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