
 the two parties were actually renewed at Ratisbon in 1541, 
 when several theologians on each side debated amicably, and 
 agreed on many of the disputed points 6 . The bishops of Ger- 
 
 y Gerdes, torn. iv. p. 118, &c. can never be better governed and 
 
 Fleury, 1. 135, s. 76. See also 1. preserved, than when we all live 
 
 136, s. 44, &c. The Articles sent under one head, Jesus Christ, and 
 
 into France by the Lutherans on all bishops, equal in office, though 
 
 this occasion, acknowledged that unequal in gifts, are most perfectly 
 
 " ecclesiastical government is holy united in diligence, concord of doc- 
 
 and useful, so that it is necessary trine, &c The apostles were 
 
 that there should be bishops supe- equal, and afterwards the bishops in 
 
 rior to other ministers." Melanc- all Christendom, until the pope 
 
 thon wished for bishops, " not to raised his head above all." 
 
 confirm their domination, but to re- * Fleury, 136, s. 45. 
 
 establish their administration ; for I a Ibid. 
 
 see what a church we shall have, b Articuli Smalcald. pars ii. art. 
 
 if we overthrow the ecclesiastical iv. ut supra. 
 
 polity. " (lib. iv.ep. 104 ) TheArticles Fleury, 139, s. 5356. 
 
 of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther d Ibid. s. 91. 
 
 (pars ii. art. iv.), say, " The church e Ibid. s. 98 102.
 
 SECT.].] The Protestants not Separatists. 283 
 
 many, however, in a harsh manner, rejected the articles agreed 
 on ; but the laity and princes petitioned the emperor to hand 
 them to the papal nuncio, and to consider the other articles in 
 debate, in a national synod of Germany, if a general synod 
 could not be obtained f . The protestants avowed their opinion 
 that there might easily be an agreement on all the points in 
 debate: even the papal nuncio expressed a hope that they 
 should all agree g . 
 
 All these circumstances prove that the Protestants did not 
 separate from the church ; that they acknowledged all its ordi- 
 nary authority, regarded themselves as merely separated by an 
 abuse of authority h , and were ready to make concessions, if there 
 had been any disposition to meet them. The war of Smalcald, 
 which soon after ensued, and in which the emperor endeavoured 
 to subdue them by force of arms, together with the decrees of 
 the Council of Trent, which, without admitting or hearing their 
 theologians, decided several matters in controversy, rendered 
 accommodation more difficult. But still they were willing to 
 treat, provided the decrees made in their absence were not held 
 binding ; and, in 1548, Melancthon and many others submit- 
 ted to the imperial decree called " the Interim," so as to admit 
 the rites of the Roman church generally, without any material 
 alteration, except in receiving both kinds in the eucharist. 
 Even in 1551 they sent their ambassadors and theologians to 
 the Council of Trent, which refused to hear them. All these 
 things prove that the adherents of Luther did not voluntarily 
 separate themselves ; and that, at all events, for a long time, 
 
 1 Fleury, 103. decrees ?" See his Epistles, lib. i. 
 
 * Ibid. 105. ep. 67, which well merits a perusal. 
 
 h Melancthon thus states the case In another place he puts the argu- 
 of his party : " We are not deserters ment very strongly from their Ap- 
 from the church, we are not sepa- peal to a General Council. " Those 
 rated from the body of Christ ; for who ex animo and not feignedly, ap- 
 those who retain the true doctrine of peal to the judgment of the church, 
 the Gospel and are obedient to it, are by no means enemies of the 
 remain members of Christ though church, or seditious, or schismatics, 
 the pontiffs should expel them from or heretics : for it is written, If he 
 their communion. . . . This differ- neglect to hear the church, let him 
 ence arose at the beginning from the be unto thee as a heathen or a pub- 
 reproof of a most scandalous sale of lican. Therefore, so long as he does 
 indulgences. Then the pontiff and not refuse to accept the judgment of 
 his adherents met together, and the the church, he cannot be called an 
 excommunication was fulminated, enemy or a schismatic." Melanc. 
 Are we said to be cut off from the Enarr. in Evang. Job. torn. iii. Oper. 
 church on account of those unjust p. 797.
 
 284 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xn. 
 
 they desired the restoration of communion. No small number 
 of protestants, in succeeding ages, considered them as having 
 made too large concessions for the sake of peace ; but the 
 truth is, they were deeply impressed with the evils of division ; 
 and felt that no obstacles, except those which arose from 
 absolute necessity, ought to prevent union. 
 
 I do not mean to say, that there was not sometimes unjus- 
 tifiable violence in their language. Luther sometimes per- 
 mitted himself to be transpoi'ted beyond reasonable bounds, by 
 his indignation at the tyranny and cruelty with which they 
 were persecuted, and to inveigh, in somewhat unmeasured 
 terms, against the doctrines and practices which he opposed. 
 There was not less violence of language on the other side, and 
 his tone was lamented by the wiser Lutherans *. He also 
 exposed himself to just censure by several acts. His burning 
 the papal bulls and decretals at Wittemberg, which has been 
 unwisely commended as a noble act, seems to have been an 
 useless ebullition of indignation, in return for the burning of 
 his own writings, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, 
 and at Mentz and Treves j . But allowing for faults on both 
 sides, it is clear that the Protestants did not wish to separate, 
 and that they were ready to make concessions to restore com- 
 munion. It would be, also, a mistake to suppose that Luther, 
 or his party, originally designed to effect a reformation of the 
 church : they were driven by the force of circumstances to 
 adopt the course they did. They would have widely altered 
 their system, which was a merely provisional arrangement, if by 
 so doing they could have restored the unity of the church. 
 But the opposition of the Roman see thwarted these designs ; 
 the Council of Trent rendered them still more difficult ; and, 
 in time, the Protestants forgot that their system was provi- 
 sional, pretended to justify it as ordinary and sufficient, and lost 
 their desire for accommodation with the rest of the church. 
 
 In maintaining that the adherents of Luther originally did 
 not voluntarily separate from their pastors and brethren, 
 I do not mean, of course, that they did not receive additional 
 adherents by subsequent acts of persecution directed by the 
 Eomanists against any members of their own communion who 
 
 1 See Melancthon, Epist. lib. iv. torn. ii. p. 14, 15. Fleury, Hist. 
 Ep. 28. Eccl. liv. 126, s. 81. 
 
 j Gerdesii Hist. Evang. Renov.
 
 SECT, ii.] Zuingle not a Separatist. 285 
 
 embraced the tenets of the Reformation ; or even by the volun- 
 tary separation of those Romanists who found themselves sur- 
 rounded by heretical or idolatrous clergy and people. It is 
 certain that both heresy and idolatry prevailed widely in the 
 Roman communion k , and we cannot consider those as schis- 
 matics who separated from the contagion of such crimes when 
 they were generally prevalent around them 1 . 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 WHETHER THE REFORMED SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH. 
 
 Zuingle observed the prevalence of errors and corruptions 
 around him, apparently before Luther ; and he addressed him- 
 self, in the first instance, to the proper ecclesiastical authori- 
 ties in Switzerland, the bishop of Constance, and the cardinal 
 bishop of Sion, in order to procure a reformation in the disci- 
 pline of the Swiss churches, several years before any alteration 
 was made. In 1519 he was appointed to the principal 
 church of Zurich, where he declaimed against indulgences, at 
 that time preached in Switzerland ; and was encouraged to do 
 so by the bishop of Constance 11 . He also began to preach 
 other doctrines opposed to the prevalent errors. But, not- 
 withstanding this, he did not attempt innovation in rites. For 
 five years Zuingle celebrated mass, and persevered in the usual 
 rites and ceremonies. From his discourses some persons, in 
 1522, discontinued the fasts of the church, and began to eat 
 meat on prohibited days. A controversy ensued between 
 Zuingle and Faber, vicar-general of the bishop of Constance ; 
 who, together with the chapter, had accused him of heresy and 
 sedition, to the magistracy of Zurich. In this conference the 
 Zuinglian party declared, that they only complained of the 
 multitude of ceremonies, which were more grievous than the 
 Jewish ; but that they did not contemn all human precepts, 
 nor did they, either in act or intention, separate from the church . 
 In this there was nothing of schism certainly ; and the senate 
 of Zurich, though favourable to Zuingle, manifested its respect 
 for constituted authority, by decreeing that no one, without 
 serious cause, should break the fasts of the church, until the 
 
 k Chap. xi. appendix iv. n Gerdes, i. 262. 
 
 1 See above, p. 6469- Ibid. 267270. 
 
 m Gerdes, i. 105. Hospinian, ii. 22.
 
 286 The Foreign Reformation. [p. i. CH. xn. 
 
 affair was more fully expounded and cleared by the bishop P. 
 In May 1522, this bishop wrote to the chapter of Zurich, to 
 prevent and suppress the reformed doctrines, condemned by 
 Leo X. in his bull against Luther, which he charges with 
 schism, heresy, &c. q Zuingle denied the imputation of seek- 
 ing to withdraw the people from the communion of their 
 bishops 1 . He was again formally accused of heresy in 1523 
 by the Dominican friars. The senate desired to hear both 
 parties, and the vicar-general was again called in to dispute 
 with Zuingle. It was after this, that the senate made a decree 
 that the Reformer should continue to preach as before ; that 
 the clergy should preach nothing except what they could prove 
 by testimony of holy Scripture ; and that mutual charges of 
 heresy should be abstained from s . 
 
 Thus it appears that the Zuinglian party did not propose 
 any separation from the church, and there is no evidence that 
 they ever did so by any positive act ; but the bishops and the 
 opposite party treated them as heretics, and separated them 
 from their communion. In France and the Low Countries, those 
 who adhered to Luther or Calvin were not only expelled from 
 the church, but were cruelly persecuted. I do not deny that 
 in several instances, there was a degree of turbulence in the 
 introduction of the reformed doctrines, which cannot be justi- 
 fied ; but all I contend for is, that there is no evidence that 
 their adherents generally separated from the communion of the 
 church. They were treated by those around them as heretics, 
 and were thus cut off from external communion by others, and 
 not by themselves. When, however, the communion of the 
 church had been thus divided by the acts of the Romish party, 
 it is certain that the reformed obtained many adherents from 
 the communion opposed to them ; partly by similar acts of 
 excommunication on the part of the Romanists, and partly by 
 the voluntary separation of individuals from that party, who 
 found themselves surrounded by idolatries and heresies *, and 
 held it a duty no longer to communicate with those who were 
 polluted by such crimes u ; and such a principle of separation 
 
 P Gerdes. 267 270. schism, says : " Eant mine, et clami- 
 
 q Ibid. 272. tent haereticos nos esse, qui ab ipso- 
 
 r Ibid. 275. rum ecclesia recesserimus : quum 
 
 6 Ibid. 286. nulla alienationis causa fuerit nisi 
 
 1 See chap. xi. appendix iv. ha?c una, quod puram veritatis pro- 
 
 u Calvin, in reply to the charge of fessionem nullo modo ferre possunt.
 
 SECT, in.] Zuingle not a Separatist. 287 
 
 I have already shown to be conformable to the principles of 
 Scripture, and of the catholic church v . 
 
 It was true, indeed, that we cannot adduce in their case 
 such manifestations of a desire for reunion, as in that of the 
 Lutherans. They did not, in the same manner, continually 
 appeal to a general council, nor did they hold conferences with 
 the Romish party, with a view to reconcile their differences. 
 But the reason of this is, that they were excluded from all 
 compromise by that party. It was one of the conditions 
 which were required from the Protestants at the pacification 
 of Nuremburgh, that they should not unite with the adherents 
 of Zuingle. The latter were thus cut off by both parties. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FOREIGN REFORMATION 
 WERE SUBVERSIVE OF UNITY. 
 
 It is argued by Romanists, and too often admitted by 
 others, that the principles of the Reformation were subversive 
 of church authority and unity. We are assured, that its fun- 
 damental principle was the absolute right of every individual 
 to deduce his own religion from the Bible only, to the exclu- 
 sion of creeds, articles, catholic tradition, and the authority of 
 the church ; and to maintain, with unlimited freedom, what- 
 ever doctrines might appear, to his own private judgment, 
 most consistent with Scripture. This pretended principle of 
 the Reformation is overthrown by the public declarations and 
 acts of the foreign Reformation. 
 
 (1.) I shall first prove their admission of church authority in 
 matters of faith, and of catholic tradition. The continual appeal 
 of the Lutherans to the decision of a general council, proves 
 that they acknowledged the right and authority of the church 
 to judge in religious controversies. If they did not believe that 
 the church had such an authority, they must have been hypo- 
 crites in appealing to its judgment; but it would be incon- 
 sistent with charity, to impute such conduct to them without 
 
 Taceo autem quod anatbematibus et de nobis in hanc vel illam partem 
 
 diris nos expulerunt . . Quura ergo deficiatur. Sed . . . abunde mihi 
 
 ejectos esse nos constet, idque prop- est, oportuisse nos ab ipsis recedere, 
 
 ter Christi nomenfuisse factum, pa- ut ad Christum accederemus." 
 
 rati simus ostendere, de causa certe Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. ii. 
 prius quserendum est, quam aliquid v See above, p. 64 69.
 
 288 The Foreign Reformation. [p. i. CH. xn. 
 
 any proof. The Confession of Augsburgh declares, that they 
 differ in no article of faith from the catholic, or even the 
 Roman church w ; thus tacitly admitting, that it would, in their 
 opinion, be wrong to dissent from the faith of the church. It 
 professes, " that they had taken most diligent heed that no 
 novel and impious doctrines should creep into their churches V 
 And as they rejected all new heresies, so did they reject those 
 which had been condemned by the church formerly. The 
 Saxon Confession says : " We condemn all the madnesses 
 (furores) which are opposed to the creed ; such as the porten- 
 tous errors of Heathens, Jews, Mahommedans, Marcion, the 
 Manichees, Samosatenians, Arians, Macedonians, and others 
 condemned by true judgments of the church y ." The Formula 
 Concordise says : " We reject and condemn all the heresies 
 and errors which were rejected and condemned in the primitive 
 church of the faithful, from solid proofs of the word of God z ." 
 The Confession of the French concurs in the same principle of 
 reverence for catholic tradition. " We approve in this mystery 
 (the Trinity) whatever those four ancient councils determined ; 
 and all the sects condemned from the word of God by those 
 ancient holy doctors, such as Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Am- 
 brose, and others, we detest a ." The Belgic Confession speaks 
 of the " Pseudo-Christians and heretics, Marcion, Manes, 
 Praxeas, Sabellius, Samosatenus, Arius, and others who were 
 rightly and deservedly condemned ly the orthodox fathers b ." 
 The Polish Confession says : " We receive as a sure and un- 
 doubted interpretation of Scripture, the Nicene or Constanti- 
 nopolitan Creed .... to which we acknowledge the Athanasian 
 Creed to be consonant : also the confessions of the synods of 
 Ephesus and Chalcedon ; also whatever the fifth and sixth 
 synods opposed to the remains of the Nestorians and Euty- 
 chians, whatever the synods of Milevis and Orange taught 
 against the Pelagians from the Scriptures, whatever the primi- 
 tive church, from the apostolic age, believed and taught with an 
 unanimous notorious consent, as a necessary article of faith, 
 
 w Confess. August, pars i. art. alise condemnatse veris Ecclesise ju- 
 
 22. diciis." Conf. Saxon. 1 De Doc- 
 
 1 Conf. Aug. Epilogus. trina. 
 
 y " Damnamus etiam constantis- z Formula Concordiae, pars ii. De 
 
 sime omnes furores qui pugnant Antithesi, &c. 
 
 cum symbolis ; ut sunt Ethnicorum, a Confessio Gallicana, c. vi. 
 
 &c portentosae opiniones, et b Conf. Belgica, c. ix.
 
 SECT, in.] Reformation respected Catholic Tradition. 289 
 
 the same we also profess to believe and to teach from the 
 Scriptures c ." 
 
 Hence it appears that the Keformation had a reverence for 
 the doctrine of the primitive church ; and accordingly we find 
 its confessions of faith, and the writings of its doctors, full of 
 citations from the fathers and councils. The Confession of 
 Augsburgh quotes Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome, 
 Gelasius, &c. in confirmation of its doctrines. The Apology 
 of the Confession is also full of references to the fathers, and 
 in one place observes that the doctrine there maintained is 
 " accordant with the writings of the apostles and prophets, the 
 holy fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and the 
 whole church of Christ d ." The Helvetic and most other Con- 
 fessions of the reformed, are full of references to the authority 
 of the fathers. Melancthon and (Ecolampadius composed 
 books on the doctrine of the fathers concerning the eucharist. 
 Calvin, in his Institutes, quotes largely from Augustine, Am- 
 brose, Chrysostom, Bernard, &c. in proof of his doctrine ; he 
 employs their authority against others ; he examines and 
 refutes the interpretations of their sentiments advanced by 
 Valentinus Gentilis and Michael Servetus, obviously admitting 
 their authority e . Melancthon says : " May the earth open 
 under my feet, sooner than it should ever happen that I sepa- 
 rate from the doctrine of the church, in which Jesus Christ 
 reigns." On another occasion he says : " We have shown 
 always, that we do not shun the true judgments of the church, 
 nor will we ever shun them f ." " We leave our reply to the 
 judgment of the other churches g ." 
 
 The respect of the Reformation for catholic tradition was 
 evidenced on so many occasions, that even Bossuet is obliged 
 to acknowledge, " que nos reformes sont souvent contraints 
 par la force de la ve'rite a respecter le sentiment des peres plus 
 qu'il ne semble que leur doctrine et leur esprit ne le porte h ." 
 And Blackburn, who pretends that the principle of the Refor- 
 mation was to regard catholic tradition as of no authority, 
 cannot help admitting that " in those days nothing was thought 
 
 c Declaratio Thoruniensis, I. error. Mich. Serveti, in the same 
 
 d Apologia Confessionis, III. De volume, 
 
 dilectione (268). f Melancth. Epist. lib. iii. ep. 44 ; 
 
 e Calvin. Explicatio perfidiae Va- i. 67. 
 
 lent. Gentilis, inter 'fractal. Theolog. f Epist. i. 105. 
 
 p. 779, &c. See also his Refutatio h Bossuet, Variations, liv. ix. s. 84. 
 
 VOL. I. U
 
 2.90 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xii. 
 
 to be sufficiently confirmed by Scripture testimonies, without 
 additional vouchers from the ancient worthies of the church : 
 and accordingly Tertullian, Chrysostom, Austin, and Jerome, 
 regularly took their places on the same bench of judgment 
 with Paul, Peter, James, and John 1 ." This statement is 
 exaggerated, but coming as it does from an enemy of catholic 
 tradition, it is a strong confirmation of the reverence of the 
 reformers for the authority of the church. 
 
 (2.) The principle and practice of the Reformation was 
 opposed to the unbounded liberty of private judgment, or the 
 right of individuals to hold whatever religious tenets they 
 judged most conformable to Scripture. It has been justly 
 observed by a dissenter, that "there is a certain universal 
 candour, or rather latitudinarianism, which is but scepticism 
 veiled as an angel of light ; and which knows not how to frown 
 on sin and error ; but on the principles of the New Testament, 
 love to what is holy cannot exist apart from love to what is 
 true ; and this spurious charity is in reality nothing else than 
 an angel of darkness and a minister of evil >." From so evil a 
 principle the foreign Reformation was free. 
 
 I have already cited some passages which show the aversion 
 of the Reformation generally from heresy. I shall here men- 
 tion only a few other instances in which this feeling (or rather 
 principle) is displayed. The language of the Reformation was 
 as follows : " We execrate all the heresies of Artemon, the 
 Manichees, &c. k " " We condemn all heresies and heretics 
 who teach that the Son and the Holy Ghost are only in appel- 
 lation God," such as the " Noetians, Praxeas, the Patripassians, 
 Sabellius, Arius, &c. 1 " " We abominate the impious doc- 
 trine of Arius and all the Arians against the Son of God, 
 especially the blasphemies of Servetus and his disciples, which 
 Satan by their means brought out of hell against the Son of 
 God, and most audaciously and impiously dispersed through 
 the world." " We abominate the Nestorian doctrine;" and 
 the " Eutychian insanity, removing the proper human nature 
 of Christ, we utterly execrate m ." " All those heresies which 
 have formerly disturbed the church, and are contrary to that 
 truth, we detest ; and especially the diabolical imaginations of 
 
 ' Confessional, p. 20. k Confessio Helvetica, c. i. 
 
 1 Essays on Church Polity, Pre- ' Ibid. c. iii. 
 sent State of Religion, &c. p. 13. m Ibid. c. xi.
 
 SECT, in.] Reformation opposed to Heresy. 291 
 
 Servetus, who attributed to our Lord an imaginary deity n ." 
 " We condemn the damnable and pestilent heresies of Arius, 
 fcc. " " We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not 
 contented with one baptism, 11 &c. p The Confession of Augs- 
 burgh " condemns " all the heresies of Valentinians, Arians, 
 Mahommedans, Pelagians, Anabaptists, &c. Speaking of evil 
 doctrines, the Articles of Smalcald say : " Such and similar 
 portents have arisen from ignorance of sin, and of Christ our 
 Saviour, and are really heathenish doctrines, which we cannot 
 tolerate V The " Formula Concordiae " is full of condemna- 
 tions of heresies. The Polish Confession declares that whoever 
 shall send his children to Arian schools in which the sincere 
 doctrine of the Gospel is not taught, shall be excluded from the 
 Lord's supper, and the communion of the church ; and " who- 
 soever in our evangelical churches shall refuse to employ the 
 expression ' Holy Trinity,' him as one suspected of not being 
 rightly grounded in the faith concerning God the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, we exclude from our communion" &c. r 
 Such were the sentiments of the Reformation with regard to 
 heresy ; and those who would blame the severity of their cen- 
 sure, would do well to remember the words of God himself: 
 " So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nico- 
 laitans, which thing I HATE." Accordingly they acted on this 
 principle. The Germans rejected the Swiss from communion, 
 because of their differences on the doctrine of the eucharist. 
 The Reformed, in the synod of Dort, condemned and excom- 
 municated the Arminians as heretics. The Swedish Protes- 
 tants excommunicated as heretics the Sacramentarians and the 
 Papists 8 . Nor was this all ; they asserted the right of the 
 civil magistrate to interfere for the suppression of heresy. This 
 doctrine is maintained by the Helvetic *, Scottish, Belgic, and 
 Saxon Confessions ; and too many instances are to be found 
 of the execution of heretics. The cases of Servetus, Valen- 
 tinus Gentilis, Campanus, Gruet, Crellius, Felix Mans, &c. are 
 
 " Confessio Gallic, c. 14. Gothorum, lib. iv. c. xi. 
 
 Conf. Scotica, art. vi. * " Coerceat (magistrates) et hae- 
 p Conf. Belgica, art. xxxiv. reticos (qui vere haeretici sunt) in- 
 
 1 Articuli Smalcald. pars iii. 1 de corrigibiles, Dei majestatem blas- 
 Peccato. phemare et ecclesiam Dei contur- 
 
 T Thorun. Synodi, Canon vii. bare adeoque perdere non desi- 
 
 * Baazii Inventarium Eccl. Sueo- nentes." Conf. Helvet. cap. xxx. 
 
 u 2
 
 292 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. en. xn. 
 
 well known ; not to speak of the imprisonment and banishment 
 of a great number of others. 
 
 The truth is, that although individuals in that age may have 
 held principles which tended to the conclusion, that every man 
 was at liberty to hold whatever doctrine he pleased, that con- 
 clusion was not drawn u . The great body of the Reformation 
 held the directly contrary view : they were zealous for the 
 truth, and they exhibited that righteous intolerance of false- 
 hood which is one of the characteristics of Christianity x , and 
 which alone subjected it to the persecutions of heathenism in 
 the first ages, as it may perhaps to those of infidelity in the last. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 WHETHEll THE CHURCHES OF THE FOREIGN REFORMATION 
 ARE PART OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Reformed I have already shown that the reformed did not voluntarily 
 matics separate themselves from the existing church, but were ejected 
 by an abuse of authority ; consequently, they are exempt from 
 the charge of schism as far as regards the separation. Under 
 such circumstances they had no remedy, and were obliged to 
 remain as a distinct community until God should see fit to 
 heal the divisions of the church ; they were consequently still 
 nor here- in the way of salvation. Neither does it appear that they 
 tics. were guilty of heresy ; for whatever their doctrines might be, 
 
 it did not seem that they generally defended them with obsti- 
 nacy against the evident truth. They received all the creeds 
 of the church, professed to be guided by Scripture and tradi- 
 tion, and to introduce no heresies or novelties. Their opinions 
 
 u I am happy to be enabled to this permanent independence was 
 confirm this position by the unsus- not much asserted, and still less 
 pected and highly-important testi- acted upon," &c. Literature of 
 mony of Mr. Hallam. "It is often Europe, vol. i. p. 521. 
 said, that the essential principle of * " Though we or an angel from 
 Protestantism, and that for which heaven preach any other gospel 
 the struggle was made, was some- unto you than that which we have 
 thing different from all we have preached unto you, let him be ana- 
 mentioned, a perpetual freedom thema. As I said before, so say I now 
 from all authority in religious belief, again, if any man preach any other 
 or what goes by the name of the gospel unto you than that ye have 
 right of private judgment. But to received, let him be anathema." 
 look more nearly at what occurred, Gal. i 8, 9. See Chapter v. sect i. ii.
 
 SECT. IV.] 
 
 The Protestants not Heretics. 
 
 293 
 
 were not condemned by any clear judgment of the universal 
 church, for the synod of Trent was not of binding authority a . 
 They varied in their doctrines ; and some things which had 
 been incautiously said in the heat of controversy by Luther and 
 Zuinglius, were modified and corrected by their adherents b . 
 The error of Zuinglius and CEcolampadius on the eucharist, 
 had been apparently given up by Calvin, who obtained a great 
 influence in the reformed communities. His language was 
 very strongly in favour of the real presence c , though it is 
 questionable whether his doctrine was really consistent with it ; 
 and the differences on this point were not for a long time con- 
 sidered irreconcileable d . Many conferences took place between 
 the Protestant and the Romish party, and concessions were 
 made, which inferred that there was not any obstinate adhe- 
 rence to preconceived opinions ; and the Protestant divines 
 offered to retract if in error, and continually appealed to the 
 
 * See Part iv. chap. xii. 
 
 b Whether these societies main- 
 tained sufficiently the necessity of 
 sanctification, is not very clear ; cer- 
 tain it is that Luther went so far in 
 his opposition to the error of justifi- 
 cation by our own merits, that he 
 fell into a contrary error. Gerde- 
 sius says, that " he not only removes 
 the necessity of sacerdotal absolu- 
 tion, and satisfaction by external 
 works, in order to the remission of 
 sins, but relieves sinners, in some 
 measure, from the necessity even of 
 contrition." Gerdesii Hist. Evang. 
 torn. i. p. 220. However, the re- 
 formers generally, after a time, 
 maintained the obligation of good 
 works, and condemned Agricola, the 
 founder of the Antinomian heresy. 
 " Praeterea decent nostri, quod ne- 
 cesse sit bona opera facere." Conf. 
 August, pars i. c. xx. " Sunt enim 
 facienda opera propter mandatum 
 Dei, &c. propter has causas neces- 
 sario debent bona opera fieri." 
 Apol. Conf. iii. de dilect. et impl. 
 legis. The Formula Concordia?, 
 pars ii. art. iv. de bonis operibus, 
 also affirms that good works are 
 necessary, and quotes Luther, af- 
 firming that " it is impossible to 
 separate good works from true faith." 
 
 The obligation of performing good 
 works, and the reward awaiting 
 them, are also urged by the Helvetic 
 Confession, c. 16. 
 
 c Bossuet remarks that Calvin, in 
 his endeavour to reconcile the doc- 
 trine of Luther and Zuinglius, main- 
 tained " that under the signs, we 
 receive truly the body and blood of 
 Christ ;" that " there are two things 
 in the sacrament material bread 
 and wine, and Jesus Christ ;" that 
 " Jesus Christ is present truly, and 
 not merely in figure," &c. Bossuet, 
 Variations, 1. ix. s. 36 45. 
 
 d In 1560 Jewell said, "Tantum 
 de una, nee ea ita gravi aut magna 
 quasstione, inter se dissentiunt. Nee 
 desperamus, vel potius non dubita- 
 mus, brevi fore concordiam," &c. 
 Apol. p. 63, 64, ed. 1606. The 
 Confession of Augsburgh was re- 
 peatedly approved by the adherents 
 of other confessions, as containing 
 nothing contrary to faith ; espe- 
 cially by the reformed of France in 
 the synod of Charenton, A.D. 1631 
 (Mosheim, Cent. xvii. sect. ii. part 
 ii. ch. i.). From which it is plain 
 that they were not obstinately op- 
 posed to the doctrine of the real 
 presence.
 
 294 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xu. 
 
 judgment of a general council. All these circumstances com- 
 bine to prove that the Protestants and reformed were not 
 heretics. And when particular persons or churches were con- 
 vinced, from an examination of the several questions in debate, 
 that the truth lay more with the adherents of the foreign refor- 
 mation than with their opponents, or even that it was equal on 
 both sides, they were justified in not excluding the reformed 
 societies from their communion. 
 
 This will suffice to clear us from any charge of countenancing 
 heresy or schism, on account of the intercourse which members 
 of our churches have held with the churches of the foreign 
 reformation. There was no sufficient evidence that they were 
 really separated from the unity of faith and charity ; and as 
 they exhibited a friendly feeling to our churches, there were 
 good reasons to meet them with kindness and charity. The 
 sufferings which we experienced, in common with them, from 
 the Roman pontiff and his adherents, added sympathy to this 
 good will ; and the agreement on many most important points 
 of doctrine and discipline against Rome, may have perhaps 
 induced us to give a better construction to some things than 
 they deserved, and to overlook some faults which a strict cri- 
 ticism would have condemned. If so, however, it was a mistake 
 as to the fact only : there was no wish to countenance heresy 
 or schism ; which the churches of Britain have always abhorred 
 and condemned. 
 
 Aredefi- But while this is maintained, it by no means follows that 
 apostoHcal these separated brethren constituted of themselves churches 
 succession. o f Christ, in the full sense of the term, as implying the posses- 
 sion of all the essentials of the church. Their position was 
 extraordinary, temporary, and only justifiable on the plea of 
 necessity. The system of the church as it related to them, 
 was disarranged and shattered ; and they had to construct 
 from the fragments a provisional system, adapted to the exi- 
 gencies of their case. Harshly driven from the ordinary admi- 
 nistration of the means of grace, they were obliged to establish 
 themselves as best they could. Hence it is by no means 
 necessary to the justification of the churches of the foreign 
 reformation, to suppose that they were generally invested with all 
 the graces and institutions of the catholic church. That they 
 are not, generally speaking, possessed of all these institutions, 
 appears evidently from their deficiency in the point of aposto-
 
 SECT, iv.] Deficient in Apostolical Succession. 295 
 
 lical succession in their ministry. They cannot prove their 
 succession from the apostles by exhibiting the catalogue of 
 their bishops descending from them. Far, very far be it from 
 us to condemn them for any deficiency which arose from neces- 
 sity, or to assert that there was any sinful intrusion on the 
 sacred office of the ministry when, under such necessity, they 
 resorted to unusual methods to supply their wants. If they 
 were placed in an extraordinary position, and deprived of the 
 assistance of those to whom the power of calling and ordaining 
 ministers of Christ was entrusted by the will of God, we cannot 
 blame them for having recourse to the best expedients within 
 their reach. Under such circumstances, even popular election 
 of ministers, or mere appointment by individuals of considerable 
 authority, without any ordination e , could not have been con- 
 demned ; nor, of course, could there be any greater objection 
 to ordinations performed by mere presbyters. Certainly not ; 
 absolute necessity would excuse such proceedings, however 
 irregular. But it is a very different question whether these 
 ordinations were valid ; whether they really conveyed the 
 apostolical commission. There is an extreme difficulty on this 
 point, because the whole practice and principle of the catholic 
 church, and even of the ancient heresies, limited ordinations to 
 the chief pastors of the church. It is not to be wondered at, 
 perhaps, that the reformed caught eagerly at one or two pas- 
 sages in the Fathers, which they supposed to countenance 
 merely presbyterian ordinations ; but the weight on the other 
 side is so great, that there must at all events be most serious 
 doubts of their validity. Even conceding, however, that such Transmis- 
 ordinations are valid, there would still be considerable uncer- p" s by te _ 
 tainty whether they are preserved in the societies in question ; rian ordi- 
 for it appears that several of their ministers at the beginning "^"0^- 
 acted, and probably ordained others, without having been able, 
 ordained presbyters themselves. Calvin was not even a dea- 
 con ; Beza was never ordained ; Bullinger, Brentius, and many 
 others, seem to have been in the same case f . Luther and 
 Zuinglius appear to have claimed extraordinary mission some- 
 
 e In the " Theologische Studien on many sides, is said about intro- 
 
 und Kritiken" for October, 1841, ducing it." It appears, therefore, 
 
 cited by Dr. Pusey in " A Letter to that ordination is not a universal 
 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury," &c. practice in these societies, 
 p. 1 68, it is stated, that " where ordi- f See Gerdesii Hist. torn. ii. p. 
 
 nation is not employed at all, much, 79 83.
 
 296 
 
 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xir. 
 
 times % ; and Beza, in the colloquy of Poissy, denied the neces- 
 sity of any imposition of hands, and admitted that many of 
 them did not receive it h . It was afterwards declared in the 
 confession of the reformed of France, that in their time, when 
 the state of the church was interrupted, God had raised up 
 persons in an extraordinary manner 1 , &c. ; and their synod of 
 Gap decided, that the vocation of their ministers who had 
 reformed the church was derived, not from their ordinary 
 vocation, but from one which was extraordinary and internal. 
 Now, we may infer from all this, that many of the first minis- 
 ters of the Ileformation were not themselves presbyters, and 
 therefore that there is considerable uncertainty as to the conti- 
 nuance even of presbyterian ordinations in those communities j . 
 Their vo- That the protestants and reformed were sensible that the 
 
 cation not vocation of their preachers was not ordinary, and that it was 
 ordinary. .. . . ... 
 
 only justified by necessity, we may infer from their relinquish- 
 ing the ancient and scriptural appellations of the ecclesiastical 
 ministry, and no longer pretending to ordain bishops and 
 presbyters. Luther and Zuinglius assumed the titles of 
 " ecclesiastes," while their adherent ministers were called to 
 the various offices of " antistes," " pastor," " superintendent," 
 " inspector," " abbot," " prsepositus," &c. It would seem, 
 indeed, as if their preachers were originally regarded in some- 
 what the same light as the first Wesleyan methodist preachers 
 in more recent times. .They were not to intrude on the sphere 
 of the established clergy, but to co-operate with them where 
 they could. Luther himself declared that he preferred that 
 his adherents should retire from a parish rather than preach 
 there by intrusion ; that no one ought to preach without the 
 knowledge of the lawful minister; which should be so reli- 
 giously observed, that an evangelical ought not to preach in 
 the parish of a papist or a heretic, without the participation of 
 the pastor, because no truly pious man ought to attempt 
 anything without vocation, &c. k 
 
 * Fleury, liv. 126. s. 80. 
 
 h Ibid. liv. 157. s. 13. 15. 
 
 ' Confess. Gallicana, art. xxxi. 
 
 J Under these circumstances, it 
 seems plainly the duty of members 
 of the Anglo-catholic church not to 
 receive the eucharist or other rites 
 from the evangelical or reformed 
 pastors, as their power to administer 
 
 those rites is very doubtful, to say 
 the least. This, however, should 
 arise simply from our own scruples 
 on the point, and should not imply 
 condemnation of their practice, as if 
 it were sacrilegious. 
 
 k In ps. Ixxxii. de Magistral, torn. 
 Hi. fol. 488, 489- A.D. 1534.
 
 SECT, iv.] Deficient in Apostolical Succession. 297 
 
 The case of the church of Sweden, however, forms an ex- Swedish 
 ception to what has been said of the ordinations of the foreign Church - 
 Reformation. In this church the orders of bishop, priest, and 
 deacon have been preserved \ and it is admitted by Romanists 
 that their ordinations are valid m . Lars Benzelstierna, bishop 
 of Westeras n , and Adolphus Henebom have published disser- 
 tations on this subject, in which the fact of a succession of valid 
 ordinations appears to be sufficiently proved. 
 
 The Swedish church was reformed in the reign of Gustavus 
 Vasa, by whose encouragement, Laurentius Petri and Olaus 
 Phase, disciples of Luther, preached the Reformation so effec- 
 tually, that in 1 529 a synod of bishops and clergy, assembled at 
 GErebro, commenced the work of reform in doctrine and dis- 
 cipline p , which was subsequently advanced and completed by 
 various councils and diets of the kingdom. In 1537 an alliance 
 or union was effected with the German protestants q ; and in 
 ] 593 the council of Upsal examined and approved the confes- 
 sion of Augsburgh r , and settled the church of Sweden (which 
 had been disturbed by the efforts of king John to restore 
 popery,) in the form which it still continues to bear. 
 
 In 1528 Gustavus Vasa, previously to his coronation, caused 
 Petrus Magni, bishop of Westeras, who had been consecrated 
 at Rome s , to ordain three bishops, Magnus Haraldi, bishop of 
 Scara, Magnus Sommar, bishop of Stregnes, and Martin 
 Skytte, bishop of Abo*. In 1531 Laurentius Petri was con- 
 secrated archbishop of Upsal, by the same Petrus Magni, 
 bishop of Westeras u . Laurentius Petri Gothus, the next arch- 
 bishop, was consecrated in 1575 by the bishops of Wexio and 
 
 1 " Les Suedoisont moins change Upsaliae, 1790. 
 
 que les autres ; car ils ont des * Baazii Inventariura Ecclesiae 
 
 eveques, des pretres, et des diacres Sueo-Gothorum, p. 239. 
 
 maries." Fabre, Cont. de Fleury, q Ibid. p. 260. 
 
 Hist. Eccl. 1. cxxxii. s. 126. r Ibid. p. 518. 
 
 m " En Suede, la validite de la " Benzelstierna, Meletema, &c. p. 
 
 consecration e"piscopale s'est con- 50. This author cites the " Diarium 
 
 servee." Gregoire(ancienevequede Vadstenense," p. 178, in proof. 
 
 Blois) Hist, des Sectes Religieuses, ' Baazii Inventar. p. 227 ; Benzel. 
 
 t. iv. p. 376. ed. 1828. p. 50; Henebom, p. 9, who also 
 
 D " Meletema Historico-Theolo- cites Tegel, Historia Gustavi I. p. 
 
 gicum de Successione Episcoporum 184; Messenius, Chron. Episc. c. 
 
 Canonica apud Evangelicos prseser- xii. item Scond. Illustr. t x. p. 24, 
 
 tim in Suecia." Londini Gotho- cited by Benzelstierna. 
 
 rum, 1738. Tegel, Hist. Gustavi I. p. 290, 
 
 " De Successione Canonica et cited by Henebom. 
 consecratione Episcoporum Suecise."
 
 298 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. en. xu. 
 
 Abo x ; and there is evidence that all the Swedish archbishops 
 and bishops have been regularly consecrated ever since. 
 
 Benzelstierna says, that the Swedish " ecclesiastical canons 
 oblige the bishops to receive a second imposition of hands, and 
 from no other than the archbishop of Upsal y ." The forms of 
 prayer used at episcopal ordinations have been published, and 
 appear to refer distinctly to the episcopal office 2 . Besides 
 the bishops, there are some prelates entitled superintendents, 
 who exercise jurisdiction over dioceses without having received 
 ordination as bishops 3 ; but from what has just been said, it 
 appears that they do not ordain the bishops. It may be 
 observed, as a fact peculiarly interesting to the English church, 
 that the Swedish historians acknowledge themselves indebted 
 to the English bishops and missionaries, Sigfrid, Eschil, and 
 David, for their conversion to Christianity, and for the ordina- 
 tion of their first bishops b . 
 
 Want of g u o re turn to those churches of the foreign Reformation 
 
 apostolical . .. -i > , * , 
 
 succession which are destitute of a ministry derived by valid ordinations 
 
 excusable. f rom ^ Q apostles. It seems evident that their deficiency in 
 this respect did not arise from any wish to reject the apostoli- 
 cal ministry, but from necessity. In the first instance they 
 were expelled from the communion of their bishops without 
 any just cause. They did not, however, for many years con- 
 sider themselves definitively separated from those bishops , 
 because they continually appealed to a general council to ter- 
 minate the division. Under such circumstances there would 
 have been an apparent irregularity in establishing bishops in 
 opposition to the existing bishops, and it would have been dif- 
 
 1 Henebom, DeSuccessione,p. 10. a The superintendents seem to 
 
 y " Nostri canones ecclesiastici have been appointed early in the 
 
 jubent episcopos secunda manus seventeenth century. Baazii Invent, 
 
 impositione donari, idque non ab p. 622. 
 
 alio quam ab archiepiscopo Upsa- b Baazii Inv. 98-104; 105-110; 
 liensi, q.uemadmodum jussit Rex gl. 139. For further information, see 
 m. Carolus XII. D. Doctorem David Perceval's "Collection of Papers," 
 Lund episcopum constitutum Vi- &c. ch. viii. 1842. 
 burgensem, non Abose, quse suum c Even the final arrangement 
 habuit episcopum, sed Upsaliae ab which was made between the con- 
 archiepiscopo ordinari." Benzel- tending parties in the diet of Augs- 
 stierna, p. 57. burgh, 1555, only provisionally sus- 
 * The rites are, according to Hene- pended the jurisdiction of the bishops 
 bom, prescribed in the " Ordinan- over the adherents of the confession 
 tia Ecclesiastica," A. D. 1571. and of Augsburgh, until an agreement 
 the Ecclesiastical Laws, published could be attained in matters of re- 
 in 1686. ligion.
 
 SECT, iv.] Deficient in Apostolical Succession. 299 
 
 ficult to find prelates properly qualified to ordain them. The 
 provisional system of church government which they established, 
 was, perhaps, the best that could have been adopted under the 
 circumstances ; for it can scarcely be maintained that they 
 ought entirely to have laid aside public worship and the 
 administration of the sacraments, until their bishops consented 
 to receive them into communion. The effects of such a line of 
 conduct might have been fatal to religion. 
 
 Thus then the irregularities of the foreign Reformation seem 
 to have been almost unavoidable for many years : and after- 
 wards it became extremely difficult to correct those irregu- 
 larities, partly, because the temporal power was not inclined to 
 restore the constitution of the church d ; partly, because the 
 public mind in those communities had become reconciled to 
 the continuance of the provisional system, and had even 
 laboured to persuade itself that such a system was not essen- 
 tially different from that of the primitive church ; and partly, 
 because there was a reluctance on the part of those pastors 
 who had been called to their offices under that system, to re- 
 cognize any deficiency in their ordinations 6 . We can make 
 allowance for these various difficulties so far as to admit, that 
 the absence of the apostolical ministry does not convict the 
 foreign Reformation of schism ; and we think that, material 
 as are the deficiencies under which they labour, those defects 
 will be either excused, or extraordinarily supplied by the Author 
 of all Grace. 
 
 d The temporal sovereigns of Ger- bered, that vocation to an office 
 
 many, during the suspension of the might be sufficient in a case of neces- 
 
 ordinary episcopal jurisdiction, gra- sity, and under extraordinary cir- 
 
 dually assumed or received many cumstances; and yet that when cir- 
 
 powers in spiritual matters, which cumstances had changed, and it was 
 
 could no longer be exercised by the possible to obtain the ordinary voca- 
 
 ordinary authorities in the church, tion, it would be right to do so. The 
 
 Nor does it seem that there was any reception of regular ordination need 
 
 thing more objectionable in this, not have implied any decision against 
 
 under the circumstances of the case, the previous vocation of the reform- 
 
 than there would have been in the ed pastors. It seems plain also, that 
 
 assumption of those powers by the they are not ordained deacons and 
 
 people, or even by mere presbyters, priests, but pastors or ministers ; 
 
 The powers actually possessed, how- therefore the reception of holy orders 
 
 ever, by the temporal powers, must, would have merely conferred on 
 
 in a great degree, control the pro- them the ordinary offices which 
 
 ceedings of the German churches have always existed in the church, 
 
 subject to them. and to which they have not been 
 
 * This difficulty might have ap- ordained, 
 peared less, if it had been remem-
 
 300 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xn. 
 
 But it is impossible not to hope that the time may come, 
 when these imperfectly constituted churches, may, in the 
 words of Irenseus, " Obey those presbyters who are in the 
 church, who have succession from the apostles , who with the 
 succession of the episcopate have received the certain gift of 
 TRUTH, according to the will of the Father f ." They will then 
 have fulfilled the wishes of Luther, of Melancthon, of Calvin, 
 and of all their most eminent divines g . They will have re- 
 placed themselves in possession of the discipline received by all 
 churches from the age of the apostles for fifteen centuries, and 
 in the present day by the Roman, the Oriental, the English, 
 the American, and Swedish churches ; and even by all the 
 Oriental sects of Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. 
 And they will have removed one of the principal obstacles to 
 the general reunion of the catholic church throughout the 
 world. 
 
 In fine, it may be remarked, that these churches have not 
 been wholly without communion with the successors of the 
 apostles ; for the apostolical succession remains in the Anglo- 
 catholic churches of the west and east, and in the church of 
 Sweden, and these churches have never refused communion to 
 the members of the imperfectly constituted societies of which 
 we have spoken. 
 
 Since, therefore, the churches of the foreign Reformation, 
 
 { Irenseus, Adv. Hseres.l.iv. c. 26. siasticam et canonicam politiam, si 
 * " Quapropter ecclesia nunquam modo episcopi desinant in nostras 
 melius gubernari et conservari po- ecclesias ssevire." Apolog. Confess, 
 test, quam si .... episcopi omnes, August, art. vii. " Nobis si con- 
 pares officio, licet dispares sint tribuant hierarchiam in qua emineant 
 quoad dona, summa cum diligentia episcopi, ut Christo subesse non 
 conjuncti sint unaniraitate doctrinee, recusent . . . turn vero nullo non 
 &c." Artie Smalcald. IV. "In hoc anathemate dignos fatemur, si qui 
 conventu sa?pe testati sumus, nos erunt, qui earn non reverenter et 
 summa voluntate cupere conservare summa cum obedientia observent." 
 politiam .ecclesiasticam, et gradus in Calvin, t. vii. ad Sadoletum, et de 
 ecclesia factos etiam humana aucto- necess. reform. Eccl. p. 69, cited by 
 ritate. Scimus enim, bono et utili Bp. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, 
 consilio a patribus ecclesiasticam part ii. c. vii. Works, ii. p. 414. 
 disciplinam hoc modo, ut veteres These sentiments were also held by 
 canones describunt, constitutam esse George Prince of Anhalt (who tes- 
 . . . Saevitia episcoporum in causa tines that they were those of Luther), 
 est, quare alicubi dissolvitur ilia by Melancthon, Heerbrand, Hemin- 
 canonica politia, quam nos magno- gius, Zepper, &c. ; as Stillingfleet 
 pere cupiebamus conservare . . Porro proves in the same place See Durel 
 hie iterum volurnus testatum, nos on the Reformed Churches, p. 118, 
 libenter conservaturos esse eccle- 123, 127-
 
 SECT, iv.] Deficient in Apostolical Succession. 301 
 
 during the sixteenth century, were not devoid of principles, Foreign 
 which, if rightly applied, would lead to unity in faith and com- tionnoT 
 munion ; since there is no evidence that they were guilty of separated 
 schism or heresy ; since they did not generally deny the neces- 
 sity of good works or sanctity of life ; since they did not 
 separate themselves from the communion of all nations, but 
 were willing to hold communion with all catholic churches, and 
 were actually in communion with many nations ; since their 
 deficiency in the apostolical succession of the ministry appears 
 to have been a matter of necessity (to a considerable extent), 
 and they were not in principles or in fact wholly cut off from 
 the communion of the successors of the apostles, it seems im- 
 possible to deny that they constituted, on the whole, a portion 
 of the catholic church, though it is unquestionable that errors 
 and even heresies were taught by some of their members. In 
 this respect, however, they were superior to the Roman 
 churches, in which idolatries and errors of a far more perni- 
 cious description were widely disseminated. 
 
 This view of the position of the foreign Reformation appears 
 to have been adopted by the great majority of the English 
 theologians and bishops, from the period of the Reformation 
 to the present day. And if such a view might be fairly taken 
 of the foreign reformers and their immediate adherents, there 
 seems no reason why we should judge differently of those who are 
 spiritually descended from them. To employ the language of 
 an eminent prelate, " It is not difficult to trace, in the history 
 of their churches, the gradual declension of orthodoxy ; and to 
 point out the individual writers who became, in succession, 
 more and more heretical in their teaching, till they were 
 plunged into that dismal gulf of rationalism, below which there 
 is hardly a lower depth to reach. And I know, too, that this 
 was a consequence, perhaps a punishment, of the imperfect 
 system of church government which was suffered to remain so 
 long after the first necessity had past away. But I will not 
 venture to say, that because this or that generation of men did 
 not re-establish . . . perfect community with the catholic church 
 in ecclesiastical discipline . . . they and those who came after 
 them . . are to be considered scMsmatical^" Neither does 
 
 h Three Sermons on the Church, Bishop of London, 1842. These 
 by Charles James (Blomfield), Lord sermons comprise many valuable
 
 302 The Foreign Reformation. [P. i. CH. xn. 
 
 the existence of rationalism and infidelity in these commu- 
 nities 1 , prove that they are to be rejected as altogether 
 apostate or heretical ; for as in the time of Arianism, heresy 
 had apparently, for a time, the ascendency in the eastern 
 churches, and yet the true faith was preserved among the 
 people and many of the pastors who were externally united 
 with heretics ; so, even in those churches of the foreign Refor- 
 mation, where the pride of philosophy has for a time subverted 
 the faith of many, there are still adherents and advocates of 
 the truth. 
 
 From what has been said in Chapter IV. (p. 64 69), it 
 might, perhaps, be inferred, that it is positively the duty of 
 such believers to separate themselves from all communion 
 with Neologians and heretics, and that, in the absence of such 
 an act of separation, they must be considered as involved in 
 the guilt of those with whom they communicate ; but this is a 
 case in which the principle laid down by our Lord in the para- 
 ble of the tares, as commented on by the fathers (see above, 
 p. 89 92), would seem to apply. For it is probable that the 
 truth may, under existing circumstances, be promoted by 
 methods of persuasion, and that any such separation might, 
 perhaps, only extend the influence of error. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. Even if Luther and his adherents had been unjustly 
 excommunicated by Leo X. still they were guilty of schism in 
 establishing private conventicles, and altering the rites of 
 religion. St. Augustine says, that " Divine Providence, often 
 permits even good men to be expelled from the Christian 
 congregation, through the turbulent seditions of the carnal; 
 which contumely or injury, if they endure patiently for the 
 peace of the church, and attempt no novelties of schism or 
 heresy, they will teach men with what true affection and what 
 sincere love God should be served . . . such are crowned in secret 
 by the Father, who seeth in secret : they seem to be rare, yet 
 examples have been found a ." Therefore the Lutherans ought 
 
 details on the views of our bishops this subject are furnished in " The 
 
 and theologians, with reference to State of Protestantism in Germany," 
 
 the position of the churches of the by the Rev. Hugh James Rose, 
 
 foreign Reformation. a Augustinus de vera Religione, 
 
 ' The most melancholy details on cap vi. torn. i. p. 752.
 
 OBJECT.] Alterations excused. 303 
 
 ' to have remained patiently under the excommunication, even 
 if it had been unjust, and not to have established conventicles. 
 
 Answer. There was no reason why an unjust excommunica- 
 tion should induce them to deprive themselves of the means of 
 grace, and especially of the blessed sacrament of the eucharist, 
 which is " generally necessary to salvation." Several of them 
 were clergy empowered by ordination to administer the means 
 of grace. Surely it would have been unreasonable to expect, 
 that men who had not been condemned by a legitimate judg- 
 ment of the church, should abstain at once from all the most 
 sacred duties of religion. Good conscience would never have 
 permitted such a proceeding. It must be remembered that 
 they were appellants to a general council, and were authorized 
 in not considering themselves as definitively separated from the 
 church. St. Augustine, perhaps, only speaks of cases where 
 there is no question of doctrine, and where those expelled have 
 not to offer any testimony against prevalent errors ; but at all 
 events, he does not prohibit such persons from using the means 
 of grace, if they can obtain them. 
 
 With regard to the change of rites it may be replied, that, 
 under the circumstances, they could not obtain permission from 
 the ordinary authorities to do so, for those authorities had 
 separated them from their communion. The question then 
 arises, whether they were strictly bound to adhere to rites, 
 which were manifest innovations, abuses, things not enjoined 
 or required by the catholic church, and injurious to piety and 
 sound religion. Under the extraordinary circumstances in 
 which they were placed, it does not seem that there was any 
 thing schismatical in abstaining from such rites provisionally, 
 until the church should decide the questions in controversy, 
 and communion should be restored. 
 
 II. The Eeformation was effected in most places by the 
 authority of the civil magistrate, who had no right to interfere 
 in questions of doctrine and discipline ; therefore the Refor- 
 mation, as emanating from an usurped and intrusive authority, 
 was schismatical. 
 
 Answer. The magistrates were obliged, in several instances, 
 to take some measures in religion ; because the public peace 
 was endangered by the contending parties. This was the case 
 at Basle, Geneva, and elsewhere. In other places, as at Zurich, 
 the magistrates were obliged to examine the question, in con-
 
 304 The Foreign Reformation. [r. i. CH. xn. 
 
 sequence of the applications of the Eomish party, to put down 
 by force the doctrines of the Eeformation. In many cases 
 simple protection was afforded by the civil magistrate, as in 
 Friesland, Goslar, Holstein, Dithmar, &c. At Strasburg the 
 senate would not give up the married clergy to be punished by 
 the bishop, until he had first punished those who were guilty 
 of more scandalous crimes ; and when they finally suspended 
 mass according to the Roman rite, it was only conditionally, 
 until its supporters should prove it conformable to the word 
 of God b . 
 
 I do not deny, however, that the civil magistrates did over- 
 step occasionally their legitimate office ; but those regulations 
 which they made by the desire and advice of the reformed, for 
 their societies, are not to be reckoned among intrusions on the 
 office of the church. Zuinglius himself, who has been accused 
 of attributing too much to the civil magistrates, says, that 
 " the civil power (which is placed in supreme authority, in 
 order to correct and regulate externals,) when it is Christian, 
 may, with the consent of the church, (for I do not wish it to be 
 understood without that consent,) make laws concerning those 
 externals, which are either to be observed or neglected c ." 
 Such was the principle on which the regulations of the civil 
 magistrates in religion were generally made. And besides this, 
 they were, as I have already observed, only of a temporary, 
 provisional nature. It must be remembered too, that the 
 Emperor Charles V. in 1548, published, by his own authority, 
 the Interim d , which contains numerous regulations concerning 
 doctrine and discipline, and which he forced on his subjects. 
 The Diet of Ratisbon, in 1540, took cognizance of religious 
 questions ; and even Erasmus gave it as his opinion to the 
 magistrates of Basle, that the diet of the empire might permit 
 the clergy to marry, and the religious to leave their convents e . 
 Therefore the Lutherans, &c. were not the only persons who 
 allowed the authority of the civil magistrates. 
 
 III. The Arians, Apollinarians, and other heretics might 
 have alleged also that they were unjustly condemned by the 
 church ; and if the merits of the church's judgments are to be 
 
 b Gerdes. torn. ii. p. 120. 206. d Fleury, liv. 145. s. 19. 
 
 c Ibid. torn, i supplement, ad e Gerdes. torn. ii. p. 296. 
 p 286 and 237.
 
 CHAP, xin.] On Dissent. 305 
 
 inquired into, there can be no use in them, for controversy will 
 be perpetual. 
 
 Answer. I do not examine whether the church judged justly 
 or unjustly, but what I contend is, that the church did not 
 judge at all in these controversies. I shall hereafter prove 
 (Part IV.) that the papal decree and the Synod of Trent 
 alone did not convey the judgment of the catholic church. 
 
 IV. Many theologians of the reformed communities con- 
 fess that they separated themselves from the Roman church. 
 Luther said, that at the beginning he stood alone. 
 
 Answer. They separated from the errors commonly held, 
 but not from the communion of the church ; as Archbishop 
 Laud truly said: " The Protestants did not depart ; for depar- 
 ture is voluntary, so was not theirs. I say not theirs, taking 
 their whole body and cause together. For that some among 
 them were peevish, and some ignorantly zealous, is neither to 
 be doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it V When 
 Luther said that he stood alone, he meant that he was almost 
 the only person who conspicuously, and in the face of the 
 world, maintained his doctrines ; but he knew that many others, 
 though less conspicuously, approved aud defended them. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ON THE SEPARATISTS FROM THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCHES. 
 
 I AM now to speak of the societies which are separated from 
 the communion of the Anglo-catholic churches. As I shall 
 consider elsewhere the character of the Romanists and the 
 Scottish Presbyterians a , it only remains here to treat of the 
 various sects of dissent. Of these communities, whether col- 
 lectively or individually considered, I affirm, that they are no 
 part of the church of Christ. This question has been recently 
 so well treated by many able writers, that very little need be 
 said on the subject. 
 
 1 Laud, Conference with Fisher, Part II. Chapters ii. and ix. 
 s. 21. No. 3. 
 
 VOL. I. X
 
 306 On Dissent. [P. i. CH. xiu. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 ON THE ORIGIN OF DISSENT. 
 
 The church The dissenting societies cannot be supposed to constitute 
 exists be- fa e ^ rue c h urc h o f Christ, to the exclusion of the more ancient 
 
 yond the _ m 
 
 dissenting and infinitely greater churches of the east and west, and those 
 sects. Q f fa e jr ore jg n Reformation : for it has been proved, that the 
 church of Christ must always be morally universal 1 *. Now 
 dissenting communities only exist in Britain, in the United 
 States, and in a few of the English colonies. They are un- 
 known on the continent of Europe, in Asia, Africa, South 
 America, that is, in nearly the whole world. It is impossible 
 that a party so small, so unknown to the world at large, can 
 be that " mountain filling the whole earth," that " city set 
 upon an hill which cannot be hid." 
 
 There is another proof that they cannot alone constitute the 
 church of Christ. Whatever be their present state, it is cer- 
 tain that about two hundred and fifty years ago, they were 
 entirely unknown ; that they even did not exist. We know 
 perfectly when these societies arose, and who were their 
 founders. We know that Robinson, the author of Independ- 
 ency, lived ia the reign of Elizabeth and James, that Jacobs 
 founded the first congregational church about 1616, that Jesse 
 established the first Baptist church in 1640. We can tell 
 when the various existing denominations of Quakers, Presby- 
 terians, Swede nborgians, Socinians, Moravians, Huntingdon- 
 ians, Wesleyans, Whitfieldites, Kilhamites, Jumpers, Ranters, 
 the followers of Johanna Southcote, Irvingites, &c. first arose: 
 their origin is comparatively recent. If these societies alone 
 constitute the true visible church of Christ, we should be at a 
 loss to discover where that church existed two hundred and 
 fifty years ago. 
 
 It has been proved that there must always be a visible and 
 a universal church of Christ on earth. It is therefore in vain 
 to allege that some individuals may have held the truth in 
 secret, in the midst of an apostate and antichristian church. 
 This would not be any answer to the question, where the visible 
 church of Christ existed. It would be equally vain to attempt 
 
 b Chapter vii.
 
 SECT, i.] Dissent founded in Schism and Heresy. 307 
 
 to trace this visible church in the various sects of the Albi- 
 genses, Waldenses, Wickliffites, Hussites, Anabaptists, &c. : 
 for independently of the fact that none of these societies pos- 
 sessed the antiquity and universality of the church of Christ, 
 the dissenting communities now existing cannot trace their 
 descent from, nor their communion with, these more ancient 
 sects. 
 
 Hence we may not unreasonably conclude, that the various 
 denominations of separatists cannot constitute the church of 
 Christ, to the exclusion of other greater and more ancient 
 societies : and what has been observed of them collectively, 
 applies of course still more strongly to each of them in particular. 
 
 It must be admitted then, that the dissenters can only form Conse- 
 a small portion of the church of Christ, if they belong to it at <F ence . s of 
 all. We must look elsewhere for the great majority of that ciple. 
 church ; and since even the foreign reformed societies in addi- 
 tion to the dissenters, would not make up a church such as the 
 Scripture points out ; the more ancient churches of the Greek, 
 if not of the Roman communion, must be added. Now if it be 
 conceded, that the Greek or Latin churches, and the societies 
 of the Foreign Reformation, are parts of the catholic visible 
 church, it is impossible to exclude the Anglo-catholic churches 
 from the same privilege ; for there is nothing objected to them 
 by dissenters, which might not be equally objected to all the 
 other churches of the east and west. All are more or less 
 established by law, and influenced by the civil magistrate. 
 None of them are modelled according to the congregational 
 form. In none are the clergy elected or deposed by the suf- 
 frage of the people. All have rites and ceremonies of human 
 invention, imposed by human authority ; creeds, articles of 
 faith, confessions, liturgies, &c. It is therefore impossible, in 
 admitting that they are part of the church, to deny that our 
 churches are also churches of Christ. 
 
 If then the British churches continue to be churches of Dissent 
 
 Christ, even to the present time; they must have been so when foll ? ded in 
 
 , schism ; 
 
 these various communities separated from them, and consti- 
 tuted a rival worship. But I have already proved, that sepa- 
 ration from a Christian church is incapable of excuse, and that 
 the society formed by such an act of separation is entirely cut 
 off from the true church c . 
 
 c Chapter iv. s. ii. 
 x 2
 
 308 On Dissent. [p. r. CH. xm. 
 
 This fixes ineffaceably the mark of schism on the origin of 
 all these communities. For they not only separated them- 
 selves from this branch of the catholic church, but did so on 
 principles which involved separation from every other part of the 
 church equally ; and accordingly, they held communion with no 
 church which existed previously to their separation, nor were 
 they acknowledged afterwards by any such church as a portion 
 of the church of Christ. 
 
 And in The first separatists from the church of England maintained 
 
 that her forms of government, and her ritual, were idolatrous 
 and Antichristian, and that in consequence she was not a 
 church of Christ, but a synagogue of Satan, from which they 
 were bound to come forth d . The conclusion followed of course 
 from their principle ; but that principle condemned as Anti- 
 Christian, not merely the existing church of England, but all 
 other churches for many ages, even up to the time of the 
 apostles. On this principle then the church must have entirely 
 failed for several ages ; a position which is decidedly heretical. 
 
 Like the Novatians and Donatists, they denied her to be a 
 true church, because her communion comprised sinners; and 
 maintained the duty of separating from her on this account e . 
 On the same principle, they must have held it a duty to have 
 separated from every Christian community for many centuries 
 previously, and thus again denied the perpetuity of the church 
 of Christ. 
 
 The same may be said of their plea for separation, grounded 
 on the pretence, -that the imposition of creeds, articles of faith, 
 rites, ceremonies, &c. by authority of the church, was an act 
 of rebellion against the sole authority of Christ, as king and 
 legislator in his church f . This has been notoriously practised 
 
 d Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness 31), that "all who will be saved are 
 
 of Separation, Works, vol. ii. p. 481 bound to come forth of this Anti- 
 
 483. 549. Brown, in his book on Christian church" (32), that it was 
 
 the Life and Manners of the Chris- the duty of the civil magistrate to 
 
 tians (1582), asserts that the English suppress and root out the ministry 
 
 church government is " Antichris- of the church and apply its property 
 
 tian," that the clergy " enchant " to civil uses, and to establish and 
 
 the bread and wine by graces and maintain by law the true religion 
 
 prayers, make an idol of it, &c. The (39). See also Neal's Puritans, vol. 
 
 Apology of the Brownists (1604) i. c. 4, 5, 6. 
 
 maintained that the church's govern- e Owen's True Nature of a Gos- 
 
 ment and worship were A ntichristian pel Church, 
 
 (art. 29, 30), that the English is not f Towgood on Dissent, 
 a part of the Christian church (art.
 
 SECT, ii.] Dissenting Principles foster Schism. 309 
 
 by all Christian churches from the earliest ages, consequently 
 the church of Christ must have been apostate and entirely 
 failed, until the dissenters arose in the seventeenth century ; 
 a position which is equally absurd and heretical. 
 
 Therefore, their separation from the church of England was 
 founded not only in schism but in heresy, and this being the 
 case, they could not have been any part of the church, nor 
 were they capable of forming Christian churches, 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 ON DISSENTING PRINCIPLES AS AFFECTING UNITY. 
 
 I shall not here dwell on the actual existence of divisions Dissent 
 and heresies among dissenters, because every system is occa- ^^^ 
 sionally abused, and such evils may arise from the violation of division, 
 its principles. Yet it must be confessed, that the religious 
 disorganization of dissent is extraordinary and unprecedented. 
 One of themselves admits, that " the most remarkable and 
 flagrant circumstance that fixes the attention of the Christian 
 philosopher, is the inveterate and incurable sectarism that dis- 
 tinguishes our British Christianity. No people of any age or 
 climate have carried the evil of religious faction and endless divi- 
 sion to a more extraordinary height. No religious evil (in the 
 present day) more resolutely defies correction than the evil of 
 schism V These remarks are true ; but dissenters persuade 
 themselves that the evil does not arise from their own princi- 
 ples. " Can it be shown," they say, " that the tendency of the 
 congregational system is to generate and foster the evils under 
 review b f I say it can be clearly shown. The dissenting 
 system, the principle of dissent, is the cause of all their divi- 
 sions ; it leads necessarily to tumult, division, separation 
 heresy without limit ; it leads to the conclusion that schism 
 is altogether inoffensive, and may be made a matter of joke ; 
 and it actually leads to the adoption of this Antichristian 
 principle into their system, as highly salutary, and even essen- 
 tial to its proper working ! 
 
 According to them, a church is a voluntary society of pro- 
 fessing saints, which is complete in itself, subject to no juris- 
 
 Eclectic Review for 1831, p. b Library of Eccl. Knowledgej 
 192. vol. ii. On Ch. Polity, p. 171.
 
 330 On Dissent. [p. i. CH. xnr. 
 
 diction but its own, competent to make and execute its own 
 laws, acknowledging no rule but Scripture, and possessing the 
 ability to ascertain its directions. The voice of the society 
 decides every thing ; every measure is proposed and discussed, 
 and the majority determines the matter c . Such is the system 
 and principle of dissent ; whence it is clear that frequent dis- 
 cussion, debate, voting, are essential to it ; therefore, there 
 must be a perpetual excitement to anger, jealousy, party-spirit, 
 ambition, and all the elements of division. These contending 
 elements are pent up in each little community, and compelled 
 to ferment there, because no external authority whatever is 
 allowed. Nor is this all : it is the principle of dissenters that 
 no human authority can be admitted in religious matters' 1 . 
 Therefore, the minority in any question in their churches can- 
 not feel it their duty to yield to the majority, because the 
 judgment of that majority is merely human ; and hence it 
 follows that discussions among them are interminable, except 
 by a total separation. Voluntary separation or dissolution in 
 their societies is, in short, their only remedy against violent 
 explosions ; and injurious as it is to their interests and cha- 
 racter, they are compelled, by the original vice of their system, 
 to look with hope to so fatal a remedy. It will be remembered 
 that Christ commanded his disciples to love one another, and 
 prayed that they might be perfectly one ; and that St. Paul 
 exhorted Christians to be perfectly united, and that there 
 should be no division among them e . " The system of congre- 
 gational churches " (I quote the words of a dissenter) " is 
 totally different. From them any member, or any number of 
 members, is at liberty to withdraw whenever they think it 
 their duty, without incurring any censure, or provoking any 
 resentment. . . . Peaceable and Christian separation, when sepa- 
 ration becomes inevitable or expedient, is the MAXIM of the 
 congregational system ; and it has always been found to be, 
 not only a sufficient safety-valve for the occasional disturbances 
 of the churches, but a means of rendering those very disturb- 
 ances conducive to the extension of Christianity f ! " 
 
 Thus we see the principle of schism and separation enshrined 
 
 c Binney's Life of Morrell, p. 134, e See Chapter iv. 
 
 135. f Library of Eccl. Knowledge, 
 
 d Towgood on Dissent, Library vol. ii. p. 167. 
 of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 314.
 
 SECT, ii.] Dissent has no Remedy against Heresy. 31 1 
 
 as a maxim of dissent ; and accordingly, we need not wonder to 
 find Owen and Tovvgood, and other dissenters, ridiculing those 
 who deliver solemn lectures on the sin of schism, and joking 
 about schism as a mere " ecclesiastical scarecrow g ." Accord- 
 ing to them, " separation between different Christian bodies 
 which agree in holding the head, but do not accord in lesser 
 matters, is an affair of expediency; within certain limits it 
 seems really conducive to edification h ! " It is clear, then, that 
 the principle of division is a principle of dissent ; and therefore 
 their community cannot form any portion of the church of 
 Christ. 
 
 It is their principle to reject all human authority in matters Dissent 
 of religion ; therefore if a dissenter embraces some heresy, he witllo y it 
 cannot consistently yield to the contrary judgment of his own against 
 community, or of all Christians in the world, now and in all 
 former ages ; nor can a congregational society admonish him 
 to turn from his error on pain of expulsion, because this would 
 be that very assumption of authority in matters of religion 
 which dissent exclaims against in the church. There is, there- 
 fore, no provision for the maintenance of the Christian truth 
 amongst them. 
 
 According to their principle, a church is a mere voluntary Dissent a 
 association. The motive for entering it is the opinion of the h " m f. n m " 
 
 , * stitution. 
 
 individual that it will be conducive to his edification to do so. 
 He is equally at liberty to depart from it when he judges it 
 expedient 1 . From the voluntary principle of their associa- 
 tions, they argue that, like all other clubs, societies, &c., they 
 must possess the absolute power of regulating their own affairs, 
 appointing their servants or ministers, directing, controlling, 
 paying, dismissing them. An infringement on any of these 
 privileges they regard as an invasion of their indefeasible 
 rights. Certainly this reasoning is perfectly correct, and 
 founded on a sort of silent estimate of the real character of 
 dissenting communities. They are human societies ; the will 
 of man makes them, regulates them, unmakes them. They 
 
 * Owen sneers at " the old opinion awe." On Dissent, p. 115. It is 
 
 of the unlawfulness of separation awful to remember whose injunc- 
 
 from a church," as a " scarecrow tions are here sneered at. 
 
 to frighten men with." Gospel h Library of Eccl. Knowledge, 
 
 Church, p. 27. Towgood also re- vol. ii. p. 118. 
 
 presents it as "an ecclesiastical ' Owen, p. 47. 
 scarecrow, to keep the simple in
 
 312 
 
 On Dissent. 
 
 [p. i. en. XITI. 
 
 are, in a word, purely voluntary associations, and therefore 
 cannot be any part of that church which is formed by the 
 divine command, and by means instituted by God, and from 
 which man cannot separate without most grievous sin. 
 
 Dissent 
 alters the 
 discipline 
 of Christ. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 ON DISSENTING PRINCIPLES AS AFFECTING THE SANCTITY 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 In a preceding chapter (VI.) I have alluded to one of the 
 most prominent and essential principles of dissent ; namely, 
 that the visible church of Christ consists of saints only. As 
 they say : " The very basis of our church union is regenera- 
 tion and holiness, evinced by the proper evidences in those 
 persons who are admitted into (church) membership a ." " Re- 
 ligious communities of the congregational order are not only 
 congregations, they are congregations of persons professing 
 
 to be of a peculiar, that is, of a religious, character 
 
 this is an essential point in the congregational system, and 
 one, apart from which it would lose all its value, and even its 
 entire character b ." "It is a prominent feature of congrega- 
 tional churches, that they aim at comprehending none but 
 persons of real piety. Every member of them is to be sup- 
 posed, therefore, to possess that adaptation to right judgment 
 of which we have been speaking. Superior to the blindness of 
 a carnal man, and delivered from the influence of worldly pas- 
 sions, his opinions may reasonably be regarded as enlightened 
 and wise C . VI 
 
 The design and intention, therefore, of dissenters is, to admit 
 none but really regenerate and holy men into their churches ; 
 but in adopting this notion, they were obliged to devise a new 
 method of admission into the church, different from what 
 Jesus Christ had appointed. 
 
 Christ had commanded his apostles to " teach (or disciple) 
 all nations, baptizing them ;" and declared that " he that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved d ;" thus intimating 
 that believers should, by baptism, be fully and perfectly made 
 
 tt Library of Eccl. Knowledge, 
 vol. ii. p. 399. 
 b Ibid. 146, 147. 
 
 c Ibid. p. 163. 
 
 d Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16.
 
 SECT, in.] Dissent alters the Discipline of Christ. 313 
 
 his disciples, and enter on the way of salvation in his church. 
 The evangelist had declared that " they that gladly received 
 the word were baptized, and the same day were added about 
 three thousand souls ; " subjoining, that " the Lord added to 
 the church daily such as should be saved e ;" thereby instructing 
 us that the way in which men were added to the church was 
 by baptism. The apostle had said : " As many of you as have 
 been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ... ye are all one 
 in Christ Jesus f ;" intimating that in baptism they were en- 
 grafted into Christ's body, the church. They were thus by 
 lawful baptism made members of the whole Christian frater- 
 nity, and consequently of that portion of it in which they 
 abode ; and though they might not interfere with the particular 
 concerns of other portions of the church, because this would 
 have been contrary to the law of order and peace throughout 
 Christianity, they had a right to all the offices of fraternity 
 and spiritual consolation from every part of the church which 
 they might visit, and to every privilege of that portion in which 
 they abode. 
 
 But the only conditions for baptism were repentance and 
 faith. There was no mention of regeneration, sanctity, real 
 piety, whether visible or invisible, as pre-requisites to its recep- 
 tion. Those who were baptized came to the holy fountain as 
 repentant sinners, not as professing saints : " Arise and be 
 baptized, and wash away thy sins" The publican and the 
 harlot, the unjust, the scorner, the persecutor, the idolater, he 
 whose sins were as red as scarlet, were all internally qualified 
 by repentance and faith, and externally by the profession of 
 both, for that divine and holy mystery. 
 
 Such a system could never compose a church of professing 
 saints only ; and more especially when all new members were 
 added to the church by baptism in their infancy, it would have 
 been impossible that the church should consist only of real 
 saints, if baptism had been recognized any longer as the mode 
 of admission into it. 
 
 Accordingly, the dissenters found it necessary to devise a 
 new method of their own for admitting members into their 
 church, distinct altogether from baptism. But let us contem- 
 
 e Acts ii. 41.47. f Gal. iii. 27, 28.
 
 314 On Dissent. [P. i. CH. xin. 
 
 plate for a moment the difficulties into which the devious 
 path of error led them. 
 
 They themselves could not deny in the face of Scripture, 
 that, after all, baptism did, in some way or other, introduce 
 members into the church of Christ. Now at least it must 
 have made them members of the visible church ; and this is 
 expressly admitted by Owen, their chief writer, who speaks of 
 " baptizing the children of church- members, giving them thereby 
 an admission into the visible catholic church e." Baptism, then, 
 admitted into the visible catholic church ; but baptism did not 
 admit into dissenting churches of professing saints ; therefore 
 the latter form no part of the catholic church of Christ. 
 
 Nor is this all : whoever has been once lawfully baptized, 
 and thus made a member of Christ's body the church, cannot 
 by any subsequent rite or transaction whatever be introduced 
 into that church ; such a rite must be entirely null and void. 
 While he who seeks for a new admission to the visible church, 
 by that very act renounces his former admission to it in bap- 
 tism ; denies and tramples under foot the privileges which, by 
 the divine appointment, are connected with it ; and as he can- 
 not be introduced again into the church by the vain and im- 
 pious ceremony by which men dare to supersede the effects of 
 baptism, he falls headlong from the church of Christ. 
 Dissent ]3 U ^ } e t us consider the operation of this principle on Chris- 
 
 spWtuaf 8 tian sanctity. It is the manifest aim and intention of the dis- 
 pride. senting community to admit none but " real saints," persons 
 regenerate, sanctified, of a peculiar and exalted religious cha- 
 racter. Such is their intention, and therefore they inquire by 
 every possible means, including personal examination of the 
 candidate's " experience," whether he be really possessed of 
 these distinguished qualifications ; therefore no person can 
 enter a dissenting community without hypocrisy, unless he 
 believes and professes himself to be a saint ! He must believe 
 himself to be a regenerate, really pious, sanctified man, superior 
 to the blindness of the flesh, free from the influence of earthly 
 passions ; in short, a genuine saint ! Surely modesty and 
 humility were not to be altogether strangers to Christianity, 
 yet they are utterly banished by the dissenting principle of 
 
 Owen's Gospel Church, p. 50.
 
 SECT, in.] Blindness of Dissent. 3 1 5 
 
 admission into the church ; for he who proposes himself as a 
 member of their community, knowing that none but real saints 
 are to be admitted, knowing that the most rigid examination 
 is to be instituted as to his regeneration, sanctity, real piety, 
 &c., such a man, I say, must have a most perfect and singular 
 assurance and self-satisfaction, he must " think more highly of 
 himself than he ought to think." His feelings and his language 
 must literally be : " God, I thank thee that I am not as other 
 men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this pub- 
 lican." The church is more humble, and instructs each of her 
 children to say, from the bottom of his heart, " God be merci- 
 ful to me a sinner." 
 
 The adoption of the principle that none but real saints were 
 to be admitted into the church, led them of course to condemn 
 the church of England as acting on a different principle, and 
 admitting persons of all sorts and ages to become her members 
 by baptism. This appeared intolerable to dissenters ; they 
 separated from a church so " antichristian," and in the same 
 act separated from every existing Christian community in the 
 world, and condemned the universal church of Christ in all 
 past ages. They were now to form a pure society of saints, a 
 city set upon a hill, a light shining amidst the darkness of 
 universal Christianity. This was on all accounts a perilous 
 undertaking, and one of its peculiar dangers is well pointed 
 out by a dissenting writer. " By the fact of our select asso- 
 ciation," he says, " we intimate both our conviction that a 
 change of character is necessary, and our hope that we have 
 experienced it ; ... but if, while we profess to be so materially 
 diverse from others, that for the purpose of religious associa- 
 tion we are constrained to separate from them, we are yet so 
 much like them that little or no difference is perceptible ; we 
 do mischief rather than good, we falsify the lesson which our 
 profession is adapted to inculcate, and turn our profession itself 
 into inconsistency and ridicule V This is a true picture of 
 the failure of the dissenting schemes of the church. That high 
 theory of sanctity which led them to separate from the church 
 of Christ, has been unhappily nothing but a theory ; it has 
 been proved an impossibility by experience. Dissenting com- 
 munities are just like the rest of the world, troubled with im- 
 
 h Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 189.
 
 316 On Dissent. [p. i. CH. xin. 
 
 moralities, by no means elevated above the usual level in point 
 of sanctity, and remarkable for nothing but divisions, party- 
 spirit, and the indefatigable assertion and pursuit of their own 
 rights and interests. " Hence," as the same writer observes, 
 " the force of our profession itself is materially diminished, and 
 almost annihilated i ." Yet, strange to say, though experi- 
 ence has verified the scriptural doctrine on this subject, which 
 the church has always maintained k , the opposite doctrine of a 
 perfect sanctity, which excludes all sinners, remains to this day 
 one of the main principles of dissent, and is as much insisted 
 on as if nothing had ever happened to refute it. So difficult is 
 it for men, who are once involved in a false system, to escape 
 from its entanglements. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 DISSENT NOT APOSTOLICAL. 
 
 Dissenting communities cannot be derived from the apostles, 
 for they were heard of for the first time in the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries after Christ, and were not then peaceably 
 derived from any society of apostolical foundation, nor after- 
 wards acknowledged by any such as a portion of the church of 
 Christ a . In addition to this, it is easy to see that their min- 
 istry is not apostolical. They themselves ridicule the notion 
 of any divine commission to minister in sacred things, derived 
 by successive ordinations from the apostles. The claim of the 
 church to such a commission for her ministers, is matter of 
 unceasing vituperation and scorn with dissenters. Of course, 
 therefore, their own ministers cannot pretend to such a com- 
 mission. But after all, it is pretty plain that they are obliged, 
 whether willingly or unwillingly, to adopt this course ; for their 
 founders, or some of their first ministers, were generally lay- 
 men, who usurped the power of the ministry, and pretended to 
 ordain others to an office which they had not themselves re- 
 ceived by any imposition of hands from the ministers of Christ. 
 The Quakers have no ministry. The AVesleyans have or had no 
 ordinations by imposition of hands. In fine, the Independents 
 and others pretend that no ordination whatever is requisite ; 
 and many of them have no vocation except from mere popular 
 
 1 Lib. of Eccl. Know. vol. ii. p. 189. a Chapters vi. vii. 
 k Chapter vi.
 
 OBJECT.] Contrast between Dissent and the Church. 817 
 
 election. It is, indeed, one of their principles, that the minis- 
 ters of religion derive their vocation and mission entirely from 
 popular election. The right of the people to elect, pay, con- 
 trol, and dismiss their teachers, is argued from the nature of a 
 voluntary association or club, which must necessarily have the 
 power of appointing its own officers, and regulating their whole 
 conduct. And as every officer of a voluntary association or 
 club derives his commission entirely from those who create 
 him, so the dissenting minister is commissioned to preach the 
 Gospel, not by God, but by man. He is the minister of man 
 only ; and therefore the dissenting communities being destitute 
 of a true ministry, which is essential to the church h , are not 
 churches of Christ. I shall add nothing more in a case so 
 easy and clear c . 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. The church of England cannot charge the dissenters with 
 schism for separating from her, for they only exercised the 
 same right which she claimed for herself in separating from the 
 church of Rome. 
 
 Answer. I deny that the church of England ever separated 
 herself from the communion of the Roman church d ; the latter 
 merely estranged herself from us, under the prejudice that it 
 was necessary for every one to be subject to the papal jurisdic- 
 tion, and therefore that our suppression of that jurisdiction in 
 England was schismatical. The dissenters, on the other hand, 
 withdrew themselves from the communion of the church in 
 which they had been baptized. The churches of Britain had 
 existed in communion with the universal church for fifteen hun- 
 dred years before the dispute took place between her and the 
 pontiff. The societies of dissenters could not have existed in 
 any such communion before their separation from us, for that 
 separation alone gave them existence. The church of Britain 
 only revived her ancient privileges and liberties, which had 
 been usurped by the Roman pontiff, or allowed by her to 
 
 b Chapter viii. May, June, July, 1832; on the 
 
 c The argument against dissent Church, June, 1833; and on the 
 
 has been treated by Bishop Stilling- Congregational Union, September, 
 
 fleet in his Unreasonableness of Se- 1833 ; and Mr. Maitland on the 
 
 paration. See also Articles on Dis- Voluntary System, 
 
 sent in the British Magazine for d See Part II. chapter ii.
 
 818 On Dissent. [PART i. 
 
 devolve to him ; and she had for this purpose the ordinary 
 spiritual authority instituted by Jesus Christ. The dissenters 
 had no ancient rights, as their societies had never existed 
 before their separation from the church of England ; and they 
 neither had nor claimed any spiritual authority, but rested 
 their cause on the supposed rights of conscience, in opposition 
 to authority. The church justifies her Reformation without 
 imputing such errors or crimes to the universal church, before 
 the separation, as would prove it apostate and antichristian. 
 The dissenters can only justify their own existence by main- 
 taining that the church of Christ had apostatized and entirely 
 failed. 
 
 It is really astonishing that any one can venture to compare 
 the Reformation of the church of England to the separation 
 of the dissenters. There cannot be a stronger contrast than is 
 afforded by the two cases. 
 
 II. The church of England has transgressed in several 
 respects the laws of Christ, in acknowledging the king's supre- 
 macy, imposing creeds and articles of faith, establishing super- 
 stitious rites, &c. ; consequently it was necessary to forsake 
 her communion. 
 
 Answer. I have showed above (page 39) that separation 
 from the church is inexcusable, and have answered these various 
 objections of dissenters, (page 203, &c.) 
 
 III. There may be separation without schism, because 
 Christians may be united in heart and spirit, though the offices 
 of religion are performed in different places of worship. 
 
 Answer. Christ commanded his disciples to be perfectly 
 united, that the world might believe that the Father had sent 
 him (John xvii. 20. 23) ; therefore even schism within the 
 church is contrary to his will ; but open separation from it is 
 a manifest disobedience to God. And when separate conven- 
 ticles are established, and rival ministers endeavour to gain 
 proselytes from the church, declaring its worship, its govern- 
 ment, its regulations so unscriptural or erroneous, that Chris- 
 tians are bound to come forth from it and be separate ; what 
 plea can be vainer than the pretence of an internal communion 
 of affections, which is disproved by every act ?
 
 CHAP, xiv.] Nestorianism condemned by the Church. 319 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 ON THE NKSTOKIANS AND MONOPHYSITES. 
 
 THESE ancient sects, which were separated from the com- 
 munion of our churches and from the rest of the catholic 
 church in the fifth century, still continue to exist in Egypt, 
 Abyssinia, Syria, Armenia, and some other parts of the east ; 
 and it seems to be the opinion of some respectable modern 
 writers, that they are not to be excluded from the Christian 
 church. Fricius, Jewel, Usher, and Laud are apparently of 
 this opinion, and Field expressly maintains it a . The argu- 
 ments by which it is supported, are derived either from the 
 supposition that these sects believe the fundamental articles of 
 Christian faith, or that their difference with the church is 
 rather verbal than real. It does not appear to me, however, 
 that there is any reason to alter our opinion of these sects, 
 from that which the universal church maintained for so many 
 ages. 
 
 1 . Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, in declaiming Nestorians. 
 against the old and piqps term GEOTOKOC, or Deipara, (ascribed 
 to the blessed Virgin as the mother of Him who was both God 
 and man,) dogmatized contrary to the simplicity of the Chris- 
 tian doctrine, affirming in effect, that the Word of God and 
 the man Jesus were two different persons, united only by a 
 sort of moral union, the former inhabiting the latter as a 
 temple. From this doctrine it followed, contrary to the 
 Christian faith, that the Word of God was not made flesh, 
 nor born into this world, nor did He suffer for us, nor redeem us 
 with his blood ; that Christ was not God, but only the temple 
 of God ; that the Virgin was only mother of a man, and not 
 of Him who was both man and God. It is needless to go into 
 a detail of the Nestorian errors, or to point out their inconsis- 
 tency with scripture. Their consequences were so dreadful, 
 that the holy oecumenical synod of Ephesus, in 431, most 
 justly styled their author another Judas, and pronounced 
 anathema against all who should divide the person of Jesus 
 Christ. The decree of this synod on the incarnation was 
 soon accepted and approved by the church in all parts of the 
 
 Of the Church, book iii. chap. i.
 
 N 
 
 320 Nestorians and MonopJiy sites. [PART i. 
 
 world ; for though John, patriarch of Antioch, and the oriental 
 bishops, for a short time disputed the lawfulness of the pro- 
 ceedings at Ephesus, they afterwards united themselves to St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria and the rest of the church, in pronouncing 
 anathema against Nestorianism. The partizans of the con- 
 demned doctrine only found support in Persia, where they dis- 
 seminated their errors and obtained a permanent settlement b . 
 The chief founders of the sect there were Ibas, Barsumas, 
 Manes, and others who had been expelled from the school of 
 Edessa in consequence of their doctrine. The Nestorians 
 have always continued in those parts ; they disclaim the name 
 of Nestorians, and pretend that their doctrine and churches 
 are derived from the apostles . They, however, reckon Nes- 
 torius, Diodorus, and Theodore of Tarsus, who taught the 
 Nestorian tenets, among the saints ; and while they pretend 
 that there is no real difference between their doctrine and that 
 of the church d , they anathematize the oecumenical synods of 
 Ephesus and Chalcedon, because they denied that Christ was 
 two different persons e . 
 
 Since, therefore, the Nestorian doctrine was condemned by 
 the whole church throughout the world; since those who main- 
 tained it were ejected from the Christen society, and always 
 accounted heretics ; since the Nestorians have never yet been 
 restored to the communion of the catholic church, never for- 
 saken their errors, never acknowledged the errors of their 
 founders ; and since they anathematize the whole church in 
 anathematizing the synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, it seems 
 to me that we cannot reckon them as any part of the church 
 of Christ, even though some of them may be desirous of repre- 
 senting their doctrine as orthodox, and consonant to that of 
 the church. 
 
 Monophy- ^. The doctrine attributed to Eutyches, of the conversion 
 sites. of the human nature into the divine, or the mixture of the 
 two natures together in Christ, so as to form but one nature 
 after the incarnation, was rejected by Dioscorus and the other 
 leaders of the Monophysite faction, who opposed themselves 
 to the decree of the holy O3cumenical synod of Chalcedon 
 (451), which was received and approved by the church in all 
 
 b Assemani Biblioth. Orientalis, d Ibid. 220. 
 torn. iv. p. 69. e Ibid. 230. 
 
 c Ibid. 76.
 
 CHAP, xiv.] Origin of the Monophysites. 321 
 
 parts of the world. They and their descendants, entitled 
 Monophysites or Jacobites, acknowledge only one nature in 
 Christ, compounded of the divinity and humanity, yet without 
 conversion, confusion, or mixture f . This doctrine, like the 
 Nestorian, shook the main pillars of the Christian's hope ; for 
 in attributing to our blessed Saviour a sort of third nature, 
 compounded of the human and divine, it threatened to render 
 his suffering for us imperfect and incapable of obtaining salva- 
 tion for men ; for unless Christ had been very and perfect man 
 to suffer, and very God to confer an infinite value on those 
 sufferings, his death would have been inadequate to the accom- 
 plishment of so great a work. 
 
 Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, who was deposed by the 
 oacumenical synod of Chalcedon for his outrageous proceedings 
 against the opponents of the Eutychian heresy, and who re- 
 fused to believe the orthodox doctrine defined by the synod 
 and approved by the whole Christian world, was legitimately 
 succeeded by Proterius in the see of Alexandria ; but the 
 Monophysite, Timothy ^Elurus, intruded into that see, having 
 obtained ordination from two deposed Egyptian bishops of the 
 same party ; and his adherents murdered Proterius. In the 
 same manner Theodosius, a monk of Palestine, usurped the 
 see of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, while the latter was 
 absent at Constantinople, and ordained Monophysite bishops 
 throughout Palestine in opposition to the catholic bishops. 
 Some time after, another Monophysite, Peter Fullo, came to 
 Antioch under the protection of Zeno the governor, and 
 excited a schism against the patriarch Martyrius, on whose 
 retirement he seized the bishopric, but was soon compelled to 
 fly by the orders of the emperor. Such was the origin of the 
 Monophysites, who attempted then, and afterwards by the aid 
 of the civil power, to usurp the various sees of the Church ; 
 and who established a rival communion, anathematizing the 
 council of Chalcedon s, approved by the whole Christian world, 
 reckoning its adherents among the heretics, and including 
 among the saints Dioscorus, Barsumus, Timothy, Severus, 
 Jacobus, Theodosius, and others who were notoriously opposed 
 to the catholic doctrine, and guilty of offences against the law 
 
 ' See Assemani's Dissertatio de of his Bibliotheca Orientalis, sect. v. 
 Monophysitis, in the second volume K Ibid. s. iv. 
 
 VOL. I. Y
 
 322 Nestorians and Monopliy sites. [PAET r. 
 
 of unity. Hence, although some of the Monophysites in later 
 times have expressed themselves in terms that seem to render 
 the difference in doctrine but inconsiderable h , there seems to be 
 no reason to suppose that they form a portion of the catholic 
 church, having been originally excluded from that church as 
 well by its decree as by their own separation from us : nor 
 have they ever ceased to treat the doctrine of the church as 
 heretical, styling us Chalcedonians \ and reckoning us among 
 the heretics to this day. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that the Nestorians and Monophysites, 
 or Jacobites, are no part of the church of Christ, for (as I 
 have elsewhere observed J), the assumption that they hold what 
 are called fundamental doctrines, and are therefore free from 
 heresy, is founded on an uncertain and arbitrary distinction. 
 We need not, however, pronounce them heretics in such a 
 sense as imports any grievous sin on their parts, and the loss 
 of salvation : because it appears that their errors are generally 
 held in ignorance k , and that many of them are disposed to 
 hear the truth. Under such circumstances great lenity should 
 be employed. . But, at the same time, we cannot admit them 
 to constitute any part of the visible church of Christ, unless 
 we are prepared to annul the most solemn and united judg- 
 ments of the catholic church '. 
 
 h Assemani Bibl. Orient, t ii. p. 1'Asie, de 1'Egypte, et de 1'Ethiopie. 
 
 277. 97. Les relations nouvelles qu'on nous 
 
 1 See Buchanan's Christian Re- en a donnees depuis quelques an- 
 
 searches, p. 123, where the creed of nees attestent que les Eutychiens 
 
 the Syrian Christians of St. Thomas ne scavent plus quel est le point 
 
 in India is stated to include a con- precis des anciens differends entre 
 
 demnation of the errors of " Arius, euxetles catholiques." Thomassin, 
 
 Sabellius, Macedonius, Manes, Mar- De 1'Unite de 1'Eglise, part i. c. xx. 
 
 cianus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the Modern accounts confirm the truth 
 
 Chalcedonians." of this statement. 
 
 1 Chapter V. Appendix on Fun- ' On the subject of the errors of 
 
 damentals. the Nestorians and Monophysites, 
 
 k " Leurs evesques, leurs eccle- see Dionysius Petavius, Theologica 
 
 siastiques, leurs moines, sont tombez Dogmata, t. iv. ; Assemani, Biblio- 
 
 dans une profonde ignorance ... 11 thecaOrientalis; Natalis Alexander, 
 
 faut faire le mesme jugement des Hist. Eccl. ssec. v. dissert, xxiv, 
 
 Eutychiens et des Nestoriens de xxv.
 
 A TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 ON THE BRITISH REFORMATION. 
 
 v 2
 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 PART II. CHAPTER I. 
 
 ON THE CHARACTERS OF THE TEMPORAL PROMOTERS OF 
 THE REFORMATION. 
 
 IT is my design in this Part to examine the reformation of the 
 church in Great Britain and Ireland, to trace its conformity 
 with the faith and discipline of the catholic church, and to 
 reply to the various imputations of heresy, schism, variation, 
 and inconsistency, advanced by Bossuet in his " Variations," 
 and by other opponents of the church of England. 
 
 The real facts of the reformation in England have been so 
 misrepresented from ignorance or design, that there is no part 
 of our controversies which merits from members of the catholic 
 churches of these nations a more attentive study. It is per- 
 petually and confidently asserted, that the various corrections 
 in ecclesiastical matters, made in the reigns of Henry VIII., 
 Edward VI., and Elizabeth, were effected, and can only be 
 defended on principles subversive of ecclesiastical authority 
 and unity ; therefore that we cannot maintain the authority of 
 the church of England as a part of the church of Christ, and the 
 necessity of adhering to her communion, without, at the same 
 moment, condemning the Reformation (or foundation as they 
 call it) of the church of England. The use made of this prin- 
 ciple by the Eomanist is, to argue that a church which by her 
 fundamental principle is deprived of all spiritual authority, and
 
 326 The British Reformation. [PART IT. 
 
 which merely relies on the civil power for protection against 
 anarchy, cannot be a true church of Christ. On the other 
 side, the dissenter justifies his separation and resistance to 
 ecclesiastical authority, by ascribing similar conduct to the 
 church from which he separates ; and the latitudinarian or the 
 heretic refuses to admit the authority and judgment of the 
 universal church, when adduced by us against him, because he 
 alleges that the Reformation itself was based in their rejection. 
 We need not wonder then that a view of the Reformation so 
 beneficial to all the enemies of the Anglo-catholic church, is 
 assiduously and confidently maintained by them. 
 
 Charges If indeed, as is alleged, this church was founded at the Re- 
 Angh) S - ie formation by separation from the catholic church, if its faith 
 catholic was then invented or changed by Henry VIII., or by any 
 c ' other sovereign, on any motives whatever, good or evil ; if the 
 Reformation was the introduction of a new Gospel, the revela- 
 tion of a doctrine hitherto unknown to the catholic church, or 
 condemned ly it ; and if the church of England was responsible 
 for all the views, motives, acts, of Henry, Edward, Elizabeth, 
 and their courtiers ; in this case our adversaries might possibly 
 triumph. But we altogether deny these positions. The church 
 of England was not founded at the Reformation, nor separated 
 from the catholic church, nor was its faith changed by Henry 
 VIII., &c. ; nor was the doctrine of the Reformation a new 
 and unknown Gospel ; nor is it possible, on any principle of 
 reason or justice, to identify the church of England with all 
 the sins, errors, and vices of those temporal rulers who sup- 
 ported its reformation. This then, in general, is what I pro- 
 ceed to show, considering successively the character and con- 
 duct of secular rulers as aifecting the reformation of the church 
 of England; the abolition of the papal jurisdiction and the 
 schism ; the royal supremacy and proceedings during the 
 reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth ; 
 the principles of the Reformation in England ; the variations of 
 the church in religion ; the character of archbishop Cranmer ; 
 and the reformation and schisms in Ireland and Scotland. 
 Evil I shall first consider the character of the temporal rulers as 
 
 Princes affectinq the reformation of the church of England. That men 
 
 sometimes *.,.,, , , f ,. 
 
 benefit the of unsanctified characters have frequently been made instru- 
 
 church. mental in performing works beneficial to the church, must be 
 
 admitted by Romanists themselves. The character of Con-
 
 CHAP, i.] Evil Princes made Instruments of Good. 327 
 
 stantine the Great was stained by serious offences, yet he 
 established Christianity in the Roman empire. Clovis, the 
 first Christian king of the Franks ; Phocas, who conferred on 
 the Roman patriarch the title of oecumenical bishop ; the 
 empress Irene, who established the worship of images ; many 
 of the Roman pontiffs themselves ; and even some of those 
 who were most zealous to extend their jurisdiction, were all 
 guilty of great and terrible crimes. The emperor Napoleon 
 restored Christianity in France, yet it will not be pretended 
 that his character was one of much sanctity. 
 
 There is no impossibility that God should cause evil men to 
 benefit the church, for in the occasional employment of such 
 instruments, He only glorifies His own supreme power and 
 wisdom, which can educe good from the very evils he permits ; 
 and it may be designed to lead His people rather to contem- 
 plate the truth itself, than the personal characters of its pro- 
 moters, which if it were regarded as the invariable test of 
 truth, would even open the way for heresy, because it has been 
 remarked that the founders of heresies are usually men of 
 great external sanctity. Bossuet himself admits that God has 
 made use of very evil princes to accomplish great works a . The 
 evil character then of Henry VIII., of Somerset, or of any 
 other temporal or spiritual promoters of reformation in the 
 church, affords (even if it were not exaggerated) no proof that 
 the Reformation was in itself wrong. The objection only 
 applies in a case supposed by Bossuet : when " God desires to 
 reveal to men some truth, important, and unknown for many 
 ages, or entirely unheard of b :" in such a case he deems it im- 
 possible that God should have employed such agents as Henry 
 VIII. or Cranmer. We will go further than this. If such a 
 truth as had been entirely unheard of before, or condemned in all 
 past ages by the catholic church, had then been propounded by 
 " an angel from heaven," he would have been " anathema c ." 
 
 But we deny that any new important truth unknown for Reforma- 
 ages to the catholic church, or never heard of before, was pro- tlon ? ld not 
 
 rcouirc G\~ 
 
 mulgated at this time in the church of England. We by no traordinary 
 means admit that the royal supremacy was novel. We suppose misslou - 
 that some errors, commonly received by abuse, e. g. the papal 
 
 Bossuet, Variations des Eglises b Ibid. 
 Protestantes, liv. vii. 49. c Galat. i. 8, 9.
 
 328 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 infallibility and universal jurisdiction, purgatory, transubstan- 
 tiation, were suppressed; that idolatries which were generally 
 prevalent, though not compulsory on all, were removed ; that 
 some doctrines were defined more accurately, which had been 
 vaguely and imperfectly held ; that the Scriptures were freely 
 circulated, several superfluous and abused rites were removed, 
 and others were corrected. There was nothing in all this 
 which required any extraordinary mission, or superlative 
 sanctity. 
 
 It may be objected that this affords an inadequate view of 
 the important changes made by the Reformation, and that if 
 the difference between the faith of the church of England 
 before and after it, was not profound and total, it could never 
 have been worth while to suffer martyrdom for the truths 
 of the Reformation, or to separate from the existing church. 
 But I reply that this proceeds on a totally erroneous view 
 of facts. Those who suffered under queen Mary, suffered 
 because they would not profess their belief in certain errors 
 which their opponents erroneously asserted to be matters of 
 faith ; and therefore the fact of their suffering does not prove 
 that there was really any contradiction in faith between them 
 and their persecutors. The latter were, in fact, rash and un- 
 charitable ; but they did not believe more articles of faith than 
 their opponents; they merely received some points as de fide 
 which were not so. The adherents of the confession of Augs- 
 burg, as we know, always asserted that they did not differ in 
 any article of faith from the catholic, or even the Roman 
 church, but only as to certain abuses and erroneous opinions d . 
 I also contend that the friends of the reformation in England 
 did not separate from the church in point of fact. These are 
 truths which I shall prove hereafter. 
 
 Admitting then that Henry, Somerset, &c. were justly 
 accused of crimes, the reformation which they promoted may, 
 in itself, have been a just and necessary work ; and it would 
 have been irrational and wrong in the church of England to 
 have refused all consideration of subjects proposed to her ex- 
 amination or approbation by the royal authority, and to refuse 
 her sanction to reforms in themselves laudable, merely because 
 the character of the king or his ministers was unsaintly, and 
 
 d Confess. August, pars i. sect. 22; pars ii. Prologue; and Epilogus.
 
 CHAP, i.] Suppression of Monasteries. 329 
 
 his or their private motives suspected to be wrong. Such 
 conduct on the part of the church would have been needlessly 
 offensive to temporal rulers, while it would (in the supposed 
 case) have been actually injurious to the cause of religion, and 
 an uncharitable judgment of private motives. It must be re- 
 membered, that although Henry and the protector Somerset 
 may have been secretly influenced by avarice, revenge, or 
 other evil passions, they never made them public. They 
 avowed as their reasons for supporting reformation, the desire 
 of removing usurpations, establishing the ancient rights of the 
 church and the crown, correcting various abuses prejudicial to 
 true religion ; and therefore the church could not refuse to 
 take into consideration the specific objects of Reformation pro- 
 posed by them to her examination or sanction. 
 
 Nor does the justification of the church of England in any King's 
 degree depend on the question of the lawfulness of Henry's marria S e - 
 marriage with Catherine of Arragon, or with Anna Boleyn ; 
 such matters, as Bossuet observes, " are often regulated by 
 mere probabilities 6 ," and there were at least abundant pro- 
 babilities that the marriage with Catherine was null ab initio f ; 
 but this whole question only affects the character of Henry 
 VIII. and of those immediately engaged in it; it does not 
 affect the Reformation of the church of England. 
 
 .We have an equal right to set aside the question of the Monaste- 
 suppression of monasteries. That suppression may perhaps "' 
 show that some temporal promoters of the Reformation had 
 temporal motives. We do not deny it. All we insist upon is, 
 that the church of England is not to be made responsible for 
 those motives. She never was invited to approve their avarice 
 or other evil passions. She herself suffered from that avarice, 
 just as the French, the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese churches 
 have suffered under the extortions or confiscations of their 
 temporal rulers. It must be confessed, however, that in Eng- 
 
 e Variations, liv. vii. 50. otherwise contrary to his law : e g. 
 
 { It is not denied by any one, that the destruction of the Canaanites. 
 
 the marriage with Catherine was The hishops and convocations of 
 
 within the limits prohibited by the England, the universities of Oxford, 
 
 book of Leviticus ; and though God Cambridge, Paris, Orleans, Angiers, 
 
 himself enjoined such a marriage, Bourges, Toulouse, Bologna, Padua, 
 
 in case of a brother's death without c. and a multitude of theologians, 
 
 issue, we must remember that his judged that any human dispensation 
 
 express command is sufficient to au- in this case was null, 
 thorize proceedings which would be
 
 S30 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 land, as well as in other countries, the clergy viewed without 
 any extreme regret the extinction of the various orders of 
 monks and friars, which (though in some things commendable) 
 had extremely degenerated from the purity of the ancient rule, 
 interfered with the unity and discipline of the church, and 
 sustained the most extravagant pretensions of the Roman 
 pontiffs, subversive of the liberties of churches. In modern 
 times we have seen the monasteries suppressed in almost all 
 the countries subject to the Roman see. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ON THE ABOLITION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION, AND 
 THE SCHISM. 
 
 THE objections advanced against the abolition of the papal 
 jurisdiction in England are, that it was effected by Henry VIII. 
 in revenge for the refusal of the Roman pontiff to sanction his 
 marriage with Anna Boleyn ; that it was carried by false argu- 
 ments ; that the papal jurisdiction having existed since the 
 foundation of Christianity in England, it was schismatical to 
 remove it ; and that the church of England then separated 
 herself from the catholic church, and from Christian unity. 
 
 ^' Now, as I have a l rea( ty observed, the private motives of 
 King Henry were not matters on which the church of England 
 could judge. His public professions were unexceptionable. 
 According to them he was influenced by a desire of reforming 
 abuses, reviving usurped rights, and relieving the church and 
 state from foreign oppressions and exactions. The church of 
 England was then bound to examine the question of the 
 abolition of the papal jurisdiction on its own merits ; and if 
 she was convinced that abolition was right and advisable, she 
 was justified in acquiescing in the various laws of the civil 
 powers, made for that purpose. Let us examine those laws. 
 s The various acts of parliament made in England, against 
 
 sion of certain parts of the papal power, all relate to the various
 
 CHAP, ii.] Suppression of the Papal Jurisdiction. 331 
 
 branches of ordinary jurisdiction over the church of England, 
 which had been gradually acquired ; and which in no degree 
 concerned the general position of the Roman see in the church 
 at large. The learned primate Bramhall has observed, that 
 these acts were not intended to deprive the Roman pontiff of 
 any spiritual power, instituted by Christ, or by the catholic 
 church a . They did not deny the precedence of the bishop of 
 Rome over other bishops, nor his right of presiding in general 
 councils, nor his right to exhort all bishops to observe the 
 canons, nor his being the centre of catholic unity when he is in 
 communion with all the catholic church, nor the lawfulness of 
 his jurisdiction within his own patriarchate. None of these 
 things were denied by the acts of parliament for abolishing 
 the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman see in England ; and 
 therefore Romanists cannot impute schism or heresy to the 
 church of England on this account b . 
 
 The several acts of parliament alluded to, are concerning 
 Annates, Bulls, Appeals, and Dispensations. 
 
 ANNATES. In 1532 it was enacted, that annates, or first- 
 fruits, and all other pecuniary payments for bulls, pensions, 
 and annuities, to the Roman see, should entirely cease c ; and 
 this act having been in vain suspended from execution, in order 
 that the pope might redress those exactions, it was confirmed 
 by another act in 1533, which ordered that no person from 
 henceforward should pay any money for annates, first-fruits, or 
 otherwise for any bulls, briefs, or palls. It was also enacted, 
 that no one should pay any pensions, censes, portions, PeterV 
 pence, or other impositions, to the use of the bishop of Rome d . 
 
 No one can pretend that there was any schism or heresy 
 in the suppression of these pecuniary payments or taxes, which 
 being of an entirely temporal nature, could never have been 
 lawfully levied without the consent of the civil magistrate. 
 They were generally too of comparatively recent imposition. 
 Thomassin, presbyter of the Oratory, proves that annates 
 
 a Bramhall, Works, p. 340. vii. No one pretends that patriar- 
 b It is not meant of course that chal jurisdiction is de jure Divino, 
 any of these privileges of the Roman and it will be shown that the Roman 
 see were of Divine institution. That patriarchate does not canonically ex- 
 the see of Rome has no primacy by tend to England. 
 Divine right, and that it has never c Act 23 Hen. VIII. for the re- 
 possessed de facto or dejure universal pression of Annates, &c. 
 jurisdiction, will be proved in Part d Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 20.
 
 332 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 began to be exacted by Boniface IX. about 1392 e , and they 
 were enforced by a refusal of the bulls of nomination to bene- 
 fices or sees. They had been suppressed by the edict of 
 Charles VI. king of France, in 1406, 1417, and 1418 f . They 
 had been again suppressed by Louis XL in 1463 and 1464 g ; 
 and what is more, they had been already prohibited in England, 
 by act of parliament, in the reign of Henry IV. h Even now, 
 in Austria, annates are not allowed to be paid, except in the 
 case of newly- created bishops 1 . Pensions began to be fixed 
 on benefices, by the popes for their cardinals, or for the Roman 
 court, about the same time that annates arose k ; and PeterV 
 pence were alms which the kings of England had very long 
 been accustomed to pay to the see of Rome \ but which there 
 could be no religious obligation on them to continue. There- 
 fore in all this enactment there was nothing to which the 
 church of England could rightly object. 
 
 BULLS. In 1532 it was enacted, as above, that no one 
 should pay any money for bulls, or papal letters of institution 
 to bishoprics ; and that if those bulls were refused, the bishop 
 elect should be consecrated in England without them ; and the 
 law which confirmed this in 1533, enacted that no one in 
 future should be presented to the pope for any see, nor send 
 or procure any bulls, briefs, or palls there m . 
 
 The necessity of papal bulls, even for archbishoprics, was 
 only founded on the laws of the Roman pontiffs, collected by 
 Gregory IX. in the Decretals" ; for it is well known, that for 
 many centuries the metropolitans were confirmed and ordained 
 by the provincial synods of bishops ; but these laws derived 
 their authority in England entirely from the consent or per- 
 mission of the catholic church here p . The English bishops, 
 
 e Thomassinus, Vetus et Nova m Act 23 Hen. VIII. for repres- 
 
 Ecclesise Disciplina, t. iii p. 447. sion of annates, and 25 Hen. VIII. 
 
 f Thomassin. ibid. p. 449- c. 20. for the non-payment of first- 
 
 * Ibid. 453. fruits to the bishop of Rome. 
 
 h Bramhall, Works, p. 336. n Thomassin. torn. iii. p. 430. 
 
 1 Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. De Marca, De Concord. Sacerd. 
 
 Eccl. Austriaci. See Report of Select et Imperii, lib. iv. c. 4. Thomassin. 
 
 Commitee on Regulation of Roman torn. ii. p. 426, &c. 
 
 Catholics, A. D. 1816. p The canon law was only partially 
 
 k Thomassin. iii. p. 355, 356. received in England. Bramhall, 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 109 In the time of Works, p. 72, 328. Even the laws 
 Edward III. Peter's-pence were not of general synods, in matters of dis- 
 allowed to be collected in England, cipline, are not obligatory in parti- 
 Soames' Hist. Refor. i. p. 431. cular churches until they are received
 
 CHAP, ii.] Suppression of the Papal Jurisdiction. 333 
 
 as Thomassin proves, were, so late as 1373, confirmed and 
 ordained by their metropolitans, and not by papal bulls q . 
 The custom of obtaining bulls for newly-elected bishops arose 
 entirely from the papal reservations or usurpations of the 
 patronage of all bishoprics during the great western schism r ; 
 and they were continued afterwards by concordates between 
 sovereigns and the Roman see, who divided the spoils of the 
 church. That they may be dispensed with by the authority of 
 particular churches, we may conclude from the synod of Ems 
 in Germany, A. D. 1 785, which declared, that if the pope refused 
 to confirm the bishops, they would find resources in the ancient 
 discipline 8 . The commission of cardinals, archbishops, and 
 bishops, instituted by the Emperor Napoleon in 1811, acknow- 
 ledged that a National Council of France could order that 
 bishops should be instituted by the metropolitan or senior 
 bishop instead of the pope, in case of urgent circumstances * ; 
 and when the Roman bishop had for a long time refused to 
 institute bishops in Portugal, the Portuguese applied to the 
 Gallican church to intercede with the pontiff on their behalf, 
 and in case of failure to consecrate their bishops. And accord- 
 ingly the Gallican bishops intimated to the Roman bishop, that 
 in case of his continued refusal, they would supply his defect, 
 and consecrate the Portuguese bishops u . Therefore it is plain 
 that bulls from the Roman see may be dispensed with by par- 
 ticular churches, when there is a sufficient reason, e. g. the 
 desire and injunction of the supreme temporal power, and the 
 long continuance of abuses and exactions connected with them. 
 
 The necessity of obtaining a pall from Rome for the exercise Palls. 
 of metropolitan jurisdiction was founded on the spurious decre- 
 tals to which Gregory VII. and the succeeding bishops of 
 Rome appealed, in justification of their claims on this point x . 
 Innocent III. interdicted all metropolitans from exercising any 
 functions till they had received the pall y ; but this regulation 
 could not have been obligatory on the church of England at 
 
 there ; e. g. the discipline of the > Thomassin. torn. ii. p. 430. 
 
 Council of Trent has never been r Thomassin. iii. p. 393. 
 
 universally received. It was one of ' Memoires pour servir a 1'bistoire 
 
 the liberties of the Gallican church, Eccl. xviii e siecle, torn. iii. p. 60 65. 
 
 that the pontiff could not derogate ' Ibid. 523 530. 
 
 from the laws or customs of pro- " Bramhall's Works, p. 111. 
 
 vinces, or the lawful privileges of * Thomassinus, torn. i. p. 379. 
 
 particular churches. Bailly, Tract. y Ibid, 
 de Eccl. Christi, torn, ii, p. 20y.
 
 334 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 any time, except by her own consent and permission, and. 
 therefore she was perfectly at liberty to withdraw that permis- 
 sion whenever she judged it expedient so to do. For the pall 
 itself was merely an external ensign of honour, which the arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury had originally received as a compliment 
 from the Roman see, and which was understood to give those 
 who possessed it a portion of the authority of that apostolical 
 see z . But it was so many ages before the use of the pall 
 became common among metropolitans 3 , that it is plain there 
 could be no absolute necessity for obtaining it. 
 
 APPEALS. In 1532 it was enacted that all causes concern- 
 ing wills, matrimony, and divorce, the rights of tithes, obla- 
 tions, and obventions, should be determined within the realm 
 of England by the proper ecclesiastical tribunals b ; and in 
 1533 it was enacted that no manner of appeals shall be made 
 to the bishop of Rome, but that all causes shall be deter- 
 mined in England c . According to Fleury, Du Pin, and Van 
 Espen, the custom of direct and indiscriminate appeals to 
 Rome was introduced by the false decretals d . Various Roman 
 theologians hold that all appeals to Rome, even in the causes 
 of bishops, are of human institution 6 . Du Pin shows that 
 many churches terminated their ecclesiastical causes them- 
 selves f . The African church prohibited expressly all appeals 
 to Rome g ; and the English had just as much power. Even 
 in the last century (1 788) Leopold, grand duke of Tuscany, 
 abolished all appeals to Rome, and determined the tribunals in 
 which all ecclesiastical causes should be decided h ; and the 
 
 z Ibid. p. 369. e De la Hogue, Tractatus de Ec- 
 
 a Palls were first given to the clesia, p. 382 ; Bouvier, De Vera 
 
 metropolitans of France, in the time Ecclesia, p. 323. The fabrication 
 
 of Boniface (the eighth century). of false decretals to sustain this pre- 
 
 Thomassin. torn. i. p. 370. They tension is developed by M. de Hon- 
 
 were only gradually given to other theim in his Febronius, chapter iv. 
 
 metropolitans afterwards ; and the sect. viii. 
 
 popes declared, at length, that they f Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Disci- 
 were essential to the exercise of the plina, p. 130, 131. 
 metropolitan jurisdiction. Fleury, Inst. au Droit Eccl. 
 b Act 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. torn. ii. p. 206; Van Espen, Trac- 
 c Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 19. tatus Historico-Canonicus in Ca- 
 d Fleury, Discours IV. sur 1'Hist. nones, &c. torn. v. oper. p. 62, &c.; 
 Eccl. et Institution au Droit Eccl. Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Dis- 
 tom. ii. c. 23. p. 206 ; Du Pin, De cipl. torn. ii. p. 47. 
 Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 132, &c. ; h Mem. Eccl. xviii e siecle, torn. 
 Van Espen, Jus Ecclesiasticum Uni- iii. p. 107. 
 versum, pars iii. tit. x. c. i.
 
 CHAP, ii.] Suppression of the Papal Jurisdiction. 335 
 
 king of Naples also prohibited appeals '. In Austria, France, 
 Spain, and other countries, no appeal is allowed to the Roman 
 pontiff, except for the purpose of procuring a re-hearing of the 
 cause in those countries k ; which is very different from sending 
 causes to be tried before Roman tribunals. The Roman bishop 
 was given this privilege of desiring a re-hearing by the synod 
 of Sardica, A.D. 341, but the decree of this synod was not for 
 many ages, and never generally, received in the church \ and 
 was only obligatory on the church of England by her own 
 choice and consent, which she might withdraw at any time on 
 a sufficient reason being assigned. 
 
 DISPENSATIONS. It was enacted in 1533 that no one shall 
 hereafter sue to the bishop of Rome for licences, dispensations, 
 compositions (for annates), faculties, grants, rescripts (all re- 
 lating to the institution to benefices), delegacies (in ecclesias- 
 tical causes), or any other instruments or writings m . I have 
 already spoken of all the points here mentioned, except dispen- 
 sations and licences. According to Thomassin, they were ori- 
 ginally granted by all bishops n ; but gradually in the tenth and 
 following centuries they were allowed to devolve to, or were 
 usurped by, the Roman pontiffs . The facility with which they 
 were granted for money excited just complaints, and enervated 
 the discipline of the church. The evils arising from this afforded 
 a sufficient reason for the limitation of the power of dispensa- 
 tion in future to English prelates p , who would naturally feel 
 more deeply interested in the preservation of discipline amongst 
 us than the Roman court, which viewed this power chiefly as a 
 means of supplying its pecuniary necessities. In fact, papal 
 dispensations have been abolished in several other countries. 
 All papal dispensations for marriage were abolished by the 
 emperor Joseph II. in his dominions' 1 ; the synod of Ems, in 
 1785, declared that all bishops should dispense, even in cases 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 120, 121. cerning Peter-pence and dispensa- 
 
 k Fleury, Discours XII. sur les tions. 
 
 Libertes de PEglise Gall. n Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. torn. 
 
 1 Du Pin, De Antiqua Ecclesia? ii. p. 606. 
 
 Disciplina, p. 113. The Second Ibid. 607610. 
 
 Dissertation of Du Pin, p. 93 116, p The power of granting dispen- 
 
 &c. treats of the whole subject of sations is reserved to the primate of 
 
 appeals to the Roman see most ex- England, 
 
 cellently well. q Mem. Eccl. xviii 6 siecle, torn. 
 
 >n Act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. con- hi. p. 20, 21.
 
 336 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 reserved to the pope r ; and in Austria all papal absolutions in 
 reserved cases are disallowed ; and all licences granted by the 
 pope to bishops are held null by the Austrian laws s . 
 Papal ju- In the suppression of these various branches of jurisdiction, 
 risdiction there was nothing which the church of England was in any 
 abolished, degree bound to oppose ; her own rights were not infringed by 
 these acts of parliament, they were, on the contrary, rather 
 restored and confirmed ; and no privilege which belonged to the 
 Roman see, either by primitive custom or by the grant ofcecw- 
 vnenical synods, was interfered with. Therefore the church of 
 England offered no opposition to these legal enactments. The 
 bishops and other prelates in parliament acquiesced in them ; 
 and, in fine, when the question was proposed soon after to the 
 bishops and clergy of England, in the provincial synods of Can- 
 terbury and York, " Whether the bishop of Rome has, in the 
 holy Scripture, any greater jurisdiction in the realm of England 
 than any other foreign bishop," they determined that he had 
 not *. The universities concurred in this judgment u . The 
 various chapters, and the convents of regulars, mendicants, 
 &c., throughout the kingdom, also declared their assent x ; and 
 only one bishop (Fisher, of Rochester) refused to unite in this 
 general decision of the church of England. Thus the ordinary 
 jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs, which had been either con- 
 ferred by ourselves or usurped by them, was regularly and 
 validly suppressed. 
 
 Had the Roman see even legitimately acquired jurisdiction 
 in England, the church would not have acted schismatically in 
 acquiescing in the regulations made by the temporal powers. 
 This is evident from the parallel case of the churches in Illyri- 
 cum and Sicily, which were removed from the jurisdiction of 
 the see of Rome by the emperor Leo Isaurus, in the eighth 
 
 r See the account of this synod in was instituted by God in Scripture. 
 
 Mem. Eccl xviii e siecle, torn. iii. It was not contended that it was 
 
 p. 60 65 ; and all its Acts in the handed down merely by tradition. 
 
 Report of Committee on Roman See Episcopacy Vindicated, &c. 
 
 catholics (1816), p. 146, &c. p. 9496. 
 
 8 Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. u Burnet, p. 159. Rec. n. 27; 
 
 Austriaci, 1 809. Collier, ii. Rec. xxvii. 
 
 1 Burnet, Hist. Reform, vol. iii. * See Rymer, Fcedera, torn. xiv. 
 
 p. 158, 159 (Oxford ed. 1816). Re- p. 487 527, where the documents 
 
 cords, no. 26 ; Collier, ii. 94. The are preserved. Burnet, vol. iii. Rec. 
 
 question at that time turned entirely n. 28. 
 on whether the papal jurisdiction
 
 CHAP, ii.] Suppression of the Papal Jurisdiction. 337 
 
 century ; and yet no one ever accused these churches of 
 schism ; and their bishops sat without any dispute in synods 
 which the Roman see acknowledges as oecumenical y . But the 
 Roman see had not legitimately acquired jurisdiction in Eng- 
 land ; that jurisdiction had been usurped, in contradiction to 
 the decrees of the oecumenical synods z and the sacred canons ; 
 and even the injunctions of the ancient Roman pontiffs obliged 
 and compelled the English church, as a matter of most solemn 
 duty, to remove the papal usurpations a . 
 
 II. Bossuet attempts to prove that they argued falsely in 
 suppressing the papal jurisdiction. It was argued from Gre- 
 gory the Great's rejection of the title of universal bishop, that 
 at the time when our ancestors received the faith the authority 
 of the Roman see was in a laudable moderation ; which Bossuet 
 endeavours to refute by adducing passages from Gregory's 
 writings claiming an extensive jurisdiction 15 . Now, without 
 discussing the argument in question, we may safely allow that 
 this and several other arguments then employed may not be 
 convincing, because they are only a few out of a multitude of 
 arguments derived from Scripture, the doctrine and practice of 
 the catholic church in all ages, the decrees of general councils, 
 and the history of particular churches c , which altogether form 
 a body of evidence amply sufficient to justify the decision of 
 the church. To accuse us of deciding on wrong principles 
 because some one or two unsound arguments may have found 
 their way amidst a number of good ones, is surely most unrea- 
 sonable and unjust. 
 
 III. It is further argued, that the papal jurisdiction having its aboli- 
 existed in England ever since Christianity had been introduced il0 * no * 
 
 o J . schismati- 
 
 by its means, it was an act of ingratitude and of schism to dis- cal. 
 turb so ancient a privilege. But, as it has been already ob- 
 served, this jurisdiction had risen many ages after the founda- 
 tion of the church of England, by usurpation, and in contra- 
 diction to the canons d . Whatever acts of jurisdiction were 
 
 * See Episcopacy Vindicated, &c. itself was : " Quod pro necessitate 
 sect. xii. temporis statutum est, cessante ne- 
 
 * Ibid. sect. viii. ix. cessitate debet cessare pariter. 1 qu. 
 a Ibid. sect. vii. viii. 1. quod de necessitate." According 
 b Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. s. to the same canon law, long custom 
 
 62. does not create a privilege. Dist. c. 
 
 c Burnet, vol. i. p. 251 261. contra morem; 64 di. quia; 9 qu. 
 
 A The principle of the canon law 3 conquestus. 
 
 VOL. I. Z
 
 338 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 performed by Gregory the Great and his immediate successors, 
 in relation to the churches founded by St. Augustine, were 
 extraordinary acts, only justified by necessity, and by the 
 power inherent in every catholic bishop ; but did not flow from 
 any ordinary jurisdiction over our churches e . And in fine, we 
 were not exclusively or originally indebted to Rome for our 
 Christianity, the church having existed here for several centu- 
 ries before the arrival of St. Augustine, and the Anglo-Saxons 
 even having been converted for the most part by holy bishops 
 and missionaries from Ireland. 
 
 IV. It is attempted to prove the church of England schis- 
 matical by alleging that the abolition of the papal jurisdiction 
 was, ipso facto, a separation from the centre of catholic unity. 
 But even admitting (what we deny) that the Eoman see is the 
 centre of unity by divine appointment, the abolition of its 
 usurped jurisdiction in England by no means indicated a desire 
 on our part to separate from its communion. Churches may 
 surely hold fraternal communion without pretending to exercise 
 jurisdiction over each other. The church of England most 
 certainly did not design to separate from the communion of 
 any church of Christ ; we defy our adversaries to adduce a 
 single valid proof of such an intention. She held that the 
 Roman see had no right to complain of the suppression of its 
 jurisdiction f ; and if the popes and their subjects considered 
 us schismatics, under an erroneous opinion that it was neces- 
 sary for every church to be obedient to the successor of Peter 
 at Rome, this was to be lamented, but it could not render the 
 catholic church of these realms schismatical. 
 
 V. It may be alleged that the removal of the bishop of 
 Rome's name from the ritual offices of the church was an act 
 of schism, implying separation from the rest of the church. 
 This removal was not for the purpose of insulting the Roman 
 bishop, or rejecting his communion ; it followed as a necessary 
 consequence on the suppression of his jurisdiction ; for had 
 especial prayer been continued for him under the designation 
 of " pope," which had been connected with the notion of his 
 supreme jurisdiction, it could not have failed to be construed 
 into a tacit admission of that authority which had been re- 
 
 e See Part VII. chap. vii. ; and i See the Letter of Bishop Tun- 
 Episcopacy Vindicated, sect. ix. stall, which will be presently cited.
 
 CHAP, ii.] The Church of England did not separate. 339 
 
 moved, and would have tended to foster in the minds of the 
 ignorant a notion so subversive of the character and due autho- 
 rity of the church. 
 
 VI. But further, I deny absolutely that the English church English 
 
 did, either in fact or in intention, separate herself from the 1 
 
 communion of the rest of the catholic church ; she did not rate. 
 even excommunicate any other western churches ; none of 
 their clergy or people were refused communion by her ; she 
 recognized them as churches of Christ, and acknowledged that 
 it was the duty of their people to remain united to them. 
 Henry VIII. himself never intended to separate from the 
 church. These facts shall be proved forthwith. 
 
 We find in the " Institution of a Christian Man," approved 
 by twenty-one archbishops and bishops in 1537 (several years 
 after the abolition of the papal jurisdiction), the following pas- 
 sage : " Therefore I do believe that the church of Rome is not, 
 nor cannot worthily be called, the catholic church, but only a 
 particular member thereof, and cannot challenge or vindicate of 
 right, and by the word of God, to be head of this universal 
 church, or to have any superiority over the other churches of 
 Christ which be in England, France, Spain, or in any other 
 realm. . . . And I believe, also, that the said church of Rome, 
 with all the other particular churches in the world, compacted 
 and united together, do make and constitute but one catholic 
 church or body g ." This bears the signatures, among others, of 
 Cranmer, Latimer, Shaxton, Bradford, May, and Cox, who 
 were all warm supporters of a reformation in the church. 
 
 The " Necessary Doctrine and Erudition V approved by the 
 bishops of England, 1543, acknowledges the particular churches 
 of England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Home, to be 
 parts of the catholic church, " notwithstanding that among 
 them is great distance of place, diversity of traditions, not in 
 all things unity of opinions, alteration in rites, ceremonies, and 
 ordinances, or estimation of the same, as one church perad- 
 venture doth esteem their rites, traditions, laws, ordinances, 
 and ceremonies to be of more force and efficacy than another 
 church doth esteem the same." It is added, that these parti- 
 cular churches are "members of the whole catholic church, 
 
 "The Institution of a Christian Oxford, 1825. 
 Man," p. 55; Formularies of Faith, h Ibid. p. 247- 
 
 z 2
 
 840 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 and each of them by himself is also worthily called a catholic 
 church, when they merely profess and teach the faith and reli- 
 gion of Christ, according to Scripture and the apostolic doc- 
 trine. And so every Christian man ought to honour, give 
 credence, and follow the particular church of that region so 
 ordered (as afore) wherein he is born or inhabiteth V It is 
 obvious, then, that the sole intention was, to suppress the 
 novel or usurped jurisdiction of the Roman bishop, not to 
 separate from his communion, or from that of the other western 
 churches. 
 
 That Henry VIII. did not design to separate from the rest 
 of the church, appears by his protest against the council 
 called to assemble at Mantua, A.D. 1536, in which he declared 
 that he most heartily desired a true general council, and that 
 he would preserve all the articles of the faith in his kingdom k . 
 And it is further confirmed by the learned and excellent letter 
 written by Tunstall, bishop of Durham, by the king's desire, 
 to cardinal Pole, dated 33th July, 1536, where he speaks 
 thus: 
 
 " In all your book, your purpose is to bring the king's 
 grace by penance home unto the church again, as a man clearly 
 separate from the same already. And his recess from the 
 church ye prove not otherwise than by the fame and common 
 opinion of those parts, who be far from the knowledge of the 
 truth of our affairs here," &c. ..." Ye presuppose for a 
 ground the king's grace to be swerved from the unity of Christ's 
 church, and that in taking upon him the title of supreme head 
 of the church of England, he intendeth to separate his church 
 of England from the unity of the whole lody of Christendom ; 
 taking upon him the office belonging unto spiritual men, 
 grounded in the Scripture, of immediate cure of souls, and 
 attribute to himself that belongeth to priesthood, as to preach 
 and teach the word of God, and to minister the sacraments ; 
 and that he doth not know what belongeth to a Christian king's 
 office, and what unto priesthood ; wherein surely both you and 
 all others so thinking of him do err too far," &c. ..." His 
 full purpose and intent is, to see the laws of Almighty God 
 purely and sincerely preached and taught, and Christ's faith 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 248. 400. See Collier, vol. ii. Rec. 38. 
 
 k Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. i. p.
 
 CHAP, ii.] Tlie Church of England did not separate. 341 
 
 without blot kept and observed in his realm ; and not to 
 separate himself or his realm any wise from the unity of Christ' 's 
 catholic church, but inviolably, at all times, to keep and observe 
 the same ; and to redeem his church of England out of all 
 captivity of foreign powers heretofore usurped therein, into the 
 Christian state that all churches of all realms were in the 
 beginning, and to abolish and clearly put away such usurpations 
 as heretofore in this realm the bishops of Rome have, by many 
 undue means, increased to their great advantage," &c. . . . 
 " Wherefore since the king's grace goeth about to reform his 
 realm and reduce the church of England into that state that 
 both this realm and all others were in at the beginning of the 
 faith, and many hundred years after ; if any prince or realm 
 will not follow him, let them do as they list ; he doth nothing 
 but stablisheth such laws as were in the beginning, and such 
 as the bishop of Home professeth to observe. Wherefore neither 
 the bishop of Home himself nor other prince ought of reason to be 
 miscontent herewith V 1 
 
 This proves sufficiently that neither the church of England, 
 nor king Henry VIII. , had any notion of separating them- 
 selves from the communion of the rest of Christendom when 
 they removed the papal jurisdiction, which they justly held to 
 be an usurpation altogether unsupported by the W ord of God, 
 or by the laws of the church. They did not condemn other 
 churches which were unable to remove the Roman jurisdiction, 
 or correct abuses m ; but they held themselves justified in re- 
 suming the exercise of those rights and liberties which they 
 had in the beginning, and which the canons of general councils 
 supported. Nothing could be more reasonable, or more con- 
 sistent with the unity and due authority of the catholic church ; 
 but it was considered by the Roman see, and its adherents, as 
 an act of schism a revolt because they were imbued with the 
 modern opinion, that it was necessary to salvation to be subject 
 to the bishop of Rome. Their mistaken opinion, however, was 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. iii. Records, 52. p. church out of the king's majesty's 
 
 160163. dominions;" so careful even were 
 
 m Even the act of parliament 1 the parliaments not to violate the 
 
 Edw. VI. c. 1, establishing the ad- unity of the church. It should be 
 
 ministration of the Eucharist in both added, that this act is attributed to 
 
 kinds, on the ground of Christ's in- the pen of Cranmer, Archbishop of 
 
 stitution and primitive practice, adds Canterbury. Le Bas' Cranmer, i. 
 
 the following words: "Not con- 293. 
 demning hereby the usage of any
 
 342 . The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 not the judgment of the catholic church ; and, however we may 
 lament it, and make some allowance for their mistake, we were 
 in no degree bound to submit to it. 
 
 Neither does it appear, by any evidence, that the church of 
 England afterwards, during the Reformation, separated herself 
 from any other western churches, or refused to acknowledge 
 them as parts of the catholic church. The separation was on 
 their side, not on ours, as we shall see. 
 No obliga- VIL it ma y be objected that this church was schismatical, 
 
 tion to at- . . J J . 
 
 tend the in refusing to send bishops to attend the general council of 
 
 Trent Trent, where the other churches of Europe were assembled by 
 representation. In reply, I ask whether the Gallican church 
 was schismatical in refusing, till the year 1562, to send bishops 
 to Trent n ? Was the German church schismatical, from 1 545 
 to 1563, in not receiving during that time the decrees of the 
 synod, or acknowledging it as oecumenical ? Were the Gal- 
 lican, German, and English churches schismatical, in sending 
 no bishops to the council of Florence p ? 
 
 I maintain that national churches are not under any obliga- 
 tion to send representatives to synods summoned by the papal 
 authority, as the invariable practice of the western churches 
 sufficiently proves ; and certainly not if the temporal prince 
 withholds his permission. It was at this time unlawful to 
 depart from the kingdom without royal licence ; and the tem- 
 poral rulers, offended justly by the decree of excommunication 
 and deposal passed by the Roman pontiffs against Henry VIII.'', 
 and threatened against Elizabeth r , could not reasonably be 
 expected to give permission to obey the papal summons. 
 Besides this, it was evident that the council consisted chiefly 
 
 n Henry II., king of France, in same effect. Ibid. liv. 145, sect. 18, 
 
 1551 informed the bishops assem- &c. The legates, at the opening of 
 
 bled at Trent, that no French pre- the synod of Trent, 1562, were 
 
 late should be permitted to assist afraid to declare it a continuation 
 
 there ; and his ambassador formally of the former synod there, lest it 
 
 protested, in his name, against its should offend the Germans and 
 
 authority. Fleury, liv. 146, sect. French. Fleury, liv. 157, sect. 105. 
 
 120, 121. See BramhalPs Works, P Fleury, liv. 107, sect. 54. These 
 
 p. 110. churches acknowledged the rival 
 
 In 1547 the decrees of the synod synod of Basle. Fleury, 1. 107, 
 
 of Trent were not yet received sect. 71 : 108, sect. 50. 
 
 by the German nation. Fleury, i Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 
 
 Hist. Eccl. liv. 144, sect. 87. The 44? 9. 
 
 Interim, published in 1548, by r Ibid. vol. ii. p. 673. 
 Charles V., is another proof to the
 
 CHAP, ii.] The Church of England not Schismatical. 343 
 
 of creatures of the Roman pontiff, and that its cecumenicity 
 and authority was doubted or rejected, not only in England 
 and Ireland, but in France, Germany, Sweden, and other parts 
 of Europe, as well as by all the East ; and since, therefore, it 
 was not acknowledged as oecumenical by the great body of the 
 universal church, there could not be any sort of obligation to 
 attend it as such. 
 
 However, had this council really appeared ultimately deserv- 
 ing of approbation, the church of England still had the power 
 of confirming its decrees ; therefore there is no evidence of 
 schism in our not attending that synod. And if this church, 
 not acknowledging any of the sessions before 1562 (which had 
 also been rejected in many parts of the west), and having no 
 confidence in the proceedings at that time, made reformations 
 in doctrine and discipline independently, the same had been 
 recently done in the diet of Augsburgh 8 , and by the provincial 
 synods of Augsburgh and Mayence * in Germany, and in 
 France. The Colloquy of Poissy was convened by the queen 
 in 1561, with the intention of " providing in particular for the 
 kingdom of France, without the authority of the holy see and 
 the council u ;" and, accordingly, the prelates of France there 
 assembled, made regulations concerning discipline, and published 
 a confession of faith x . The synod of Trent itself, when it con- 
 sisted of forty or fifty bishops of Italy and Spain, decided 
 questions of doctrine without the concurrence of England, 
 Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Greece, 
 Syria, and all the rest of Asia and Africa. We had as much 
 right to determine questions in our national synods, as the 
 Italian and Spanish bishops had to act in their synod at Trent. 
 
 VIII. It is objected by Bossuet, that the principle on which The prin- 
 the whole Reformation of the church of England was conducted, *];,. 
 
 is schismatical ; viz. that every national church was a complete Reforma- 
 tion not 
 schisma- 
 
 1 The Interim, a formulary of forty-seven articles or decrees con- tical. 
 doctrine as well as discipline, was cerning doctrine, and fifty-seven con- 
 decreed by the Emperor Charles V. cerning reform of discipline. Ibid, 
 and the diet of Augsburgh, 1548. sect. 89, &c. 
 Fleury, liv. 145, sect. 20. u Bossuet, Variations, liv. ix. 
 
 * The provincial synod of Augs- sect. 90. 
 
 burgh, under Cardinal Otho, received * Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. 157, sect, 
 the Interim A. D. 1548. Fleury, 1. 35, 36. Many of the prelates assem- 
 145, sect. 37, &c. The synod of bled at Poissy were of opinion that 
 Mayence, in the same year, under communion in both kinds might be 
 the Archbishop of Mayence, made restored by a royal edict. Ibid. 37.
 
 344 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 body in itself, and might with the authority and concurrence 
 of its head and king, examine and reform errors and corrup- 
 tions in doctrine and worship. This, it is said, is a schisma- 
 tical principle, because it constitutes a principle of unity under 
 a temporal head, which the Gospel has not established ; and a 
 national church, in regulating its doctrines privately, and apart, 
 and without considering the doctrine of the rest of the church, 
 separates itself from the universal church, and renounces the 
 unity of faith and doctrine y . 
 
 In reply, I observe, first, that this principle introduces no 
 new species of unity in connecting the reformations of doctrine 
 and discipline with the sanction of the temporal ruler, because 
 this sanction was necessary to give them temporal and legal 
 force z . In no other respect did the church of England ever 
 deem their sanction necessary. 
 
 Secondly, it is admitted by our opponents, that provincial 
 and national synods have, by immemorial practice of the catholic 
 church, the right of condemning heresies and errors a , and of 
 correcting abuses of all kinds, in particular churches. Paul of 
 Samosata, Photinus, Sabellius, Arius, Eustathius, Apollinarius, 
 the Donatists, Pelagians, &c. were all condemned in particular 
 councils, in the first instance. The particular councils of Aries, 
 Orange, Carthage, Toledo, Gangra, &c. made judgments in 
 controversies of faith ; not to speak of more recent decisions of 
 the same kind. But, it is objected, these synods never acted 
 without regarding the church's faith : they sent their decrees 
 to other churches for confirmation b . We reply, first, that the 
 church of England cannot be proved to have despised the faith 
 of the church at large, nor to have made reformations in doc- 
 trine without properly considering it. It was the essential 
 principle of the English Reformation throughout, that the 
 doctrine and tradition of the catholic church of Christ, in all 
 ages, were to be obediently followed, as I shall make evident 
 hereafter. Even the parliament, which suppressed papal juris- 
 diction, declared, " that they did not hereby intend to vary 
 
 y Bossuet, Variations, vii. s. 68. s. 37. 
 
 z Thus the prelates of France, a Bossuet, Variations, vii. s. 69 ; 
 
 assembled at Poissy (A. D. 1561), and Defensio Declar. Cler. Galli- 
 
 petitioned the king to approve the can, lib. iii. c. 2. This point is well 
 
 regulations in discipline, and the treated by Laud, Conference, sect, 
 
 confession of faith, which they had 24, n. 4, 5. 
 agreed on. Fleury, Hist. 1. 157, b Bossuet, ibid.
 
 CHAP, ii.] Domestic Reformation not Schismatical. 345 
 
 from Christ's church, about the articles of the catholic faith of 
 Christendom c ." King Henry VIII. declared, A. D. 1536, that 
 *' while he lived, he would adhere to the faith and doctrine 
 which had always been embraced by the true and catholic 
 church d ." The church of England, in 1543, declared the 
 unity of the catholic church to consist chiefly in unity of 
 doctrine ; ,and that particular churches ought not to vary from 
 one another in the said doctrine, so accepted and allowed 6 . 
 And in 1562, the synod of London declared, that "the church 
 has authority in controversies of faith f . Accordingly, when 
 Cranmer appealed to a general council, against the judgment 
 of the Roman pontiff, his language was this : " I intend to 
 speak nothing against one holy catholic and apostolical church, 
 or the authority thereof, the which authority I have in great 
 reverence, and to whom my mind is in all things to obey g " . . . 
 and again : " I protest that it was never my mind to write, 
 speak, or understand any thing contrary to the most holy word 
 of God, or else against the holy catholic church of Christ b ." 
 But, while it is evident that the church of England did not act 
 without considering the doctrine of the church in all ages, still 
 the examples of ancient councils prove, that it was not neces- 
 sary to wait for the reformation of errors and abuses, until 
 the judgment of the existing universal church was made known 
 by means of an oecumenical council. Secondly, if the church of 
 England did not send her decrees of doctrine to other churches 
 for their approbation, the reason was, because this discipline 
 was obsolete in the church ; nor is there any evidence that it 
 was at any time universal. It had become customary to look 
 only to the see of Rome for sanction and confirmation of all 
 synods ; and in the absence of this sanction, it would have 
 been useless to send any decrees to the churches subject to 
 Rome for their approval. 
 
 IX. But it is suggested, the judgment of the universal 
 church might have been known without waiting for a general 
 council, by the decree of the pope, accepted by all the bishops 
 of the catholic church j . Now my reply to this is, that the 
 
 c Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. ' Article XX. 
 
 265. * Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, 
 
 d Collier, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. vol. iv. p. 121. 
 
 Rec. 38. h Ibid. 126, 127- 
 
 e Formularies of Faith, p. 246. ' Bossuet, Variations, vii. s. 70.
 
 346 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 judgment of the bishop of Rome alone would not, in the opinion 
 of the church of England, have been of greater authority than 
 that of her own provincial or national synods ; and the notion 
 of the papal decrees, in matters of doctrine, deriving infallibility 
 from the acceptance of all other bishops, was at that time 
 almost unknown k . Besides this, the bishop of Rome had 
 separated himself from our churches, and being gut of our 
 communion, we could not invite his co-operation. 
 
 Schism X. We are now to examine the question in another point 
 
 man party. f view, and having cleared the church of England from these 
 charges, to retort them on her adversaries. 
 
 The pretensions, exactions, and usurpations of the Roman 
 pontiffs in England and elsewhere, were evidently founded in 
 the unholy passions of ambition, avarice, and the pride of 
 earthly domination. They did not merely reason on false 
 principles in maintaining it, but made use of forgeries, acknow- 
 ledged to be such by the most enlightened of their own com- 
 munion \ and of temporal force, exciting insurrections against 
 the sovereigns who resisted it, depriving them of their domi- 
 nions, proclaiming crusades against them. Therefore the 
 origin of the Roman ordinary jurisdiction over particular 
 churches was unholy. 
 
 The principle of obedience to the Roman Pontiff, as the true 
 test of catholic unity, was a principle tending to schism. It was 
 never taught by the Gospel, and it was injurious to the catho- 
 lic communion of churches ; because it interrupted that com- 
 munion whenever any church refused to submit to the unjust 
 pretensions of the Roman see. This principle divided the 
 western from the eastern churches, as it afterwards separated 
 several of the western churches from the English church. 
 
 The principle of papal infallibility, maintained by the pon- 
 tiffs and their partizans, established a new tribunal, injurious 
 to the authority of the catholic church itself, by binding that 
 church to receive implicitly the decrees of a single bishop, 
 instead of judging them by the catholic doctrine ; and it tended 
 to schism, by obliging those who received it to believe, as mat- 
 
 k This notion seems to have been 1'Hist. Eccle'siastique; Hist. Eccl. 
 
 developed only in the Jansenistic 1. 44, n. 22 ; Du Pin, Bibliotheque ; 
 
 controversy. It was most certainly and especially Van Espen, Tractatus 
 
 not generally agreed on, even at Historico-CanonicusinCanones,&c. 
 
 that time, in the Roman obedience, pars iv. c. 1. Oper. torn. v. p. 123, 
 
 1 See Fleury, Discours IV. sur &c.
 
 CHAP, ii.] The Romish Sect Schismatical. 347 
 
 ters of faith, whatever the pontiffs decreed ; and therefore to 
 reject, as heretical, those churches which did not receive them. 
 
 The conduct of the Roman bishop was altogether inconsis- 
 tent with fraternal charity, in condemning the churches of 
 England as schismatical and heretical, for their suppression of 
 his jurisdiction in England, which had been either usurped or 
 had been derived from the same church which now withdrew 
 her commission. It was absolutely schismatical in the Roman 
 pontiffs to send missionaries to England and Ireland, to excite 
 divisions in these churches, and withdraw the people from the 
 obedience of their legitimate pastors. It was grievously schis- 
 matical to ordain bishops and clergy for the sects thus formed, 
 and to recognize them as churches of Christ, and to give or 
 encourage them to assume the name of catholic. Thus, in 
 relation to the church of England, the pontiffs were guilty of 
 the most irregular proceedings, and the most inconsistent with 
 the principles of fraternal charity that well can be imagined. 
 We know, indeed, and can make allowance for the opinions 
 relating to the Roman power then commonly prevalent ; and 
 therefore we do not involve in the charge of real schism all 
 who sanctioned these proceedings ; but the imputation of 
 actual, though not always of formal, schism, rests on all those 
 who took a part in exciting divisions and separations from the 
 catholic churches of these realms. 
 
 XI. Finally, the Romish party in these countries committed Romanists 
 schism in separating from the communion of the church, and 
 the obedience of their legitimate pastors, in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth. It is certain that during the reigns of Henry VIII. and 
 his successors, until the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign, there were not two separate communions and worships 
 in England. Except during the schismatical proceedings under 
 Mary, all the people were subject to the same pastors, attended 
 the same churches, and received the same sacraments. It was 
 only about 1570 that the Romish party, at the instigation of 
 foreign emissaries, openly separated itself and fell from the 
 catholic church of England ra . This is proved in many ways. 
 
 m I here speak of general and have occasionally attended the cele- 
 open separation from communion, bration of popish offices unsanc- 
 Without doubt the popish party tioned by the church ; and the schis- 
 had, all along, been disaffected to matical bishops and clergy expelled 
 the church, and schismatically dis- by Elizabeth probably did not re- 
 posed ; and some individuals may turn to the church ; but with these
 
 348 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 Lord Coke, in 1607, declared that, "generally all the papists 
 in this kingdom, not any of them did refuse to come to our 
 church, and yield their formal obedience to the laws estab- 
 lished. And thus they all continued, not any one refusing to 
 come to our churches during the first ten years of her majesty's 
 government. And in the beginning of the eleventh year of 
 her reign, Cornwallis, Bedingfield, and Silyarde, were the first 
 recusants, they absolutely refusing to come to our churches ; 
 and until they in that sort began, the name of recusant was 
 never heard of amongst us V Lord Coke asserted the same 
 in the trial of Henry Garnet, Jesuit, in 1606, when he said 
 that before the bull of Pius V., " in the eleventh year of the 
 queen, wherein her majesty was excommunicated and deposed, 
 and all they accursed who should yield any obedience to her, 
 .... there were no recusants in England, all came to church 
 (howsoever popishly inclined or persuaded in most points) to the 
 same divine service we now use ; but thereupon presently they 
 refused to assemble in our churches .... not for conscience of 
 any thing there done, against which they might justly except 
 out of the word of God ; but because the pope had excommu- 
 nicated and deposed her majesty, and cursed those who should 
 obey her ; and so upon this bull ensued open rebellion in the 
 north ." The Jesuit Garnet, in his reply, said he knew some 
 persons who before that bull refused to go to church all the 
 time of Queen Elizabeth, " though perhaps most ' catholics ' 
 did indeed go to church before." He pretended that it had 
 been declared unlawful to attend our churches, by certain theo- 
 logians at the synod of Trent p . To which Coke replied, that 
 this synod closed in the fifth year of Elizabeth, whereas the 
 Romish party in England continued to come to our churches 
 even till the nineteenth year of her reign q . And Parsons the 
 Jesuit, in his reply to Coke's reports, having asserted that some 
 individuals refused to attend the service of the church from the 
 beginning of that reign, adds : " I deny not but that many 
 
 few exceptions, the popish party did Coke's Reports, fifth part, p. 34, 35. 
 not separate themselves, and organ- Bramhall shows the treasonable 
 ize conventicles and sects, till the principles and conduct of the pa- 
 year 1570. pists during the remainder of Eliza- 
 
 n Coke, speech and charge at beth's reign. Works, p. 183 185. 
 
 Norwich Assizes, 1607. p Ibid. p. 249. 
 
 State Trials, vol. i. p. 242 (Trial 1 Ibid. p. 252. 
 of Henry Garnet, Jesuit). See also
 
 CHAP, ii.] The Romish, Sect SchismaticaL 349 
 
 other besides these, throughout the realm, though otherwise 
 * catholics ' in heart (as most then were), did at that time and 
 after, as also noic, either upon fear, or lack of better instruc- 
 tion, or both, repair to ' protestant ' churches r ." 
 
 But the fact is rendered, if possible, more certain by the 
 queen's instructions to Walsingham, her resident at the French 
 court (llth August, 1570), in which it is said of the heads of 
 the popish party, that " they did ordinarily resort, from the 
 beginning of her reign, in all open places, to the churches, and 
 to divine service in the church, without any contradiction or 
 show of misliking "." And about the same time a royal decla- 
 ration published in the Star-chamber, informs us, that although 
 some persons had been lately questioned by the council on 
 matters of religion, it had been occasioned by their own mis- 
 behaviour : " It was because they broke the laws, because they 
 declined coming to church, to common prayer and divine ser- 
 vice, as they had usually done for nine or ten years together V 
 After this it is needless to cite the concurrent testimony of 
 Bishop Lancelot Andrewes u , Dr. Heylin x , Archbishop Bram- 
 hall ?, &c. 
 
 The open separation of the papists, in fact, was caused by 
 the exhortations of the seminary priests whom Dr. Allen began 
 to send into England from his college at Rheims, in 1568 Z ; 
 and it was increased by the Jesuits who came under Parsons and 
 Campion, in 1580. It was at the instigation of these emissaries 
 of the papacy that so many of the people fell from the church, 
 and constituted conventicles apart. The schism, indeed, had 
 been commenced by the irregular expulsion of the legitimate pre- 
 lates in the reign of Mary, and the intrusion of schismatical 
 bishops, who persecuted the church. But this temporary evil 
 was removed by the expulsion of the schismatics on the acces- 
 sion of Queen Elizabeth, in 1558 ; and the adherents of Rome 
 did not openly separate themselves from the church till after 
 the year 1569, when Pius IV. deposed Queen Elizabeth and 
 excommunicated her and ah 1 her adherents. 
 
 r Parsons, Answer to the fifth of the preceding proofs I am in- 
 
 part of Sir E. Coke's Reports, p. debted to the kindness of a vene- 
 
 371. (1606.) rable man, whose learning and piety 
 
 Heylin, History of the Presby- shed lustre on this University, 
 
 terians, p. 260. r Works, p. 241, where he cites a 
 
 1 Collier, Eccl. History, ii. p. 524. contemporary tract, and also Cara- 
 
 n Andrewes, TorturaTorti, p. 130. den's History, to prove the fact 
 
 1 Heylin, ubi supra. For several ' Dodd, Church History, ii. p. 403.
 
 350 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 These Romanists were evidently schismatical, because they 
 voluntarily separated themselves from the original Christian 
 society of their locality, and from the apostolical succession of 
 its episcopacy, without any cause a ; for they could not convict 
 that society of apostacy from Christ, either by idolatry, heresy, 
 or schism. Idolatry they did not pretend to lay to its 
 charge ; and heresy and schism could not be imputed to a 
 society which had never rejected the Scriptures, the tradition 
 of the catholic church, or the judgment of the ecumenical 
 synods ; which had never voluntarily separated from the com- 
 munion of the universal church, or been condemned or excom- 
 municated by any judgment of the universal church. What 
 essential of the church had been lost in England ? The papal 
 supremacy and jurisdiction could not be essentials, because half 
 the Christian world had never received them ; communion 
 with the Roman see could not be an essential, because more 
 than half Christendom was without it; communion with all 
 nations could not be an essential, for Rome itself was not pos- 
 sessed of such a communion. The decisions of a council like 
 that of Trent, which was not received by the East, and which 
 was rejected by half the West, could not have sufficient autho- 
 rity to justify the separation of the Romanists from the Eng- 
 lish church, more especially when they had so long preserved 
 their external communion with that church, notwithstanding 
 her rejection of the synod of Trent. 
 
 In fine, supposing that some errors were received by certain 
 members of the church of England, they were not surely 
 greater than the errors and idolatries which were so generally, 
 and without censure, received in the Roman communion b . In 
 separating themselves, then, from the apostolical church in 
 England, and submitting themselves openly to the see of Rome, 
 Romanists could not plead as an excuse their zeal for Christian 
 truth or for sound religion. The communion which they pre- 
 ferred was so widely and manifestly tinged with error and 
 idolatry, that such an excuse would have been wholly unavail- 
 ing. If it was lawful to communicate with the church of 
 Rome, notwithstanding the errors of some of her members, 
 it was far more lawful to communicate with the church of 
 England. 
 
 a See above, p. 193, 194. b See above, p. 273, 274.
 
 CHAP, ii.] The Romish Sect not a Church. 351 
 
 On the whole, then, it is evident, that the separation was 
 the act of the Roman pontiffs and their adherents, not of the 
 churches among us. I repeat it, as a fact which ought never 
 to be forgotten, that WE DID NOT GO OUT FROM THEM, but, as 
 the apostle says, THEY WENT OUT FROM us c ; thus bearing 
 what is, as Bossuet well observes, the invariable mark of 
 schism and heresy in every age d : " Non enim nos ab illis, sed 
 illi a nobis recesserunt e ." 
 
 Hence it follows that the Romish communities in England Romish 
 are not churches of Christ ; and we have an additional proof t ; es not 
 of this in the fact, that they are unable to show any succession churches of 
 of the episcopacy in their conventicles. Had they been 
 satisfied that the English church was really heretical or 
 schismatical, they would have constituted bishops for the sees 
 occupied by the Anglo-catholic bishops. Their not doing so, 
 and not attempting to establish the episcopate amongst them- 
 selves, is a tacit confession of the legitimacy of the episcopacy 
 from which they separated. They have always remained with- 
 out bishops. The pope, indeed, sent a titular bishop to them 
 in 1625, whose successor went to France in 1629, and re- 
 turned no more f ; but up to the present time the Romish 
 community has not had any bishops, for although the vicars 
 apostolic (as they call themselves) pretend to the episcopal 
 character, this character is by no means essential to their 
 office g ; their successors may be priests or monks h , and they 
 have no ordinary power over the English Romanists, being 
 merely deputies of the Roman pontiff, who may revoke their 
 commissions, without any trial, at his own will and pleasure '. 
 Consequently as vicars-apostolic they have no episcopal jurisdic- 
 tion in England; and as titular bishops, " in partibus infidelium," 
 
 c 1 John ii. 19. proprius non existat." 
 
 d First Pastoral Instruction on h The Vicar Apostolic (so called) 
 
 the promises to the church. in Sweden is a priest. Parliamen- 
 
 e Cyprianus de Unitate. tary Report on Roman Catholic 
 
 f See Dodd's Church History. Subjects, 1816, p. 452. 
 
 * Benedict XIV. de Synodo Dio- ' In 1817 the papists of the Lon- 
 
 cesana, lib. ii. c. 10, where he says don district petitioned the Roman 
 
 they are " interdum quidem sine pontiff most earnestly not to re- 
 
 Episcopali charactere, interdum au- move Dr. Poynter from the situa- 
 
 tem hujusmodi charactere insigniti, tion of Vicar Apostolic ; to which 
 
 cum titulo tamen alicujus Ecclesiae he was pleased to reply, that he had 
 
 in partibus infidelium sitae, ut spiri- no intention of doing so. See Ro- 
 
 tuale regimen gerant alicujus re- man Cath. Magazine for 1817, p. 
 
 gionis, cujus episcopus et pastor 243.
 
 352 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 they have no jurisdiction any where. Therefore they are not, 
 properly speaking, bishops. Besides this, being schismatics 
 and separatists from their legitimate bishops, and having been 
 ordained priests without consent of those bishops, and in 
 opposition to their authority, they are irregular by the canons, 
 and incapable of promotion to the episcopate ; and when con- 
 secrated bishops, they are incapable of receiving jurisdiction ; 
 and being also consecrated schismatically in opposition to the 
 legitimate bishops, they are not bishops k . In fine, the ordina- 
 tions of Romanists are involved in very serious difficulties, by 
 the gross irregularities practised in the ordination of their pre- 
 tended bishops, without the assistance of the number of con- 
 secrators required by the canons of the universal church '. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY AND ACTS OF THE 
 CIVIL POWER DURING THE REIGNS OF HENRY VIII. AND 
 EDWARD VI. 
 
 IN considering the title of supreme head of the church of 
 England, given to Henry VIII. by the clergy of England, we 
 must be careful to distinguish the sense in which they allowed 
 it to the king, from any exaggerated and unsound meaning 
 which may have been affixed to it by courtiers or lawyers : 
 for the former only is the church of England responsible ; the 
 latter she is not concerned with. 
 
 Title of I. When it was proposed to the clergy of the Convocation 
 
 supreme o f Canterbury, to acknowledge the king supreme head of the 
 church and clergy of England, they refused to pass this title 
 simply and unconditionally ; and, after much discussion, the 
 king was at last obliged to accept it with a proviso, introduced 
 by the clergy, to the following effect : " Ecclesise et cleri 
 Anglicani singularem protectorem et unicum et suprernum 
 
 k See Episcopacy Vindicated ' See Part VI. chapter xi. 
 against Wiseman, sect. iii. xviii.
 
 CHAP. III.] 
 
 The Regal Supremacy. 
 
 353 
 
 dominum, et (quantum per Christi legem licet) etiam supremum 
 caput, ipsius majestatem recognoscimus a . v 
 
 To recognize the king as supreme head of the English 
 church, " as far as it is allowable by the law of Christ," 
 certainly was not to admit his right to interfere with the 
 spiritual jurisdiction of bishops, or with any of the laws, 
 liberties, doctrines, or rights of the church, established either 
 directly or indirectly by the law of Christ. The clergy of 
 England were entitled to believe that they had saved all the 
 spiritual rights of the church by this proviso b ; and, indeed, 
 we learn from Burnet, that " those who adhered to their 
 former notions," i. e. the church generally, " understood this 
 headship to be only a temporal authority in temporal mat- 
 ters ." I shall not here enter on the general question of 
 the authority of the crown in ecclesiastical affairs, which will be 
 discussed elsewhere d ; but it is admitted by the theologians 
 and canonists of the Roman obedience, that Christian kings 
 have generally a supreme power of external direction in such 
 matters*. It has been shown by our writers that the kings of 
 
 a Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 725 ; Bur- 
 net, Hist. Refor. vol. iii. p. 9092, 
 and vol. i. p. 205 ; Collier, vol. ii. 
 p. 62. The author of the Antiqui- 
 tates Britannia; (attributed to Parker) 
 incorrectly states that the proposed 
 qualification, " quantum per Christi 
 legem licet," was left out finally. 
 
 b This proviso is always to be un- 
 derstood in any subsequent mea- 
 sures. It is not true that it was 
 " struck out of the recognition by 
 Act of Parliament, out of the oath 
 of supremacy, &c." (Dublin Review, 
 May, 1840, p. 351.) It was merely 
 not expressed, but understood. 
 
 c Burnet, iii. 92. Archbishop 
 Bramhall terms our kings " political 
 heads " of the English church. 
 Works, p. 25. 
 
 d See Part V. 
 
 e Stapleton, Princip. Doctr. lib. v. 
 c. 17; Champney, De Vocat. Mi- 
 nistr. c. 16; Thomassin, Eccl. Dis- 
 cipl. torn. ii. lib. iii. c. 92. sect. 12, 
 &c ; Rechberger (chancellor of the 
 diocese of Lintz) maintains the re- 
 gal power of superintendence and 
 vigilance over the transactions and 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 decrees of the church, of enact- 
 ing laws on disciplinary matters for 
 the church, of correcting abuses, 
 limiting religious rites, enjoining 
 silence in controversies of faith, 
 establishing uniformity in divine 
 service, abolishing festivals, &c. 
 See Report of Committee on Rom. 
 Cath. subjects (1816), pp. 80114. 
 De Marca, archbishop of Paris, in- 
 forms us that Molinseus, Fauche- 
 tius, Pithoeus, Hotmannus, Ser- 
 vinus, &c., who were all eminent 
 writers of the Roman communion, 
 teach " that the R pontiff exercised 
 no authority in Gaul before the 
 sixth century; that in all that in- 
 terval, of almost 600 years, the king 
 alone presided over the Gallican 
 church as head." Proleg. ad lib. 
 de Concord. Sacerd. et Imp p. 71. 
 The Answer of the Prince de Kau- 
 nitz, chancellor of the empire, to 
 the papal nuncio Garampi, A. D. 
 1781, and which is referred to as of 
 high authority in Austria, claims for 
 the prince a most extensive supre- 
 macy over the church. It asserts 
 that " the reform of abuses which 
 A a
 
 35-i The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 England always were the supreme political governors or heads 
 of our national church f . The most learned lawyers, Fitz- 
 herbert and. Coke, affirm, that the law confirming the royal 
 supremacy was only declaratory of the ancient laws of Eng- 
 land g ; and Bossuet himself only condemns this supremacy on 
 the erroneous supposition that it was admitted to affect funda- 
 mentally the validity of all ecclesiastical acts, not if it were 
 understood to relate to a merely external direction and exe- 
 cution h . 
 
 Now it is incredible that the clergy, in acknowledging the 
 supremacy "as far as it is allowable by the law of Christ," 
 could have designed to admit that all their ecclesiastical acts 
 emanated from, or were fundamentally affected as to their 
 validity, by the royal power. They could not at once in a 
 body have relinquished the notions which had always hitherto 
 prevailed; and there is evidence that they did not, as we 
 shall see in discussing the royal commissions for bishoprics. 
 Indeed king Henry himself, in a letter to the clergy of 
 the province of York, who thought the title of " Head 1 ' could 
 not with propriety be given to man, unless it were limited to 
 temporals, seems to restrain his own ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 to such things as were of a temporal or of a mixed nature, such 
 as the assembling of convocations and confirming their laws \ 
 
 do not concern dogmatical or merely f Ibid. p. 77. 
 spiritual points . . . belongs exclu- h Bossuet, Variations, 1. x. n. 14. 
 sively to the sovereign, who alone ' Thomassin observes that the 
 commands, and alone has the right Gallican convocations or assemblies 
 to command in the state.' That to of the clergy, were summoned by 
 this authority belongs, without any the king, that they exercised no acts 
 exception, whatever relates to the of jurisdiction, deliberated and con- 
 external discipline of the clergy;" eluded on nothing without the king's 
 and that the power of the state permission ; that the bishops sought 
 " comprises, without any exception, in vain permission to hold synods, 
 whatever is of human institution in &c. De Eccl. Discipl. 1. ii. c. 56, 
 the Christian church." See the 57. In fact, during the whole of 
 Report above referred to, p. 144, the last century the French bishops 
 145. The government of Napoleon, were petitioning the king ineffec- 
 it will be recollected, declared that tually to be permitted to hold pro- 
 the French sovereigns regarded vincial synods. See also Fleury, 
 themselves as " les foeques du de- Droit Eccl. ii. c. 2 and 25 ; Van 
 hors" and always exercised power Espen says a royal minister was 
 over the clergy in matters of disci- always present in the synods of 
 pline, worship, &c. Mem. Eccl. de Belgium, which were summoned 
 France, torn. i. p. 71. with the royal licence; and their 
 f Archbishop Bramhall, Works, decrees were of no force till con- 
 p. 25. 69, &c. firmed by the king. Jus Canon.
 
 CHAP, in.] The Eegal Supremacy. 355 
 
 the appointment of bishops and abbots ^, the cognizance 
 of causes in criminal matters, &c., in all of which he was 
 actually, as he said, " Head," and because there was no one 
 above him here, " Supreme Head." And he adds, " We be 
 as God's law suffereth us to be, whereunto we do and must 
 conform ourselves k ," apparently desiring that the recognition 
 should be interpreted in no offensive or unorthodox sense. 
 Bishop Tunstall, who had particularly objected to the expres,- 
 sion, was so far satisfied that its meaning was sound and good, 
 that he consented, in 1535, to swear to the royal supremacy, 
 and in 1536 wrote to cardinal Pole, justifying the king against 
 the charge of confounding the royal and priestly offices. 
 
 The intention of the church of England in making this 
 recognition was only to admit a general power of external 
 control and direction in ecclesiastical affairs to the king, 
 without relinquishing any of the ancient rights of the church. 
 And if courtiers or lawyers pretended to understand it in a 
 different sense, we are in no degree responsible for their 
 errors. 
 
 II. It is an unfounded assertion of our adversaries of all King did 
 denominations, that the papal power was transferred to the paplT* 
 king. The royal supremacy was of a perfectly distinct nature powers. 
 from the papal jurisdiction. The clergy recognized the former, 
 in the year 1531, as already existing; the papal jurisdiction 
 continued legally to exist along with it till 1534 (of which we 
 have a proof in the fact that Cranmer, in the judgment on 
 king Henry's marriage, 1533, retained the title of "legate of 
 the apostolic see"). It was then SUPPRESSED, not transferred 
 to the king '. The kings of England did not at any time pre- 
 tend to succeed to the authority of the popes, but to that of 
 their own royal predecessors. 
 
 p i. tit. 20. c. 4. s. 3. 5. See also (1534) declaring the king to be head 
 
 Bramhall, Works, 103. 112. 318, of the church of England, gave him 
 
 319. the papal power ; " for no other su- 
 
 J The antiquity of this right, ex- preme head had hitherto been known 
 
 tending to the Norman conquest, is in the English church." (Dublin 
 
 shown by Thomassin, Ecc). Dis- Review, May, 1840, p. 347.) The 
 
 cipl. t. ii. 1. ii. c. 34. See also Bram- act itself, however, and the recog- 
 
 hall, 75. 107. 314. 316. nition of the clergy on which it was 
 
 k The letter of the king is found based, take no notice of any transfer, 
 
 in the collection entitled Cabala, and suppose the regal headship to 
 
 p. 244. ed. 1663. be already in existence. 
 
 1 It is pretended that the act
 
 356 
 
 The British Reformation. 
 
 [PART n 
 
 Appeals. 
 
 Regal 
 power to 
 
 visit. 
 
 III. In 1533 the king was given by act of parliament the 
 power of appointing delegates to hear appeals from the metro- 
 politan courts of England in case of "lack of justice there" 
 (Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 19). But this was merely the prin- 
 ciple of the appel comme (Tabus so long practised in France, 
 Germany, and all the other countries of the Roman obedience; 
 and bishop Gibson observes that by the law these delegates 
 ought to be spiritual persons, and that in fact there were no 
 traces of nobility or common law judges in commission till 
 1604, seventy years after this act, and then not one in forty 
 cases till 1639, when that court began to include ordinarily, 
 laity as well as clergy n . 
 
 IV. The act of parliament 1534, acknowledging and con- 
 firming the royal supremacy, gave the king power to visit and 
 reform all errors, heresies, and abuses, which by any manner 
 of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully be 
 reformed . This, it is alleged, was an impious attempt to 
 invest the king with real internal spiritual jurisdiction. Doubt- 
 less, the wording of the act, as is usual in such legal forms, is 
 in the most sweeping and comprehensive terms. But the 
 church must undoubtedly have understood it as only designed 
 
 m See Van Espen's Tractatus de 
 Recursu ad Principem, where it is 
 shown that the appeal to the temporal 
 power from the unjust decrees, depo- 
 sitions, excommunications, &c. of 
 the ecclesiastical authorities, is prac- 
 tised in every country of the Roman 
 obedience. See also Fleury, Droit 
 Eccl.tom. ii. c.xxiv. The appel comme 
 d'abus has existed since the four- 
 teenth century, and the appeals were 
 heard by the French parliaments. 
 It is established in Austria. Rech- 
 berger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. 
 The king of Sicily, from the foun- 
 dation of that monarchy, has judged 
 finally in all ecclesiastical causes in 
 his "Tribunal of the Monarchy," 
 and cardinal Baronius observes, that 
 " under the name of monarchy, be- 
 sides that one monarch which all the 
 faithful have ever acknowledged as 
 the only visible head in the church, 
 another head is risen up, and brought 
 into the kingdom of Sicily, for a 
 monster and a prodigy." SeeBram- 
 
 hall, Works, p. 114. Yet notwith- 
 standing, the Sicilian church is not 
 accounted heretical by Romanists. 
 
 n Gibson, Codex, vol. i. p. xxi. 
 Bossuet therefore in vain accuses 
 the church of England of giving the 
 king the power of excommunication, 
 Variat. vii. n. 47, 48. The king 
 never excommunicates with us, but 
 only the royal court, which com- 
 prises ecclesiastics. The king of 
 Sicily excommunicates in the "tri- 
 bunal of the monarchy." In Aus- 
 tria no one can be excommunicated 
 without the emperor's consent, and 
 the motives of excommunication 
 must be previously discussed by an 
 equal number of ecclesiastical and 
 civil commissioners Rechberger, 
 Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. s. 259. 
 Bramhall understands this act only 
 to give the king the power of ap- 
 pointing bishops to rehear causes. 
 Works, p. 63. 
 
 Act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 1.
 
 CHAP, in.] Submission of Clergy. King's Vicar-General. 357 
 
 in reality, to confer on the king the power of acting in these 
 matters as his predecessors had done, i. e. by temporal means 
 and penalties, and in concurrence with the judgment of the 
 church, not in opposition to it. The bishops understood it in 
 some such sense ; for they not only offered no opposition to 
 the passing of this bill, but immediately after swore to the 
 king's supremacy. 
 
 V. Their acknowledgment that all convocations had been Assem- 
 and ought to be assembled by the king's writ q , apparently co'nvoca- 
 related only to convocations or assemblies of the clergy con- tions. 
 vened by the king, as one of the three estates of the realm to 
 parliament ; it does not seem that synods are here spoken of : 
 
 but at all events, as I have observed before, synods cannot be 
 assembled in any country of the Roman obedience without the 
 royal licence ; and the promise which our clergy made at the 
 same time r , to enact no new canons in future without the 
 king's permission, was only consistent with the harmonious 
 action of the temporal and spiritual powers; while it is also 
 certain, that all temporal princes in the Roman communion 
 exercise the power of rejecting whatever regulations of disci- 
 pline (even those made in general councils 8 ) appear to them 
 unadvisable. 
 
 VI. The first act of the king was to appoint Cromwell, in Acts of the 
 1535, his Vicar-General and Visitor of Monasteries*. The Vice S erent - 
 former title was certainly novel, and sounded ill, but there 
 
 being no evidence that it was intended in a heterodox sense u , 
 the church was not bound to resist the title or office. Louis 
 XVI., king of France, also instituted a commission for exa- 
 mining the monastic orders x , and many of them were sup- 
 
 P Burnet, Hist. Ref. i. 330. fectly received in most countries of 
 
 Ibid. i. 270, 271. the Roman obedience. See Mos- 
 
 r Burnet, ibid. It appears tbat heim, Cent. xvi. sect. iii. p. 1. n. 
 
 the clergy only intended to refrain xxiii. See also the learned treatise 
 
 from enacting canons during the of Van Espen de Promulgatione 
 
 lifetime of king Henry, as a matter Legum Eccl , in which he maintains 
 
 of special compliment, and that they the right of Christian princes to 
 
 made a salvo for the immunities and approve of ecclesiastical laws, 
 
 privileges of the church of England, ' Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 784. 
 
 and all existing provincial constitu- * The commission asserts that all 
 
 tions accordant with the law of God ecclesiastical jurisdiction emanated 
 
 and holy church. Burnet, vol. iii. from the crown, but, as will pre- 
 
 p. 133, 134. Records, n. 20. sently appear, this only refers to its 
 
 ' The kings of France have always legal character. 
 
 rejected the discipline of the synod * Mem. pour ser. a 1'Hist. Eccl. 
 
 of Trent. It has been onlyimper- xviii. siecle, torn. ii. p. 513, &c.
 
 358 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 pressed by this royal commission. The emperors and kings 
 of the Carlovingian race had established permanent visitors of 
 all orders of the clergy under the title of " Missi Dominici y ;" 
 therefore there was nothing intolerable in these acts of king 
 Henry, nor did they really imply (as Bossuet pretends) the 
 assumption of papal power z . 
 
 VII. The next step taken by the king, was to inhibit the 
 exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the archbishops and 
 bishops during the royal visitation a . This was apparently an 
 ill-advised act of interference ; but as its intention appeared to 
 be merely to prevent the ordinary jurisdiction from coming 
 into collision with the visitors appointed by the crown, and 
 even exercising authority over them, the irregularity of the 
 proceeding was tolerated. The same remarks apply to a similar 
 proceeding in the reign of Edward VI., when it is said that 
 the crown again suspended the jurisdiction of the bishops, and 
 required the clergy not to preach out of their own churches, 
 unless with the special licence of the king b . This last asser- 
 tion is a mistake. The crown did not pretend to silence the 
 clergy, -but directed the bishops to inhibit them c ; thus recog- 
 nizing the episcopal authority. As to the royal pretence to 
 license preachers, it was an irregularity which the church was 
 not called to pronounce upon d . 
 
 y See a most curious account of perors. Thus, the emperor Marcian 
 
 them in Thomassin, Eccl. Discipl. was given the precedency in the 
 
 t. ii. 1. iii. c. 92. According to him synod of Chalcedon. (Harduin. 
 
 they " exercised an episcopal func- Cone. ii. 463 ; Richer. Hist. Concil. 
 
 tion," were quasi-colleagues of the General, i. 1 91.) Constantino Pogo- 
 
 bishops, visited churches and mo- natus presided in the sixth oecume- 
 
 nasteries, examined the lives and nical synod (Richer, i. 279 282) ; 
 
 conduct of the clergy, the zeal of Basilius in the synod of Constanti- 
 
 the bishops, their obedience to the nople, 870 (Richer, i. 363). 
 canons made by imperial authority a Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 797. 
 with the advice of the clergy, &c. b Bossuet, Variat. 1. vii. n. 77. 
 They were . commonly counts and c Burnet, vol. ii. b. i. Rec. 7. 
 other laymen. Such appointments d The emperor Joseph II. took 
 
 could only be justified under extra- on him to silence preachers. Mem. 
 
 ordinary circumstances, and by the Eccl. xviii. siecle, torn. iii. p. 22. 
 
 tacit sanction of the church. Charles V. in 1553 also silenced the 
 
 1 Bossuet, Variations, 1. vii. n. preachers of both parties, as we learn 
 
 17- 76. The claim advanced by from Melancthon, epist. lib. iv. 99. 
 
 Cromwell as the king's vicegerent The pretence to license preachers was 
 
 to the first seat in convocation was not more irregular than this : and 
 
 indisputable. As the representative the various restraints put on preach- 
 
 of the prince he could not be refused ing during the time of violent con- 
 
 a position which the oecumenical troversies bykingEdward VI., which 
 
 synods allotted to the Christian em- Bossuet alludes to, (Var. vii. 790
 
 CHAP, in.] Commissions taken out by Bishops. 359 
 
 VIII. But the fact most relied on to demonstrate the ex- Episcopal 
 aggerated claims of the temporal power, and the improper s j ons 
 subserviency of the church of England, is the issuing of com- 
 missions to the bishops. 
 
 In 1535, it appears that immediately after the king had in- 
 hibited the bishops from exercising their jurisdiction during 
 the royal visitation, commissions were issued to some of the 
 bishops 6 , perhaps to all, empowering them to exercise jurisdic- 
 tion within their dioceses. Similar commissions were given after- 
 wards in the time of Henry VIII. f and Edward VI. I contend 
 that these commissions are capable of an orthodox sense, and 
 that they must be understood in that sense. They declare that 
 "all jurisdiction ecclesiastical and secular emanates from the 
 king, that it was fitting that those who had hitherto exercised 
 it only precariously, should acknowledge that it was conferred 
 by the king's liberality, and should be ready to relinquish it 
 when he judges right " . . . . that therefore " since the king's 
 vicegerent was occupied by arduous business," ihe king 
 declared the bishop to be in his stead, and licensed him to 
 perform all which concerned the episcopal authority and juris- 
 diction, " besides and beyond those things which are discerned 
 from the holy Scriptures to be committed to thee by God ;" and 
 in some cases stated that this licence was " only to last during 
 the king's pleasure." Now, however wide and high-sounding 
 the terms of this commission appear, I contend that it does not 
 necessarily convey an heterodox meaning ; for it may be 
 understood to confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction not in foro 
 conscientice and as operating internally, but as externally and 
 legally coercive. Thus, in other words, it amounts to nothing 
 more than a grant of temporal authority confirmatory of that 
 spiritual authority given to bishops by the word of God. 
 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction might in this sense be most truly 
 said to emanate from the king, to be conferred by his bounty, 
 
 were merely in accordance with the still in force. Enchir. Jur. Eccl. 
 
 right of Christian kings to preserve Austriac. 
 
 the peace of their dominions. Rech- e Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 797 ; Col- 
 
 berger, a Roman canonist, asserts Her, ii. Rec. 41. 
 
 their right to enjoin silence in con- f Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 484, 
 
 troversies of faith, and this right was 485. Records, n. 14. Bossuet 
 
 exercised by the emperor Joseph II. (Variations, 1. vii. n. 45), and Mi- 
 
 in his decrees of 1781 and 1782, caiah Towgood (On Dissent, p. 22, 
 
 which prohibited all discussion on 23), unite in assailing us on this 
 
 the bull Unigenitus, and which are point.
 
 360 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 and to be liable to be withdrawn when he pleased ; and the 
 king might authorize his bishops to ordain, institute, nominate 
 to benefices, prove wills, grant administration, judge causes, 
 and exercise all other parts of the episcopal jurisdiction, always 
 understanding that this licence conferred no proper spiritual 
 power, but one which was in its nature entirely temporal. 
 Thus may these expressions be understood, according to the 
 doctrine of our theologians Bramhall g , Leslie 11 , Gibson 1 , &c. 
 And it is evident in fact that it must have been so understood. 
 The " Institution of a Christian Man," approved by the king 
 himself and by twenty-one archbishops and bishops in 1537, 
 maintained that " God's law " committed to bishops or priests 
 the powers of jurisdiction, in excommunicating and absolving 
 offenders, (but " not with violence or corporeal restraint,") in 
 ordaining and nominating ministers, and in making canons 
 concerning discipline, rites, &c. k and limits the jurisdiction of 
 princes, conferred by them on the church, to corporal and 
 legal powers, and to certain privileges in matters of a temporal 
 and civil nature \ and acknowledges that it is lawful for princes 
 to " revoke and call again into their own hands, or otherwise 
 to restrain all the power and jurisdiction which was given and 
 assigned unto priests and bishops by the licence, consent, 
 sufferance, and authority of the said kings and princes, and 
 not by the authority of God and his gospel." This document, 
 exhibiting the doctrine publicly maintained by the church and 
 by Henry VIII. at that moment, suffices to determine the 
 sense in which the commission was issued to be orthodox, and 
 proves that the power conferred by, and supposed to emanate 
 from the king, was in its nature only temporal. 
 
 In the first year of Edward VI. the bishops were required to 
 take out similar commissions, which we have no reason to sup- 
 pose were issued or received in a different sense. It is not to 
 be denied, however, that they are capable of a heterodox sense, 
 and as it was affixed by the partizans of Rome, it was right, in 
 order to avoid scandal, that the practice should be discon- 
 tinued ; and accordingly, from the accession of Queen Eliza- 
 
 Bramhall, Works, p. 77. in his Defence of English Ordina- 
 
 h Leslie, Regale and Pontificate, tions, chap. xi. 
 
 s. 9. k Formularies of Faith, p. 107 
 
 ' Gibson, Codex, vol. i. p. xvii. 110. 
 
 xviii. See also Mason, Burnet, ' Ibid. p. 113. 
 
 Brett, and others cited by Courayer m Ibid. p. 114.
 
 CHAP, in.] Royal Injunctions. Articles o/" 1536-7. 361 
 
 beth, no such commissions have been issued, nor has the crown 
 conferred such powers. 
 
 IX. The archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1535, ob- 
 tained the king's licence to make a provincial visitation n , but 
 the reason of this was, because there was a reluctance in 
 several of the bishops to allow such a visitation ; and there- 
 fore it was necessary to support the canonical power of the 
 metropolitan by royal authority, not that any essentially spi- 
 ritual jurisdiction was supposed to emanate from the crown p . 
 
 X. In 1536 the king issued injunctions or edicts in several Injunc- 
 matters of discipline to be executed in all the churches, and tl( 
 the clergy, it is said, " were much troubled at this precedent 
 
 of the king's giving such injunctions to them, without the 
 consent of the convocation ; from which they concluded they 
 were now to -be slaves to the lord vicegerent q ." Yet in fact 
 such injunctions, though apparently novel, were not really 
 unprecedented. The laws of the Roman emperors, Theodosius, 
 Honorius, Justinian, &c., the capitulars of Charlemagne, 
 Carolus Calvus, and of other emperors and kings of France, 
 the ecclesiastical laws of the Saxon and Norman kings of 
 England r , were all exactly of the same nature as these injunc- 
 tions ; that is, they were confirmatory of regulations already 
 made by the church. Of the injunctions, some are for the 
 enforcement of things recently decreed by the convocations of 
 the clergy ; others are confirmatory of the canons then in 
 force. All were of such a nature that the church was not 
 bound to oppose them. The same observations apply to the 
 injunctions of Edward VI. in 1547, and to those of Elizabeth. 
 
 XI. Bossuet affirms that the articles of doctrine of 1536 Articles of 
 were decided and ordained only by the king, though he had doctrine - 
 previously heard the bishops, as judges hear experienced per- 
 sons 8 ; thereby insinuating that the king claimed, or was 
 allowed, to have the power of dictating the religion of his 
 subjects. But Henry VIII. himself, in the preface to these 
 
 n Burnet, vol. i. p. 334. cany, of the duke of Parma, and the 
 
 Le Bas, Life of Cranmer, vol. i. " Organic Articles " enacted by Na- 
 
 chap. v. poleon, are all proofs that the same 
 
 p Bossuet, Variations, 1. vii. n. 18. or greater power than that exercised 
 
 q Burnet, vol. i. p. 412. by Henry VIII. is acknowledged to 
 
 r See Bramhall's Works, p. 88 ; belong to princes of the Roman 
 
 105, 106. 110; 73, &c. The eccle- obedience. 
 
 siastical laws of the emperor Joseph ' Bossuet, Var. 1. vii. n. 29. 
 
 II., of Leopold grand duke of Tus-
 
 362 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 articles, declares that he had assembled the bishops and clergy 
 in convocation " for the full debatement and quiet determina- 
 tion " of these questions of faith and discipline ; and that he 
 approves their " determination, debatement, and agreement," 
 which accordingly he commands all his subjects to receive u . 
 This is only a royal confirmation of the church's decisions, such 
 as is necessary even in every part of the Roman obedience. 
 
 XII. An act of parliament, in 1547, declared that as all juris- 
 diction spiritual and temporal emanates from the king, all pro- 
 ceedings in the episcopal courts shall be in the king's name, 
 and sealed with his arms x . The jurisdiction here spoken of 
 was not the spiritual jurisdiction as given by the law of God 
 to his ministers, and operating on the conscience, but an eccle- 
 siastical jurisdiction legally coercive. It related entirely to 
 processes in the recognized ecclesiastical courts of law; and 
 by the very same act, the bishops might use their own names 
 and seals in admitting their chancellors, commissioners, &c. 
 and in commissions of suffragan bishops, faculties, dispensa- 
 tions, collations, presentations, gifts, institutions, inductions, 
 letters of orders, or dimissories y . So that there was no in- 
 tention of interfering with the real spiritual jurisdiction of 
 bishops. This act was subsequently repealed z . 
 
 Suspension XIII. The royal injunctions issued at this time, enjoined 
 clergy, the clergy to pray publicly for the king as supreme head of 
 the church of England, and the violation of this rule was to 
 be punished by suspension, deprivation, and excommunication. 
 " Behold," says Bossuet, " in the ecclesiastical penalties, all 
 the essence of the pastoral authority usurped by the king, and 
 the inmost deposit of the sanctuary torn from the sacerdotal 
 order a ."" The answer is simply, that these penalties were not 
 to be inflicted by the king, but by the bishops. They were 
 enjoined to see this regulation executed, i. e. to suspend, 
 depose, or excommunicate the clergy who disobeyed it b . 
 
 11 Formularies of Faith, Oxford, been distorted into a formal recogni- 
 
 p. 4. The bishops in 1537> trans- tion of the king's " superior authority 
 
 mitting to the king the " Institution in matters of faith ?" (Dublin 
 
 of a Christian Man," acknowledged Review, vol. viii. 354.) 
 their readiness to " conform them- * Act 1 Edw. VI. c. 2. 
 selves" to such alterations as he y Ibid, 
 might suggest (ibid. p. 26). Can it z Gibson, Codex, p. 967. 
 be conceived, that this respectful a Bossuet, Var. 1. vii. n. 77. 
 intimation, so proper where the royal b Burnet, vol. ii. p. 53. 
 confirmation was sought for, has
 
 CHAP. TIL] Various misrepresentations. 563 
 
 Their authority was called in to the aid of the royal power, 
 and it is certain that Christian kings have often required their 
 bishops to support their regulations in a similar manner. 
 
 XIV. The lower house of convocation, in 1547, addressed Rejection 
 the bishops, desiring, among other things, that, according to . f the P eti ~ 
 the ancient custom, the inferior clergy might be again admitted convoca- 
 to sit in the house of commons, " or else, that all such statutes tlon - 
 
 and ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of 
 religion and causes ecclesiastical, may not pass without the 
 sight and assent of the said clergy c ." Bossuet misrepresents 
 this as follows : " They asked as a favour of parliament, that 
 the affairs of religion should not be regulated without at least 
 taking their advice and listening to their reasons. What 
 misery ! to reduce themselves to be listened to as mere ad- 
 visers, they who ought to have been heard as judges, and of 
 whom Jesus Christ said : ' He that heareth you heareth me/ 
 But that, says our. historian, did not succeed V 
 
 Now the request was not to parliament, but to the bishops ; 
 it was not made by the bishops, but by the presbyters of the 
 church ; and finally, it did not fail of success ; for it appears 
 that the consent of convocation or of the clergy was sought 
 and obtained in all the chief measures affecting the church 
 which followed (as we shall presently see) : and in fine, the 
 historian alluded to did not mean that this request failed of 
 success, but that the proposed alternative of sitting in parlia- 
 ment did so. 
 
 XV. This is succeeded by another misrepresentation. 
 " They did not blush to require from bishops an express decla- 
 ration ' to make profession of the doctrine as it should be 
 from time to time established and explained by the king and 
 by the clergy c .' " This promise, which one would suppose 
 was required from several bishops, was only sought by the 
 council from one (Gardiner), who was extremely refractory 
 and turbulent ; and he answered that he would conform him- 
 self as the other bishops did f . It will be remembered that 
 the conduct here attributed to the civil power was actually 
 realized afterwards in the Roman church by the emperor 
 Joseph II., who issued a decree " which compelled all the 
 
 e Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. c Ibid. 
 87- Rec. n. 16. f Burnet, ii. 103. 
 
 d Bossuet, Var. 1. vii. n. 78.
 
 364 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 bishops of his hereditary states to promise obedience to all the 
 orders which had already emanated from the emperor, or 
 which he might publish hereafter g ." 
 Inter- XVI. It is alleged, that in the time of Edward VI. all 
 
 ICPCnCG 01 
 
 parliament, the most important changes in the form of ordinations, the 
 public service, the body of the canons, &c. were regulated by 
 the king or parliament, to the annihilation of the church's 
 power h . This is far from the truth. The parliament only 
 added the force of the temporal law to the determinations of 
 convocations or bishops, or at least its regulations were con- 
 firmed by ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 Thus, in 1547, an act passed for communion in both kinds, 
 and against private masses, on the ground of Scripture and 
 primitive practice, but the convocation also agreed to it *. In 
 1548 an act legalized the marriage of priests, but the clergy 
 had decided this point of discipline in their convocation the 
 preceding year, and they now confirmed it again k . In 1549 
 the Ritual having been prepared by bishops and theologians at 
 Windsor, was authorized by act of parliament, but it was also 
 approved by convocation in November, 1548 1 . When a new 
 office for ordinations was provided for by parliament, it was to 
 be left to the composition of six bishops and six theologians m . 
 The alterations in the Ritual confirmed by parliament, A. D. 
 1552, had been made by bishops in the preceding year 11 . Thus 
 there was always a respect paid to the priesthood ; and if in 
 any point the temporal government neglected some of the 
 usual forms, the church always retained the power of rejecting 
 any regulation inconsistent with the catholic faith or dis- 
 cipline. 
 
 Depriva- XVII. It only remains to notice the deprivations of bishops 
 bishops. by the civil power, and it may be at once conceded that the 
 principle of such deprivations cannot be approved of in general ; 
 but acts of this kind have been often practised in the church. 
 Justinian and many others of the Eastern emperors expelled 
 bishops from their sees , and in more modern times this con- 
 s' Memoires sur Pie VI. et son mer, i. 315, 316. 
 Pontif. t. i. p. 236. m Ibid. p. 262. 
 
 h Bossuet, Var. 1. vii. n. 76. n Wheatley on the Common 
 
 1 Burnet, ii. 92 ; Le Bas, Life of Prayer. 
 
 Cranmer, i. 29 1. Bramhall, Works, p. 89. De 
 
 k Ibid, and p. 172. Marca, Concord. Sacer. et Imperii, 
 
 1 Ibid. ii. 87. 113. Le Bas' Cran- lib. iv. c. 18. See also the treatise
 
 CHAP, iv.] Irregularities in the time of Mary. 365 
 
 duct has been imitated in churches of the Roman obedience. 
 Cardinal de Chatillon was expelled from his see by the civil 
 power in France ?, and the emperors Joseph II. and Napoleon 
 suppressed sees in their respective dominions q . The church 
 is sometimes obliged, in order to avoid greater evils, to confirm 
 such acts by ordaining bishops in the place of those who have 
 been deprived r ; and thus whatever may have been the justice 
 of the deprivations, in the reign of Henry VIII., of two alien 
 bishops, or of two others accused of crimes against the state, 
 the church of England was the proper judge whether these 
 deprivations were tolerable, and she had the power of sanction- 
 ing them. 
 
 In the reign of Edward VI. several deprivations of bishops 
 took place, by means of royal commissions, sometimes consist- 
 ing of bishops, sometimes of laymen, which were apparently 
 unjust as well as irregular. Boner bishop of London, Gar- 
 diner of Winchester, Heath of Worcester, Day of Chichester, 
 and Tunstall of Durham, were expelled successively from their 
 sees between 1549 and 1553 ". These irregularities I do not 
 pretend to justify. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REIGN OF MARY. 
 
 THE deprivations of bishops, alluded to above, were acts de- Expulsion 
 serving of censure ; and we therefore cannot view as an ir- 
 regularity or an injustice the restoration of bishops Boner, 
 Gardiner, Heath, Day, and Tunstall, to their sees by the royal 
 commissions of queen Mary a , though the result was the ex- 
 
 of Nicephorus, edited by Dr. Hody, > Memoires Eccl. xviii. siecle, 
 
 at Oxford, 1691, and of Methodius, torn. ii. p. 22 ; Hi. 504. 
 
 published by cardinal Maio, in the * See Body, Case of sees vacant 
 
 third volume of the Ancient Re- by an unjust or uncanonical depri- 
 
 mains, p. 247, &c. This subject is vation. 
 
 further considered, Part v. ch. v. Buroet, ii. 234. 280. 305. 375. 
 
 Appendix I. 3QS. Le Bas' Cranmer, i. 329. 
 
 p Of Beauvais. See Gallia Chris- Burnet, ii. 443. 
 tiana, torn. ix.
 
 366 The British Reformation. [IART n. 
 
 pulsion of bishops Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, who had occupied 
 those sees with, at least, the tacit sanction of the church. But 
 other proceedings followed, which were too obviously dictated 
 by a spirit of vengeance and hatred. The removal of bishop 
 Hooper by the queen, from his see of Gloucester, which he 
 held by regular and canonical institution b , was altogether 
 unjustifiable. Voysey was irregularly restored to the see of 
 Exeter by an order under the great seal, expelling without 
 any trial or formality whatever, bishop Coverdale, who had 
 succeeded on his voluntary resignation . Pates, who had 
 been nominated to the see of Worcester many years before by 
 the pope, contrary to the ecclesiastical and civil regulations 
 made in the reign of Henry VIII., was intruded into that see 
 by royal authority d . But in March, 1554, an unprecedented 
 violation of justice and of ecclesiastical liberties took place. 
 Royal commissions were appointed for the deprivation of no less 
 than seven archbishops and bishops at once, some for the fact 
 of marriage which the church of England had sanctioned, and 
 others on a vague charge of offences, and the clause in their 
 patents given by Edward VI., (which was a mere nullity,) 
 " quamdiu se bene gesserint e ." Thus nine bishops were 
 almost at once driven from their sees by the royal power. 
 The bishop of Bath was compelled to resign by threats and 
 intimidation f . This is exclusive of Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, 
 who were at once harshly expelled, and of archbishop Cranmer, 
 afterwards degraded by two papal delegates, who besides 
 being incompetent to judge according to the canons g , acted by 
 a power which was irregular and null, the papal jurisdiction 
 having been suppressed in England, and never regularly re- 
 vived again. 
 
 It is in vain that Bossuet would cloke the scandal of such 
 proceedings by pretending that " until the ecclesiastical order 
 was re-established they acted against the protestants on their 
 own maxims V If these maxims were wrong in themselves, it 
 
 b Burnet, ii. 282. a provincial synod or by twelve 
 
 c Ibid. 306. bishops. Besides this the pope had 
 
 d Ibid. ii. 585. no right, even by the canon of Sar- 
 
 e Ibid. ii. 494, 495. dica, to judge bishops in the first 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 497. instance. He could only have ap- 
 
 * According to the canons of the pointed delegates in case of an ap- 
 
 synod of Antioch (can. 4. 12.), and peal. 
 
 the African code (can. 12.), a bishop h Variat. 1. vii. n. 99- 
 
 could only be deprived regularly by
 
 CHAP, iv.] Schismatical Proceedings under Mary. 367 
 
 could not be justifiable to act on them. They could only have 
 afforded a sufficient reason for proceeding in a lawful manner 
 against any who could have been proved to hold them. But 
 there is no evidence that any maxims were received either 
 by the church of England generally, or by the prelates so 
 arbitrarily and irregularly expelled, which could justify such 
 proceedings. 
 
 Acts of such violence were without parallel in history. The Irregular 
 expulsion of so many bishops by royal commissions, bishops 
 not intruded into their sees by force, or on any doubtful title ; 
 and this, too, by a queen so well satisfied of the incompetency 
 of the temporal power for such acts as to refuse the title of 
 Head of the church of England, to decline accepting the oath 
 of supremacy, to repeal all the laws establishing the ecclesias- 
 tical power of the crown, and restore, without any inquiry, 
 those bishops who had been expelled by the temporal power in 
 the last reign ; this expulsion, I say, is too obviously attri- 
 butable to a spirit of hatred towards those bishops who had 
 promoted the Reformation of the church of England and its 
 independence of the Roman pontiffs, and to the revengeful 
 feeling of Gardiner and Boner, who being elevated to the head 
 of affairs (Gardiner was immediately made lord chancellor of 
 England), had the power as well as the inclination to perse- 
 cute their opponents. The same motives which influenced 
 Gardiner and Boner operated on Tunstall, Heath, and Day, 
 ranging them in opposition to the cause of the Reformation in 
 the church of England. They were reinforced by a few weak 
 or time-serving prelates, and by fourteen new bishops, selected 
 for their implicit devotion to the Roman pontiff, and chiefly 
 intruders into the sees of bishops irregularly expelled *. These, 
 and the other bishops subsequently appointed by Queen Mary, 
 were ordained without the consent of the metropolitans Cranmer 
 and Holgate, contrary to the decrees of the synod of Nice k . 
 They were confirmed by bishops who had been intruded into 
 the sees of those metropolitans during their life-time, and when 
 they had not been deposed by any legitimate authority ! ; or 
 they were translated to sees by the papal authority, contrary 
 to the canons m . 
 
 1 Episcopacy Vindicated, p. 239. * Episcopacy Vindicated, p. 238 
 241. 240. 
 
 k Beveregii Synod, t. i. p. 66. m Ibid. p. 240.
 
 36S The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 In contemplating these proceedings in the reign of Mary, 
 we observe all the principles of ecclesiastical discipline violated 
 by the popish party, in their anxiety to place these churches 
 under that jurisdiction of the Roman see which they imagined 
 to be essential to catholic unity. This imagined necessity 
 caused them to violate the rules of the church, and to subvert 
 our liberties, contrary to the spirit and express injunctions of 
 the canons. The usurped and novel jurisdiction of the Roman 
 see had been removed twenty years before, in accordance with 
 the canon of the oecumenical synod of Ephesus, which decreed 
 that the liberties of churches should be preserved, and that 
 every province should retain those rights which it had pos- 
 sessed from the beginning n . The ancient liberty of the church 
 of England had, after due enquiry, been revived, and had con- 
 tinued in force for such a time ; and it was therefore unlawful, 
 and contrary to the sacred canons, as well as subversive of the 
 interests of true religion, to introduce again the jurisdiction of 
 the Roman pontiff. 
 Papal ju- j t mav jj e most reasonably denied that the church of En- 
 
 risdiction * . i 
 
 irregularly land could, even synodically^ have revived this power, contrary 
 revived. ^ o ^.j ie d ecree o f an oecumenical synod in a case of general dis- 
 cipline, where a great principle of universal application was 
 laid down. But there was no synodical examination or judg- 
 ment on the question; the papal party in the church having 
 forcibly and uncanonically expelled their opponents from their 
 sees, submitted themselves blindly to the authority of the 
 Roman pontiff, superstitiously imploring his forgiveness for the 
 sin of which they had been guilty in removing his usurped 
 jurisdiction . This mere submission^ without any formal ex- 
 amination and enactment, could not possibly erect the papal 
 authority in England ; and consequently all the acts subse- 
 quently performed by that authority in England, were irregu- 
 larities, usurpations, and nullities. It was only fit that what 
 had begun in contradiction to order, reason, and ecclesiastical 
 church authority, should be sustained by persecution. Accordingly, 
 persecuted, upwards of three thousand clergy were expelled from their 
 
 " Canon VIII. The obligation of are defended; Bingham, Orig. Eccl. 
 
 this canon is maintained in " Epis- book ix. c. 1 ; Bramhall, Works, p. 
 
 copacy Vindicated," &c., sect, iv 77 85; Stillingfleet, Origines Bri- 
 
 xi. See also Barnes, Catholico- tannicae ; Basire, Diatriba de Antiq. 
 
 Romanus Pacific, sect, iii., where Eccl. Brit. Libert, 
 
 the liberties of the British church Burnet, ii. 528; iii. 412.
 
 CHAP, v.] Enactments under Elizabeth justified. 369 
 
 churches p ; and those who were most resolute in refusing to 
 wear the papal yoke, and to profess papal superstitions and 
 errors, were obliged to take refuge in exile, or were delivered 
 to the flames. 
 
 Thus was the church of England miserably distracted and 
 persecuted under the dominion of the schismatics, as the ori- 
 ental churches in the time of Constantius had been by usurping 
 Arian bishops. We cannot recognize in the changes which 
 they effected any valid ecclesiastical authority. The rule which 
 they followed was not the judgment of the catholic and primi- 
 tive church, but the decrees of the modern bishops of Rome. 
 They were men who had usurped irregularly the episcopal sees 
 of others ; who acted in disobedience to the laws and customs 
 of the church of England, by jurisdiction delegated from the 
 Roman pontiff; or who had been intruded into English sees 
 by his nominations, which conferred no title whatever, and 
 without consent of the legitimate metropolitans. The church 
 of England, oppressed by these schismatics, beheld her liber- 
 ties sacrificed, her institutions altered for the worse in many 
 respects, and the abuses which sire had removed forced upon 
 her again. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 
 
 THE scene changed on the accession of Elizabeth, who was 
 made the instrument of putting in force all the laws and regu- 
 lations of the church of England which had been disobeyed 
 and violated by the papal faction in the last reign. She found 
 the episcopal sees filled chiefly by intruders of that party, but 
 several were vacant. 
 
 It is contended by Romanists and other opponents of the 
 church, that the reformations in the beginning of Elizabeth's 
 reign were contradictory to the principles of ecclesiastical 
 authority. I fully admit that they are indefensible on papal 
 
 P Burnet, ibid. 
 VOL. I. B b
 
 870 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 principles, because they had the radical fault of being in dis- 
 obedience to the bishop of Rome ; but I contend that they 
 were in no respect contradictory to the principles of the 
 catholic church. 
 
 Objections There are three points in which these reformations are 
 ?^ Roman " chiefly assailed. First, the enacting of ecclesiastical regula- 
 tions in parliament, without the consent of the bishops or of 
 the convocation of the clergy, and in opposition to their wishes ; 
 secondly, the expulsion of those bishops from their sees ; and, 
 thirdly, the appointment of successors in their place. Hence 
 it is argued that all the proceedings concerning religion at 
 that time, were made by an incompetent and schismatical 
 authority ; that the church of England was involved in schism a , 
 &c. I shall notice these objections successively. 
 
 Acts of I. It is admitted that the parliament passed acts for abolish- 
 
 Tustified 611 * * n the P a P a l jurisdiction and establishing the regal supremacy, 
 with an oath to that effect ; and also for establishing the Eng- 
 lish ritual b . But these acts were merely confirmatory of the 
 laws and institutions made by the church of England during 
 the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which had been 
 indeed disobeyed by the schismatics in the reign of Mary, and 
 annulled by the civil power, but which had never been annulled 
 by any legitimate authority of the church. These acts were 
 simply revivals of laws which had been formerly made with the 
 concurrence of the church of England ; they only gave the 
 temporal sanction to institutions which had always remained 
 in their full spiritual force and obligation. Further, I deny 
 that the bishops then occupying sees in England were legiti- 
 mate bishops, as will be presently shown ; therefore it was 
 needless to solicit their sanction of these acts, or to regard 
 their opposition. The lower house of convocation, too, con- 
 sisted generally of men who were of the same faction, and who 
 had been active in all the irregular proceedings of the last 
 reign, besides being intruded into the benefices of others ; so 
 that their petition to the bishops in favour of the Roman 
 supremacy, &c. deserved no attention. 
 
 Expulsion II. Those bishops who were expelled from the English 
 tf "rbT ma " sees ky ro y a l commissions, in consequence of their refusal to 
 
 shops jus- 
 tified. 
 
 a Trevern, Micaiah Towgood on b Burnet, ii. 692. 
 Dissent, 10. 108. 126.
 
 CHAP, v.] Enactments under Elizabeth justified. 371 
 
 acknowledge the regal supremacy, and to relinquish the papal 
 jurisdiction, had obtained those sees in an irregular and schis- 
 matical manner, by means of an authority annulled and pro- 
 hibited by the church of England, according to the canons. 
 Of these bishops of the popish party, the following had been 
 appointed to their sees by papal provisions or bulls, which were 
 unlawful and null in the church of England : Watson of Lin- 
 coln, Oglethorpe of Carlisle, Pool of Peterborough, Pates of 
 Worcester, Goldwell of St. Asaph c . The following had not 
 only taken their sees merely by papal authority, but had in- 
 truded into them while those sees were not vacant, that is, 
 during the lifetime of their legitimate pastors : Heath of York, 
 White of Winchester, Turberville of Exeter, Scott of Chester 3 . 
 Bourne of Bath had intruded into the place of Bishop Barlow, 
 who had been forced by intimidation to resign. None of these 
 bishops had been confirmed by their legitimate metropolitans, 
 Cranmer and Holgate. Thus ten bishops of those expelled by 
 Elizabeth had been schematically and invalidly appointed to 
 the sees they occupied ; and of the remaining four, Boner and 
 Thirlby had been guilty of grievous offences, as well in attempt- 
 ing to introduce the papal jurisdiction, in violation of the 
 canons, as in presiding, in the character of papal delegates, at 
 the uncanonical degradation and most cruel murder of their 
 own metropolitan and primate; and in many other acts of 
 persecution against the orthodox. If one or two were removed 
 from their sees apparently without sufficient canonical reason, 
 so comparatively small an irregularity cannot affect the cha- 
 racter of the proceedings in general ; and Tunstall died before 
 his see was filled up by any new consecration e . 
 
 III. We are to consider the appointments of the new 
 bishops at this time. The metropolitan chair of Canterbury, 
 and twelve other bishoprics, were vacant by death before any 
 
 c Burnet, iii. 455 ; Rymer, Foe- the Arian bishops, and restoring the 
 
 dera, torn. xv. orthodox to their sees. (Theodoret. 
 
 d Ibid. Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 2.) The usurpers, 
 
 e Innumerable instances occur in Theodosius and Peter the Fuller, 
 
 the history of the primitive church, were expelled from the sees of Jeru- 
 
 in which schismatical, heretical, or salem and Antioch respectively, by 
 
 intruding bishops were expelled by the emperors. See other instances 
 
 the temporal power. Thus the em- in Episcopacy Vindicated, &c. sect. 
 
 peror Gratian made a law expelling xiv. 
 
 B b 2
 
 372 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 of them were filled by fresh ordinations f ; eleven other sees 
 were vacant by the legitimate expulsion of those who had 
 usurped themS; therefore the new appointments of bishops 
 took place in the ordinary and regular manner. 
 
 Ordination According to the canons, all bishops should be consecrated 
 canoni^aiy ^J their metropolitan and the synod of corn-provincial bishops, 
 conducted, or at least by three of them h ; but at this time, in consequence 
 of the usurpations and intrusions of the schismatics, there was 
 not a sufficient number of bishops in England actually and 
 legitimately in possession of sees, to perform the ordination. 
 It was a time of great difficulty (the church of England 
 having been deprived of so many of her legitimate bishops) ; 
 and therefore the consecration of archbishop Parker was per- 
 formed by four of the bishops who had been expelled and 
 driven into exile by the papal schismatics in the last reign, 
 two of whom, at least (viz. Barlow and Coverdale), were still 
 legitimately invested with episcopal jurisdiction in the province 
 of Canterbury 1 ; while Scory, lately bishop of Chichester, 
 ejected by the temporal authority, as having been invested with 
 that see dubio jure, and Hodgkins, suffragan bishop of Bed- 
 ford, were both at least canonically vacant, and competent to 
 afford their aid in the necessity of the church k . Thus there 
 was no informality in the case, because two of the ordaining 
 bishops were still, de jure, bishops possessing jurisdiction in 
 the province of Canterbury, and this entitled them, under the 
 circumstances, to call in the assistance of other bishops. 
 
 f Canterbury, Durham, Salisbury, who had freely resigned it. 
 
 Norwich, Hereford, Chichester, Ro- k Bishops who are without actual 
 
 Chester, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, jurisdiction over any see, in conse- 
 
 Bangor, St. David's, Man. quence of any cause which does not 
 
 * York, Bath, Lichfield, Win- arise from their own misconduct, may 
 
 Chester, Lincoln, Carlisle, Exeter, exercise episcopal functions when 
 
 Peterboro', Chester, Worcester, St. permitted by other bishops. This is 
 
 Asaph. the rule of the synod of Antioch, 
 
 h Nicene Synod, can. 4 ; Antioch. can. 18. Apost. can. 36. See also 
 
 can. 19. 23; African code, can. 13. Balsamon and Zonaras on the 18th 
 
 49 ; ii Orleans, can. 7 ; iv Toledo, canon of Antioch. Thomassin, Eccl. 
 
 c. 18 ; Bingham's Antiq. b. ii. c. 16. Discip. p. i. 1 i. c. 27, 28, details the 
 
 s. 15 ; De Marca, Concord. Sacerd. origin and office of titular bishops, 
 
 et Imp. lib. iv. c. 4. who, without any real see, officiate 
 
 1 Barlow having been forced to in the Roman churches, under the 
 
 relinquish his see of Bath by threats direction of others, and even assist 
 
 and intimidation, and Coverdale ex- in consecrating bishops. See also 
 
 pelled from the see of Exeter by the Benedict XIV. de Synodo Diosce- 
 
 civil power, which restored Voysey, sana, 1. ii. c 7.
 
 CHAP, v.] English Bishops lawfully elected and ordained. 373 
 
 Pelagius, bishop of Rome, was, under circumstances of less 
 difficulty, ordained by only two bishops of his province J . 
 
 It has been alleged by Romanists that the bishops who re- 
 stored the hierarchy of England at this time were without any 
 spiritual authority or jurisdiction, having been deprived of 
 their sees and offices under Mary m . This objection is easily 
 refuted by an appeal to the practice of the catholic church, 
 which has always held that bishops unjustly and schismatically 
 expelled from their sees are still invested with spiritual power. 
 Thus the council of Sardica decreed that if any bishop " has 
 been forcibly and unjustly expelled on account of his catholic 
 discipline and belief," he should be received with kindness and 
 humanity n . St. Athanasius, after he had been deposed by the 
 synod of Tyre, and spent some time in exile, was sent back to 
 his church by the emperor Constantine the younger, in 338, 
 and entered on his duties as bishop without being restored by 
 any synod . The synod of Alexandria, in 340, did not restore 
 Athanasius to his see, they only acknowledged him as bishop P. 
 Athanasius, having been expelled again, and another ordained 
 to his see, returned to Alexandria on the death of the intruder, 
 and resumed the episcopal office, holding a synod, and making 
 decrees on faith q . Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and Marcellus 
 of Ancyra, who had been deposed by the Arians, were restored 
 by the emperors without any synod. The synod of Rome 
 acknowledged Athanasius and Marcellus to be bishops, not- 
 withstanding their unjust expulsion by the Arians r . The synod 
 of Alexandria in 362 consisted of about twenty bishops, who 
 had been deprived of their churches and exiled, and who never- 
 theless acted as if they had never lost their jurisdiction 8 . 
 These bishops, while they were in exile, and expelled from 
 their sees, ordained a bishop for the Saracens *. Multitudes 
 of orthodox bishops, who had been expelled by the Arians and 
 other heretics, were restored by the laws of the emperors 
 Jovian, Gratian, and Theodosius, and acted as if they had 
 never lost their jurisdiction. Pope Nicholas I. declared that 
 
 I Fleury, Hist. Eccl.liv. 33, n. 55. * Labb. Concil. t. ii. col. 533, &c. 
 m Dublin Review, v. 306 ; viii. q Ibid. t. ii. col. 809. 
 
 366. 369. r Ibid. col. 501. 505. 
 
 II Concil. Sardic. can. xvii. Beve- Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xv. n. 26. 
 regii Synodicon, t. i. p. 574. l Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 36 ; 
 
 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xii. n. 4. Sozomen. 1. vi. c. 38.
 
 374 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, having been unjustly 
 deposed from his see, he had always remained its legitimate 
 bishop u . 
 
 On the same principle, the exiled bishops of the English 
 church, who had been unjustly expelled and persecuted by the 
 schismatics for their adherence to the catholic discipline and 
 doctrine, remained always invested with their apostolical com- 
 mission and jurisdiction, and were fully competent to per- 
 petuate the ancient line of succession in England. 
 
 It has been further objected, that these exiled bishops who 
 consecrated archbishop Parker, were not in communion with 
 other catholic bishops throughout the world ; and therefore 
 must have been schismatics, and as such been incompetent to 
 confer any apostolical commission x . But it has been already 
 proved (p. 124. 144. 228.) that the bishops of a national 
 church may not be actually in communion with bishops in all 
 nations, and yet may be free from schism. The most holy 
 confessor, St. Athanasius himself, was excluded from the com- 
 munion of all bishops after the synod of Milan, with the excep- 
 tion of a few, who, like himself, were expelled from their sees 
 and driven into exile. Besides this, our bishops were not con- 
 demned by the eastern churches ; and they were not without 
 communion with bishops in the west, especially in Sweden. 
 Royal au- IV. Bossuet in vain endeavours to prove that notwithstand- 
 m & ^ ne denial m the Article that we " give to our prince the 
 ministering of God's word, or of the sacraments," which seems 
 to reduce the royal authority to a mere exterior direction and 
 execution, the contrary appeared in practice y . " The queen," 
 he says, " gave licence to preach." (If so, we may suppose it 
 was with the advice and permission of her prelates ; but at all 
 events we are not responsible for every act of sovereign power.) 
 She " made bishops with the same authority as the king her 
 father, and the king her brother, and for a limited time if she 
 pleased." (The former was justifiable by the universal practice 
 of Christian emperors and kings z . The latter power she did 
 not exercise in fact, and it was obsolete : besides, the church 
 did not intend to admit any such power.) " The commission 
 
 " Nicholaus P. ad Michael. Im- r Bossuet, Variat. 1. x. n. 14, 15. 
 
 per. Labb. t. viii. col. 288 ; see also " Thomassin. Eccl. Discipl. p. i. 
 
 col. 382. 1. ii. c. 19; p. ii. 1. ii. c. 34. 
 
 x Dublin Review, viii. 368.
 
 CHAP, v.] Regal Supremacy exaggerated by Bossuet. 375 
 
 to consecrate them emanated from the royal power." (The 
 kings of France formerly issued similar injunctions to their 
 bishops a .) " Excommunications were decreed by the same 
 authority." (The queen herself never issued excommunica- 
 tions, but the court of delegates or the high commission court, 
 which consisted of bishops. Besides, the king of Sicily in his 
 " Tribunal of the Monarchy" absolves and excommunicates.) 
 " The queen by her edicts regulated not only external worship, 
 but faith and doctrine, or caused it to be regulated by her 
 parliament, whose acts derived their authority from her." 
 (These edicts were only like those of other Christian princes, 
 confirmatory of the faith and discipline approved by spiritual 
 authority.) " In fine, the parliament pretended to prescribe 
 rules for the judgment of heresy, namely, that nothing should 
 be accounted such, except what was contrary to Scripture, the 
 four first councils, &c., or should be decided by parliaments 
 with the advice of the clergy in their convocation." (This 
 related to the legal description of heresy, which was a crime 
 by law, and liable to be punished by burning, until the 29th 
 year of Charles II. It was only fit that parliament should 
 exercise some control over the application of so terrible a 
 punishment, and see that the clergy should not exceed the 
 limits of their jurisdiction in defining new heresies. In Austria 
 no one can even be excommunicated, without the previous 
 judgment of the civil powers b .) 
 
 Queen Elizabeth, at all events, never went so far as some 
 sovereigns of the Roman communion, who have prohibited 
 bishops from conferring orders, obliged them to take out 
 the royal licence to hold ordinations, prescribed the most 
 minute points of public service, silenced preachers, suppressed 
 sees, supported heresy against the church, compelled bishops 
 to swear obedience to all their decrees in religion, future as 
 well as past, obliged the clergy to read the bulletins of their 
 armies in the churches, compelled bishops to submit their 
 pastoral letters to the police, and instituted lay metropolitans, 
 called ministers of worship c . 
 
 V. If it be said that the Articles themselves declare, that 
 
 Thomassin. p. ii. 1. ii. c. 34. s. 8. c See Part I. Chapter x. Append. 
 b Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. I II. III. 
 Austr. s. 259.
 
 376 Principles of the British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 " if any man, through his private judgment, openly breaks the 
 ceremonies of the church which be ordained by common autho- 
 rity, he shall be openly rebuked as one that offendeth against 
 the common order of the church, and hurteth the authority of 
 the magistrate d ," and therefore that the civil magistrate is 
 acknowledged to have authority in such matters, and may alter 
 the worship of the church as he pleases e I reply that the 
 common authority spoken of, means the authority of church as 
 well as state, and the latter is only confirmatory of the former, 
 or at least only temporal ; and cannot effect alterations con- 
 trary to the will of the church, so as to have any obligation in 
 foro conscientice. 
 
 VI. In fine, the convocation of the clergy in the reign of 
 Elizabeth completed the reformation of the church of England. 
 In 1562 they compiled and authorized the XXXIX Articles 
 of Christian doctrine, which were published and confirmed 
 legally by the supreme temporal authority. In J571, and 
 1603, they enacted canons in their convocations, which were 
 confirmed by Elizabeth and James I. Thus the ritual, Articles, 
 and discipline of the church of England do not rest merely on 
 temporal authority, but on the original sanction and sub- 
 sequent practice and custom of the catholic churches of these 
 realms. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 
 
 HAVING examined the mode of reformation in these churches, 
 and the authority by which it was effected, we are now to 
 enter on a most important question : the principles of the 
 English reformation. These principles have been so often mis- 
 represented by the opponents of our catholic apostolic churches, 
 that it becomes a matter of necessity to clear them from the 
 imputation of schism, heresy, and anarchy, by the weight of 
 facts. 
 
 d Article XXXIV. e Tpwgood on Dissent, p. 10.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Unwritten Tradition, in what Sense rejected. 377 
 
 It has been already shown that one leading principle of that 
 reformation, namely, the authority of provincial or national 
 churches to correct doctrine and discipline without the neces- 
 sity of waiting for the formal judgment of the Roman pontiff, 
 or of the universal church, is free from all imputation of 
 schism or heresy a . 
 
 But we are assured that the main, essential principle of the 
 Reformation was the liberty of interpreting Scripture accord- 
 ing to our private fancies, in opposition to the doctrine and 
 the judgments of the catholic church of Christ in all ages. 
 
 I believe that not one of those who brought about the Re- 
 formation ever ventured to maintain such a principle ; and 
 although some individuals may have spoken incautiously on 
 the subject of catholic doctrine, when they were pressed with 
 erroneous positions, deduced from spurious writings, which an 
 imperfect criticism prevented them from promptly rejecting ; 
 the testimony of a universal consent of Christians, was generally 
 respected by those who were favourable to reformation. 
 
 In England the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture was Scripture 
 most rightly maintained, not against a catholic tradition teach- ^ ^^ 
 ing the same doctrines as Scripture itself, and therefore strictly related. 
 confirmatory of Scripture, but against a tradition imagined to 
 convey articles of faith in addition to those which Scripture 
 contained b . The title of Dr. Smythe's book " De Veritatibus 
 non Scriptis" sufficiently shows the principle of the papal 
 party. The Roman controversialists founded some of their 
 articles of faith on unwritten tradition merely. Against them 
 it was maintained, that for every article of faith there ought to 
 be scriptural proof ; but it was never supposed that particular 
 churches were at liberty to affix whatever meaning they pleased 
 to Scripture, contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church 
 in all ages ; still less was it imagined that private individuals 
 might lawfully hold whatever doctrines they should themselves 
 devise, without paying reverence to the authority of that 
 branch of the church in which they should abide, and entire 
 obedience to that of the church universal in all ages. 
 
 I proceed to prove that the catholic and primitive doctrine 
 and the authority of the church of Christ, as opposed to 
 
 See chapter ii. b See Part III. chap. i.
 
 378 Principles of the British Reformation. [PART IT. 
 
 modern abuses and to the licence of an unbridled private judg- 
 ment, were the principles of the English Reformation c . 
 Authority The abolition of the papal jurisdiction, it will be allowed, 
 church up- was a considerable act of reformation ; but we find from his- 
 held in the tory, that those who supported that measure argued not only 
 Reforma- fr m Scripture, but from the doctrine and practice of the pri- 
 tion. mitive church, the oacumenical councils, the invalidity of later 
 
 councils called general, the doctrine of the fathers, the customs 
 of the church of England, and of other churches in modern 
 times d . Of these arguments we find a good specimen in bishop 
 Tunstall's letter to cardinal Pole e . 
 
 The recognition of the royal supremacy was no inconsiderable 
 proceeding in the Reformation. We find that it was argued 
 for, not only from Scripture, but from the doctrine of the 
 fathers, and the exercise of such a power in the church for- 
 merly, and the customs and laws of the realm of England f . 
 Communion in both kinds was received, not only as being 
 more agreeable to Christ's first institution, but to " the prac- 
 tice of the church for five hundred years after Christ &" The 
 question of the divorce of the marquis of Northampton was 
 judged, not only from the authority of Scripture, but on "the 
 authorities of the fathers " and councils of the church h . In 
 the public disputations on the eucharist at Oxford, A. D. 1549, 
 before Ridley and the king's commissioners, the argument of 
 those opposed to the Romish doctrine was derived from the 
 ancient fathers as well as from Scripture '. 
 
 The " Necessary Doctrine," &c., agreed on by the whole 
 church of England in 1543, says, "All those things which 
 were taught by the apostles, and have been by an whole uni- 
 versal consent of the church of Christ ever sith that time, 
 taught continually, and taken always for true, ought to be 
 received, accepted, and kept, as a perfect doctrine apostolic k ." 
 It declares that all Christians must take the articles of the 
 creed, " and interpretate all the same things, according to the 
 
 c This subject has been treated e Ibid. iii. ; Records, 52. 
 
 by Bishop Jebb, in the appendix to f Ibid. i. 257 261. 
 
 his Sermons; and by Dr. Hook, in Ibid. ii. 76, 77- 
 
 his "Call to Union on the Princi- h Ibid. ii. 104108. 
 
 pies of the English Reformation," ' l Ibid. ii. 198204. 
 
 p. 8 14. k Formularies of Faith, p. 221. 
 
 d Burnet, i. 250257.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Authority of Universal Tradition acknowledged. 379 
 
 selfsame sentence and interpretation which the words of Scrip- 
 ture do signify, and the holy approved doctors of the church do 
 agreeably entreat and defend ;" and that they must refuse and 
 condemn all opinions " which were of long time past condemned 
 in the four holy councils V 
 
 Cranmer evidently acknowledged the authority of universal Cranmer's 
 tradition ; on what other ground could he have made those 
 voluminous collections of extracts from the fathers, the coun- 
 cils, the schoolmen, and the canonists, of which we read ? In 
 his speech on general councils, A. D. 1534 or 1535, he said, 
 " that when all the fathers agreed in the exposition of any 
 place of Scripture, he acknowledged he looked on that as 
 flowing from the Spirit of God ; and it was a most dangerous 
 thing to be wise in our own conceits m ." We see another 
 example of his veneration for the tradition of the church, in 
 his papers on justification, where are many passages from the 
 fathers and schoolmen, down to the time of Aquinas and Bona- 
 venture n . His epistle to Joachim Vadianus says, with refer- 
 ence to certain writings of Zuinglius and CEcolampadius : " so 
 far as they have endeavoured to point out and correct papis- 
 tical and sophistical errors, I praise and approve them. And 
 would that they had contained themselves within those bounds, 
 and had not trampled on the fruit as well as the tares, that is, 
 violated at the same time the authority of the ancient doctors 
 and earliest writers in the church of Christ ." When Ridley 
 had been induced, by the perusal of the ancient writer Bertram 
 on the eucharist, to change his opinion, Cranmer being shaken 
 by him, re-examined the doctrine of the fathers with the 
 greatest care P ; and in his work on the eucharist he refers 
 continually to them in confirmation of his opinions : he advances 
 nothing without adducing their testimony (not always, indeed, 
 well understood). In his preface to the Bible, A. D. 1540, he 
 uses, as he says, " the authority of St. Gregory Nazianzen and 
 St. John Chrysostom," in proof of the use of reading the 
 Bible and in admonition to the readers q . Even in his epistle 
 to Queen Mary (September, 1555), stating the reasons by 
 
 1 Formularies of Faith, p. 227- ii. p. 526. 
 
 m Cranmer's Works, vol. ii. p. 14, Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 195. 
 
 by Jenkyns. p Le Bas, Life of Cranmer, vol. i. 
 
 n Cranmer's Works, vol. ii p. p. 315. 
 
 121, &c. ; Soames, Hist. Ref. vol. q Cranmer's Works, vol. ii. p. 113.
 
 380 Principles of the British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 which he had maintained his doctrine of the eucharist in his 
 examination by Brooks, he says, " Herein I said I would be 
 judged by the old church, and which doctrine could be proved 
 the elder, that I would stand unto r ." And that his respect 
 for the doctrine of the catholic church was not limited merely 
 to the primitive church, appears from his appeal to a general 
 council. " I intend to speak nothing against one, holy, catho- 
 lic, and apostolic church, or the authority thereof ; the which 
 authority I have in great reverence, and to whom my mind is 
 in all things to obey s ." " I protest that it was never my mind 
 to write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to the most 
 holy word of God, or else against the holy catholic church of 
 Christ." " In this thing I only am accused for an heretic, 
 because I allow not the doctrine lately brought in of the sacra- 
 ment ; and because I consent not to words not accustomed in 
 Scripture, and unknown to the ancient fathers *." 
 
 Other Eng- Bishop Ridley reverenced equally the testimony of catholic 
 formers tradition. He protested that he did not dispute the doctrine 
 respected of the " real presence founded in the word of God, and illus- 
 e c urc . ra e( j by the commentaries of the orthodox fathers u ." Bishop 
 Poynet, in his treatise on the eucharist, appeals to the tradi- 
 tion of the church universal*. Mr. Philpot, when imprisoned 
 by the Romish faction in the reign of Queen Mary, wrote thus 
 to a fellow-prisoner : " Let us all that be obedient children of 
 God submit ourselves to the judgment of the church, for the 
 better understanding of our faith and of the doubtful sentences 
 of the Scripture. Let us not go about to show in us, by fol- 
 lowing any man's private interpretation of the word, another 
 spirit than they of the primitive church had. . . . Let us believe 
 as they have taught us of the Scriptures, and be at peace with 
 them, according as the true catholic church is at this day ?." 
 Bradford says : " This faith, this doctrine, which consenteth 
 with the word of God and with the true testimony of Christ's 
 church, will I not forsake," &c. z Bishop Jewell says : " We 
 are come as near as we possibly could to the church of the 
 
 r Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 380. vol. i. p. Iv. 
 
 8 Ibid. vol. iv. p. 121. u Ridlaei Protestatio, Enchirid. 
 
 * Ibid. p. 127. The Treatise on Theolog. p. 53. 
 Unwritten Verities which has been x Poynet, Diallacticon. 
 attributed to Cranmer, and which * See the Letter cited in the Bri- 
 
 speaks less respectfully of the doc- tish Magazine for 1836, p. 50. 
 trine of the fathers, was not written z Martyr's Letters, p. 265. 2/0, 
 
 by him. See Jenkyns's Cranmer, cited by Mr. Churton.
 
 CHAP, vi.] Authority of Universal Tradition. 381 
 
 apostles and of the old catholic bishops and fathers ; and have 
 directed, according to their customs and ordinances, not only 
 our doctrine, but also the sacraments, and the form of common 
 prayer a ." 
 
 In accordance with these principles the preface of the 
 reformed ritual, composed A.D. 1548, refers us to " the ancient 
 fathers " for the original of divine service, and declares that 
 what is now set forth is " much agreeable to the mind and 
 purpose of the old fathers V In the preface to the ordinal, 
 composed A.D. 1552, the three orders of the sacred ministry 
 are continued, on account of its appearing from " Scripture 
 and ancient authors, that from the apostles 1 time there have 
 been those three orders of ministers in Christ's church." The 
 homilies, composed in 1547 and 1562, continually refer to the 
 authority of the fathers in confirmation of the true doctrine c ; 
 and the convocation of the clergy of England, in 1571, again 
 solemnly recognized the authority of catholic tradition, in their 
 canon concerning preachers : " Let preachers above all things 
 be careful that they never teach aught in a sermon, to be reli- 
 giously held and believed by the people, except that which is 
 agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and 
 which the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected 
 from that very doctrine." 
 
 Thus the authority of catholic tradition was recognized by 
 the church of England and by all our learned theologians. It 
 would take up too much space to cite the concurrent testimo- 
 nies of Taylor, Novvell, Hooker, Bancroft, Bilson, Overall, 
 Morton, Field, White, Hall, Laud, Montague, Jackson, 
 Mede, Usher, Bramhall, Sanderson, Cosin, Hammond, Thorn- 
 dike, Jeremy Taylor, Heylin, Pearson, Barrow, Bull, Stilling- 
 fleet, Ken, Beveridge, Patrick, Sharp, Leslie, Potter, and 
 others innumerable of our primates, bishops, doctors, and 
 theologians, who have all maintained the authority of catholic 
 tradition d . 
 
 Jewell, Apologia, p. 156, ed. d See the Appendix to bishop 
 
 1606. Jebb's Sermons; the Rev. E. Chur- 
 
 b Preface to Book of Common ton's valuable Sermon "The Church 
 
 Prayer. of England a Witness and Keeper of 
 
 c See Sermon concerning Prayer, the Catholic Tradition," Appendix 
 
 part ii. Place and Time of Prayer, A.; and Mr. Russell's "Judgment 
 
 ad fin. ; Horn, on Common Prayer of the Anglican Church," for the 
 
 and Sacraments ; Sermon on Alms- sentiments of all the theologians 
 
 Deeds, &c. mentioned above.
 
 382 
 
 The British Reformation. 
 
 [PART ir. 
 
 Absolute 
 right of 
 private 
 judgment 
 rejected. 
 
 It is evident then that the authority of catholic tradition 
 and of the universal church as opposed to the unlimited free- 
 dom of private inventions, was continually recognized in the 
 church of England during the whole reformation, and always 
 afterwards. Indeed so little was thought of the right of indi- 
 viduals to hold their own inventions and dogmas in those days, 
 that we find even corporal severities exercised by those who 
 promoted the reformation, against those who held heretical 
 doctrines. Thus in 1549 Cranmer and Ridley were on the 
 commission which condemned Joan of Kent for heresy, and 
 the archbishop himself obtained the signature of king Edward 
 VI. to the warrant for her burning, at which bishop Scory 
 preached the sermon e . Van Pare, a Dutch heretic, was con- 
 demned in like manner, A. D. 1551 ; and in the time of queen 
 Elizabeth, bishop Jewell in his Apology declares that " we not 
 only condemn the old heretics, as Arians, Eutychians, Marci- 
 onites, &c. and pronounce them impious and lost, and detest 
 them to the gates of hell, but even if they anywhere break 
 forth and show themselves, we restrain them severely and 
 seriously with lawful and civil punishments f ." In fact the writ 
 " de Hseretico comburendo " was in force till the twenty-ninth 
 year of Charles II., and not unfrequently acted upon. Of 
 course I do not approve the principle of persecution here laid 
 down by Jewell, but it is an absolute demonstration that the 
 principle of the liberty -of private judgment to oppose the true 
 doctrine of Scripture confirmed by catholic testimony, was not 
 the principle of those times. 
 
 The doctrine then maintained was THE AUTHORITY OF THE 
 CHURCH : " The church hath power to decree rites and cere- 
 monies, and AUTHORITY IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH." (Art. 
 
 XX. A. D. 1562.) And accordingly it is afterwards said : 
 " Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and pur- 
 posely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the 
 church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be 
 ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be 
 rebuked openly," &c. g ; the church herself, of course, being 
 the judge of this repugnance h . Even the parliaments which 
 
 e Le Bas, Cranmer, vol. i. p. 334. h Towgood the dissenter says : 
 
 Burnet, vol. ii. " Of this repugnance and contra- 
 
 f Juelli Apolog. p. 5. riety, the church alone, you will 
 
 Article XXXIV. observe, and not every private per-
 
 CHAP, vi.] Authority of Universal Tradition. 383 
 
 established the Reformation, acknowledged the authority of 
 tradition, and of the catholic church. The act (1547) ap- 
 pointing communion in both kinds, and the people to receive 
 it with the priest, went on the ground of " the practice of the 
 church for five hundred years after Christ," and " the primitive 
 practice 1 ." The act for the Royal Supremacy (1559) declared, 
 that such persons as should be commissioned by the queen to 
 reform and order ecclesiastical matters, should judge nothing 
 to be heresy, but what had been already so judged by the 
 authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four 
 general councils, or by any other general council in which such 
 doctrines were declared to be heresies by the express and 
 plain words of Scripture. All other points, not so decided, 
 were to be judged by the parliament, with the assent of the 
 clergy in their convocation k . 
 
 It is strange that in opposition to the weight of such facts, 
 the principle of the Reformation should be assumed to be that 
 of the right of individuals to oppose their own judgments to 
 the true doctrine of Scripture, taught by the tradition of the 
 universal church in all ages. I know not what answer can be 
 made to the above facts, except that the principle of the 
 Reformation ought to have been this, and that it is indefen- 
 sible on any other ; but we are satisfied with the principle of 
 the English Reformation as it actually was, because we believe 
 it was orthodox, and consistent with common sense, and 
 accordingly always and in all places received by Christians ; 
 and as for the defence of the Reformation, we are content to 
 undertake it without the aid of the principle which later ages 
 have attempted to create for it. 
 
 The principle of reverence for catholic tradition, as main- Reverence 
 tained by the church of England, was a principle calculated ? r tradl ' 
 not merely for the maintenance of Christian truths always forming 
 received, but it was essentially a corrective and reforming P rincl P le ' 
 principle ; for it taught the church to look beyond the limits 
 of existing practices and opinions into the mind of all ages, 
 and to take the belief of the universal church in most holy 
 union with Scripture, as the rule by which she might be ena- 
 
 son, is allowed to be the proper it gives with the other." On Dis- 
 
 judge, for otherwise the article is sent, p. 6, 7. 
 
 absurd: it actually overthrows itself, ' Act 1 Edw. VI. c. 1. 
 
 and takes away with one hand what k Act 1 Eliz. c. 1.
 
 384 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 bled to give due importance to matters essential, and to correct 
 abuses and innovations inconsistent with the apostolic truth. 
 And it was a principle fraught with practical wisdom, because 
 it placed before her the experience and examples of fifteen 
 hundred years, to guide and admonish her in her proceedings. 
 There may be one other answer made to this : that 
 the church of England herself did not understand the true 
 principles of the Reformation ; that we must look for those 
 principles in the churches of the foreign Reformation. But I 
 have already shown that they also were abundant in their 
 acknowledgments of the authority of the catholic church, and 
 of general and national synods in matters of faith ; that they 
 shrank from the imputation of setting up their private opinions 
 against the authority of the catholic church ; that they never 
 designed or wished to separate themselves from the existing 
 church ; that the Reformation in itself was, in a great degree, 
 brought about without a previous design on their parts ; that 
 they were ready to alter their systems much, if they could, by 
 so doing, have healed the divisions of the church '. There are 
 facts enough to prove all this, and to show that we do not 
 stand alone in recognizing the authority of catholic tradition. 
 Therefore there is error in both the assertions on which Black- 
 burn founds his attack on the Articles of the church of Eng- 
 land ; viz. that " the protestants withdrew from the communion 
 of the church of Home" and that the principle on which they 
 did so was the right of an unbounded liberty (so called) of pri- 
 vate judgment, and the rejection of all church authority. 
 Indeed Blackburn himself is compelled, by the force of truth, 
 to acknowledge that the reformers themselves afterwards " took 
 their interpretations of Scripture," and " formed their rule of 
 faith and doctrine " on " the sense of the orthodox fathers n ;" 
 that " in those days nothing was thought to be sufficiently con- 
 firmed by Scripture testimonies, without additional vouchers 
 from the ancient worthies of the church ;" that " in process 
 of time some particular persons began to see into this mistake," 
 and Cartwright (the Puritan) " in his dispute with Archbishop 
 Whitgift, about the year 1573, took the courage to appeal 
 from the authority of the fathers ;" that his sentiments were 
 
 1 Part I. chap. xii. " Ibid. p. 3. 
 
 m Blackburn's Confessional, p. P. 20. 
 1,2.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 385 
 
 regarded " as so much blasphemy ;" that when Erasmus Jo- 
 hannes, a schoolmaster at Antwerp, a few years afterwards 
 assailed the fathers and councils, " the times were not ripe for 
 the toleration of these sentiments," and he was " obliged to fly 
 his country P !" These facts, admitted as they are by a despiser 
 and an enemy of catholic tradition, are of the highest value ; 
 they show what the general sentiment of the Reformation was, 
 and they render it utterly incredible that it could have been 
 originally founded in the contradictory principle ; because if it 
 had been so, how could all have concurred immediately after- 
 wards in adopting the principle of obedience to the doctrine of 
 the catholic church ? 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ON THE VARIATIONS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 THE regulations made by our catholic and apostolic churches 
 concerning doctrine and discipline during the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, have been maliciously traduced by our opponents, as 
 affording evidence of heretical variations and inconsistencies. 
 The mere circumstance of a church's altering her doctrine or 
 discipline in some point, affords no presumption of heresy. 
 The African churches, in the time of Cyprian, maintained the 
 invalidity of heretical baptism ; in the time of Augustine they 
 decreed the contrary. The western churches practised com- 
 munion in both kinds till the thirteenth century; the synod 
 of Constance confirmed the opposite practice. The western 
 churches, in the ninth century, condemned the worship of 
 images ; yet afterwards many of them sanctioned the custom, 
 in its most offensive shape. For a long time they acknow- 
 ledged the Roman pontiffs to have temporal authority over 
 princes ; yet this doctrine was afterwards rejected by the Gal- 
 lican and other churches. The churches of Spain hold the 
 immaculate conception of the Virgin as a matter of faith ; yet 
 it will hardly be contended that they might not maintain the 
 
 p Blackburn's Confessional, p. 21, 22. 
 VOL. i. c c
 
 386 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 contrary doctrine. In France the superiority of a general 
 synod to a pope was held de fide ; yet it is so no longer. 
 
 The variation, then, so justly assigned as a note of heresy 
 by Tertullian, Hilary, and other fathers, does not relate to the 
 mere correction of prevalent errors and abuses by competent 
 authority ; but to the fluctuation, contradictions, and uncer- 
 tainty of sects who separate from the church. Variation in 
 this sense, or as implying inconsistency, or sanction of what is 
 admitted to be heresy or dangerous error, affords a legitimate 
 presumption of unsoundness. 
 
 But of such variations there is no evidence in the Reforma- 
 tion of the church of England, which proceeded, gradually, 
 consistently, and lawfully in the correction of modern though 
 prevalent errors and abuses. 
 Reforms I. The reformation of the church of England during the reign 
 ^ Henry VIII., is represented uniformly by Bossuet and our 
 other opponents of all " denominations," as limited entirely to 
 the rejection of the papal supremacy a . With this single excep- 
 tion, according to them, the system previously existing was 
 received and authorized in all points. Now it will appear on 
 examination, that the corrections in the reign of Henry were 
 very little inferior in importance to those made in Edward's 
 reign. 
 
 Besides the rejection of the papal supremacy of jurisdiction 
 in the convocation of 1534 b , purgatory was disclaimed by 
 authority of the church in 1537 and 1543 d , she being well 
 aware that the council of Florence, on which it rests, is of no 
 binding force e . Indulgences were rejected by the same autho- 
 rity f , together with all kneeling, bowing, and offering to images s ; 
 and all worship before them was to be directed, not to the 
 image itself, not even to the saint represented, but to God 
 only h . The principle and practice was established by the 
 royal injunctions received by the church, of removing all images 
 
 * Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. f Formularies of Faith, p. 211. 
 
 sect. 2428. 37. 376. 
 
 b Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. and f Articles about Religion, 1536; 
 
 iii. Formul. of Faith, p. xxviii. ; Insti- 
 
 c Institut. of a Christian Man, tution of a Christian Man, p. 134, 
 
 Formularies of Faith, p. 211. Ox- 135. 137; Injunctions of Archbishop 
 
 ford ed. Lee, Burnet, iii. ; Records, 57 ; In- 
 
 d Necessary Doctrine and Erudi- junct. Bp. Sarum, ibid. ; Rec. 59. 
 tion, ibid. p. 376. h Articles, 1536, p. xxviii.; Ne- 
 
 e Ibid. p. 285. cessary Doctrine, p. 300.
 
 CHAP. VII.] 
 
 Variations. 
 
 387 
 
 abused by pilgrimages and other special honours *. The prac- 
 tice of praying to saints for any gifts was prohibited by the 
 church k ; and though their invocation was still permitted under 
 certain limitations, intended to divest it of its most injurious 
 tendency, it was discouraged in the public service l . The super- 
 stitious use of relics was also discouraged m ; and the church 
 prohibited several other abuses, such as using gospels for 
 charms, drinking holy water for the cure of diseases*, &c. 
 These were very important reforms ; and though some cus- 
 toms were retained for a time, under a hope that they might 
 be divested of abuse, the principles developed in attempting 
 their correction led naturally to their ultimate removal, when 
 experience had proved them to be incorrigible. It is therefore 
 a great misrepresentation to affirm that the papal supremacy 
 
 ' Injunctions of the King's Vice- 
 gerent; Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. 
 Records, p. 276 ; Injunctions of 
 Archbishop Lee, Bur. iii. Rec. 57. 
 All such special honours are pro- 
 hibited by the Institution of a Chris- 
 tian Man, p. 137- Milner, a noted 
 papist, thus involuntarily justifies us 
 for removing images : " The learned 
 Petavius says, ' We must lay it down 
 as a principle, that images are to 
 be reckoned among the adiaphora, 
 which do not belong to the sub- 
 stance of religion, and which the 
 church may retain or take away, as 
 she judges best,' L. xv. de Incar. 
 Hence Dr. Hawarden, of Images, 
 p. 353, teaches, with Delphinus, 
 that if in any place there is danger 
 of real idolatry or superstition from 
 pictures, they ought to be removed 
 by the pastor, as St. Epiphanius 
 destroyed a certain pious picture, 
 and as Ezechias destroyed the bra- 
 zen serpent." End of Controv. 
 Let. 34. That there were, in fact, 
 great abuses and even idolatry in 
 the use of images before and after 
 the Reformation, is admitted by 
 Cassander and other Roman writers. 
 See Laud, Conference, sect. 33, 
 n. 13. Bossuet himself admits that 
 the ignorant are in danger of fall- 
 ing into idolatry by using images : 
 " What might be feared for the ig- 
 norant is, that they should believe 
 
 c c 
 
 the Divine nature capable of being 
 represented or rendered present in 
 the images, or regard them as filled 
 with some virtue for which they are 
 honoured : these are the three cha- 
 racters of idolatry. It is not allow- 
 able to attribute more virtue to one 
 image than to another ; nor, conse- 
 quently, to frequent one more than 
 another, except in memory of some 
 miracle or pious history, which may 
 excite devotion." Bossuet, Variat. 
 1. xv. sect. 156. But, in fact, it is 
 not merely the ignorant who prac- 
 tise idolatrous worship of images. 
 The majority of the most eminent 
 theologians in the western church, 
 from the time of Thomas Aquinas, 
 maintained that LATRiA,or the wor- 
 ship due to the Divine nature, is 
 also due to many images and relics. 
 See above, p. 273 ; Usher's An- 
 swer to a Jesuit, ch. ix. ; Palmer's 
 Eighth Letter to Wiseman ; where 
 it is shewn that the same doctrine 
 is still approved in the Roman com- 
 munion, and that it was not cen- 
 sured by the council of Trent. 
 
 k Institution, p. 141. 
 
 1 Injunctions of the Vicegerent, 
 Burnet, ibid. p. 279. 
 
 m Injunc. of Vicegerent, Bur. i. 
 Rec. p. 249. 276 ; Injunctions Bp. 
 Sarum, Burnet, iii. Rec. p. 195. 
 
 n Institution of a Christian Man, 
 p. 133; Necessary Doctrine, p. 298. 
 
 2
 
 388 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 alone was rejected and suppressed by the church of England in 
 the reign of Henry VIII. 
 
 ^' ^ * S asser ted, ^ na t our churches having stedfastly adhered 
 
 ward VI. to the whole Komish doctrine in the reign of Henry VIII. , 
 relinquished it immediately after the accession of Edward VI., 
 and became Zuinglian, rejecting especially the catholic doctrine 
 of the eucharist. This assertion arises from an erroneous view 
 of facts, and from not distinguishing the opinions of individual 
 theologians from the public and authorized doctrine of the 
 church of England. 
 
 Articles of It is a fact, that no new formulary of doctrine whatever was 
 published by authority of the church during the whole reign of 
 Edward VI. The forty-two articles of religion compiled (it is 
 supposed) by Cranmer, Ridley, and others, in 1552, were never 
 authorized by convocation , though the royal council most 
 unjustifiably published them as so approved ; for which Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer remonstrated with them in vain p . Nor were 
 they ever at any time received as a formulary of the church of 
 England, having been put forth by the king but a few days 
 before his death, in ] 553, and only subscribed by a few clergy 
 in Canterbury, Norwich, and London, and in the University of 
 Cambridge, who were solicited, but not compelled, to subscribe 
 by the bishops Cranmer and Ridley q . From this time we hear 
 no more of them as of any binding authority. That no new 
 doctrine was established in the church of England during this 
 reign appears from Burnet, who observes, with reference to the 
 above articles, " It seemed to be a great want that this was so 
 long delayed, since the old doctrine had still the legal authority 
 of its side r ;" yet these articles, as we have seen, were never 
 actually in force. 
 
 Authorized It seems plain, indeed, that during the whole reign of Edward 
 
 under^Ed ^'' ^ ie doctrine of the church of England was most authen- 
 
 ward VI. 
 
 Burnet, iii. p. 362, 363. intended to procure the subscrip- 
 P Cranmer's Works, by Jenkyns, tions of the clergy in every diocese 
 
 iv. p. 64, 65 ; Burnet, ibid. (Dublin Rev. viii. 360. 361) ; but it 
 
 1 Burnet, iii. 365 367- It has is admitted that "the scheme was 
 been argued in reply to this, that defeated by the death of the king." 
 these Articles were published by So that these articles were never, in 
 authority of the head of the church, fact, the authorized creed of the 
 at the petition of the archbishop ; church of England, though they 
 and that the clergy of every diocese may have been considered such by 
 were ordered by the Government to some persons. 
 
 subscribe them: and that it was r Ibid. 361.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 389 
 
 tically represented by the formulary of instruction formally 
 approved by the convocation in the reign of Henry VIII., A.D. 
 1543 s , entitled, " The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, 11 a 
 book which was most assuredly quite opposed to the Zuinglian 
 doctrines. This book was of authority in the church of Eng- 
 land during the remainder of King Henry's Reign. In 1546 
 Archbishop Cranmer, in writing to the king concerning the 
 abolition of certain ceremonies, recognizes it as of authority in 
 the church *. The first book of our Homilies, published in 
 1547 (the first year of Edward VI.), chiefly relates to Chris- 
 tian morals, but it terms matrimony a sacrament*; (indeed, the 
 second book of Homilies speaks of ordination and " other sacra- 
 ments*? besides baptism and the eucharist ;) and at the end of 
 this book of Homilies, we read of " the due receiving of Christ's 
 body and blood under the form of bread and wine." This is 
 all very consistent with the Necessary Doctrine, but it is not 
 Zuinglian. Immediately after the publication of the Homilies, 
 Gardiner objected to the doctrine of Justification there laid 
 down, as inconsistent with that of the Necessary Doctrine, 
 assuming the latter to be of authority still 7 . Again, in 1551, 
 in arguing against the opinions of Cranmer on the eucharist, 
 he appealed to the doctrine confessed by the whole clergy of 
 England in an open council, and " never hitherto by any public 
 council or any thing set forth by authority impaired z ." Nor 
 could any effectual answer be made to this ; and accordingly, 
 not only does Cranmer disclaim the notion that Gardiner had 
 been brought to trial for his doctrine on the eucharist a , but 
 norie of the bishops of the popish party who were expelled from 
 their sees in Edward's reign, were deprived on pretence of their 
 holding doctrines contrary to those of the church, but for disobe- 
 dience to the royal council, or for treason. 
 
 8 Wilkins's Concilia Magnae Bri- do. Therefore neither it, nor any 
 
 tanniae, torn. iii. p. 868. other sacrament else, be such sacra- 
 
 1 Cranraer's Works, i. p. 322. ments as baptism and the commu- 
 
 u " By like holy promise, the sa- nion are." On Common Prayer 
 
 crament of matrimony knitteth man and Sacraments, part i. 
 
 and wife in perpetual love." Ser- 7 Burnet, ii. p. 67 ; Le Bas' 
 
 mon on Swearing, part i. Cranmer, i. 285. 
 
 x " Though the ordering of mi- z Cranmer's Works, by Jenkyns', 
 
 nisters hath this visible sign or pro- vol. i. p. xlviii. ; vol. iii. p. 363. 
 
 mise, yet it lacks the promise of a Cranmer's Works, vol. iii. p. 36 ; 
 
 remission of sin, a* all other sacra- Le Bas' Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 40, 41. 
 ments besides the two above named
 
 390 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 Real pre- Thus it appears that the authorized doctrine of the church 
 of England, during the whole of Edward the Sixth's reign, 
 was that of the real presence, in the strongest and most 
 decided sense. It is true that there were considerable discus- 
 sions and controversies concerning the mode of the presence, 
 between Cranmer, Ridley, Poynet, &c. on the one side, and 
 Gardiner, Tunstall, and Smythe on the other ; and therefore it 
 may be concluded, that at that time the mode of the presence 
 was held undecided by the church of England, as in fact she 
 had avoided the term Transubstantiation in the Necessary 
 Doctrine, and while a change of substance was there strongly 
 asserted, this might be understood in several senses b , though 
 I admit that transubstantiation is the more natural meaning. 
 The real presence, however, was then professed by all parties. 
 I need not speak of Gardiner and Smythe, who went into the 
 extremes of the Romish opinions : but it was not confined 
 to them. Dr. Oglethorpe, in his submission and profession of 
 faith, A.D. 1550 (having been accused of being opposed to the 
 service-book and the king's proceedings), was permitted to 
 declare, that while he rejected the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion, he held " that there is a certain, and an ineffable pre- 
 sence of Christ's body there, which I can neither comprehend 
 nor express," &c. c Bishop Ridley protested, that in opposing 
 the doctrine of the corporal presence, he did not mean " to 
 remove that real presence of Christ's body in his supper, 
 duly and lawfully administered, which is founded in the word 
 of God, and illustrated by the commentaries of the orthodox 
 fathers d ." Bishop Poynet maintained the doctrine of the real 
 presence in his book on the Eucharist, in a very decided 
 manner e . Bucer and Melancthon, whom Cranmer invited to 
 England, had always maintained the real presence, as even 
 Gardiner admits f . 
 
 Doctrine of I shall not attempt to defend all the doctrine of Cranmer, in 
 
 Cranmer. j^g Treatise on the Sacrament, A.D. 1550, and his Answer to 
 
 Gardiner next year, which in fact, (though he seems not to 
 
 b E. g. not a physical, but a spiri- substance of bread, 
 tual or sacramental change, or a c Burnet, vol. ii. Rec. p. 290. 
 change by union with the Divinity, d Ridlsei Protestatio, Enchirid. 
 
 or with the humanity of Christ. Theologicum, p. 53. 
 Various explanations might be given, e See Poynet's Diallacticon. 
 which would not infer transubstan- f Cranmer's Works, vol. iii. p. 
 
 tiation, or the total cessation of the 54, 55. 167.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 391 
 
 have been aware of it,) amounted to a denial of the real pre- 
 sence, and is very different from that of Ridley and Poynet, 
 from the Necessary Doctrine, the Homilies, and the Prayer- 
 book, composed in 1548. His belief in the corporal presence 
 had been unsettled by Ridley, at the end of Henry's reign ; 
 but Peter Martyr and Alasco, who were in his house for some 
 time, appear, in their conferences on the matter, to have 
 exercised an unhappy influence on his too flexible mind g . In 
 his controversy with Gardiner, he assailed, indeed, successfully 
 the common errors and superstitions on the Eucharist ; but 
 his own positive opinions were not in all points orthodox. 
 However, it seems that he was misled, not by any vain con- 
 fidence in his own private opinion in opposition to the catholic 
 church, but by certain passages from the fathers which he did 
 not rightly understand ; and that he deemed his opinion 
 sincerely to be supported by apostolical tradition. That he 
 did not obstinately adhere to it we may reasonably trust from 
 his appeal to a general council, in which he protests that 
 he did not design to maintain his private opinion against the 
 catholic church, " to which," he adds, " my mind is in all 
 things to obey V 
 
 The church of England, however, was not in the slightest 
 degree committed to the particular opinions of archbishop 
 Cranmer on this point. In this controversy he wrote merely 
 as a private theologian, and not ex cathedra, with episcopal 
 authority : and 1 contend that we have fully as much right to 
 say that the opinions of Gardiner, Tunstall, and Smythe, were 
 approved by the church of England as that Cranmer's were. 
 They were just as much in communion with the church as 
 Cranmer himself, and the latter even expressly disclaims the 
 notion of Gardiner's having been deposed for his doctrine of 
 transubstantiation. Therefore these books of Cranmer are not 
 to be confounded with the public and authorized doctrine of 
 the church of England. 
 
 The declaration on kneeling at the sacrament, contained in Declara- 
 
 the ritual of 1552, and which is said to convey the doctrine of *L on ?. n 
 rr i i i i i in- Kneeling. 
 
 Zuinghus on the eucharist ', cannot be considered as a defini- 
 tion of doctrine made by the church of England ; for indepen- 
 
 * Ibid. vol. i. p. Ixxix. Ixxx. 121. 126. 
 
 h Cranmer's Works, vol. iv. p. ' Bossuet, Variat. liv. vii. s. 82.
 
 392 The British Reformation. [PART IT. 
 
 dently of the uncertainty as to who really put forth that decla- 
 ration k , the bishops and clergy were not then bound to declare 
 their assent to every thing comprised in the ritual : they were 
 only bound to perform the rites therein contained, of which 
 this declaration was no part. Its intention, however, was 
 merely to prevent the worship of bread and wine in the 
 eucharist, which would be decidedly idolatrous ; and to reject 
 such a real presence of Chrises body as is corporal and 
 organical, since the body of Christ in its natural mode of 
 existence can only be in heaven. This, however, does not 
 interfere with the doctrine of the real presence then univer- 
 sally confessed, and maintained by the Homilies, Necessary 
 Doctrine, and Prayer-book. 
 
 of foreign- But ^ ^ s a ^ e g e( i that the church of England must have been 
 
 ers to Eng- at this time imbued with Zuinglian doctrines, because several of 
 
 that school were invited to England to reform the church, such 
 
 as Peter Martyr, Ochinus, and others, whose opinions, it is said, 
 
 had great influence on the reformation then proceeding *. 
 
 I deny that these foreign theologians were invited to Eng- 
 land to reform the church here. The facts of the case are 
 these. The emperor Charles V. was, in 1548, forcing the 
 general adoption of that code of doctrine and discipline, known 
 by the name of the " Interim." Many of the protestants of 
 Germany could not consent to accept this formulary, (im- 
 posed too by merely temporal authority,) and were obliged to 
 escape from the emperor's vengeance. The fugitives took 
 refuge in England as the safest country, and archbishop Cran- 
 mer, with great humanity, wrote to others, such as Alasco, 
 Melancthon, and Bucer, offering them an asylum. At the 
 same time, he began to urge a favourite plan of his, the com- 
 position of a general formulary of doctrine for all who favoured 
 the Eeformation, in which the true doctrine might be explained 
 without any ambiguity, and thus go down to posterity. With 
 this object he repeatedly, in 1548, 1549, and again in 1552, 
 
 k It appears from some letters in not occur. It was afterwards pri- 
 
 the early numbers of the Irish Eccle- vately inserted by orders of the 
 
 siastical Journal, that this declara- council. 
 
 tion was not in the book as sane- * Bossuet, Var. liv. vii. s. 81. 
 
 tioned by act of parliament, and that m Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 
 
 various copies exist in which it does 334 337.
 
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 393 
 
 entreated Melancthon, Alasco, Hardenburg, and finally Bui- 
 linger and Calvin, to meet and consult on this formulary, and 
 offered them a secure place for deliberation in England n . 
 
 Such were the causes, and not any general invitation to 
 reform the church of England, which brought several of the 
 foreign adherents of the Reformation to England, though their 
 chief leaders probably saw deeper into the differences between 
 them than Cranmer, and did not think it advisable to enter on 
 fresh discussions. Alasco was made superintendent of the 
 foreign congregation, protected in the exercise of their religion, 
 in London. Bucer was, by Cranmer's influence, placed in the 
 chair of divinity at Cambridge, and Martyr at Oxford. The 
 doctrines of these theologians (especially the latter) at that 
 time were, it must be confessed, of an objectionable character 
 with reference to the eucharist : but I contend that the church 
 of England was not responsible for their opinions. Whatever 
 influence these divines exercised was indirect and private, 
 through Cranmer ; and as I have already shown that it did 
 not produce the enactment of any new doctrine in the church, 
 so I deny absolutely that the church of England at large can 
 be responsible for the opinion of one of its bishops, and still 
 less for those of his private advisers. Martyr was in the chair 
 of divinity at Oxford, and had many opponents there: but 
 God forbid, that the whole church of England should be held 
 responsible for the heresies or errors of a professor at one of 
 the universities. It is often difficult to censure or convict 
 delinquents of this kind, even though the sense of the church 
 may be manifestly against them . 
 
 If it be alleged that under the influence of Martyr and 
 Bucer, some expressions in the ritual of Edward VI., which 
 conveyed the doctrine of the real presence, were removed on 
 its revision in 1552 ; I reply, that Martyr and Bucer were 
 merely desired to give their opinions as to the alterations 
 expedient, as private theologians ; but several alterations had 
 been already agreed on, and they were not allowed to do more 
 than state their sentiments to those who were in authority p . 
 
 n Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. other Roman-catholic professors in 
 
 civ. cv; 329 349- Le Bas' Cran- Germany have been and are tinged 
 
 mer, vol. ii. p. 7882. with Neologian errors. See above, 
 
 Professor Hermes continued to p. 263. 
 
 teach his doctrines in the university " See Ridley's Life, p. 334. Le 
 
 of Bonn for fifteen years, and many Bas' Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 73, 74.
 
 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 And the immediate reason of the omissions referred to was, 
 that Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and the other main- 
 tainers of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation and the 
 corporal presence, had employed those passages to persuade the 
 people that their doctrine was authoritatively taught by the 
 church q . These changes by no means implied the adoption of 
 the doctrine of a merely figurative presence, or real absence of 
 Christ's body ; and we find no assertion of that doctrine in the 
 ritual thus altered. 
 
 Reforms Jt appears then, that during the reign of Edward VI. the 
 VL ' church made no alteration in doctrine, except in leaving the 
 mode of the real presence in the eucharist undetermined. 
 It is certain, indeed, that considerable alterations in rites and 
 ceremonies were effected, but in this there is not the slightest 
 proof of heretical variation. The removal of images specially 
 abused by superstitious or idolatrous worship, was merely fol- 
 lowing up the practice already sanctioned by the church in the 
 preceding reign. The subsequent removal of all images, by 
 order of the council in ] 548, was grounded on the tumults and 
 disorders which there were at that time about them r ; and the 
 church in acquiescing in this regulation, did so under the con- 
 viction that they were unnecessary to true piety, and liable to 
 the grossest abuses. The administration of the eucharist in 
 loth kinds, (approved by the convocation of the church) was 
 not inconsistent with the doctrine of the real presence s , or even 
 of concomitance maintained by the Necessary Doctrine * (and 
 never, that I am aware, absolutely condemned by the church 
 of England since, though not expressly taught in our present 
 formularies) ; but was founded on " primitive practice." Cran- 
 mer himself justified it, even admitting the doctrine of con- 
 comitance u . The permission of the marriage of the clergy was 
 a mere change of discipline, and perfectly lawful, as I shall 
 prove elsewhere x : and the publication of the ritual in the 
 
 i Crarimer's Works by Jenkyns, nion in both kinds. (Cap. de Ccena.) 
 
 vol. iii. p. 93. 99. 114. 145. 153. The Articles of Smalcald say it may 
 
 155. 494. be true, and yet hold that commu- 
 
 r Burnet, vol. ii. p. Ill, 112. nion in one kind is unlawful, as m- 
 
 8 Bossuet, Variat. liv. vii. s. 93. consistent with the divine institu- 
 
 ' Necessary Doctrine, p. 265. The lion. Pars iii art. vi. 
 Lutheran Confession of Wirtem- u Letter to Queen Mary, Works, 
 
 burg, drawn up by Brentius, ac- vol. i. p. 377. 
 
 knowledges the doctrine of concomi- * Part VI. Chapter on the celi- 
 
 tance, though it insists on commu- bacy of the clergy.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 395 
 
 English language, corrected and reformed, must be allowed by 
 every one to have been most perfectly within the office of the 
 church. As to the abolition of various ceremonies, such as 
 carrying candles, ashes, palms, the paschal sepulchre, creeping to 
 the cross, oil, chrism, &c. it was effected by the church, not on 
 principles condemnatory of her former practice, but because 
 these rites were abused to superstition and idolatry, and the 
 abuses could not be removed without removing their objects ; 
 or because they were too numerous and burdensome y . These 
 are principles to which it is impossible that any catholic can 
 object, and of their application the church is the proper judge. 
 It was on the principle of removing things non-essential, and 
 actually much abused, that the church sanctioned the removal 
 of prayer for the departed faithful from the public service, 
 which had been abused into a proof of the doctrine of Purga- 
 tory, which she rejected z . In the same manner she removed 
 Invocation of Saints, as leading too frequently to superstition, 
 and even to idolatry a . The practice of private confession to 
 priests, and absolution, she never abolished. It is said that 
 the form of administering the eucharist, drawn up by eighteen 
 bishops and other clergy in 1547, left private confession 
 entirely to the option of individuals b ; but, strictly speaking, 
 this licence related not so much to the practice of confession 
 in general, as to the particular custom of confessing before 
 receiving the eucharist c . That the church did not mean to 
 abolish confession and absolution (which she even regards as a 
 
 7 Preface to the Book of Common rans, c'etoit qu'ils ne fissent 1'in- 
 
 Prayer. vocation des saints trop semblable a 
 
 * Bossuet most unjustly attri- celle de Jesus Christ." The council 
 butes this to mere hostility to the of Trent, he says, endeavoured to 
 Roman church. Variat. liv. vii. s. guard against this danger by their 
 88. doctrine (Variat. xv. 155) ; but our 
 
 It is taught by Roman theolo- churches acted more piously and 
 gians that there is no positive pre- charitably, in removing a practice 
 cept of the church to invoke the which we knew by experience led 
 saints, the council of Trent having to most decided idolatry in very 
 only pronounced it salutary, not ne- many cases. For a view of the ido- 
 cessary. See Milner, End of Con- latries which have arisen from this 
 troversy, Letter 33, where he refers practice, see Archbishop Usher's 
 in proof to Petavius, Suarez, Wai- Answer to a Jesuit, chap. ix. ; Rev. 
 lemburg, Muratori, and Natalis T. H. Home's Mariolatry; Palmer, 
 Alexander. Bossuet admits that Letter I. and V. to Wiseman. 
 
 this custom may be abused. " Ce b Burnet, vol. ii. p. 120, 123. 
 qu'il y avoit a craindre pour les igno- c Ibid. p. 119.
 
 S96 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 sort of sacrament d ) in general, appears from the offices of the 
 eucharist, and for the visitation of the sick, then drawn up ; 
 . and from the powers conferred on priests in the ordination 
 services. The Homilies, drawn up in 1562, only declared this 
 confession and absolution not essential generally to the pardon 
 of sin e , but this does not militate against its desirableness 
 and benefit, which the church never denied f . We only disused 
 the canon " omnis utriusque sexus" made by the synod of 
 Lateran in 1215, and for good reasons restored the practice of 
 confession to the state it was in previously, when it was not 
 enjoined at a particular time every year. The alteration was 
 merely in a matter of changeable discipline. 
 Proceed- It is needless to dwell on the interruption to the reformation 
 
 ings under o f fa e church of England sustained in the reign of Mary. All 
 the religious acts made or approved by this catholic church 
 for many years previously, were at that time assailed by the 
 civil power, and subverted without discussion, under the in- 
 fluence of the queen, and Gardiner lord chancellor. But as I 
 have before observed on the schism and nullity of all these 
 proceedings, I shall pass without further comment to the next 
 reign. 
 
 Reforms The accession of Elizabeth was succeeded by the legal resto- 
 ra ^ on f t ne system of the church of England, but still without 
 any new formulary of doctrine till 1562, when the Convocation 
 compiled the Thirty-nine Articles. It is alleged by our oppo- 
 nents, however, that the church of England having been Zuin- 
 glian in the time of Edward, now veered towards the Roman 
 doctrine, in proof of which they allege the alteration of the 
 Article of 1552, which had declared the corporal presence im- 
 possible, the omission of the declaration concerning kneeling 
 
 a " Absolution is no such sacra- canon, charged all ministers not 
 
 ment as baptism and the commu- to reveal offences entrusted to them 
 
 nion are . . . but in a general accep- in private confession, under pain of 
 
 tation the name of a sacrament may irregularity. Private confession was 
 
 be attributed to any thing, whereby also approved by the Lutherans. 
 
 an holy thing is signified," &c. See the Confession of Augsburg, 
 
 Sermon on Common Prayer and pars i. art. xi. De Confessione; 
 
 Sacraments, part i. pars ii. art. iv ; Apologia Confes- 
 
 e Sermon of Repentance, part ii. sionis, vi; Articuli Smalcald. pars 
 
 f Ibid. See Exhortation in the iii. art. viii; and Luther's Catechis- 
 
 Communion Office, and the Visita- mus Minor, where the form of con- 
 
 tion of the sick. The National synod fession and absolution is prescribed. 
 of Ireland, A. D. 1634, in their 64th
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. S97 
 
 at the sacrament, the uniting of the forms of delivering the 
 eucharist in the first and second books of Edward VI., and 
 the omission of the petition against the bishop of Borne in the 
 Litany, all which alterations are said to have been made with 
 the intention of conciliating the professors of that very doctrine 
 of the corporal presence and transubstantiation, the denial of 
 which had cost Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer their lives g . 
 
 Now first, I have before observed that the Articles of 1552 
 were never of any authority in the church of England, and 
 therefore the convocation of 1562, in correcting what was 
 there said as to the eucharist, and omitting what seemed too 
 much of mere human reasoning on the nature of bodies, did 
 not in any degree change the doctrine of the church. Secondly, 
 we have no certain evidence of what the motives of those 
 alterations in 1558 really were. Burnet says indeed: "It 
 was proposed to have the communion book so contrived, that 
 it might not exclude the belief of the corporal presence : for 
 the chief design of the queen's council was to unite the nation 
 in one faith, and the greatest part of the nation still continued 
 to believe such a presence h ." What the proof of this is, I have 
 yet to learn; and Burnet himself, thirty-three years after- 
 wards, gave an account of the matter, from which it may be 
 suspected that he drew on his own imagination for the reasons 
 assigned in the above passage. " The most material (difference) 
 is the leaving out of that express declaration that was made 
 against the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, 
 which / then thought was done in compliance with the opinion 
 prevalent among the people of the popish persuasion, who 
 were strangely possessed with the belief of such a presence ; 
 but I am convinced by the letter sent me from Zurich, that in 
 this, great regard was likewise had to the Lutheran churches, 
 with whom a conjunction was much endeavoured by some } . 
 Blackburn, the author of the Confessional, observes with much 
 apparent truth, that Burnet, in affirming that the Articles 
 were framed with the intention of including different opinions, 
 " says a good deal of this at random, or at least upon plausible 
 conjecture V 
 
 * Bossuet, Variat. liv. x. s. 5 k Confessional, p. 134, &c. Bos- 
 
 10. suet, assuming that the Articles of 
 
 h Burnet, vol. ii. p. 704. the church of England were con- 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. iii. p. 518. ceived in vague and general terms,
 
 398 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 I repeat it, that there is no certain evidence of the motive 
 of these changes that we have only the fact. They may have 
 been, very probably, designed to remove what was deemed a 
 not altogether unreasonable ground of offence to men well dis- 
 posed. But they may have been made chiefly for their own sake, 
 on the principle of not putting forward mere human reasonings, 
 or any thing else which might seem harsh in tone, or be in any 
 way construed into a doubt of the real presence. That these 
 alterations were made on the ground of their own fitness, and 
 not with any direct intention of including the opinions of either 
 Romanists or Lutherans, appears to me most probable. The 
 Romish party had attended the worship of the church in 
 the reign of Edward VI., when the Prayer-book was un- 
 altered : why then was it necessary to make those alterations 
 on their account ? At all events, whatever may have been the 
 motives of the queen and her council, we have no proof that 
 they influenced the clergy who reviewed the Ritual, or that 
 they had any design of comprehending persons of various doc- 
 trines within the church. I have dwelt on this point, because 
 the motives of these alterations are too often assumed as a 
 matter perfectly clear and indisputable, and the reformation 
 itself is thus most unjustly enlisted in the service of latitudina- 
 rian principles. 
 
 It may be further observed, that Cranmer and others suf- 
 fered simply for not professing their belief in transubstantiation 
 and the corporal presence as matters of faith. Cranmer might 
 have held these to be serious errors, and as such refused to 
 profess his belief in them, without judging that their supporters 
 ought to be excluded from all church communion. If therefore 
 there had been an intention to facilitate the union of those 
 who believed the corporal presence, there would not have been 
 any evident inconsistency with the faith of Cranmer and his 
 companions in suffering. 
 
 in order to admit different doctrines, meurer dans cette mesure de sagesse 
 
 remarks that such a proceeding tant louee par S. Paul, et n'etre pas 
 
 amounted to a betraying of the centre son precepte plus savant qu'il 
 
 truth, Variat. x. s. vi ; but he him- ne faut." Variat. xv. s. 58. This 
 
 self says elsewhere in defence of the is really the rule followed by our 
 
 synod of Trent, to which similar catholic apostolic churches, and not 
 
 vagueness of expression is attribut- any political and latitudinarian prin- 
 
 ed, " qu'il faut souvent dans les ciple of comprehending different 
 
 decisions de PEglise s'en tenir a doctrines concerning matters of 
 
 des expressions ge'ntfrales, pour de- faith.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Variations. 399 
 
 In 1562 the Convocation authorized the Thirty-nine Articles Thirty- 
 of Religion, the only formulary of doctrine established by com- cie s e co ^ 
 petent authority in England since the publication of the Neces- pared with 
 sary Doctrine, in 1543. It may be well to remark the points cessary 6 
 of doctrine in which the two formularies agreed and differed. Doctrine." 
 Baptism and the eucharist alone are in the Articles accounted 
 "sacraments of the Gospel 1 ," but matrimony, ordination, and 
 other rites are termed sacraments in our homilies m , approved 
 by the Articles ; so that there is no very marked difference as 
 to the number of sacraments between the two formularies ; for 
 the Necessary Doctrine does not pronounce the lesser sacra- 
 ments or rites of the church to be " sacraments of the Gospel." 
 It seems, in fact, that the church of England has refrained 
 from limiting the use of the term " sacrament n ," and left her 
 theologians, in this respect, to that ancient liberty of which 
 the synod of Trent has deprived the Roman theologians. If 
 the Necessary Doctrine maintains a change of substance in the 
 eucharist, without affirming transubstantiation , the Article, in 
 denying transubstantiation, does not condemn absolutely all 
 change of substance in any sense p , but the particular change 
 
 1 Art. XXV. their own substance, but by virtue 
 
 m Homily on Swearing, part i. ; of Christ's word in the consecration, 
 
 On Common Prayer and Sacra- be changed and turned to the very 
 
 ments, part i. substance of the body and blood of 
 
 n The Catechism affirms that our Saviour Jesus Christ ;' yet does 
 there are only two sacraments gene- not go the full length of pronoun- 
 rally necessary to salvation ; the Ar- cing that ' after the consecration 
 tide, that there are two sacraments there remaineth no substance of 
 ordained of Christ our Lord in the bread and wine, nor any other sub- 
 Gospel. The object of the church stance but the substance of Christ.' 
 is to secure these two great sacra- And yet these are the terms by 
 ments in their supremacy of dig- which it has been thought necessary 
 nity and necessity beyond all other to guard the Romish tenet from 
 rites. misinterpretation, and in which it 
 
 " It is a remarkable fact," says had been expressed four years be- 
 
 Mr. Jenkyns, in his valuable edition fore in the noted Act of the Six 
 
 of Cranmer's works, " that the se- Articles." This omission may not 
 
 veral formularies of faith to which unreasonably be attributed to Cran- 
 
 he (Cranmer) was a party under mer's opposition. Works of Cran- 
 
 Henry VIII., while they maintain mer, vol. i. p. Ixxv. Ixxvi. It must 
 
 most unequivocally the corporal be admitted, however, that the more 
 
 presence, yet all fall short of any apparent meaning of the Necessary 
 
 explicit assertion of transubstantia- Doctrine implies a change of sub- 
 
 tion. Even the Necessary Doctrine, stance in the Romish sense, 
 
 which is justly considered to be the p E.g. if we do not take the term 
 
 most favourable to the church of substance in the scholastic sense, as 
 
 Rome, though it teaches that the distinguished from the accidents, 
 
 bread and wine ' do not remain in and if the change is not corporal, or
 
 400 The British Reformation. [PART it. 
 
 called by the Romanists transubstantiation, which supposes the 
 bread to cease to exist. The Article condemning " the sacri- 
 fices of masses, in which it was commonly said that Christ was 
 offered for the quick and dead, for the remission of pain or 
 guilt," rightly censures that erroneous view of the sacrifice, 
 but does not declare against the doctrine of the eucharistic 
 sacrifice rightly understood q , and therefore does not differ from 
 the Necessary Doctrine, which merely acknowledges a sacri- 
 fice. There is no difference between the two formularies as to 
 the canon of Scripture, the Creed, the rule of faith, the falli- 
 bility of the church of Rome, or of general councils, the 
 papal supremacy. They both admit justification by faith, 
 which worketh by charity 1 . The Article, in declaring that 
 concupiscence in the regenerate hath the nature of sin s , does 
 not affirm that it is liable to the guilt and punishment of sin 
 if it be resisted ; and therefore does not really contradict the 
 Necessary Doctrine *. The Article containing the opinion that 
 works done before the grace of God have the nature of sin, 
 because " they are not done as God hath willed and commanded 
 them to be done u ," in order to exclude entirely the merit of 
 such works, is not essentially contradictory to the " Doctrine," 
 which declares that they " be not meritorious nor available to 
 the attaining of everlasting life, when they be not done in the 
 faith of Christ," and therefore be not accounted amongst the 
 good works " recommended to a Christian V 
 
 It is true that the Necessary Doctrine approves the invoca- 
 
 in any sense carnal, but mystical, or stantial " presence ; which is also 
 spiritual, or moral. Some change affirmed in the Formula Concordia?, 
 of the bread and wine all orthodox pars i. art. vii. 
 Christians allow. Bishop Pearson 1 Archbishop Cranmer himself 
 says truly, that " the /ra<n-otx'Wie allows the eucharist to be a spiritual 
 of the sacramental elements maketh sacrifice. See his works by Jenkyns, 
 them not to cease to be of the same vol. iii. p. 5. 161. 539. 551. 
 nature which before they were." r Article XI. XII. Necessary 
 On the Creed, article iii. note on Doctrine, p. 221. 223. 368. 
 Eutychian heresy. The term sub- Article IX. The synod of Trent 
 stantial is used by Bishop Poynet (Sess. v. de Peccato Original!), ac- 
 in his Diallacticon, and by Bishop knowledges that concupiscence is 
 Taylor (Real Presence, &c. Oxford sometimes called sin by the apostle, 
 ed. 1836, p. 521), to express the because it is " ex peccato, et ad pec- 
 true presence. The Confession of catum inclinat." 
 Augsburg is said, both by the Apo- * Necessary Doctrine, p. 254, 350. 
 logia (art. iv. de Ecclesia), and by u Art. XIII. 
 the papal confutation of it (num. x.) * Necessary Doctrine, p. 370. 
 to have taught the real and " sub-
 
 CHAP, vii.] Anglo-Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist. 401 
 
 tion of saints to pray for us y , and the Article censures it as 
 " a fond thing," and " repugnant to the word of God ;" and 
 perhaps a similar discrepancy may be found in the opinion of 
 transubstantiation ; but, as I have already observed, particular 
 churches are liable to involuntary error without heresy, and 
 may in some points change their opinions without heretical 
 variation. Altogether I see not that there is any very great 
 contradiction between these two formularies in matters of doc- 
 trine. I dispute not that several of those who composed the 
 one differed in some points from several of those who composed 
 the other ; but their formularies are not so worded as to evince 
 any great or irreconcilable opposition between the public and 
 authorized faith of the church of England in the reign of 
 Henry VIII. and in that of Elizabeth. 
 
 The church of England is said to have varied again when, in 
 the time of Charles II., she readmitted the declaration on 
 kneeling at the sacrament ; which not only maintains the 
 existence of the substance of bread and wine after consecra- 
 tion, but denies the corporal presence. But there is no incon- 
 sistency ; for the former assertion only amounts to a denial of 
 transubstantiation, already rejected by the Articles ; and the 
 latter is not opposed to the real, spiritual, and heavenly pre- 
 sence of Christ's body. 
 
 This catholic and apostolic church has always avoided any Anglo-Ca- 
 attempt to determine too minutely the mode of the true pre- ^g C f^ 
 sence in the holy eucharist. Guided by Scripture, she estab- eucharist. 
 lishes only those truths which Scripture reveals, and leaves the 
 subject in that mystery with which God, for his wise purposes, 
 has invested it. Her doctrine concerning the true presence 
 appears to be limited to the following points : 
 
 Taking as her immoveable foundation the words of Jesus 
 
 Christ, " This is my body This is my blood of the new 
 
 covenant V and " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood hath eternal life a ;" she believes that the body, or flesh, 
 and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Eedeemer of 
 
 y Neces. Doctrine, p. 237- 305. in Communion Office. . " Grant us 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 26. 28. therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat 
 
 John vi. 54. The church of the flesh of thy dear Son," &c. 
 England believes these expressions Prayer before Consecration. The 
 to relate to the eucharist. " Then term " flesh," is only used in this 
 we spiritually eat \.\\e flesh of Christ, chapter of St. John. 
 
 and drink his blood," &c. Exhort. 
 
 VOL. J. D d
 
 402 
 
 The British Reformation. 
 
 [PART IT. 
 
 the world, both God and man united indivisibly in one person b , 
 are verily and indeed given to, taken, eaten, and received by 
 the faithful in the Lord's Supper c , under the outward sign or 
 form of bread (and wine) d ; which is, on this account, the 
 " partaking or communion of the body and blood of Christ e ." 
 She believes that the eucharist is not the sign of an absent 
 body f ; and that those who partake of it receive not merely 
 the figure, or shadow, or sign of Christ's body, but the reality 
 itself g . And as Christ's divine and human natures are inse- 
 parably united, so she believes that we receive in the eucharist, 
 not only the flesh and blood of Christ, but Christ himself, both 
 God and man h . 
 
 Resting on these words, " The bread which we break, is it 
 not the communion of the body of Christ ? " and again, " I will 
 not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine ;" she holds, that 
 the nature of the bread and wine continues after consecration * ; 
 
 b " Who although he be God and 
 man, yet he is not two, but one 
 Christ .... one altogether, not by 
 confusion of substance, but by unity 
 of person." Athan. Creed. 
 
 c "The body of Christ is given, 
 taken, and eaten in the supper .... 
 is received and eaten in the supper." 
 Art. XXVIII. " The body and 
 blood of Christ, which are verily 
 and indeed taken and received by 
 the faithful in the Lord's supper." 
 Catechism. " The holy commu- 
 nion of the body and blood of our 
 Saviour Christ." Exhort, in Com- 
 munion Office. " We spiritually 
 eat the flesh of Christ and drink his 
 blood." Ibid. "Grant us, there- 
 fore, gracious Lord, so to eat the 
 flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, 
 and to drink his blood, that our 
 sinful bodies may be made clean by 
 his body," &c. Prayer before Con- 
 secration. " Grant that we, receiving 
 these thy creatures of bread and 
 wine .... may be partakers of his 
 most blessed body and blood." 
 Consecration. " Most heartily thank 
 thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to 
 feed us .... with the spiritual food 
 of the most precious body and blood 
 of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 Post Communion. 
 
 d " The outward sign or form." 
 
 Catechism. " Hereafter shall fol- 
 low sermons ... of the due receiv- 
 ing of his blessed body and blood, 
 under the form of bread and wine." 
 Advertisement at the end of the 
 first book of Homilies. 
 
 e 1 Cor. x. 16. Art. XXVIII. 
 
 f " Thus much we must be sure 
 to hold, that in the Supper of the 
 Lord there is no vain ceremony, no 
 bare sign, no untrue figure of a 
 thing absent." Horn, xxvii. p. 1. 
 
 The faithful " receive not only 
 the outward sacrament, but the spi- 
 ritual thing also ; not the figure, 
 but the truth ; not the shadow only, 
 but the body." Ib. Bishop Poy- 
 net says, " Corpus Christi et veritas 
 et figura est : veritas dum Corpus 
 Christi et sanguis virtute Spiritus 
 Sancti in virtute ipsius ex panis et 
 vini substantia efficitur : figura vero 
 est id quod exterius sentitur." 
 Diallacticon, p. 6. 
 
 h " He hath given his Son our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die 
 for us, but also to be our spiritual 
 food and sustenance in that holy sa- 
 crament." Exhortation in Com- 
 munion Office. " In no wise are 
 they partakers of Christ." Art. 
 
 1 " The sacramental bread and 
 wine remain still in their very na-
 
 CHAP, vii.] Anglo-Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist. 403 
 
 and therefore rejects transubstantiation, or " the change of the 
 substance k " which supposes the nature of bread entirely to 
 cease by consecration. 
 
 As a necessary consequence of the preceding truths, and 
 admonished by Christ himself, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, 
 the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, 
 they are spirit and they are life ;" she holds that the presence 
 (and therefore the eating) of Christ's body and blood, though 
 true, is altogether " heavenly and spiritual J ," of a kind which 
 is inexplicable by any carnal or earthly experience or imagina- 
 tion ; even as the Sonship of the eternal Word of God, and 
 His incarnation, and the procession of the Holy Spirit, are 
 immeasurable by human understandings. 
 
 Believing, according to the Scriptures, that Christ ascended 
 in his natural body into heaven, and shall only come from thence 
 at the end of the world m ;" she rejects for this reason, as well as 
 for the last, any such real presence of Christ's body and blood as 
 is " corporal n J1 or organical ; that is, according to the known 
 and earthly mode of the existence of a body. 
 
 Resting on the divine promise, " Whoso eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood hath eternal life," she regards it as the 
 more pious and probable opinion, that the wicked, those who 
 are totally devoid of true and living faith, do not partake of 
 the holy flesh of Christ in the eucharist , God withdrawing 
 from them so " divine " a gift p , and not permitting his enemies 
 to partake of it. And hence she holds, that such a faith is 
 
 tural substances." Declaration at whence he shall come to judge the 
 
 end of Communion Office. " If the quick and the dead." Athanasian 
 
 consecrated bread or wine be all Creed. 
 
 spent." See Rubric in same. " The n " No adoration is intended or 
 
 terrene and earthly creatures which ought to be done . . . unto any cor- 
 
 remain." Horn, xxvii. p. i. " The poral presence of Christ's natural 
 
 bread which we break," &c. Art. flesh and blood." Declaration after 
 
 XXVIII. Communion Office. 
 
 k " Transubstantiation (or the " The wicked, and such as be 
 
 change of the substance of bread void of a lively faith, although they 
 
 and wine) in the supper of the Lord, do carnally and visibly press with 
 
 cannot be proved by holy writ ; but their teeth . . . the sacrament of the 
 
 is repugnant to the plain words of body and blood of Christ, yet in 
 
 Scripture," &c. Art. XXVIII. nowise are they partakers of Christ." 
 
 1 "The body of Christ is given, Art. XXIX. 
 
 taken, and eaten in the supper, only f "Which being so divine and 
 
 after an heavenly and spiritual man- comfortable a thing to them who re- 
 
 ner." Art. XXVIII. ceive it worthily." Exhortation in 
 
 m " He sitteth on the right hand Communion Office, 
 of the Father, God Almighty ; from 
 
 D d 2
 
 404 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 " the means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten," 
 " a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies ;" because 
 it is the essential qualification on our parts, without which that 
 body is not received ; and because " without faith it is impos- 
 sible to please God >."" 
 
 Following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the 
 apostles, and supported by their authority, she believes that 
 " the blessing r " or " consecration * " of the bread and wine is 
 not without effect, but that it operates a real change ; for when 
 the sacrament is thus perfected, she regards it as so " divine a 
 thing," so " heavenly a food," that we must not "presume " to 
 approach it with unprepared minds 1 ; and that sinners, although 
 they only partake of the bread and wine, partake of them to 
 their own condemnation, because they impiously disregard the 
 Lord^s body u , which is truly present in that sacrament. Hence 
 it is that the church, believing firmly in the real presence of 
 the " precious and blessed body and blood of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ V' speaks of the eucharist as " high and holy myste- 
 ries y," exhorts us to consider the " dignity of that holy mys- 
 tery 2 ," that "heavenly feast," that "holy table," "the ban- 
 
 i Horn, xxvii. p. i. ; Art. XXVIII. to them that will presume to receive 
 Bossuet says that this assertion of it unworthily." Exhort, in Comm. 
 the Article is certainly true, provided Office. "St. Paul exhorteth all 
 the reception be understood of a persons diligently to try and ex- 
 useful reception, in the sense of St. amine themselves before they ^re- 
 John speaking of Jesus Christ : sume to eat of that bread and drink 
 " His own received him not," though of that cup." Ibid. "We do not 
 he was in the midst of them ; i. e. presume to come to this thy table, 
 they did not receive his doctrine merciful Lord, trusting in our own 
 nor his grace. Variat. x. sect. vi. righteousness, but in thy manifold 
 
 r " Beginning at our Saviour and great mercies." Prayer before 
 
 Christ, &c. for the blessing of the Consecration, 
 
 bread, and at ' likewise after sup- u " So is the danger great if we 
 
 per,' &c. for the blessing of the cup." receive the same unworthily. For 
 
 Rubric in Communion Office. then we are guilty of the body and 
 
 * " The priest .... shall say the blood of Christ our Saviour ; we eat 
 
 prayer of consecration." Rubric and drink our own damnation, not 
 
 Comm. Office. " If the consecrated considering the Lord's body ; we 
 
 bread and wine be all spent . . . the kindle God's wrath against us ; we 
 
 priest is to consecrate more." Ru- provoke him to plague us with divers 
 
 brie, ibid. " If any remain of that diseases and sundry kinds of death." 
 
 which was consecrated . . . the priest Exhort, in Communion Office, 
 
 and such other, &c. . . . shall imme- * Prayer before Consecration ; 
 
 diately after the blessing reverently Post Communion Prayer, 
 
 eat and drink the same." Rubric, y Exhort. Comm. Office j Horn, 
 
 ibid. xxvii. p. i. 
 
 ' " Which being ... so dangerous z Ibid.
 
 CHAP, vii.] Anglo-Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist. 405 
 
 quet of that most heavenly food a ," even " the King of kings 1 
 table b ." 
 
 Such is the simple, the sublime, and, what is more, the true 
 and scriptural doctrine of our catholic and apostolic church a 
 doctrine which cannot be accused of heresy except from igno- 
 rance or uncharitableness. Even our adversaries are com- 
 pelled sometimes, by the force of truth, to clear the church of 
 England from the imputation of disbelieving the sublime mys- 
 teries of this holy sacrament , and reducing it to a common 
 spiritual exercise, in which the mind of the individual derives 
 edification, and perhaps grace, from the contemplation and 
 remembrance of an absent Redeemer's sufferings. 
 
 Our doctrine leaves this subject in the sacred mystery with 
 which God has enveloped it. It is not to be denied that the 
 Roman doctrine of transubstantiation facilitates the mental con- 
 ception of that mystery ; but it has the fatal defect of being 
 opposed to the plain language of Scripture. And if those 
 statements are to be explained away, and reduced to merely 
 figurative expressions, according to the doctrine of Paschasius 
 Radbertus and his school d , the Zuinglians and Socinians may 
 
 Exhort. Comm. Office ; Horn, and truly, and of as full force to 
 
 xx vii. p. i. exclude a mere figurative presence, 
 
 b Horn, xrvii. p. i. I confess I am yet wholly ignorant 
 
 c Milner is obliged to confess, of the signification even of the most 
 
 that the genuine doctrine of the common words, and it will be impos- 
 
 church of England is that of the sible to know what men mean, even 
 
 real presence. He refers in proof to when they deliver themselves in the 
 
 the Catechism, Articles, Ritual, and plainest terms." Real Principles of 
 
 Homilies, and to Ridley, Nowell, Catholics, p. 243. ed. 1749. Bos- 
 
 Bilson, Andrewes, Morton, Laud, suet affirms, that even the Declara- 
 
 Bramhall,&c. and to Cleaver, bishop tion against transubstantiation leaves 
 
 of Chester, who says, "The great the English at liberty to "believe 
 
 object of our reformers was, whilst that the body and blood of Jesus 
 
 they acknowledged the doctrine of Christ are really and substantially 
 
 the real presence, to refute that of present in the bread and in the wine 
 
 transubstantiation ; as it was after- immediately after consecration." 
 
 wards to refute the notion of impa- Variat. xiv. 122. 
 
 nation or consubstantiation." Ser- d The Roman doctors are griev- 
 
 mon, Nov. 25, 1787- See Milner's ously perplexed by the language of 
 
 Letters to a Prebendary, letter viii. Scripture in calling the eucharist 
 
 Hornyhold, another of their titular bread after consecration. Bellar- 
 
 bishops, admits that "the doctrine mine (De Euchar. 1. i. c. 12) men- 
 
 of the church of England," in the tions four solutions of the difficulty : 
 
 Catechism, " expresses the real and (1.) It is called bread by a trope, as 
 
 substantial presence of Christ's body having been bread, as in Exod. vii. 
 
 and blood in the sacrament as fully the rods turned into serpents are 
 
 as any catholic can do ; for if verily still called rods ; Matt. ii. the blind 
 
 and indeed be not the same as really are said to see, &c. (2.) Scripture
 
 406 The British Reformation. [p. n. CH. vn. 
 
 with reason claim a similar privilege of arbitrarily explaining 
 away into figures the very passages in which the doctrine of 
 the true presence itself is conveyed. 
 
 The Eoman doctrine of transubstantiation is entirely founded 
 on human reasoning from the nature of bodies, and the sup- 
 posed incompatibility of the scriptural statement that the 
 eucharist is bread and wine, literally understood, with the other 
 expressions of Scripture. But what Bossuet has observed of 
 the philosophical reasonings of the school of Zurich and Geneva 
 against the real presence, "que les recevoir en matiere de 
 religion, c'est detruire non seulement le mystere de Teucha- 
 ristie, mais tout d'un coup tons les mysteres du Christianisme," 
 is perfectly applicable to those of Romanists for their tran- 
 substantiation. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ON THE IDENTITY OF THE REFORMED AND UNREFORMED 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 The separatists from our catholic and apostolic churches 
 endeavour to justify their schism by denying the identity of 
 the English church, after the Reformation, with that which 
 existed previously to the Reformation ; and they point out 
 several differences between them in respect of church govern- 
 ment, worship, and doctrine, whence they argue that the Eng- 
 lish church in the reign of King Edward VI. " could not be 
 one and the same church " with the English church in the first 
 years of Henry VIII. a 
 
 The reforms of the church seem to them to destroy its con- 
 tinuity ; as if the identity of the church consisted in the reten- 
 tion of abuses and corruptions, or the preservation of customs 
 and rites introduced by the church herself. To us it seems 
 that the real identity of a church consists in her preservation 
 of the catholic faith revealed by God, and taught in all ages by 
 
 ordinarily names things according is a solid, principal, substantial food, 
 
 to their appearance, e. g. angels ap- Of course it is easy to explain away 
 
 pearing in the human shape are any terms of Scripture, however 
 
 called men ; oxen, pomegranates, clear ; but those who arbitrarily 
 
 Sic. made of brass, are called simply give a figurative meaning to these 
 
 oxen, &c. (3 ) " Optime," bread, terms of Scripture, cannot oppose 
 
 is a Hebrew phrase for any sort of the Zuinglians and Socinians. 
 food. (4.) It is so called because it a Dublin Review, viii. 357 3C1.
 
 APPENDIX.] Continuance of the Church. 407 
 
 the universal church ; and in the retention of those rites and 
 that government of the church which are of divine institution, 
 or were instituted in all churches by the apostles. While these 
 essentials are preserved the identity of the church continues, 
 and it is not affected by the introduction or removal of certain 
 jurisdictions of human origin, by varieties in the external forms 
 of worship, or by the prevalence of abuses or corruptions in 
 doctrine and practice amongst the people. The existence of 
 serious errors, nay, even of idolatry and heresy, does not 
 destroy the identity of a church, unless all its members are 
 obliged, as such, to profess idolatry or heresy b . 
 
 Let us now consider the arguments which have been ad- 
 vanced to disprove the identity of the church of England in its 
 reformed and unreformed states. 
 
 I. It is alleged that the church, at the commencement of Difference 
 Henry's reign, " admitted in the bishop of Rome a primacy of 
 order and jurisdiction," which it "abjured" in the reign of 
 Edward, and " transferred to the crown c ." I admit that the 
 supremacy of the Eoman see was for a long time admitted 
 generally amongst us, as it was in other western churches ; 
 but this was merely a mistaken opinion, it was not a heresy, 
 and therefore its popular reception, or its rejection, did not 
 affect the identity of the church. I have before shown that 
 the papal supremacy was not transferred to the king d . 
 
 The bishops, it is said, were acknowledged in the former 
 church to inherit their spiritual authority from Christ, while, 
 " in the more recent church, the bishops were mere creatures 
 of the crown, appointed like civil officers by patents," which 
 professed to confer on them ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They 
 were ^consecrated after a new form devised by the archbishop, 
 and were liable to be suspended from their authority by royal 
 visitors, and obliged to conform to any injunctions which might 
 be issued by the crown e . 
 
 It has been already shown that these patents or commissions 
 conferring ecclesiastical jurisdiction, are to be understood as 
 relating only to the grant of legal and external powers ; and 
 that they always admitted that certain powers were given to 
 bishops in the Scriptures f . The novelty of the form of conse- 
 
 b See above, Part I. chapter v. d See above, p. 355. 
 section iii. e Dublin Review, p. 357, 358. 
 
 c Dublin Review, p. 357. ' See above, p. 359.
 
 408 The British Reformation. [P. n. OH. vn. 
 
 cration does not prove that it was invalid or uncanonical. As 
 to the royal visitations, it is possible that the crown may have 
 assumed too much in some points ; but the church was not 
 bound to approve of these particular irregularities g . In fine, 
 the power of the crown to issue injunctions does not imply that 
 the church was obliged to obey "any" that might be made. On 
 the whole, it may be very possible that Henry and Edward 
 may have sometimes exceeded their power in ecclesiastical 
 affairs, and that their courtiers, and even some of the clergy, 
 may have somewhat exaggerated the royal power ; but this did 
 not compel the whole church to adopt any heretical views, or 
 to deny the real authority of the church and its episcopate. 
 Therefore there is no evidence that the church lost its essential 
 identity during these changes. 
 
 Difference II. It is further contended, that the church lost its identity, 
 3 lp> because certain alterations were made in public worship. 
 " The old church followed, in the public worship, certain well- 
 known forms which had been in constant use for many cen- 
 turies. In the new church every thing was' altered. The 
 ancient ceremonies were, with few exceptions, abolished ; the 
 habits of the officiating ministers were thrown aside, the ser- 
 vice was read from another part of the church, the altar was 
 turned into a table, the former ordinal was superseded by a 
 new one, and the sacrifice of the mass . . . was expelled to 
 make room for a new Liturgy. 11 " A book of common prayer 
 was composed, 11 with alterations which caused it to differ 
 " from every other Liturgy that had ever existed either in the 
 
 eastern or western church Prayer for the dead was 
 
 omitted . . with several unctions and ceremonies . . care was 
 taken to exclude from the Liturgy the several allusions which it 
 still retained to the real presence of Christ in the eucharist V 1 
 I answer, that the translation and reform of the ritual of 
 the church does not prove that any of its essentials were lost. 
 Many ceremonies were abolished, it is true : but they were 
 not instituted by the Apostles, or received or enjoined by all 
 churches. The identity of the church does not depend on the 
 use of particular habits, or the celebration of the office in a 
 particular part of the church, or the use of a stone altar in 
 preference to a wooden table. Altars are used in the Latin 
 
 * Page 358. h Dublin Review, p. 358, 359-
 
 APPENDIX.] Continuance of the Church. 409 
 
 churches, tables in the Greek and the English churches. The 
 change was made in order to remove from the popular mind 
 the gross errors and superstitions which had been so commonly 
 connected with the sacrifice of the mass. It was the pre- 
 valence of these abuses that induced the church to ex- 
 change the appellation of " the Mass " for that of the " Holy 
 Communion ;" but the essentials of this most holy service, 
 which had always been preserved, were comprised in the 
 reformed rites. The circumstantial difference of our rites 
 from those of other churches, does not infer any contradiction 
 in essential matters. No one pretends that prayer for the 
 dead is an essential. The alterations in the reformed ritual, 
 which excluded some passages confirmatory of the real pre- 
 sence, were made because certain persons had pretended that 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation was conveyed in them. Thus 
 it is evident, that nothing can be more futile than the attempt 
 to argue against the identity of the church of England, because 
 her worship was reformed. On these principles, no church 
 could ever reform her rites, omit needless or abused cere- 
 monies, or adopt new ones. If the mere circumstance of alter- 
 ation and reform is held sufficient to destroy the identity of the 
 church, the church's power must be strangely limited, and 
 those individuals who may dissent from any of her improve- 
 ments, will be entitled to regard her as no longer Christian. 
 Such principles, then, manifestly tend to encourage schism, 
 and to subvert the authority of the church. 
 
 III. With respect to doctrine, it is maintained, that there Difference 
 were essential contradictions between the church of England, "* doctrine, 
 before the Reformation, and the Reformed church. " All 
 agree," it is said, that the " old church . . . taught the very 
 same doctrines which were afterwards embodied in the creed 
 of Pius IV. ... The doctrines of the new church may be 
 learned from the Forty-two articles published in the last year 
 of the reign of Edward. Compare the two, and you will find 
 that . . . they contradict each other in several [points], and 
 that religious opinions are sanctioned in the latter, which 
 would have subjected their advocates to the penalties of heresy 
 during the prevalence of the former '." 
 
 I reply, that it is not exactly true that the church, before 
 
 1 Dublin Review, p. 359.
 
 410 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 the Reformation, taught the doctrines comprised in the creed 
 of Pius IV., for, not to remark, that several of these doctrines 
 were openly rejected by all the eastern churches ; it may be 
 observed of them all, that they had never been defined by any 
 O3cumenical synod, or even by any formal judgment of the whole 
 western church k . And besides this, it has been demonstrated, 
 that they had been all along disputed, or not admitted univer- 
 sally in the western church 1 , although they had certainly 
 been very commonly received into the popular belief. It 
 would, therefore, be more correct to say, that the doctrines 
 contained in the creed of Pius IV. -were prevalent in the church 
 before the Reformation, than to say that they were " taught by 
 the church" 
 
 With reference to the Forty-two articles, it has been already 
 shown, that they were never, in reality, the authoritative con- 
 fession of the church of England m . But it is fully conceded, 
 that there are contradictions in some points between the doc- 
 trines popularly received before the Reformation, and the 
 Thirty-nine Articles of 1562 ; and that many adherents of the 
 former have judged some of the articles heretical. The doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, and the papal supremacy, and the 
 worship of images and relics, were very commonly regarded as 
 matters of faith before the Reformation ; but these mistakes 
 arose from want of learning and of examination ; and they were 
 not contrary to the faith ; so that their reception did not annul 
 the character of the church. And neither did their rejection 
 destroy its identity : they were neither heresies nor articles of 
 faith ; and as such their acceptance or their non-reception did 
 not affect the identity of the church, though they might, and 
 did most materially affect its purity and soundness. The unity 
 of faith is tested by our acceptance of the whole truth actually 
 revealed by Christ ; not by our opinions whether other doc- 
 trines do, or do not, form part of revelation. We may err in 
 supposing that some doctrines have been revealed which were 
 not really so ; but if the faith itself be retained, the unity of 
 faith is preserved. It may be concluded then, that the church 
 of England always continued to exist, and that the Reforma- 
 tion did not destroy its identity. 
 
 k See Part IV. chap. x. sect. iv. ; work " Of the Church " See also 
 
 chap. xi. Gerhardi Confessio Orthodoxa. 
 
 1 This is proved by Field, in the m See above, p. 338. 
 Appendix to the third book of his
 
 CHAP, vin.] Cranmer. 41 J 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ON THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF ARCHBISHOP 
 CRANMER. 
 
 THE opponents of the English Reformation have eagerly laid 
 hold of every imputation, however unjust and groundless, 
 against the character of archbishop Cranmer ; and when they 
 have painted it in untrue colours, we are asked whether we 
 can recognize in such a man, the instrument whom God would 
 have chosen to promulgate doctrines of the utmost importance, 
 hitherto unknown to the church. Now we are by no means 
 concerned to established the immaculate sanctity of Cranmer, 
 because we do not imagine that any doctrine which he was 
 instrumental in establishing in our churches was novel. A 
 prelate of learning and respectability as he was, might, without 
 superlative sanctity, have been a very useful instrument in cor- 
 recting abuses, errors, and superstitions, by the exercise of his 
 ordinary vocation. But as these writers represent Cranmer 
 as a monster of perjury, dissimulation, and ingratitude, in order 
 to excite prejudice against the reformation of the church of 
 England, which he most laudably promoted, it may be advisa- 
 ble briefly to notice and refute some of the more prominent 
 charges against him. 
 
 I. It is alleged that Cranmer promised obedience to the Oath at 
 Roman pontiff in the oath taken by him at his consecration in 
 1533, though he internally neither acknowledged the spiritual 
 power of the pontiff, nor intended to obey it ; and that his 
 protestation, made at the same time, was an unjustifiable 
 attempt to elude the oath a . 
 
 Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. consilio aut consensu vel facto, ut 
 
 sect. xi. The oath itself ran as fol- vitam perdant aut membrum, seu 
 
 lows: In Dei nomine amen. (1.) capiantur, aut in eos manus vio- 
 
 Ego Thomas, electus Cantuarien', lenter quomodolibet ingerantur, vel 
 
 ab hac hora inantea, fidelis et obe- injuriae aliquse inferantur quovis 
 
 diens ero beato Petro, sanctaeque quaesito colore. (3.) Consilium vero, 
 
 apostolicae Romanse ecclesiae, ac do- quod mihi credituri sunt per se aut 
 
 mino nostro domino dementi Papae nuncios seu literas, ad eorum dam- 
 
 septimo, suisque successoribus ca- num (me sciente) nemini pandam. 
 
 nonice intrantibus. (2.) Noneroin (4.) Papatum Romanum et regalia
 
 412 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 Now, first, it is certain that this oath was taken by every 
 bishop in Europe with certain exceptions, not simply and 
 absolutely. Every English bishop on receiving his tempo- 
 ralities from the crown, renounced by oath " all such clauses, 
 words, and sentences " which he had of the pope, " that in 
 anywise hath been, is, or hereafter may be hurtful or pre- 
 judicial to the king or his royal dignity or privileges V The 
 learned canonist Van Espen (of the Roman communion) 
 observes, on the articles of the oath of bishops, that the three 
 first are plainly conformable to those of oaths of fealty made 
 by vassals to their superior lord ; that they infer subjection to 
 the pope not only in spirituals but in temporals. In the fourth 
 article he shows that the " regalities of St. Peter" means the 
 temporal possessions of the Roman see. The fifth, eighth, and 
 ninth articles, he observes, can only be executed by permission 
 of the prince, in France and Belgium ; and therefore they 
 must be taken only conditionally. Some of the articles, he 
 says, are so expressed, considering their tenor, and the ancient 
 customs of provinces, it is very doubtful whether bishops can 
 fulfil their oath as regards them. On one article (9) he cites 
 Fleury's observation : " In France this article is not observed.' 1 '' 
 On another article (7) he cites Florens, who says, " this 
 
 sancti Petri, adjutor eis ero ad reti- tiones, provisiones, et mandata apo- 
 
 nendum et defendendum contra stolica, totis viribus observabo, et 
 
 omnem hominem. (5.) Legatum faciam ab aliis observari. Haereti- 
 
 Apostolica? sedis in eundo et reundo cos, schismaticos, et rebelles domino 
 
 honorifice tractabo, et in suis neces- nostro et successoribus praedictis, 
 
 sitatibus adjuvabo. (6.) Jura, ho- pro posse persequar et impugnabo. 
 
 nores, privilegia, et auctoritatem (8.) Vocatus ad Synodum veniam, 
 
 Romana? Ecclesise, domini nostri nisi praepeditus fuero canonica prae- 
 
 Papae et successorum suorum pra?- peditione. (9.) Apostolorum limina, 
 
 dictorum, conservare et defendere, Romana curia existente citra sin- 
 
 augere et promovere curabo. Nee gulis annis, ultra vero montes, sin- 
 
 ero in consilio vel tractatu, in quibus gulis bienniis vis'tabo, aut per me 
 
 contra ipsum dominum nostrum vel aut per meum nuncium, nisi apo- 
 
 eandem Romanam ecclesiam, aliqua stolica absolvar licentia. (10.) Pos- 
 
 sinistra vel prejudicial personarum, sessiones vero ad mensam meam 
 
 juris, honoris, status, et potestatis pertinentes non vendam, neque do- 
 
 eorum machinentur, et si talia a nabo, nee impignorabo, neque de 
 
 quibuscunque procurari novero vel novo infeudabo, vel aliquo modo 
 
 tractari, impediam hoc pro posse, et alienabo, etiam cum consensu capi- 
 
 quantocius potero commode signifi- talis Ecclesiae mese, inconsulto Ro- 
 
 cabo eidem domino nostro, vel alteri mano Pontifice. Sic me Deus," 
 
 per quern ad ipsius notitiam per- &c. Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, 
 
 venire possit. (7.) Regulas sane- vol. iv. p. 249. 
 
 torumpatrum.decreta, ordinationes, b Burnet, vol. i. p. 226. 
 sententias, dispositiones, reserva-
 
 CHAP, viii.] Crammer. 413 
 
 clause is of the widest extent, nor does our custom allow it in 
 many respects ;" and the same, he adds, may be without doubt 
 affirmed of Belgium. In fine, he remarks, that " Provisions, 
 reservations, and mandates apostolical, are not here (Belgium) 
 admitted generally and indiscriminately, but with certain 
 limitations according to the rights and received customs of 
 churches : nor is it to be believed that the pontiffs would 
 desire their observance to be sworn to otherwise ; and custom 
 and the general understanding seem to have explained the oath 
 in this sense, not merely as regards this article, but the rest 
 also, namely, that the things contained in those articles be observed, 
 as far as the rights and customs of provinces permit them*." 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that the oath contains many clauses 
 which require to be understood with conditions and excep- 
 tions ; and we are informed by Rechberger, that as " it did 
 not appear free from all danger to the state," it was ordained 
 by the imperial statute of Joseph II., emperor of Germany, 
 that in the Austrian states it should only be taken, on condi- 
 tion that it be understood to relate simply to canonical 
 obedience. The Austrian bishops also must previously take a 
 particular oath of allegiance and fidelity to the emperor d ; and 
 in Spain the oath to the pontiff is always taken with certain 
 conditions e . In fact, every other bishop of the Roman com- 
 munion must make some mental exceptions, unless he means 
 to bind himself to absolute obedience to the pontiff in tem- 
 porals as well as spirituals ; and therefore archbishop Cran- 
 mer, so far from deserving blame for taking it with certain 
 qualifications, merits approbation for making a distinct and 
 formal protest of the sense in which he took it, while others 
 contented themselves with merely mental exceptions. He might 
 have contented himself, like them, with the modifications and 
 exceptions which practice seemed to have introduced into the 
 meaning of the oath ; and might have taken it silently, without 
 any intention of obeying it literally and in every point ; and 
 might afterwards, like other bishops, have formally renounced 
 all parts of it inconsistent with his fealty to his sovereign ; 
 and proceeded in lawful reforms of the church of England ; but 
 
 c Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Univ. e Report from Select Committee 
 
 pars i. tit. xv. c. 2. on Roman Catholic subjects (1816), 
 
 d Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. p. 313. 
 Eccl. Austriac.
 
 414 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 it seemed to him a more conscientious course to define by a 
 formal protest the sense in which he meant to take the oath ; 
 and that sense was merely in accordance with that which 
 other bishops entertained. It was to this effect, that he did 
 not mean to oblige himself by the oath, " to say or do any 
 thing against the law of God, the king, or state of England, or 
 the laws or prerogatives of the same ;" or to prevent himself 
 from freely speaking, consulting, and consenting to all things 
 " concerning the reformation of the Christian religion, the 
 government of the church of England, or the prerogative of the 
 crown thereof, or the good of the commonwealth ;" and from 
 reforming what seemed to him ought to be reformed in the church 
 of England*. No bishop could have intended to oblige him- 
 self, by taking this oath, to act contrary to the law of God, or 
 to deprive himself of the power of correcting abuses. There- 
 fore Cranmer merely defined by a formal instrument, and in 
 the presence of witnesses g , what others retained in their own 
 minds V 
 
 " But," says Bossuet, " either this oath is an illusion, or it 
 obliges to acknowledge the spiritual power of the pope. The 
 new archbishop therefore acknowledged it, though he did not 
 believe it." I reply that he certainly did acknowledge the 
 spiritual power of the pope, and promise obedience to him, but 
 he most certainly did not believe that the papal power was 
 binding on the church of England. He, therefore, only bound 
 himself, according to Van Espen's interpretation, to obey the 
 
 f Cranmer's Works, vol. iv. p. attempt at explanation, which they 
 
 248. have no intention of obeying lite- 
 
 Cranmer is blamed for not rally. 
 
 making his protest formally in pre- h It is alleged, that Cranmer pre- 
 sence of the papal delegates, before tested in private that he would only 
 he took the oath ; and his not take the oath " in a new and unusual 
 doing so is attributed to fear lest meaning," and then took it in pub- 
 those delegates should throw up lie " without any expression of that 
 their commission. (Dublin Review, meaning." (Dublin Revie i v, viii. 
 viii. 343.) There seems no reason 344. J Is it meant then, that bishops 
 to suppose that any such result by this oath of obedience are re- 
 would have followed, or that he leased from their obligations to the 
 would not have been consecrated if law of God, to their sovereigns, and 
 his protest had been publicly made, to their churches ; and are bound 
 His protest only expressed what only to obey the pope ? If these 
 other bishops understood, and the call duties are imperative, then there can 
 for publicity comes with an ill-grace be no impropriety in expressly re- 
 from those who allow their own serving them when the oath is 
 bishops to take oaths without any taken.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Cranmer. 415 
 
 pope as far as the rights and customs of our churches permitted, 
 that is, while these churches permitted the papal jurisdiction 
 to continue, but no longer. Without doubt the archbishop 
 intended, with the utmost sincerity, to obey the papal jurisdic- 
 tion while that jurisdiction was sanctioned by the church and 
 state of England, as it continued to be for a year after. 
 
 II. Bossuet endeavours to fix on Cranmer a charge of the Dissimuia- 
 most odious dissimulation in the following points '. His tion ob J ect - 
 opinions being Lutheran, and therefore opposed to " the mass Cranmer. 
 and the catholic doctrines," he carried his dissimulation so 
 far that the pontiff made him his penitentiary, an office which 
 he accepted, notwithstanding his Lutheran opinions. He con- 
 cealed his marriage in Germany (.which was contrary to his 
 promise and the canons) from king Henry VIII. He accepted 
 the papal bulls for the see of Canterbury against his con- 
 science. He performed mass, which he regarded as an abomi- 
 nation, during the whole reign of Henry VIII., and in ordain- 
 ing priests made use of the terms of the Roman Pontifical, 
 giving them power to " change by their holy benediction the 
 bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ, and to offer 
 sacrifice and say mass as well for the living as the dead." 
 " Behold him then at once a Lutheran, married, concealing 
 his marriage, archbishop according to the Eoman Pontifical, 
 submitting to the pope whose power he abhorred in his heart, 
 saying the mass which he did not believe, and giving power to 
 say it ... a man who practised during so long a time that 
 which he believed to be the height of abomination and sacri- 
 lege." And further: the Articles devised by Henry VIII. in 
 1536, the Confession of 1538, and that of 1543, comprised the 
 doctrine of penance, the real presence, transubstantiation, 
 mass for the dead, the seven sacraments, the honouring of 
 images, invocation of saints, adoration of the cross, use of 
 ceremonies, &c. Yet Cranmer subscribed all these articles 
 which he disbelieved in his heart, and even drew up regula- 
 tions published by Cromwell for their enforcement, and himself 
 aided in executing them in every way. 
 
 Such is the sum of the charges of this kind advanced against 
 Cranmer, and they would certainly suffice to blacken his 
 
 1 Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. sect. 9, 10, 11. 30. 32. 37, 38, 39.
 
 416 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 character most effectually, were they not evidently founded on 
 a misrepresentation of his real sentiments. I shall notice them 
 in order. 
 Cranmer Admitting then as not impossible, that in 1529 or 1530, he 
 
 not guilty . ,. ' P. . , T ,. 
 
 of dissimu- was inclined in some points to Lutheran opinions, it remains 
 
 lation. to be considered what these opinions were. Certainly Luther 
 himself approved of penance J, therefore if Cranmer's opinions 
 agreed with his, he could not have held it wrong to accept the 
 office of papal penitentiary, while the pontiff was still in com- 
 munion with the church of England, and exercised ordinary 
 jurisdiction here. With reference to his marriage it may be 
 observed, that there is no evidence that he ever denied it ; and 
 I shall elsewhere show that such a marriage was lawful, and 
 that there was no obligation to reveal it k . It is, besides, a 
 matter of dispute even among Roman theologians, whether the 
 obligation of clerical celibacy be ex prcecepto ecclesice, or ex 
 voto ; and Ligorio declares that both are probable opinions, 
 and cites Mastrius, Bosco, Herinx, Scotus, Palaus, Valentia, 
 Aversa, Sanchez, &c., as allowing that clerical celibacy is not 
 obligatory from any ww 1 . 
 
 His opi- That Cranmer really maintained doctrines in matters of faith 
 
 the'eucha- different from the pontiff himself, when his bulls were for- 
 
 rist. warded to him at the request of king Henry, not his own, may 
 
 be asserted, but has never yet been proved. The celebration of 
 
 mass m , and the offering of sacrifice for the living and dead n , 
 
 J See the forms of Confession and but religiously retain and defend it. 
 
 Absolution in his Catechismus Minor Masses are celebrated among us on 
 
 (pars iv.) all Sundays and other feasts, in 
 
 k Part VI. Chapter ix. which the sacrament is distributed 
 
 1 A M. De Ligorio, Theologia to those who desire it, and after 
 
 Moralis, lib. vi. tract, v. art. 808. they have been examined and re- 
 
 m The Confession of Augsburg ceived absolution. And the cus- 
 
 says : " Our churches are falsely ac- tomary public ceremonies are pre- 
 
 cused of abolishing the mass, for the served, the order of lessons, prayers, 
 
 mass is retained among us and cele- vestments," &c. Art. xi. de Missa. 
 
 brated with the greatest reverence ; n The Apology of the Confession 
 
 and almost all the accustomed cere- of Augsburg admits that the fathers 
 
 monies are preserved, except that in call the eucharist a sacrifice, which 
 
 some parts German hymns are in- it explains to be a eucharistic sacri- 
 
 termingled with the Latin for the fice; and observes that the term 
 
 instruction of the people." Pars ii. " oblation," if understood of the 
 
 art. iii. The Apology of the Con- whole service, the prayers, and 
 
 fession says: "It must be premised thanksgivings, gives them nooffence. 
 
 that we do not abolish the mass, Art. xii. de Missa. " We know
 
 CHAP, viii.] Cranmer. 417 
 
 provided it were understood not to be an expiatory sacrifice, need 
 not have been inconsistent with the conscience of a follower of 
 Luther. Melancthon and the ministers of Wittemburg, and 
 the universities of Leipsic and Wittemburg submitted in 1549 
 to the Interim, which obliged them to celebrate mass in the 
 customary manner, and to use all the ceremonies of the church. 
 They regarded these as " adiaphora," indifferent matters. 
 Further, it is plain that Cranmer did not hold the office of 
 the eucharist as then administered in England, to be an 
 abomination; because, after king Henry's death, when he 
 was at liberty to proceed in the Reformation, he agreed 
 with the other bishops and divines in very nearly translating 
 that office into English ; giving it the title of " the mass," 
 and leaving in it both a verbal oblation of the elements, and 
 prayer for the departed faithful. And so little did this office 
 vary from the essentials of that previously used, that even 
 Gardiner expressed his approbation of it in his subsequent con- 
 troversy with Cranmer . The fact is, that Cranmer was, in 
 the very last years of his life, induced to verge too much 
 towards Zuinglian errors, by the conversation of Alasco and 
 Peter Martyr: but his opinions during the whole reign of 
 Henry VIII. were widely different. In 1533 he held Frith to 
 be a heretic for doubting the corporal presence in the sacra- 
 ment of the altar P. In 1537 he held the commonly received 
 notions on the real presence, and in his epistle to Vadianus, 
 testified his displeasure at the errors of Zuinglius and (Eco- 
 lampadius q . In 1538 he maintained, in a public disputation 
 
 the ancients speak of prayer for the or deny. "Permitto itaque qui volet 
 
 dead, which we do not prohibit, but utramque opinionem retinere." 
 
 the application of the Lord's supper De Captiv. Babyl. t. ii. fol. 66. Me- 
 
 for the dead ex opere operate we re- lancthon said, in 1543, that Luther 
 
 ject." Ibid. In the same place conceded the doctrine of transub- 
 
 the opinion of Aerius that such stantiation to some churches of 
 
 prayers are useless, is rejected. Italy. Hospinian, Hist. Sacr. p. 2. 
 
 Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, fol. 1 84. Luther continued the ele- 
 
 vol. iii. p. 99. 114. 155. vation of the sacrament till 1542 or 
 
 p Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 32. 1543, when he discontinued it in 
 
 q Ibid. p. 194, 195. As to Lu- consequence of the offence it gave 
 
 ther's own opinions on the eucha- to some persons (Gasp. Peucer, 
 
 rist, we know that while he vehe- Hist. Phil. Melancth. ed. 1596, p. 
 
 mently maintained the substantial 24.); but in 1544 he declared it was 
 
 and corporal presence, he regarded lawful as a testimony of the real and 
 
 transubstantiation as a matter, which corporal presence (Parva Conf. 1544. 
 
 it was of little importance to admit Hosp. fol. 13.); and in 1545 he de- 
 
 VOL. I. E 6
 
 418 Tlie British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 against Lambert, the possibility of Christ's body being in 
 several places r . In the same year he expressed his opinion in 
 a letter to Cromwell, that a person who disputed " against the 
 opinion of transubstantiation," without denying the real pre- 
 sence, taught the truth 8 : yet his notes in a manuscript collection, 
 prove that in 1543 he was a believer in the corporal presence 
 at least, if not in transubstantiation *. It was not till 1546 
 that he ever doubted the corporal presence, when Ridley's con- 
 versation first unsettled his opinion 11 . In 1548 he published 
 Justus Jonas's Catechism, containing apparently Lutheran 
 views of the eucharist, though he afterwards explained them 
 away; and in 1551 replying to Dr. Smythe, he said, " I con- 
 fess of myself that not long before I wrote the said catechism, 
 I was in the error of the real (corporal) presence, as I was 
 many years past in divers other errors, as of transubstantiation, 
 of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pil- 
 grimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitious 
 errors . . . but after it had pleased God to show unto me by 
 his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his Son Jesus 
 Christ, from time to time, as I grew in knowledge of him, by 
 little and little I put away my former ignorance V Thus 
 Cranmer evidently believed the corporal presence during the 
 whole reign of Henry VIII., and we have seen that even in 
 Edward the Sixth's time he admitted an oblation or sacrifice 
 in the eucharist, and therefore he did not act against his own 
 conscience in saying mass ; more especially since he afterwards 
 did not reject, but explained the language of the fathers in 
 speaking of the eucharist as a sacrifice, by supposing rightly 
 that they called it so, chiefly as being a commemoration of the 
 one great sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the altar of the cross y . 
 This most acceptable spiritual sacrifice of commemoration he 
 did not deny : and therefore he might without violating his 
 conscience, both perform the liturgy and give to priests whom 
 he ordained, the power of offering sacrifice. 
 
 clared the sacrament to be adorable. T Cranmer's Works, p. Ixxiii. 
 
 Cont. xxxii. Art. Lov. Theolog. Ibid. p. 257. 
 
 t. ii. fol. 503. He taugbt that the * Ibid. Ixxiv. 
 
 body of Christ ought to be adored n Ibid.lxxvii. 
 
 and honoured in the bread, on two x Ibid. vol. iii. p. 13. 
 
 other occasions. See Hospinian, y Ibid. p. 5. 161. 539. 551. 
 
 fol. 14.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Cranmer. 419 
 
 With reference to the several formularies of faith signed by His opi- 
 hira, we have not a shadow of proof that he subscribed to any- n ' ns on 
 thing which he really deemed unlawful. The corporal presence jects. 
 I have already spoken of. Transubstantiation, as a word, is 
 not contained in those formularies ; and their doctrine is sus- 
 ceptible of another interpretation. Confession, penance, and 
 absolution are maintained by the Confession of Augsburgh 2 , 
 and the use of images, and communion in one kind, were 
 sometimes held by Luther to be matters indifferent, or even 
 approved a ; as the ceremonies of the church generally (includ- 
 ing, of course, creeping to the cross) were by Melancthon and 
 the Saxon divines. Therefore there is no proof that Cranmer, 
 if he maintained Lutheran opinions in any point, acted against 
 his conscience in subscribing these formularies. Customs and 
 ceremonies then approved were afterwards suppressed, partly 
 by his influence ; but he had then considered more attentively 
 the abuses and evils connected with them, and held it pious 
 and expedient to remove them. 
 
 There never was a more futile or calumnious charge than 
 this, of imputing to Cranmer the profession or practice of 
 things which he considered sinful or unchristian. His opinions 
 changed, and we are not bound to defend the soundness of his 
 judgment on every particular point ; but his sincerity and 
 honesty cannot fairly be questioned. 
 
 III. The subjects on which Cranmer's opinions have been His mis- 
 condemned, are the eucharist and the power of the civil magis- {^j s ^| 
 trate in connexion with the ministry and ordinances of the obstinacy. 
 church. Of the first I have already spoken above, and in 
 chapter vii. b ; with reference to the latter, it is not to be dis- 
 puted that Cranmer did at one time entertain privately opinions 
 which merit censure. It appears from his answer to queries 
 concerning the sacraments and the appointment and power of 
 bishops and priests (in 1540), that he held several strange 
 errors, such as that the clergy are as much ministers under the 
 king as the civil officers ; that ordination is unnecessary ; that 
 popular election, or appointment by the civil magistrate, con- 
 
 * Confessio August, pars i. art. vati, vol. ii. p. 66. He approved 
 xii. De Poenitentia ; Apologia Con- frequently of communion in one 
 fessionis vii de nu. et usu Sacra- kind, though he varied on the ques- 
 mentorum. tion. Hospin. pars ii. fol. 12, 13. 
 
 Gerdesii Hist. Evangelii Reno- b Page 391. 
 
 E e 2
 
 420 
 
 The British Reformation. 
 
 [PART n. 
 
 Other 
 charges 
 against 
 Cranmer. 
 
 fers a sufficient mission ; that bishops and priests were not two 
 offices originally ; and that excommunication was not allowable 
 if the law of the land forbade it . These doctrines, as main- 
 tained at that time by Cranmer, seem certainly indefensible ; but 
 we may observe that they were only private opinions, not made 
 public, but merely given in answer to certain queries of the go- 
 vernment. Secondly, he did not hold them firmly, for he added : 
 " This is mine opinion and sentence at this present, which, 
 nevertheless I do not temerariously define ;" and besides, it is 
 fairly to be presumed that he afterwards corrected his error, 
 for in 1 543 he allowed, in the Necessary Doctrine, that " order 
 is a gift or grace of ministration of Christ s church, given by 
 God to Christian men by the consecration and imposition of the 
 bishop^s hands upon them 6 -" His catechism (1548), in the 
 article on the keys, insists on the divine commission, apostoli- 
 cal succession, and sacred character of the priesthood e . He 
 was instrumental in drawing up the Preface to the Ordinal, in 
 which it is declared that no man might ever exercise the office 
 of bishop, priest, and deacon, without being admitted to the 
 same by lawful authority, with imposition of hands ; and there- 
 fore no one shall be accounted lawfully ordained in this church, 
 unless he be episcopally ordained. It appears, therefore, that 
 Cranmer did not continue to maintain these errors. 
 
 IV. The character of Cranmer was not naturally one of 
 much firmness or courage. Hooper said of him in a letter, 
 that he wishes he were not too feeble f . This, however, was 
 an infirmity, not a crime ; and if he did fail sometimes in due 
 decision, an apostle himself had been still more unhappy. The 
 charges against him on this head are, of an unworthy subser- 
 viency to the king in dissolving his marriage with Catherine of 
 Arragon, and confirming that with Anna Boleyn ; in afterwards 
 annulling Anna Boleyn's marriage, and thus rendering her 
 child illegitimate ; in annulling the marriage with Anne of 
 Cleves. He is also accused of unjustly signing the death war- 
 rant of Lord Seymour ; and of cowardice as regarded his re- 
 cantations g . 
 
 c Cranmer's Works, vol. ii. p. 
 101103. 
 
 d Necessary Doctrine, p. 277. 
 
 e Cranmer's Catechism. (Instruc- 
 tion of the Keys, p. 193, &c.) Ox- 
 
 ford ed. 
 
 f Burnet, vol. iii. p. 347. 
 
 f Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. 
 sect. 21, 22. 36. 98. 103.
 
 CHAP, viii.] Cranmer. 421 
 
 Now first, there is not a shadow of evidence that Cranmer 
 did not act sincerely, according to his judgment of probabili- 
 ties, in dissolving the marriage with Catherine h . It had been 
 judged null by many universities abroad and at home, and by 
 the bishops and convocation of England. Secondly, the annul- 
 ling of Anna Boleyn's marriage cannot be imputed as a fault 
 to Cranmer, for it appears that the queen herself came into 
 court where he sat as judge, and in the presence of several 
 witnesses, confessed some just and lawful impediments 1 , on 
 which the archbishop was obliged to give sentence against the 
 marriage. It is true that those impediments have not, in fact, 
 been discovered, the record of the sentence being burnt, and 
 this throws a doubt on the transaction ; but the archbishop 
 may have been deceived, and the sentence was given by the 
 advice of persons learned in the law k . The inconsistency re- 
 marked between the archbishop"^ pronouncing the marriage 
 null and void, and the peers condemning her to death as an 
 unfaithful wife to Henry ! , does not throw any discredit on the 
 archbishop, because the act of parliament, which came first, 
 did not pronounce, but only supposed, the validity of the mar- 
 riage. Cranmer is blamed for not interceding more vigorously 
 for Anna Boleyns life ; but it appears, in fact, that he was 
 the only person who attempted to speak in her favour to the 
 king, and he doubtless did it in the way he judged most per- 
 suasive to a man of violent temper. Thirdly, the marriage of 
 Henry with Anne of Cleves was pronounced null for certain 
 causes assigned, not merely by Cranmer, but by the whole 
 convocation. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was the chief 
 agent in this proceeding, and not Cranmer, as Bossuet pre- 
 tends . Fourthly, his signing the death warrant of Lord 
 Seymour, condemned without hearing his cause, was an act 
 which he should have avoided from the apprehension of scandal ; 
 but unless it can be shown that Seymour was innocent, and 
 
 h The dishonesty imputed to if the usual and legal style of the 
 
 Cranmer by Bossuet, in assuming archbishops of Canterbury had been 
 
 the title of Legate of the Apostoli- omitted, 
 
 cal See, in the sentence of divorce, ' Burnet, vol. i. p. 370. 
 
 is a mere calumny. The papal k Soames, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 
 
 power was at this moment legally 137. 
 
 established in England ; and the * Burnet, p. 371. 
 
 sentence of divorce might have been m Ibid. p. 364, &c. 
 
 objected to as irregular and illegal, " Ibid. p. 508, 509.
 
 422 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 that there was not certain and unquestionable evidence against 
 him, which has not been done, the substantial injustice imputed 
 to Cranmer cannot be proved. Fifthly, his recantations, said 
 to have been made more than once, with a hope of preserving 
 his life, are only proofs that his natural firmness did not exceed 
 that of the great majority of men ; even some of the early 
 martyrs had exhibited at first a similar weakness : but his last 
 hours shed a splendour on his name. Altogether it may be 
 concluded, that Cranmer was a man liable to infirmities, not 
 free from faults and mistakes, but altogether free from the 
 crimes which have been attributed to him by our adversa- 
 ries. And as we do not view him or any other prelates or 
 theologians of our church at that time as its founders, though 
 we acknowledge with gratitude the beneficial reforms which 
 their learning and piety aided in effecting, we do not hold our- 
 selves responsible for every private opinion which some of them 
 may have entertained, or for every particular act which they 
 performed as individuals. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ON THE REFORMATION AND SCHISM IN IRELAND. 
 
 THE churches of Ireland had, in the course of four centuries 
 before the Reformation, become subject to the Roman see a , 
 which gradually usurped the patronage of the bishoprics and 
 other benefices by provisions, and exacted oaths of allegiance 
 from the subjects whom it promoted. The people were im- 
 mersed in barbarism, ignorance, and superstition, through the 
 anarchy caused by the wars and insurrections of a multitude of 
 rival septs. 
 
 Refonna- The abolition of the papal power in England by the united 
 land"* e " ac tion of the temporal and spiritual powers, was speedily, 
 
 * It was only in 1152 that the when, at the synod of Kells, the 
 Roman pontiff acquired ordinary four archbishops for the first time 
 jurisdiction over the Irish churches, received palls from Rome.
 
 CHAP, ix.] Reformation in Ireland. 423 
 
 though imperfectly,, imitated in Ireland. In 1537, the Irish 
 parliament declared the king supreme head of the church of 
 Ireland, prohibited appeals to Borne, suppressed the papal 
 jurisdiction in Ireland, and prohibited all pecuniary payments 
 to the Roman see b . The primate Cromer opposed ineffectu- 
 ally these regulations ; they were sustained by Brown, arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, and other prelates ; and it seems that the 
 clergy took the oath of regal supremacy and rejection of the 
 papal jurisdiction, prescribed by the act of parliament. The 
 Irish princes and lords also consented universally to take this 
 oath, and made indentures to the same effect with the king d . 
 In 1538, images abused by pilgrimages and superstitions were 
 removed e ; yet during the rest of the reign of King Henry, it 
 appears that not much was accomplished, partly through the 
 intrigues of the Roman pontiff and his adherents, and partly 
 on account of the disturbed state of Ireland. Even in the 
 reign of Edward VI., A.D. 1550, the adoption of the English 
 Ritual, recommended by a royal proclamation, was opposed in 
 the assembly of the clergy by the primate Dowdal, who, with 
 most of his suffragans, refused to accept it f . Brown, arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, and other prelates, however, approved the 
 Ritual, and introduced it into their dioceses g . It appears, in 
 fact, that notwithstanding the events which took place in 
 1537, the papal power continued to prevail partially in Ireland 
 during the whole reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., for 
 even as late as the year 1550, the crown occasionally admitted 
 to the possession of their temporalities, bishops who had been 
 provided with Irish sees at Rome h . 
 
 In the reign of Mary, the chief prelate Dowdal, under royal 
 commission in 1554, deprived and expelled from their sees the 
 
 b Cox, History of Ireland, p. 247. bishop of Clonfert. In 1542, Hugh 
 c Ibid. p. 256 ; Ware's Bishops Ocervelan, made bishop of Clogher 
 of Ireland, edited by Harris. by the Roman patriarch, was con- 
 d Cox, p. 253. 273, 274. firmed by royal letters patent, on 
 e Ibid. p. 255. his going to England with Oneal, 
 f Ibid. p. 256; Ware's Bishops prince of Tyrone, who submitted to 
 of Ireland. the royal power. In 1550, Arthur 
 * Ibid. p. 289. Magenise, made bishop of Dromore 
 h Thus, in 1541, Owen Magenis, by the Roman patriarch, was con- 
 ordained bishop of Down and Conor firmed by the king. There are 
 by Paul III, was, on his oath of other similar instances. See Ware's 
 allegiance to the king, restored to History of the Irish Bishops, and 
 the temporalities of that see ; and Annals, 
 in like manner, Roland de Burgo,
 
 424 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 archbishop of Dublin and three or four other prelates favour- 
 able to reformation 1 , and six bishops were ordained in place of 
 the prelates expelled or compelled to fly. In 1557 the parlia- 
 ment also reversed all the acts made against the authority of 
 the Roman see, which it restored in its full vigour. 
 
 In the reign of Elizabeth the emancipation of the church of 
 Ireland from the Roman usurpation was finally accomplished, 
 yet not without the accompanying calamity of a schism, which 
 has continued ever since. Few parts of history have been 
 more misrepresented than that which concerns the catholic 
 church of Ireland, and the schism there in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth. It is too often asserted, without contradiction, that 
 religion was changed at that time by merely secular and par- 
 liamentary power ; that the catholic bishops and clergy were 
 expelled from their places, and supplanted by ministers sent 
 from England to propagate their opinions by force. 
 
 The ecclesiastical regulations made at this time consisted in 
 the rejection of the papal jurisdiction, the acknowledgment of 
 the regal power in ecclesiastical affairs, and the adoption of the 
 English instead of the Roman Ritual k . I have elsewhere 
 proved (see chapters ii. and iii., and Origines Liturgicse, vol. ii. 
 p. 1, &c.) that these regulations were in themselves legiti- 
 mate, and consistent with catholic principles ; we are then only 
 to consider whether they were now made by a competent 
 authority. 
 
 Reforma- The earl of Sussex was sent by the queen, in 1560, to pro- 
 
 ionas- mote the adoption of these measures in the Irish parliament, 
 
 bythe Irish and also to convene a general assembly of the clergy, and 
 
 church. secure their sanction 1 . In the parliament which met and 
 
 enacted these regulations, nineteen prelates were present, of 
 
 whom only two were opposed to their adoption m . At this time 
 
 1 Cox, History of Ireland, p. 299 ; doctrine of St. Augustine. The 
 
 Ware's Bishops. Staples of Meath, XXXIX Articles of the synod of 
 
 Brown of Dublin, Lancaster of Kil- London, 1562, though always es- 
 
 dare, Travers of Leighlin, were de- teemed orthodox in Ireland, were 
 
 prived. Bale of Ossory, and Casy not formally accepted by the catho- 
 
 of Limerick fled, and others were lie church there till the year 1634; 
 
 put in their places irregularly. since which time they have been 
 
 k The church of Ireland does not used as the standard of doctrine, in 
 
 seem to have enacted any new for- preference to the Articles of 1615. 
 mulary of doctrine during the whole l Ware's Annals of Ireland, anno 
 
 of the sixteenth century. It was not 1560. 
 
 till 1615 that the synod of Ireland m Leland's Ireland, book iv. chap- 
 authorized 101 Articles, which, in teri. 
 most points, followed closely the
 
 CHAP, ix.] Reformation in Ireland. 425 
 
 we know that not more than twenty-six bishops were living in 
 the Irish church, probably not so many". Thus a great 
 majority of the whole synod of Irish bishops assented to the 
 measures in parliament, and the assembly of the clergy offered 
 no opposition ; so that it is evident that the reformation of the 
 church of Ireland was not effected merely by secular authority, 
 in contradiction to that of the church itself. 
 
 With regard to the deprivation and expulsion of the bishops 
 at the Reformation, so assiduously and impudently asserted, 
 we have merely to state these facts : Four bishops favour- 
 able to reformation had been expelled irregularly by royal 
 commissions in the time of Queen Mary ; two only, out of the 
 whole number of Irish bishops, were expelled from their sees 
 in the reign of Elizabeth, in consequence of their opposition to 
 the measures approved by the rest ; and it is to be observed, 
 that these two bishops had both intruded into their sees, the 
 legitimate pastors being still alive, and deprived, not by a 
 synod, but by a single bishop, which was altogether contrary 
 to the canons . Therefore these two bishops were justly 
 expelled ; and the remainder of the synod of Irish bishops 
 remained (either by right or tacit dispensation) in the posses- 
 sion of their sees and jurisdictions. The inferior clergy also 
 generally concurred, and the laity everywhere continued sub- 
 ject to their pastors, and did not cease to attend the sacred 
 offices p . It is true, however, that this unity was more appa- 
 rent than real or firm, because among the clergy were some 
 who conformed in the hope that some favourable circumstances 
 might arise for the restoration of the papal authority. And 
 besides this, the want of information and the credulity of the 
 people rendered them too accessible to the arts by which they 
 were ere long assailed. 
 
 The court of Rome, ever inflexible in the maintenance and Origin of 
 augmentation of its power, could not permit the church of 
 Ireland to pass from under its dominion, and resume its ancient 
 
 n According to Sir James Ware, consecrated. Of some sees we know 
 
 there were twenty- nine bishoprics not whether they were then filled or 
 
 in Ireland at the beginning of Eli- not. 
 
 zabeth's reign. Two of these, Clon- Episcopacy Vindic. p. 239. 
 fert and Elphin, were held in com- P Carte's Life of Ormond, vol. i. 
 
 inendam by Rowland de Burgo. p. 33. Phelan's Remains, vol. ii. 
 
 Armagh was vacant; and Skiddy, p. 166. 
 bishop elect of Cork, was not yet
 
 426 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 rights, without offering the strongest opposition. It was neces- 
 sary to excite a schism in this church. The first effect of the 
 intrigues of Rome is seen in the fact of the presence of three 
 bishops assuming Irish titles at the synod of Trent, A.D. 1563, 
 within four years after the abolition of the papal jurisdiction in 
 Ireland q ; but it seerns that they were mere creatures of the 
 pope, on whom he had conferred the titles of those sees very 
 recently r . One at least of these men went afterwards to Ire- 
 land, and was in schism with the rest of the church, endea- 
 vouring vainly to introduce the regulations of the synod of 
 Trent, which the church of Ireland never received. 
 Ignorance I have already spoken of the superstition and ignorance of 
 o t e peo- ^ p e0 pi 6j w h} cn rendered them so peculiarly open to decep- 
 tion and fraud. This appears from the language of a Romish 
 author who lived early in the following century, and who, in 
 describing the danger to which the people were exposed of 
 remaining in communion with the church of Ireland, says, 
 " Some indeed were so devoid of information in the faith, that 
 they knew not what to maintain or to say, except that they 
 firmly believed whatever the catholic Roman church believed, 
 that she had the true catholic doctrine, and the English were 
 wrong in faith. ... In this extreme darkness and ignorance it is 
 not to be doubted that the Irish avoided, ridiculed, and con- 
 temned, by Divine inspiration, the English preachers ; and 
 rejected their errors by a sort of hidden and secret light of 
 faith V This is to be understood as a description of the feel- 
 ings and conduct of the Romish party rather at the time when 
 this author wrote (1621), than at the beginning of Elizabeth's 
 reign, when these angry feelings were yet undeveloped ; but it 
 affords ample proof of the ignorance of the people even then, 
 who were thus unhappily liable to the impositions of popish 
 emissaries. 
 
 i Roth, titular bishop of Ossory, suse jurisdictionis propagare. " 
 
 in speaking of Thomas Hierlacius, Analecta, pars iii. p. 72. See also 
 
 bishop of Ross, says, " Quia in Osullevan, Hist. Cath. p. 92. 
 
 Synodo Tridentina cum aliis duobus r Ohairt was named bishop of 
 
 Hibernise episcopis Donaldo Mago- Achonry by the Roman bishop, 
 
 nail Ep. Rapoten. et Eugenio Ohairt during the time of the council of 
 
 Ep. Agaden. ipse tertius nee in- Trent. See Ware's Bishops of Ire- 
 
 fimus eorum interesset, praecipub land, edited by Harris, 
 
 quodam studio et solicitudine cona- " Osullevan, Hist. Catholic. Iber- 
 
 batur decreta ejus et disciplinam niae, p. 109. 
 observare et per totum districtum
 
 CHAP, ix.] Romish Schism in Ireland. 427 
 
 To a people thus ignorant and predisposed to superstition, Arts of 
 the Romish missionaries who came from abroad to pervert ^P 118 * 1 . 
 
 emissaries. 
 
 them from the church, addressed themselves. They declaimed 
 against the church of Ireland as infected with heresy and 
 schism, vehemently exhorted the people to forsake its commu- 
 nion, and as their hearers could not comprehend other argu- 
 ments, worked on their fears and superstitions by innumerable 
 lying miracles, wonders, and visions. Of the species of argu- 
 ments used to deceive this hapless people, we find abundant 
 examples in the pages of Osullevan, and Roth, pseudo-bishop 
 of Ossory, which are loaded with fabulous miracles. For 
 example, St. Columkill takes the form of a wolf, and carries a 
 torch into the magazine of a garrison of English " heretics," 
 who are in consequence destroyed. A " heretic " converts a 
 priest's robe into a nether garment, but as soon as he draws 
 it on, he takes fire and is consumed on the spot. A popish 
 bishop, condemned for high treason, summons his judge to 
 appear before a higher tribunal in a certain number of days, on 
 which the latter accordingly dies in torments. A governor 
 particularly obnoxious to the Romish party is heard conversing 
 with the devil, and immediately an explosion is heard, and he 
 is found frightfully distorted and dies raging mad. 
 
 As an instance of the course pursued by the Romish emis- Schismati- 
 saries in their labours to create a schism and establish their ^ e ding^ of 
 new church in Ireland, I shall relate a portion of the history Creagh. 
 of Richard Creagh, who is styled by Roth " the renowned 
 champion of the catholic faith, and the principal PROPAGATOR 
 or RESTORER of the same in his native land 1 ." He was the 
 son of a merchant at Limerick, whence he went to the univer- 
 sity of Louvain, and obtained the degree of Master of Arts, 
 and ultimately that of Bachelor of Theology. " Having re- 
 ceived this degree," says Roth, " he deemed it his duty to 
 return to his country now overgrown with weeds and brambles, 
 through the schism and heresy springing up again under 
 queen Elizabeth (her catholic sister being now dead). He 
 grieved at the errors everywhere disseminated in that kingdom, 
 especially in his native city (Limerick), which he earnestly 
 desired to reform, and also to sow better seed. He laboured 
 
 *, " Magnus hie et clarus ecclesiae ejusdem vel propagator vel restau- 
 Hiberniae hierarcha prseclarus erat rator in suo natali solo." Roth, 
 ticlei Catholicae pugil et primarius iii. p. 1.
 
 428 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 strenuously by private exhortation, public preaching, and per- 
 forming the sacred offices of the priesthood (for he had re- 
 turned from abroad invested with the character of priest, to 
 lend greater efficacy to his work). He discoursed very 
 earnestly on the impiety of taking the oath of ecclesiastical 
 supremacy arrogated by the queen, and the unlawfulness of 
 frequenting and communicating in the schismatical (i. e. church) 
 service ; and he withdrew many from their nefarious use and 
 connexion V With the same objects he taught a school : 
 " With all possible zeal and solicitude he applied himself to 
 the instruction of youth, in order that he might mould the 
 tender clay in the orthodox faith V 
 
 Proceed- Thus it appears that the people were induced to forsake 
 the communion of their legitimate pastors, by those foreign 
 
 tics. emissaries, who came at the pope's instigation, to found a new 
 
 sect in Ireland. But, to proceed. After exciting a schism at 
 Limerick he went to Rome, when the pope Pius V. esteeming 
 him a proper subject, consecrated him archbishop of Armagh ; 
 that see being already fitted by the legitimate primate Loftus, 
 who had been canonically consecrated in Ireland. He was 
 now to intrude into the jurisdiction of this prelate, to excite if 
 possible a schism in the church, and to erect rival altars and a 
 rival priesthood. As Roth says, " therefore being sent from 
 Rome, he came, aided by the most liberal munificence of pope 
 Pius, in order that he might withdraw his sheep in Ireland 
 from the jaws of most savage wolves and of the lioness, (i. e. 
 their legitimate pastors,) and preside over them zealously and 
 piously y ." Thus furnished with authority and money by the 
 pope, he endeavoured to pervert the people and excite a 
 schism, in which he was not altogether unsuccessful. Shortly 
 afterwards the Roman pontiff ordained Maurice Gibbon to the 
 see of Cashel, who had the audacity to demand from the legi- 
 timate metropolitan Maccaghwell, a surrender of his office ; 
 and on his refusal to do so, wounded, and attempted to assas- 
 
 " " De impia nuncupations jura- * " Roma itaque missus venit 
 
 menti primatus ecclesiastic! a regina non sine liberalissima Pii Pont, 
 
 arrogati, de illicita frequentatione et Max. munificentia, ut et oves suas 
 
 communicatione in officio schisma- in Hybernia e truculentissimorum 
 
 tico pressius agebat, et plurimos luporum ac leaenae faucibus ever- 
 
 avocabat a nefario utriusque usu et teret, atque eis officiose ac pie n/ae- 
 
 nexu." Ibid. p. 7. esset." p. 22. 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 9.
 
 CHAP, ix.] Romish Separation in Ireland. 429 
 
 sinate him with a spear, for which he was obliged to escape to 
 Spain z . 
 
 These proceedings, however, did not sufficiently advance the Dangers of 
 schism in Ireland. The people still too generally continued the schis - 
 subject to their pastors, notwithstanding the efforts of the 
 Romish emissaries, some of whom also themselves repented of 
 their sinful undertaking, and united themselves to the church. 
 Thus the schismatic bishop of Clogher was reconciled to the 
 church in the time of Richard Creagh, mentioned above, and 
 is said ineffectually to have exhorted the latter to conform 
 also 3 . Miler Magrath, made bishop of Down by the pope, 
 also repented, and having embraced catholic unity, was elevated 
 to the see of Clogher by the royal favour b . Peter Poer, 
 pseudo-bishop of Ferns, followed his example, but whether 
 from want of preferment or from natural instability relapsed 
 again . The civil government steadily set itself against the 
 Romish schism, and there was extreme danger of the total 
 overthrow of that party. We find this to have been frequently 
 their apprehension during the reign of Elizabeth. Hence it 
 was necessary to employ new methods of withdrawing the 
 people from their legitimate pastors. 
 
 The Irish princes and lords, who exercised a great power They excite 
 over their retainers, and who were always jealous of the royal 
 prerogative, and even aimed at independent sovereignty, were 
 stimulated to break into insurrection on pretence of maintain- 
 ing the rights of religion ; and the people were excited to hate 
 and persecute the church of Ireland, as being the religious 
 system supported by the English government. The chieftains 
 themselves were encouraged by aid of all kinds from the pope 
 and the king of Spain, at that time the most powerful monarch 
 in Europe; and the consequence was, that the reign of Elizabeth 
 in Ireland was marked by a series of savage insurrections, 
 under pretence of sustaining the (so called) catholic cause. 
 
 In the insurrections under Jaimus Geraldinus and Desmond, 
 Odonel, and Oneal of Tyrone, religion was the avowed object, 
 and the bishops and priests of the Romish schism the chief 
 political agents. We are about to review scenes in which 
 these ministers of religion, who pretended to peculiar 
 
 1 Ware's Abps. of Cashel. b Ware's Bishops of Clogher. 
 
 Roth, Analecta, iii. p. 36. c Roth, Analecta, iii. p. 61.
 
 430 The British Reformation. [PART 11. 
 
 sanctity and piety, and who styled their opponents wolves, 
 heretics, and antichrists, were guilty of almost incredible 
 enormities. We behold professed ministers of Christ, plotting 
 against the dominion of their lawful sovereign, exciting and 
 stimulating all whom they can influence to war against the 
 royal authority, heading bands of insurgents, and issuing 
 orders for the massacre in cold blood of all prisoners taken 
 from the royal armies. 
 
 Treason of Queen Elizabeth had been excommunicated and declared an 
 the schis- heretic by pope Pius V. in 1569, who absolved her subjects 
 ma cs. f rom their allegiance, and forbad them on pain of anathema to 
 obey her in any respect, while he conferred her dominions on 
 the king of Spain d . Gregory XIII., in 1570, relaxed the 
 obligation of this bull for the present to his own adherents, 
 until a fitting time for its execution should arrive. About 
 1575, Jaimus Geraldine of l)esmond plotting an insurrection, 
 went (as we are informed by the Romish author Osullevan) to 
 Spain, " related to Philip II. the catholic king, the state of 
 affairs in Ireland, and sought aid from him for the ' catholics. 1 " 
 He then proceeded to Rome, " where at that time was Cor- 
 nelius Omelrian, a Franciscan, an Irishman, and bishop of 
 Killaloe, and Thomas Stukely, who sought aid from the pope 
 against the English in the name of the Irish e ." There also 
 was Dr. Sanders, that calumnious Jesuit f (the glory of the 
 English nation as Osullevan calls him.) Jaimus solicited the 
 pope Gregory XIII. to aid the catholic church, then nearly 
 falling in Ireland; and the result was, that "his holiness"" 
 granted a pardon to all the lands of rollers who then infested 
 Italy, on condition that they should undertake this expedition 
 to Ireland for the exaltation of the see of Rome. Of the army 
 thus composed, the pontiff made Hercules Pisanus general ; 
 and the bishop Omelrian, together with the Jesuit Sanders, 
 placed themselves at the head of these bands of robbers, by 
 whose aid they expected to establish their sect in Ireland g . 
 
 d According to the Romish his- et flamma devastantur et corrum- 
 
 torian Osullevan, Elizabeth was puntur." Hist. Cath. p. 70. 
 
 justly declared a heretic by Pius V. e Osullevan, Hist. Cath. p. 94. 
 
 on V. Kal. Mar. 1569, and others f See the falsehoods of his history 
 
 were empowered to take away her detected by Burnet, History of the 
 
 kingdom. " Hinc," he proceeds, Reformation. 
 
 "a multis Ibernis saepe capiuntur * " Eo tempore nonnulli latronum 
 
 arma pro religionis jure : omniaferro manipuli Italiam non parum infes-
 
 CHAP, ix.] Conduct of Schismatical Priests in Ireland. 431 
 
 They landed after various difficulties, with 4000 stand of arms, 
 supplied by the king of Spain to arm the adherents whom they 
 hoped to find in Ireland. They brought over a bull from 
 Gregory XIII., in which all who should join themselves to 
 Jaimus, and rebel against queen Elizabeth, were granted a 
 plenary indulgence and remission of their sins, as in the case 
 of making war on the Turks in the Holy Land* ! The general 
 declared to the Irish chieftains what was true, " that he had 
 been sent by the chief pontiff to assist the Irish against the here- 
 tics, for the rights and liberty of the catholic church ; and, there- 
 fore, that he bore the keys depicted on his standards, because 
 they were fighting for him who had the keys of heaven 1 " Such 
 was the method by which the Romish sect was propagated. 
 We find the same " bishop' 1 '' Omelrian again in 1583, arriving 
 from Spain, where he had been an emissary of the rebel earl of 
 Desmond, with a supply of men, money, and arms k . 
 
 It is lamentable to find that persons assuming the sacred 
 title of bishop could be guilty of conduct so inconsistent with 
 Christian sanctity and piety. Edmund Macgabhrana, pseudo- 
 archbishop of Armagh, came from Spain about 1598, having 
 the commands of the king of Spain to the Irish, to declare war 
 against the " protestants " for the " catholic " faith ; and that 
 they should receive aid from him immediately. Macgabhrana 
 " proceeding to Macguier, who was then at war (i. e. in insur- 
 rection against the queen), and was a man desirous of warfare, 
 easily confirmed him by the words of the catholic king and by 
 the hope of aid V This warlike pontiff fell shortly afterwards 
 in battle with the queen's troops. 
 
 tabant, dum ex sylvis et montibus, l " Id quod erat, se fuisse a pon- 
 
 in quibus latebant, erumpentes, noc- tifice maximo Ibernis auxilio missum 
 
 turnis rapinis, et incursionibus pagos in hsereticos pro ecclesiae catholicae 
 
 diripiebant, et itinera obsidentes via- jure et libertate : ob id in militari- 
 
 tores spoliabant. Jaimus Gregorium bus signis claves gerere depictas 
 
 decimumtertiura pontificem exorat, quod illi militahant qui regoi coelo- 
 
 ut ecclesia3 catholicae in Ibernia jam rum claves habebat." Osullevan, 
 
 pene corruenti ferat opem: a quo Hist. Cath. p. 95. 
 
 demum impetravit impunitatem iis k Carte's Life of Ormond, Intro- 
 
 latronibus ea conditione, ut secum duct. p. 57. 
 
 in Iberniam proficiscerentur l " Sub hoc tempus Edmundus 
 
 Quibus summus pontifex duces pra>- Macgabhranus Iberniae primas ar- 
 
 fecit Herculem Pisanum . . . alios- chiepiscopus Ardmachaeex Hispania 
 
 que Romanos milites." Osullevan, a Jaimo Flamingo Pontanensi mer- 
 
 p. 94, 95. catore vehitur, habens ad Ibernos 
 
 h Osullevan, Hist. Cath. p. 10]. regis Hispaniae mandata ut protes-
 
 432 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 Not long after, Odonel, chief of Tirconnel, being engaged in 
 plotting an insurrection against the queen, employed a Romish 
 bishop as his agent. " Odonel, observing and thinking within 
 himself that it would be difficult to free Ireland and the catho- 
 lic religion from the heresy and tyranny of the English without 
 the aid of foreign princes, sends as his ambassador Jaimus 
 Ohely, ' archbishop of Tuam, 1 a man of known learning and 
 innocent life, to lay before Philip II., king of Spain, the state 
 of Ireland ; to beseech aid from him for the catholic faith, 
 nearly fallen, which he had promised by ' the primate of Ire- 
 land' (Macgabhrana) ; and to promise the assistance and 
 obedience of Odonel and the other Irish chiefs m ." This 
 Romish bishop extolled to King Philip the advantages of 
 Ireland, which he exhorted him to invade and subdue, as he 
 might from thence easily conquer England, &c. The king 
 was much struck by his representations, as we are informed by 
 Osullevan ; and a few years afterwards sent a fleet, with 17,000 
 troops, to invade Ireland ; but it was unhappily shipwrecked 
 on the coast of Gallicia n . 
 
 The monarch with whom these ecclesiastics held such con- 
 tinual intercourse was the same who, in 1588, fitted out the 
 " invincible armada" for the conquest of England ; or, as the 
 Romish historian describes it : " Philip the Second, that most 
 wise king of Spain, commiserating the calamity and hellish 
 state of England, in which he had reigned for a short time 
 on his marriage with Queen Mary, having prepared an excel- 
 lently appointed fleet, sends into that island a most powerful 
 army, commanded by the duke of Medina Sidonia, which would 
 have extinguished, without doubt, the deadly pest of heresy in 
 its very cradle, if it had been safely landed. But (our sins pre- 
 venting it) in the year 1588, partly by the art of the heretics, 
 but chiefly by a great tempest, the fleet was dispersed," &c. 
 
 pro fide catholica bellum mittit, qui Philippo II. Hispaniarum 
 
 indicant, et ab ipso quam celerrime monarch* Ibernarum rerum statum 
 
 auxilium mittendum esse, intelli- pandat ; ab eo declinatce pane catho- 
 
 gant ; et ad Macguierum, qui jam licce fidei opem petat, quam per 
 
 bellum gerebat, profectus, cupidum Iberniae primatem promiserat, et 
 
 bellandi virum catholic! regis verbis illi Odonelli et aliorum magnatum 
 
 et auxilii spe, in incepto facile con- Ibernorum operam et obedientiam 
 
 firmavit." Osullevan, p. 127. polliceatur." Osullevan, Hist. Cath. 
 
 m " Jaitmim Ohelium Tuemiae p. 130. 
 
 archiepiscopum virum doctrina et n Ibid. 130, 131. 
 
 innocente vita probatum legatum " Miseratus calamitatem atque
 
 CHAP, ix.] Conduct of Sckismatical Priests in Ireland. 433 
 
 To return to the proceedings of the schismatic clergy. When 
 Odonel was in insurrection against the crown, and had ravaged 
 Connaught and other parts of Ireland, we read that amongst 
 his troops " were some ecclesiastics, especially Raymond Ogal- 
 lachur, 'bishop of Derry and vice-primate of Ireland,"" who 
 absolved from the bond of excommunication those who deserted 
 from the royal army to the ' catholic ' p ." About the same 
 time (1600) "came into Ulster friar Matthew de Oviedo, a 
 Spaniard, ' archbishop of Dublin, 1 and Martin Cerda, a noble 
 Spanish knight, bringing from the chief pontiff to all who 
 should take arms against the English for the faith, indulgences 
 and pardon of their sins," together with the aid of 22,000 
 pieces of gold to the insurgents q . The friar returned again to 
 Spain, but it was only to join in an expedition sent by King 
 Philip to invade Ireland, under the command of Joannes 
 Aquila, who, however, was obliged to retire before long, without 
 accomplishing anything r . In 1 602, Eugene Maceogan, whom 
 the Roman pontiff had sent over as his vicar, with the title of 
 the see of Ross, together with his brethren in schism assuming 
 the titles of Clonfert and Killaloe, issued an excommunication 
 against all who should take up arms in the cause of heresy, or 
 give quarter to the prisoners of the royal army ". Maceogan 
 absolved all such prisoners from their sins, and then caused 
 them to be put to death in his presence. He fell in battle 
 against the royal army, leading a troop of horse, with his sword 
 in one hand, and his breviary and beads in the other l . 
 
 In this manner the schism arose in Ireland. Originating in Romanism 
 the exhortations and impostures of foreign emissaries, addressed 
 to a superstitious, an ignorant, and a credulous people, it was 
 fomented by the arrival of usurping and intrusive bishops, sent 
 by the Roman pontiff, and completed amidst rebellion and mas- 
 sacre, stimulated by the unholy ministers of the new commu- 
 nion. Alternately deluded, terrified, encouraged, and excited 
 to schism and insurrection, by their chieftains and their priests, 
 
 Tartareum etatum Anglise .... cae- arma caperent, indulgentias et pec- 
 
 terum peccatis nostri obstantibus, catorum omnium," &c. Ibid. p. 
 
 anno redemtionis 1588 partial he- 167. Cox, Hist. Ireland, p. 422. 
 
 raeticorum arte," &c. Osullevan, T Osullevan, Hist. Cath. p 175. 
 
 p. 120, 121. 177. 
 
 P Ibid. p. 144. Leland, vol. ii. p. 405. 
 
 * " Deferentes a summo pontifice ' Leland, Hist. Ireland, vol. ii. 
 
 omnibus qui pro fide in Anglos p. 406 ; Cox, Hist. Ireland, p. 453. 
 
 VOL. I. F f
 
 434 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 it is not to be wondered at that too many of these unhappy 
 people fell from the right way, and from obedience, to the 
 original and catholic hierarchy of Ireland. It is needless to 
 proceed further in this lamentable history, which would furnish 
 too frequently a repetition of the same features. The Romish 
 sect in Ireland was founded in schism, in rebellion, and by force 
 of arms ; not by the peaceful weapons of argument and prayer. 
 And as it was unholy in its origin, so were its fruits unholy : 
 " Certainly," says Osullevan, " the Irish of my party (i. e. the 
 Romish), although they excel most nations in their honour and 
 observance of the catholic faith and of divine religion, yet, in 
 the time of this war, were much worse than TurJcs or heretics in 
 faction, dissension, ambition, and perfidy u ." u There are not 
 wanting some who kill the minister-clergy though seldom. 
 Many cause them such fear, that they dare not exercise their 
 heretical office, or prevent the catholic priests from performing 
 divine service *." 
 
 It may be alleged, in justification of the conduct of these 
 schismatics, that great severities were exercised by the govern- 
 ment against their bishops and pastors ; but surely it is impos- 
 sible to wonder that the queen treated as rebels and traitors 
 men who acted as political agents and emissaries from those 
 Roman pontiffs who had issued bulls deposing her from her 
 sovereignty, absolving her subjects from their allegiance, con- 
 ferring her dominions on the king of Spain, and promising ple- 
 nary remission of sins to all who should rise in insurrection 
 against her. The first principles of self-preservation required 
 the punishment of those who are acknowledged by their own 
 historians to have been sent by foreign powers for the purpose 
 of exciting insurrection in Ireland, on the avowed principle that 
 the Roman pontiff had conferred the queers dominions on 
 another monarch. Those historians acknowledge that the 
 disturbances in Ireland were excited by the papal bulls ; and 
 that when some of the Romish party doubted the lawfulness of 
 taking up arms against their sovereign, the pontiff forbad any 
 
 ""Certe Iberni mei, quamvis levan, 119. 
 
 catholicae fidei religionisque divinae * " Non desunt qui ministro-cle- 
 
 cultu et observantia plerisque gen- ricos etsi raro occidant. Multi illis 
 
 tibus praestent, hujus tamen belli metum incutiunt ut nee ipsi munus 
 
 tempore, factione, dissidio, ambi- haereticum exercere, nee catholicos 
 
 tione, perfidia, Turcis et haereticis sacerdotes divinis officiis prohibere 
 
 plurimi deterius fuerunt." Osul- audeant." Ibid. 227.
 
 CHAP, ix.] Irish Schism inexcusable. 435 
 
 division, and ordered aU to unite their forces against the queen y . 
 It is even acknowledged, that " when just and honourable con- 
 ditions of peace were offered by the queen to the ' catholic ' 
 priests and laity," the ambassadors of king Philip persuaded 
 them to break off the treaty by promises of further assistance 
 from Spain, and that the very same circumstance afterwards 
 broke off a treaty between Norris and Odonel z . We cannot 
 wonder, then, that the government treated the Romish bishops 
 and priests as its enemies ; and we are fully entitled to dis- 
 believe the accounts of tortures alleged to have been inflicted 
 on some of them, because we observe in their writers a total 
 disregard of truth where the interests of their sect were to be 
 promoted. 
 
 The schism was thus formed, but its power was broken con- its want of 
 siderably by the unsuccessful issue of the various rebellions in succes81on - 
 the reign of Elizabeth, and by the resolution of James the 
 First to prevent the residence of Jesuits, missionary priests, 
 popish bishops, &c. in his dominions. In 1621 Osullevan 
 describes the Romish hierarchy thus : " There are four arch- 
 bishoprics and many bishoprics, and all are at present pos- 
 sessed by ' heresiarchs ' : therefore ' catholic ' prelates are not, 
 except rarely, ordained to their titles, because it seems that 
 without revenue so large a number of bishops cannot maintain 
 their dignity and honour. Therefore the four archbishops who 
 are inaugurated ly the Roman pontiff, constitute in their suf- 
 fragan dioceses, vicars general, by the authority of the pope, 
 who are either priests, or inferior clergy, or religious : these 
 again appoint the parochial clergy. Eugenius Macmagaun, 
 archbishop of Dublin, and David Ocarney of Cashel, undertake 
 great dangers and vast labours to tend their flocks personally 
 (N. B. these usurping prelates were in the pay of Spain *) ; 
 while Peter Lombard of Armagh, and Florence Omelcontrius 
 of Tuam, who for many reasons cannot remain safely in Ireland, 
 on account of the English, have delegated their provinces to 
 vicars V* 
 
 On the other hand, the church maintained a continual sue- Episcopal 
 cession of bishops in all the sees of Ireland. We have seen s ^g^g^ 
 that the prelates consented almost unanimously to remove the in the 
 
 catholic 
 church. 
 
 7 Ibid. 117. * Phelan, Remains, vol. ii. p. 294. 
 
 1 Ibid. 142. 144. b Osullevan, Hist. Cath. p. 229. 
 
 rf2
 
 436 The British Reformation. [PART u. 
 
 papal jurisdiction in Ireland in 1560. In the Irish parliament 
 under sir John Perrotfs administration, A.D. 1585, four arch- 
 bishops and twenty bishops were actually present c , and as we 
 know that at this time three of the twenty-nine sees existing 
 at the accession of Elizabeth, were held in commendam with 
 others, and one at least was vacant d , we see that at this time 
 all the dioceses of Ireland must have been possessed by the 
 church. Sir John Davis seems to have erred in saying that 
 there were three northern dioceses to which the queen never 
 presented e , as we find Magrath made bishop of Clogher (one 
 of them) in 1570 f , but at all events the bishops of those 
 dioceses must have been in communion with the church of 
 Ireland in 1585 g . Thus the regular and ancient succession of 
 bishops from St. Patrick through a long line of venerable pre- 
 lates, has descended continually in the church of Ireland to the 
 present day. The Romish society, on the other hand, derived 
 its mission and succession from the pope of Rome in the reign 
 of Elizabeth and James the First, and cannot in any degree 
 derive itself from the ancient church of Ireland, from which it 
 separated. 
 
 We may conclude from these facts, that the community of 
 Romanists in Ireland thus formed, was no part of the church 
 of Christ ; for I have before proved that voluntary separation 
 from a Christian church, and the establishment of a rival com- 
 munion, is a separation from Jesus Christ, and altogether 
 inexcusable h . The only defence which can be offered is, that 
 the church of Ireland had herself become heretical and apo- 
 state. Were this manifestly true, there would indeed have 
 been a positive obligation to forsake her communion : but I 
 contend that there was no evidence of her heresy in any point 
 whatever. The removal of the papal jurisdiction in Ireland 
 
 c Cox, History of Ireland, p. 383. mendam. Cox, p. 382. 
 
 d Emly was united to Cashel, Ross * Viz. Clogher, Raphoe, and 
 
 to Cloyne, Clonmacnois to Meath, Derry. See his " Causes why Ire- 
 
 before this time (see Ware). Kil- land," &c. 
 
 lala or Mayo was vacant, as we learn f Sir J. Ware's Bishops of Ire- 
 
 from Osullevan, who says it was in land. 
 
 vain offered to Gelasius Ocullenan, * Lelandsays the bishops of Clog- 
 on condition of his forsaking the her and Raphoe sat in the parlia- 
 cause of the Roman pontiff. Hist, ment that year. Hist. Ireland, vol. 
 Cath. p. 105. Sir John Perrot wrote ii. p. 295. 
 to England in 1584, that no more h See Part I. Chapter IV. 
 bishoprics ought to be put in com-
 
 CHAP, x.] Irish Schismatics cut off from the Church. 437 
 
 was merely a restoration of an ancient discipline, which had 
 never been changed by any law of the universal church. In 
 short, whatever was done, had the assent of the bishops, the 
 ordinary pastors of the church, and successors of the apostles, 
 whose judgment ought to have been a sufficient warrant to the 
 ignorant and undisciplined people, that the catholic faith and 
 discipline were preserved in their integrity. Their first and 
 most solemn duty was to hear and obey their immediate 
 bishops and pastors in those questions which they were in- 
 competent to decide themselves; but they permitted them- 
 selves to be deceived by the foreign monks and priests who 
 came to sow dissension in the church. The sect which was 
 thus created arose in separation from an older Christian 
 society ; it was founded by unholy men, who encouraged 
 schism, practised on the ignorant by false miracles, were in- 
 volved in treason, and excited sedition, war, and massacre. It 
 was not apostolical, because it separated from the successors 
 of the apostles in Ireland, and adhered to the intruding bishops, 
 whom the Roman pontiffs sent over to excite sedition. In- 
 volved in schism, ordained without consent of the lawful 
 ecclesiastical authorities, and in defiance of the canons 1 , its 
 ministry is altogether devoid of spiritual power, and is not 
 derived from the apostles. Consequently we cannot admit this 
 sect to constitute any part of the catholic church, and the 
 whole history of Ireland from the period of the Reformation to 
 the present time, affords a terrible example of the retribution 
 which grievous sins draw down upon the descendants of the 
 guilty. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ON THE REFORMATION AND SCHISMS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 THOSE who contemplate without prejudice the conduct of 
 religious parties in Scotland during the sixteenth century, will 
 find none of them exempt from serious faults, which gave rise 
 
 1 See Part VI. Chapter XI.
 
 The British Reformation. [PAET 11. 
 
 to evils almost unprecedented. The gross corruptions and 
 idolatries of all sorts long prevalent in the Scottish church, 
 were maintained against the spirit of reformation with a 
 cruelty which at length called up a formidable reaction. 
 The burning of Hamilton, Forrest, Gourlay, Straiton, Bus- 
 sell, Kennedy, Wishart, Wallace, Mill, &c. for supposed 
 heresy, together with innumerable imprisonments and banish- 
 ments for the same offence a , disgusted the majority of the 
 nation ; and the want of energy and zeal which the prelates of 
 the Romish party evinced when their opponents gained the 
 ascendancy, and which, together with their immoral lives, is 
 fully admitted by Lesley, bishop of Ross b , threw almost the 
 whole nation at once into the cause of the Reformation. In 
 1558 the reforming party petitioned for relief from persecution 
 " till a general council, lawfully assembled, have decided all 
 controversies in religion c ," and protested that they were " com- 
 pelled " by the bishops " to adhere to idolatry ;" that they 
 could not " obtain a just Reformation according to God's 
 word,"' and that if it " should chance that abuses be violently 
 reformed, the crime thereof be not imputed to them, who most 
 humbly do now seek all to be reformed by an order d ." In 1560 
 they were powerful enough to obtain from a convention of 
 estates a sanction of their confession of faith, the suppression 
 of the papal jurisdiction, and a prohibition of the celebration of 
 the sacraments according to the Roman rites e . Four of the 
 bishops united themselves with the promoters of the Reforma- 
 tion^ a larger number were either actively or passively op- 
 posed to it : but the latter either forsook their sees and went 
 abroad, or died before long. The papal party dwindled to 
 nothing g : it was without bishops, had no organized churches, 
 and about 1580 several foreign Jesuits and missionary priests 
 began to resort to Scotland and endeavour to make converts h . 
 
 Archbishop Spottiswood, His- f Bothwell, bishop of Orkney, 
 
 tory of the Church of Scotland, p. Gordon of Galloway, Stewart of 
 
 63 96. Caithness, Hamilton of Argyle. 
 
 b Leslaeus, De Reb. Gest. Scoto- Some of these bishops had not yet 
 
 rum, lib. x. p. 583. Romae, 1578. been consecrated. See Keith's 
 
 c Spottiswood, p. 119. Knox, Scottish bishops. 
 
 History of the Reformation, p. 131, f Skinner's Ecclesiast. History of 
 
 ed. 1644. Scotland, vol. ii. p. 165. 
 
 d Knox, Hist. Reform, p. 133. h Spottiswood, p. 308. Russell, 
 
 e Spottiswood, p. 150. Knox, p. History of the Church in Scotland, 
 
 272, 273, 274. vol. ii. p. 26. The Romish party
 
 CHAP, x.] Reformation in Scotland. 439 
 
 Under all the circumstances of the case, we cannot regard 
 the adherents of the Reformation in Scotland as schismatics. 
 They did not voluntarily separate themselves : they sought for 
 reformation of prevalent idolatries and abuses by competent 
 authority ; and were expelled from communion and most 
 cruelly persecuted by the Romish party. It does not seem 
 from their confessions ' and other public acts that they upheld 
 doctrines contrary to faith. The congregation in Scotland, 
 however, though reformed in various respects, was not pos- 
 sessed of an apostolical ministry, which is essential to the 
 church. It seems that the mistaken opinions which had begun 
 to prevail amongst many of the foreign adherents of the Re- 
 formation, had been imbibed by the leaders of the Sco'ttish 
 Reformation, for they did not distinctly receive the episcopal 
 office, nor practise the imposition of hands in ordination ; nor 
 did they restrict ordination to bishops. The superintendents 
 who were appointed by the First Book of Discipline in 1560 k , 
 and who exercised, to a great extent, the power of bishops, 
 were not ordained by bishops with imposition of hands, nor 
 were the other inferior pastors. There was not, however, any 
 objection in principle to the office of bishop, and in 1571 an 
 approach was made to the establishment of episcopacy, when it 
 was agreed by a convention of the church that the sees then 
 vacant should be filled, that the bishops should exercise spiri- 
 tual jurisdiction in their dioceses, should be elected by the 
 chapters 1 , &c. Thenceforward the dioceses of Scotland were 
 filled by nominal bishops who sat in parliament. The superin- 
 tendents which had been constituted in 1560 by the Reformed, 
 were permitted to retain a certain jurisdiction during their 
 lives, and then the office ceased. 
 
 Scotland was for a long period in a state of anarchy ; and 
 the evils which resulted were unparalleled, except perhaps in 
 France under the Merovingian dynasty. Boniface, archbishop 
 of Mentz, stated that in his time " the episcopal sees, for the 
 most part, were given up to the possession of avaricious lay- 
 
 had no bishops until the reign of tion, p. 252. 
 James II., when the pope sent them k Spottiswood, p. 158. 
 a titular bishop. See Dodd's Church ' Spottiswood, p. 260. Knox him- 
 
 History. self highly approved of this. See 
 
 1 Knox, History of the Reforma- Russell, vol. i. p. 332.
 
 440 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 men" or to clergy of the most scandalous character. He 
 observes that for eighty years there had been no archbishop in 
 France, no synods m , &c. Such was the fate of the Scottish 
 sees from this period ; for many of the bishops who were ap- 
 pointed were merely nominees of powerful barons, who, under 
 their names, obtained possession of ecclesiastical property ; and 
 none of the bishops were validly ordained by other bishops n . 
 Thus Scotland remained without any lawful succession of the 
 ministry ; but did not, apparently, receive any directly schis- 
 matical doctrine on the subject of episcopacy. The presbyte- 
 rian errors on the unlawfulness of episcopacy were first intro- 
 duced into Scotland by Melville, about 1575, who had just 
 returned from Geneva, and was desirous of introducing the dis- 
 cipline established there . He succeeded in exciting great 
 disturbances in the church ; and in 1580 an assembly of clergy 
 at Dundee declared the office of bishop, as then used in Scot- 
 land, unlawful p ; and required all persons called to it to forsake 
 the same. However, these calamities were terminated by the 
 wise conduct of king James, who, in 1584, caused the bishops 
 to be restored to their seats in parliament q ; and who, after 
 many contentions with the Presbyterian party, in which he was 
 obliged to consent to the establishment of their discipline in 
 1592 r , at length succeeded in gradually restoring the episcopal 
 office, first by nominating bishops in 1 600, then by acts of par- 
 liament and of a general assembly of the church in 1606 s ; and 
 afterwards more fully in a general assembly at Glasgow in 
 1610 i ; after which the Scottish bishops elect received from the 
 English that apostolical commission which was necessary to the 
 completion of their church u . From that time the church of 
 Scotland has always continued to be guided by a regular suc- 
 
 m Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. EC- used in the same general sense as in 
 
 clesise Disciplina, torn. ii. p. 329- page 276 ; not as implying the pos- 
 
 " Keith, Scottish Bishops, p. 216. session of all the essentials of a 
 
 Spottiswood, p. 275. church. In this sense we must un- 
 Russell, vol. i. p. 377 ; Spottis- derstand the English Canons of 
 
 wood, p. 311. 1603 (Can. LV), in which the 
 
 1 Heylin, History of the Presby- "churches of England, Scotland, 
 terians, p. 231. and Ireland" are mentioned, though 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 2Q3. the prevalent party in Scotland at 
 
 8 Ibid. p. 385. that time was opposed to episco- 
 
 * Ibid. p. 387- pacy. 
 u The term "church" is here
 
 CHAP, x.] Schism in Scotland. Presbyterianism. 441 
 
 cession of bishops even to the present day, though afflicted by 
 many grievous losses and persecutions, especially since the 
 Revolution of 1688. 
 
 In the time of Charles the First, 1638, the nobility, irritated 
 by the king's revocation of the grants of church-lands, and 
 jealous of the bishops, united themselves with the schismatics, 
 who broke into insurrection against the king, abolished episco- 
 pacy by act of parliament, and instituted the " solemn league 
 and covenant," one of whose articles consisted of an engage- 
 ment to " endeavour the extirpation of prelacy ; that is, church 
 government by archbishops, bishops, &c. x " These proceed- 
 ings being annulled on the restoration of Charles II., the 
 church of Scotland continued till 1690 to be subject to its 
 bishops, like ah 1 other churches, though many adherents of the 
 covenant formed conventicles and separated themselves from 
 the church ?. In 1 690 this party of schismatics obtained the 
 support of the civil power, in consequence of the refusal of the 
 bishops to acknowledge king William III. ; and under their 
 influence the Scottish parliament consummated a most woeful 
 schism, abolishing episcopacy, and establishing the presbyte- 
 rian schismatics as the church of Scotland. Thus the bishops 
 and clergy were deprived of their estates and of all their legal 
 rights, and their place and authority was usurped by others, 
 while a portion of the nation fell from their obedience, and 
 united themselves to the new establishment, which afterwards 
 obtained many converts by the severe persecution which it 
 directed against the church z . 
 
 1 Skinner, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 392), and those who officiated were 
 368. imprisoned. Ib. 394. In 1746, 
 r Ibid. p. 470. after the battle of Culloden, the ma- 
 1 The Cameronians (dissenters) gistrates directed the soldiers and 
 forcibly drove out two hundred of the mob against them, burned their 
 the clergy, before any alteration of chapels, plundered their vestments 
 religion was made by law. Russell, and church -plate, burned their 
 ii. 348, &c. It appears that the ma- books, and compelled them to seek 
 jority of the people were in 1690 safety in flight or concealment. 
 still attached to their church. Rus- Ib. 401. Every clergyman ordained 
 sell, 359, &c. ; and almost the whole by a Scottish bishop was, by act of 
 body of the clergy remained sted- parliament, made liable to trans- 
 fast. Ib. 362. The clergy were in portation for celebrating divine wor- 
 J695 prohibited by act of parliament ship, and their people were sub- 
 froin baptizing or solemnizing mar- jected to fine or imprisonment. 
 riage, on pain of banishment. Ib. Ib. 402, 403. Under this dreadful 
 380. In 1707 all their chapels were persecution they remained for forty- 
 closed by order of government (Ib. two years.
 
 442 The British Reformation. [FART n. 
 
 Hence it would be a great mistake to suppose that the ques- 
 tion between the presbyterians and the church was merely a 
 dispute on church government ; it was concerning the most 
 vital principles of church unity and authority. The presbyte- 
 rians were innovators, who separated themselves from the 
 church because they judged episcopacy antichristian, and thus 
 condemned the church universal in all past ages. Had their 
 opinion been merely that the presbyterian discipline was lawful 
 or even desirable, this opinion, though erroneous, would not 
 have cut them off from the church of Christ ; but it was the 
 exaggeration of their opinion into a claim of Divine right for 
 presbyterianism, and their condemnation of episcopacy as anti- 
 Christian ; their separation for the sake of these opinions ; their 
 actual rejection of the authority and communion of the existing 
 successors of the apostles in Scotland, and therefore of the 
 universal church in all ages, that marks them out as schisma- 
 tics ; and the mere temporal sanction which the parliament 
 extended to their system, in giving it a legal establishment, 
 could not absolve them from the schism which they had com- 
 mitted, or restore them to the church. 
 
 That the presbyterian ministry of Scotland is schismatical, is 
 sufficient at once to show its unlawfulness and incompetence to 
 administer the sacraments. Even admitting, for the sake of 
 argument, the validity of ordinations performed by mere pres- 
 byters, there seems to be some doubt concerning the preserva- 
 tion of such ordinations ; for it appears that many of the Scot- 
 tish reformers were not in orders, such as Willocks, Erskine 
 Laird of Dun, and Spottiswood, who were made superinten- 
 dents a . Melville was not ordained ; and others were doubt- 
 less in the same case. According to the First Book of Disci- 
 pline, imposition of hands was laid aside in all ordinations b , 
 which were therefore unlawful. The Second Book of Disci- 
 pline (in 1578) prescribes imposition of hands' 5 ; but at this 
 period the great majority of the clergy had been ordained 
 without it ; and their own ordinations being thus irregular, 
 they could not lawfully ordain others. Thus matters continued 
 till 1610 12, when bishops were consecrated; but it does not 
 seem that the re-ordination of the parochial ministers of Scot- 
 land was insisted on, probably with a view to the more peace- 
 
 Skinner,!. 123, 124. b Ibid. p. 117. c Chap. iii.
 
 CHAP, x.] Presbyterianism. 443 
 
 able introduction of episcopacy ; and what proportion of the 
 clergy may have been episcopally ordained in 1638, when pres- 
 byterian ordinations recommenced, is uncertain. Thus, then, 
 it seems rather uncertain to what extent presbyterian ordina- 
 tions have been preserved ; as there can be no doubt that 
 numbers of the ministers in 1 638 had received ordination from 
 persons whose own ordination was more than questionable. 
 Many of the clergy were expelled by the presbyterians in 
 1638 d , and these probably consisted of persons who had 
 received ordination from the bishops. 
 
 There is another question affecting these ordinations which 
 involves them in considerable difficulties, even if it were con- 
 ceded that presbyters might, in case of necessity, ordain pres- 
 byters. It seems doubtful, then, whether presbyterians mean 
 to ordain their ministers to the office of bis/top or of presbyter. 
 On the one hand, they maintain the parity of all ministers, and 
 reject episcopacy ; on the other, they ordain elders or presbyters 
 in each congregation, whom they regard as a standing order in 
 the church e , and subject them to the ministers. So that it is 
 uncertain whether they intend to ordain their ministers to the 
 office of bishop or to that of presbyter ; and consequently, it 
 seems questionable whether those ministers are called to either 
 of those offices. 
 
 These questions, however, are not essential in the discussion 
 of the presbyterian ordinations ; for it is certain, that such 
 ordinations having been performed without any necessity, and in 
 opposition to the authority of the bishops of Scotland, were in 
 their origin illegitimate and schismatical ; and the catholic 
 church in all ages has rejected such ordinations, and accounted 
 them wholly null f ; therefore the presbyterian establishment 
 being founded in schism, and destitute of an apostolical minis- 
 try, constitutes no part of the visible church of Christ. 
 
 With regard to all the other sects in Scotland which have 
 seceded from the presbyterian community, such as Glassites, 
 Sandemanians, Seceders, Burghers, Antiburghers, Constitu- 
 tional Associate Presbytery, Belief Kirk, Scottish Baptists, 
 Bereans, Independents, &c., the same observations apply to 
 
 d Russell, ii. 1Q4, 195. chap. vi. 
 
 e Second Book of Discipline, ' See Part VI. chap. iv.
 
 444 The British Reformation. [PART n. 
 
 them all. Their predecessors, the Presbyterians, voluntarily 
 separated themselves from the catholic church of Christ ; and 
 they, in departing from the presbyterian communion, have not 
 yet returned to that of the true church, consequently they form 
 no part of the church of Christ. 
 
 END OF VOL. i. 
 
 GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 BV 
 
 600 
 
 Pl82t 
 
 v.l 
 cop. 2
 
 
 T 
 ). 1