• ""' 11;!
1 '. '1 n I

) ' 'iifi,

ii(''i

1

?"^^ .. f

In .'^l

•.1 »*

%

.! y

•5- .,'

'^^=i

!¦!- ¦^'i
Su

A TREATISE

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

nbw-voUk:
udwiq, phimtes,
72, Vc.ey-Btreet.

A TREATISE
QN THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST
DESIGNED CMIEirLY
FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN THEOLOGY.
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A.
OP WORCBSTEE COLLEGE. OXFORD.

WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES,
BY THE RT. REV. W. R. WHITTINGHAM,. D.D.,
Bishop of tlie Protestant Episcopal Churchitt the Cioeeae of Maryland,

FROM. THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

N E W -Y 0 R K :
D. APPLETON & CO., 200, BROADWAY.
M DCCC XLI.

T 0
THE MOS.T REVEREND FATHERS IN GOD,
WILLIAM,
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND:
AND •¦ ¦^''" ~%
JOHN GEORGE,
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH, * =
PRIMATE OF. ALL IRELAND:
THESE VOLUMES
ARE
(with THEIR graces' PERMISSION)
MOST RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY

INSCRIBED.

ADVERTISEMENT
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
In the present edition of the Treatise on the
phurch no alterations have been introduced, with
the exception of a few merely verbal corrections.
A Supplement however has been added in reply
to various objections which have been alleged,
especially '¦ from; luifulfilled prophecy, against some
portions of this Treatise.

PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
The Editor beheves the republication of the'
following treatise to be timely, and called for by the
tilm of rehgious inquiry in our country. For some
years past alarm has been very generally felt ajid
expressed at the growi;h of popery among us.. It
matters not that it can be shown to be the result
mainly of imported men, money, and members ; that
its extent has been more or less exaggerated, and its
dependencies rated quite too high ; the fact that, by
importation, by education, and in some small measure,
by conversions, popery is spreading in our land in all
directions, is incontrovertible. In proportion as meil
really know w'hat popery is, and v^here its strength
hes, they see cause of dread in its present position, in
contact with our free institutions, our restless activity
of public mind, and our shallow ignorance of the true
grounds of contest betv<^een Romanism and other
forms of Christianity. Nothing so eflfectually puts'
one in the power of a subtle proselyter, as ignorant
prejudice against him'. The more bitter the hate in
which he is held, the iribij^ ^ure he is of victory.
One plausible explanation; after another puts his
antagonist in the wrong, by the verdict of his own
conscience. He feels that he has been condemning
VOL- I. — 2

X PREFACE.
what was perhaps not really sinful, or what was false
in fact, and dares not rely on his own judgment on.
other points ;. or perhaps concedes in mass, principles
of the most extreme importance together with his
own "baseless notions. Many know popery only as
the use of certain forms of worship ; or at most, as
the profession of behef in transubstantiation, and
acknowledgment of the pope as the infalhble vicar
of God on earth. Romish books of controversy and
proselytism are full of the most plausible statements,
and explanations, and disguisements of these points.
The uninformed reader is amazed to find that he
has been all in the wrong with regard to the much-
calumniated adherents to what he is taught to recog
nize as the " old faith." Great principles are brought'
forward — the unity, visibihty, perpetuity, indefecti-
bility, of the church — its authority to teach and rule
— its commission to seal the redeemed of the Lamb,'
which he cannot but admit, and to which he has
been too much a stranger. These, he is told, are
the grounds of the pretensions of the "'mother and
mistress of churches." The recognition of these
truths is all that is required of him ; by virtue of
their reception he becomes her child. The other
differences between her ' and Protestants grow out
of these, and are determined by them. They can
be naade easy to him, if he will but return to his
obedience. He professes to believe in " one Cathohc
Church:" let hun but make his behef a fact, and
become a "Cathohc." Thus is truth so put forth
as to become a he, and the basis of a system of hes.

PREFACE. XI
A corrupt schism, inseparably hnked to a multitude
of damnable and deadly errors, is palmed upon the
unsuspecting proselyte, under a name which it has
only by the most preposterous assumption, and by
the use of arguments which might be turned against it
wdth ruinous efficiency, were the victim but aware of
the true nature and state of the controversy.
The safety of Rome lies in the indifference and
ignorance of Protestants concerning the Cathohc
Church of Christ. Once let that article of the uni
versal creed — "one holy,, catholic, and apostolic
church" be generally and thoroughly understood,
and the usurper of an unholy lordship over God's
heritage shall be' driven back,' powerless, to the narrow
limits of his owti true jurisdiction ; the prestige of his
usurped authority removed, the Scriptures which even
now he is unable wholly to keep from his people,
will defaecate the doctrine of his subjects ; and the
many valuable remnants of primitive simplicity, and
earnestness and zeal which still survive, like sparks
of holy fire, amid the ashes and rubbish of accumu
lated corruptions, may blaze forth to give light and
heat and the vigour of life to those purer forms of
doctrine which are now too like the Alpine snows in
coldness as well as clarity.
Romanists well know that it is not in this or the
oth'er point of doctrine or practice that the controversy
between them and the" Protestant communities hes.
In a late insidious " letter on Christian Union," put
forth by one of their prelates, it is plainly stated that
"without the recognition of the principle of church

xii preface.
authority no comcidence in special doctrines would
secure the end" of union among the different denomi
nations, which the letter-wTiter charitably proposes,
to accomplish by absorption into theur body ! " The
nnerring authority of the Cathohc church in matters
of faith being once admitted," he says again, " the
union would be easily accomphshed." It is a season^
able note of warning to Protestants, for which they
have reason to be thankful to the giver. Let those
who are set, or set themselves, as teachers among us,
look to it that they are themselves so well instructed
in the question of " church authority " as to be able
to keep the people on their guard against the lessons
which Rome and her emissaries stan'd ready and will
ing to afford them. Popery is formidable mainly
because its advocates and sectaries are aU, to a certain
degree, trained in the questions which this work dis-r
cusses, and which must be discussed to set its claims
at rest, — while the most disgraceful ignorance or
alarming indifference concerning them pervades the
rest of the community. The Romish clergy are learned
on these points almost exclusively, while, whatever
may be the disparagement, it is no calumny on the
ministers of the Protestant denominations to say that
they are as generally ih-informed and ill-furnished
for their discussion.
Nor is it with reference to popery alone that the
subject of this treatise is implbrtant to our times and
country. The monstrosities in rehgion that are daUy
springing up, and, in some instances, spreading with
fcie. strangest rapidity on our soil, afford good reason

preface xiu
for alarm to the thoughtful. "Where is the evil to
end 1 How is it to be checked ? are questions that no
serious observer of the state of rdigious profession
in this country can have failed to ask himself Under
the power of God, he will fed no other refuge than
the authority of the church — one, unchanging, sure,
the same, inasmuch as it is that of the body of Christ,
to-day, yesterday, and forever. But is he to go to
Rome to seek it? there to find it, with Bishop Ken-
rick, in " the power of the bishop of Rome, as suc
cessor of St. Peter," " the rock on which the whole
edifice of Christianity rests in immoveable firmness ;
the essential centre of imity, around which all the
faithful must gather in harmony of faith and obedi
ence ?" He will, he must, unless prepared to reject
the proffered guidance, by an acquaintance with that
older, and firmer, and broader basis of catholic truth,
which this book wdll help him to discoYer.
One thing such an inquirer must bear in mind, and
it is necessary that it should never be lost sight of
in the discussion here offered, — that such a process
brings the church into an "unnatural -position, the
reverse of that assigned it by its constitution — as
being sought, when its office is to seek. The investi
gator enters on his work, as set down in t^e midst
of a multitude of conflicting sects (Part I. Chap. II.
init.) at a loss to decide on their respective claims, and
looking for the grounds of such decision ; whereas
the designed relation of the individual to the church
is that of a learner whe has Only to hold fast or
reject the teaching of a body of which he is already

Xiv PREFACE.
a member, and without asking whether that body he
a teacher, is only to settle, whether he 'ought or ought
not to adhere to its" teaching. Undoubtedly its right
to teach lies at th^ bottom of his mquiry; but it was
not designed to come up : the question for him is the
truth of what it teaches, as well with regard to itself,
as to all other revealed truth.
Otherwise stated, the case is this : A man is in the
world, and the Church comes to him, with her message,
and her credentials : which shall he do first, hear the
message, or examine the credentials 1 If she come
alone, the first, surely : the- very tenor of her message
would be a test of her credentials. But suppose she
do not come alone : the credentials must be tried, to
discriminate the true messenger. Would not the
shortest way be, to settle what are flaws in the cre
dentials 1 since the probability is, that one or more of
the false pretenders (for they are many, but the true
only one) will first present itself This is to be done
by the notes of the Church. They are negative tests
— not that which gives the Church its authority ; but
those things of which the absence proves a pretender
to be not the true messenger.
This negative character is very observable in all the
notes mentioned by our author (below, p. 25. s.) as
having been employed at various times. Against the
novelties of the Gnostics, Tertullian appeals to anti
quity ^nd priority : Irenseus, against the multiplicity
of systems and spurious derivations of the same family
of heresies, to the one faith and succession of the
church : and all the§e notes are of universal use, be-

PREFACE. XV'
cause all heresy and schism must be novel and of
spurious origin. In the Donatist -controversy, where
both parties had an outward succession from the
apostles, that note was not appealed to.
The notes employed by Augustin are those which
served him to detect the heresy of Manichseism, —
Jerome argues against the recent sect called after its
author^-&c. &c.
The value of these several tests is not to be esti
mated singly. No one may be sufficient for the end :
the probability is rather that no one will be ; that
several or all, may be required completely to discri
minate the one true claimant to be the channel of
Divine goodness from all false pretenders. Still less
may any one, or all, be expected positively to estabhsh
the claim of the one true body of Christ : that claim
is substantiated by the refutation of the others. "We
who have Christ's promise to be always vnth us, may
rest on it, content and thankful, when we have dis
proved the Roman tyrant's claim to be its exclusive
depositary, and ascertained the nulhty of the preten
sions that swarm around us from other quarters.
In a treatise of such extent and variety of topics, it
could hardly be expected that an editor should adopt
wholly the views and expressions of his author. He
is very sensible Of theliisparity between them, and yet
has freely used the liberty of comment which editor
ship imphes ; and does not, even now, hold himself
responsible for all that he has suffered to pass without
remark. In many places, withoCit material difference
as to fact, or argument, he wotild have preferred

xvi PREFACE.
another tone ; in others, would have made a different
choice of proof or illustration; but, on the whole,
deemed the disadvantages of scrupulous attention to
such points more than compensatory for any httle
enhancement tljp value of thg work might receive
from the unhmited endorsement of an editor.
Than that editor none can'be more deeply grateful
to the learned and laborious author with whom he has
presumed to take such freedoms. If any-where he has
chanced to see further or more cleady, it is as the
pigmy on .the giant's shoulder. Everywhere he has
found ^use for admiration of the extent and depth of
research, the accuracy of learning, and the clearness
of methodical arrangement, which make this, as the
first complete treatise on the subject in our language,
so among the best in any.
The most scrupulous attention has been given not
to alter word or syllable of the original text. Every
thing added, has been designated by brackets. Even
manifest shps of the pen, in two or three instances,
have been retained in the text, with the addition of
bracketed corrections.
¦ W. R. W.
Baltimore, )
Feast op St. Barnabas, 1841. 5

PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION.

In presenting to students in theology a treatise on so
extensive a subject as that of the ChrisliSi 'Cliurfth
in general, it seems necessary to state the reasons
and the objects of this pubhcation.
To contemplate the past and present condition of
the universal church of Christ, must always be full
of a deep interest to those who beheve that the Son
OF God came into this world to estabhsh a spiritual
kingdom, in vvhich through His atonement and merits,
salvation should be obtained by the faithful of all
nations, even to the end of the world. The fulfil
ment of many prophecies of holy scripture, and the
accomphshment of the Divine promises and the Di
vine will, are involved in the fate of Christianity.
Nor are such- topics' merely instructive and interest
ing to a contempjati-*© tod Christian mind : they dis
close to usP-^ife d6ep responsibility incumbent on
every individual Christian, to seek for the Divine
favour, not in broken cisterns of human device ; but
in that way wherein alone Divme grace is promised,
and which, amidst the iijifinnities, the errors, and the
VOL. I. — 3

Xviii PREFACE.
faults inseparable from human agency, conducts to
eternal hfe.
In addition to these considerations, which would in
themselves justify an attempt to examine the question
of the church in its full extent, the alteration of cu-
cumstances and opmions furnishes another reason for
this undertaking. The controversies between our
churches and their various opponents, have been
gradually assuming new forms. Fresh theories and
arguments have been devised ; while many of those
ancient errors against which the masters of Anglo-
catholic theology contended in the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries, have been permitted to sink into
oblivion. One class of separatists has ceased to
maintain the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff,
and other Ultramontane doctrines : another no longer
claims a divine right for its system of church-govern^
ment ; and a false Liberality has arisen, which views
truth and error with impartial indifference, and opens
the way to Infidehty.
Such circumstances will, I hope, justify the publi
cation of this Treatise, in which, avoiding obsolete
controversies, and, as much as possible, the discussion
of the particular doctrines of Revelation, it has been
my object to examine ftie, origin, signs, privileges,
powers, relations, and existing condition of the Catho
lic Church, and of all sects, and to supply the theolo
gical student with a selection of arguments, by which
he may be enabled to defend the Churches of this
reahn against all adversaries whatsoever.
It lias been my endeavour to adapt the entire system

PREFACE. XIX
to the existing state of controversy. I have therefore
carefully examined whatever has been advanced by
our opponents, and replied to every thing that seemed
worthy of a reply. The arguments of the modern
and ancient Roman theologians of eminence, espe
cially those which are taught in their seminaries,
have been dUigently collected and refuted.
This work being designed, not so much for general
readers, as for students of theology, I have adopted a
mode of arrangement and division, which has less of
a popular form than is now usual, but which may
contribute to the clearness of the argument, and to
facility of reference. I have avoided the multiplica
tion of proofs where a few seem sufficient, and have
generally, where I could do so with satisfaction, re
ferred the reader to works where additional informa
tion may be obtained. Nor can I refrain from here
acknowledging the advantages which, in the course
of this publication, I have derived from the judgment,
the learning, and the unwearied kindness of my friend,
the Rev. Richard Greswell, Fellow and Tutor of
Worcester College.
In a treatise comprehending so many difficult and
important questions, I cannot expect, notwithstanding
considerable care, that nor mistakes or inaccuracies
have escaped my pen* but as I hope they will not be
found numerous or material, so I shall, if afforded the
opportunity, endeavour hereafter to supply whatever
corrections and amendments may seem advisable.
But, I would add, that the leading principles and
conclusions here defended are, I trust, supported by

XX PREFACE.
such proofs as cannot be overthrown. They will at
least show, that members of the church of England
are not obhged to take the attitude of dissenters or of
latitudinarians, in defending themselves against Pa
pists ; and that our whole system of argument against
all sects and heresies, is, or may be, harmonious and
consistent. I now commend this work to the protection of
Almighty God, praying that it may confirm the
reader in an enhghtened and devoted adherence to
the faith and the communion of our holy churches ;
and that it may increase his love for all who are of
the household of faith, his charitable forbearance
towards the imperfect and feeble members of Christ's
church, and his zeal to promote the glory of God and
the salvation of man, in that way vvhich God himself
has appointed.
Oxford, 1838.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

PART I.
THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH APPLIED TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITIES OF
PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. PAGE
CHAPTER I  ¦ ; . ,. 27
Sect. i. Definitions  27
Sect. It. On the Perpetuity of the Church . . . .30
Sect. m. Of Salvation in the Church only . . . .36
Objections . ;  43
CHAPTER II. On the Notes of the Church in general . . 44
CHAPTER m. On the Yisibility of the Church . . . .49
Objections  58
CHAPTER IV. On the Unity of the Church in respect of Communion 63
Sect. i. On the Obligation of External Communion . . 63
Sect. ii. On Schism and Separation from the Church . . 67
Sect. hi. Whether the External Communion of the Church can
ever be interrupted .  85
Objections  97
CHAPTER V. On the Unity of the Church in respect of Faith . 99
Sect. i. The Truth revealed by Jesus Christ is to be believed by
all Christians  99
Sect. ii. Heresy excludes from Salvation .... 101
Sect. hi. All Errors, even in Matters of Faith, are not Heretical 113

Xxii C ONTENTS. PAGE
Sect. iv. Unity in Faith considered as an attribute and sign of the
Church  ^^^
122
Sect. v. Conclusions 
Objections 
Appendix. On the Doctrine of Fundamentals . . • .128
CHAPTER YI. On the Sanctity of the Church . . • .137 149
Objections 
CHAPTER VII. On the Universality of the Church . . .150
Objections  1&'
CHAPTER VIII. On the Apostolicity of the Church . . .160
Objections  '¦"^
CHAPTER IX. On the Oriental Churches  176
Sect. ii. On the division of the Eastern and Western Churches 182
Objections of Romanists  200
Other Objections  203
CHAPTER X. On the British Churches  207
Objections of Romanists ........ 233
Objections of Dissenters  245
Appendix. On Indifference in Religion  252
CHAPTER XL On the Churches of the Roman Obedience . . 259
Sect. i. Wliether the Western Churches continued to be
Churches of Christ till the Reformation .... 259
Sect. ii. Whether the Churches of the Roman Obedience con
tinued to be Churches of Christ after the Reformation . 265
Sect. iii. Wliether these Churches constitute exclusively the Ca
tholic Churrh of Christ  270
Sect. iv. Societies of the Roman Communion of the Modern
Foundation  283
Objections answered  287

CONTENTS. XXUI PAGE
Appendix i. On Jansenism  298
Appendix h. On Infidelity and Indifference in the Roman
Churches  319
Appendix hi. On the Schisms of 1791 and 1801 . . .324
Appendix iv. The Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI. . . 330
CHAPTER XII. The Lutherans, Zuinglians and Calvinists . . 333
Sect. 1. WTiether the Lutherans separated from the Church . 333
Sect. ii. 'Whether the Zuinglians and Calvinists separated from
the Church  342
Sect. iii. Whether the principles of the foreign Reformation were
subversive of Unity  344
Sect. iv. Whether the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists were
Churches of Christ ....... 352
Sect. v. Whether it was lawful to hold any religious intercourse
with these Societies  359
Objections  362
CHAPTER XIII. On the Separatists from the British Churches . 368
Sect. i. On the origin of Dissent  368
Sect. ii. On Dissenting Principles as affecting Unity . . 372
Sect. hi. On Dissenting Principles as affecting Sanctity . . 375
Sect. iv. Dissent not Apostolical  381
Objections  . 382
CHAPTER XIV. On the Nestorians and Monophysites . . 385
PART II.
ON THE BRITISH REFORMATION.
CHAPTER I. On the characters of the temporal promoters of the
Reformation  395
CHAPTER II. On the abolition of the Papal Jurisdiction, and the
Schism  401

XXIV C ONTENTS.

PAGE

CHAPTER III. On the Ecclesiastical Supremacy and acts of the
civil power during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. . 426
CHAPTER lY. On the proceedmgs in the reign of Mary . . ' 442
CHAPTER V. On the proceedings in the reign of Elizabeth . . 447
CHAPTER YI. On the Principles of the English Reformation . 454
CHAPTER YIL On the Variations of the English Church . . 465
CHAPTER YIII. On the character and conduct of Archbishop
Cranmer  492
CHAPTER IX. On the Reformation and Schism in Ireland . . 505
CHAPTER X. On the Refprmation and Schisms in Scotland ' . 523

TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

PART I.
the NOTES OF THE CHURCH APPLIED TO THE EXIST
ING 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 ekkAhsia which we translate " Church," is
occasionally employed by the sacred writers in senses differ
ent from those which we connect with it ; as for instance, to
designate 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;'"' 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.'"" Thus
the church of Christ is not formed by the mere voluntary
association of individuals, 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."
The applications of this term to the Christian society are
various. « 1 Pet. ii. 9. >¦ Rom. ix. 16.

28 DEFINITIONS. [P. I. CH. I
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."" And again : " the general assembly and church of
the first-born, which are written in heaven."* It is generally
allowed that the wicked belong only externally to the church."
2. The church means the whole society of Christians
throughout the world, including all who profess their belief in
Christ, and who are subject to lawful pastors ; as in these
passages : " Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the
Gentiles, nor to the church of God."^ " God hath set some
in the church; first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly
teachers,"^ &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. 35) ;
c Eph. V. 27. ¦• Heb. xii. 23.
' Field on the Church, b. i. ch. 7, 8. The Romish Theologians gene
rally concur in the same doctrine. Tournely says, " solos electos ac justos
ad nobiliorem ecclesias partem, quae anima ipsius dicitur et in virtutibus
consistit, reprobos vero et malos ad illius dumtaxat corpus, hoc est externam
fidei professionem ac eorundem sacramentorum paiticipationem pertinere."
De Eccl. qu. i. art. 2. See also Bailly, Tract, de Ecclesia, prsenotata :
Delahogue, c. I ; Collet, Praelect. de Eccl. qu. 1 ; Bouvier, part iii. c. 2.
See Chapter YI. of this Part.
I 1 Cbr.s. 32. s 1 Cor. xii. 28.

SECT. 1.] DEFINITIONS. 29
" Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the
church that is in their house " (I Cor. xvi. 19); " Nymphas
and the church which is in his house" (Col. iv. iS) ; " The
church in thy house " (Philemon 2).
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 England 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
churches of Britain," or " of France," &c. This latter form
is indeed used in Scripture itself, e. g. " The churches of
Galatia " (I Cor. xvi. 1) ; but the singular form is justifiable
from the usage of Scripture.^
^ [It is not to be denied that " the church in England," " the church in
France," or " the church in America," may be spoken of, by a metonymy
like that in the phrase, " the church in the house " of such a one : the
full expression in the first instance being "the (part of the catholic) church
in England," &o. ; in the second, " the (part of the) church (of Rome,
that meets for worship) in the house of Aquila and Priscilla," &c. But
" the church of England," or " of France," is a less accurate expression,
and hardly justifiable. In primitive and correct language, it may be doubted
whether there is such a thing as a national church. Pearson (on the
Creed, p. 332, foi.) not only knows nothing of it, but remarks the exclusive
¦use of the plural in Scripture, whenever the believers of a country or
region are spoken of Barrow (on Church Unity, p. 2, ed. 4to.) has it
not among his five senses of the term " church " ; and represents (ib. p.
28, 43, ss,) the uijion of Christians in a realm or nq.tion, as a confederation
of churches ; such confederations being made for wise purposes, and
strongly binding on the members, but of human origin, and for expediency
only. Bingham knows nothing of a national church.
The gradual rise of the power of the metropolitan probably occasioned
the gradual introduction of the notion of a body of which the metropolitan
might be considered as the head ; of which the first trace is discoverable
in Cy^prian. The civil establishment and modification of the church under
Cunstantine and his successors developed this and made it general. In

30

PERPETUITY OP THE CHURCH. [P. I. CH. 1.

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" (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, a 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 inquired whether this society was to continue always in
the world.
The perpetuity of the church was predicted by the prophet
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 : all that see them shall
acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath
blessed" (Is. Ixi. 8. 9). The prophecy of Daniel is still more
the fifth and following centuries, the bishops of Rome found it expedient
to favour the then prevailing notion, which gave substance to their claims.
From the time of Clovis downward, the position of the French churches
materially aided the fiction. Their resistance to the encroachments of
Rome, made the Gallican church little less conspicuous from the sixth to
the fifteenth century, than it became again in the seventeenth, or than the
Anglican church appears in the defences of its liberties against papal
usurpations, since the reformation.]

SECT. II.] PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 31
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)\ 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 Chris.t- 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
theni in the clouds, to 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 parable 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 na
tions, 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 continue

' See also Ps. xlviii. 8 . Ixxxix. 29.

32 PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. [P. I. CH 1.
always, because the Christian dispensation is not to be succeeded
by any other. If it were supposed indeed, that the church of
Christ had jio 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 be
tween different sects, because all might alike be cut off from
Christ, and from the privileges granted to his disciples. And
if we supposed 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 appointment : 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 Chris
tianity 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
Christ is visible or invisible ; all that is here maintained is, 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 Qf,professing Chris
tians, 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 continue, for why other
wise should men profess their belief in the existence of the
church as an article of the faith 1 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

SECT. II.] PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 83
unshaken, and the church is invincible, though the gates of
hell should come, though hell itself, and the rulers of the dark
ness of the world therein be set in motion."''' His 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."i 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
assailed 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."" ,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.""
i^tyivavT'Xi. x^v o ^h; etJuTo; KiVftO-A, k^v a iv stuT.'p Kio-fA' K^zrogi: rov o-xiTct/f, — Athan.
Oratio, quod unus sit Christus, tom. ii. p. 51, oper. Benedict.
itiiT/ii! dLun voxtfiii)/ jgciuAia»T*< — Alcxandri Epist. ad Alex Const. Theodoret.,
lib. i. c. iv.
.... iijTTJjTiv Xii JK*T5tjMa'^«T5V itrirbnt jtii fAY,h?rl.7r:tTi UTS Q:tvtirou viicBtiae^Qai.
K. T. X. — EUsebii Praqiar. Evang , lib. i. c. 3,
" " Ex quo intelligimus Ecclesiam usque ad finem mundi concuti quidem
persecutionibus, sed nequaquam posse subverti : tentari, non superari. Et
hoc fiet, quia Dominus Deus omnipotens, sive Dominus Deus, ejus, id est,
Ecclesiae, se facturum esse poUiqjtus est ; cujus fromissio lex natures
est." Hieronymus, Comment, in Amos, ad finem, tom. iii. p. 1454. ed.
Benedict. ° " Non vineetur Ecclesia, non eradicibitur, nee cedet quibuslibet tenta-
tionibus, donee veniat Jiujus siEculi finisj et nos ab ista temporali aeterna iUa
VOL. I. — 9

34 PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. [P. I. CH. 1.
It is needless to multiply quotations from the more ancient
Christian writers, in testimony of the general belief of profess
ing Christians, that the church of Christ was to exist always on
earth. The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds 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
proving against their opponents the perpetuity of the church,
which none of them denied.'' The confession of Augsburgh
expressly maintains it. " Item decent, quod sancta ecclesia
perpetuo mansura sit."* 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 sanctified
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'
(Ps. Ixxxix 3, 4). Again : ' The Lord hath chosen Zion ;
habitatio suscipiat." August. Enarr. in Ps. Ix. tom. iii. p. 587. oper. ed.
Benedict. p Bellarm. de Conciliis et Ecclesia, lib. iii. c. 13.
q Art. vii.
' Conf. Helvetic, a. d. 1536. cap. 17.

SECT. 11,] PERPETUITY OF THE CHtTECH, 35
he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever"'
&c. (Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14.)^ 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 church
es were always to exist. The modern dissenters, in their
" Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge," say, " we cannot
doubt that in this, as in every preceding age, such a church
exists.'" In the following section additional proof will be fur
nished 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
the church in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds ; and the Arti
cles also invariably speak of the church as still existing. In
the hymn ' Te Deura,' the prayer for the church militant, and
many othet 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 b)' 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 common
wealth, 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"." Field assumes the perpetuity of the church,
to be the general doctrine of the Reformation.^ Bishop Pear
son 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
' Calvin. Institut. iv. c. i. s. 17.
• Tract on the Christian Ministry, Library of Eccl. Knowledge, voL
ii. p. 335.
" Noelli Catechismus, p. 101. Oxford ed. 1835.
y Field, Of the Church, b. i. c. 10.

36 SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. [P. 1. CH. I.
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 presence 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."
SECTION HI.
OF SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY.
The Christian revelation is so far necessary to be believed
by those to whom it is proposed, that our Lord himself aflirms
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
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.
That salvation is only to be obtained in the church, may be
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
" Pearson, on the Creed, art. ix.

SECT. Ill,] SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. 37
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" (John xv. 6),
We are taught that " Christ is the Saviour of the body," that
is, of " the church" (Ephes, v. 23), He is only said to save
the church : there is no promise beyond it. It is said that
"without failh 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 cliurch ;
first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly teachers," &c.
(I 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
tian community. Theophilus of Antioch says : "God hath
given unto the world troubled with waves and storms through
sin, tl^ose congregations called holy churches, in which, as in
secure island havens, the truth is taught ; where those who
desired salvation take refuge."^ Origen says : " Let no one
persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: without this
house, that is, without the church, no one is saved."^ 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
Toov Tiif auv lycuyat ?^iyo/Aivii iXKhtta-iA; dytAc, iv aU mQaTri: ht/UiTiv ijcpf^ot: iv v»a-oie
at J'iJ'iLffnx?Jxt T«c dhtifitisL; s(Vr ^/ijf ^c Xi.ta.ips'jyjtjytv ol hiMvn; a-w^s7Q:tt. — Theo-
phil. Antioch. ad Autolycuin, lib. ii. p. 123 ed. Paris, 1624.
, '¦ Nemo ergo sibi persuadeat, nemo semetipsum decipiat : extra hano
domum, id est extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur," — Origen. in Ub. Jesu Nave
Horn. iv. tom. ii. p. 414. oper. ed. Ben,

38 SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY, [p. 1. CH. I,
the church may also escape,"^ " He cannot be a martyr who
is not in the church, he cannot come to the kingdom, who de
serts that which is to reign."* Augustine continues the chain
of tradition thus : " No one cometh lo 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."''
Fulgentius observes, that "Without ihis church neither doth
the name of Christian help in any degree, nor doth baptism
save, nor is a clean sacrifice oflFered to God, nor is remission of
sins received, nor is the felicity of eternal life found.""' These
are indeed the sentiments of aU the fttthers 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."'^ The fourth council of Carthage (a.d. 398) directed, that
every bishop before his ordination, should be questioned, " whe
ther he believes that there is no salvation beyond the church.""
' " Habere Jam non potest Deum Patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet
inatrem. Si potuit evadere quisquam qui extra arcam Noe fuit ; et qui
extra Ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadit " — Cypr. de Unit. p. 254, ed. Pamel.
» " Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est : ad regnum pervenire
non poterit, qui eam quae regnatura est, derelinquit." — Ibid. p. 257.
b " Ad ipsam vero salutem ac vitam aeternam nemo pervenit, nisi qui habet
caput Christum. Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit, nisi qui in
ejus copore fuerit, quod est ecclesia." — August, cont. Donatist. Epist, vul-
go de Unit. Eccl. tom. ix. p. 392. ed. Benedict.
c " Extra banc ecclesiam nee Christianum nomen aliquem juvat, nee
baptismus salvat, nee mundum Deo sacrificium offertur, nee peccatorum
remissio accipilur, nee seternEe vitE fselicitas invenitur." — Fulgentius, de
Remissione Peccatorum, lib. i. c 22,
* " Quisquis ergo ab hac Catholica ecclesia fiierit separatus, quantumlibet
laudabOiter se vivere existimet, hoc solo scelere, quod a Christi unitate dis-
junctus est, non habebit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum." — Concil,
Zertense, Harduini Concilia, torn. i. p. 1203.
e '¦ Quasrendum etiam ab eo . . . . si extra ecclesiam calholicam nullus
salvetur." — Cone. Caithag. iv. cap. i, Haiduini Concilia, tom. i, p. 978,

SECT, in,] SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. 39
We are not to suppose that this was the opinion of Chris
tians in the primitive ages only : it has been generally admitted
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 Roman and
other churches. Luther teaches, that remission of sins and
sanctification are only obtained in it ; and Calvin says, " beyond
the bosom of the church no remission of sins is to be hoped for,
nor any salvation "^ The Saxon confession presented to the
synod of Trent, 1551,^ the Helvetic confession,^ the Belgic,'
the Scottish,'' 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 concerning a Confession
of Faith," (chap, xxv.) declare that " the visible church which
is also Catholique or Universal under the Gospel (not confined
f Luther, speaking of the church, says, " extra banc Christianitatem,
ubi huic evangelic locus non est, neque uUa est peccatorum remissio, que-
madmodum nee villa sanctificatio adesse potest." — Catechismus Major, P.
ii. Symbol. Apost. art. iii. "Quia nunc de visibili ecclesia disserere pro
positum est, . . . [non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa coneipi-
at in utero, nisi -pariat, nisi nos alat suis uberibus, denique sub custodia et
gubernatione sua nos tueatur, donee exuti came mortali, similes erimus
angelis .... J Extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio,
nee ulla salus, teste lesaia (37, 32) et Joele (2, 32) ; quibus subscribit
Ezechiel (13, 9)," etc— Calvin. Institut. iv. 1. [4.]
e Conf Sax., art. xii. De eccl.
'' " Communionem vero cum ecclesia Christi vera tanti facimus, ut ne-
gemus eos coram Deo vivere posse, qui cum vera Christi ecclesia non com
municant, sed ab ea se separant ; nam ut extra arcam Noe non erat ulla salus
, . . ita credimus, extra Christum, qui se electis in ecclesia fruendum prse-
bet, nuUam esse salutem certam." — Conf. Helvet., art. xvii. de Ecclesia.
i " Credimus' quod cum .... extra eam nulla sit salus, neminera ....
sese ab eo subducere ut seipso contentus separatim degat : sed omnes pari-
ter teneri huic se adjungere, eique uniri, Ecelesiae unitatem conservare,"
&c. — Conf Belgica, art. xxviii.
'' " Extra quam Ecclesiam nee est vita, nee aeterna felieitas."— Conf.
Scot., axt. xvi.

40 SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY, [p, I, CH, I,
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 qf lohich there is no
ordinary possibility vf salvation."^ The Independents admit
ted 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 pai'ties of men, no em
pires nor dominions, or capable of any confinement ; 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 promises of God
do belong and are confined ; that this church he will save, pre
serve, 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 funda
mental article of our religion. And if any one deny that there
is such a church, called out of the world, separated from it,
unto which alone, and all the members of it, all the promises
of God do appertain ih contradistinction unto all others,- or
confines it unto a party, unto whom these things are not ap
propriate, 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, ,J«ws !"" " 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 ;
1 " This confession was approved by the Scottish Presbjrterians in their
assembly, 1647 ; and being ratified by their Parliament in 1690, it is still
received by them and their collateral societies,
m Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap, xi.
» Barclay, prop. x. p. 273.

SECT. III.] SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. 41
the church, and nothing but the church, secures a living and
faithful ministry.""
The British churches hold salvation as inseparably connected
with the church only. Thus in the oflSce 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
steadfast 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
" 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 Jloclc, that
they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites ;"
evidently implying that salvation is not found ont of the church
of Christy, Indeed the contrary doctrine of those who say
" that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he
profes^e^h," 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 Elizabeth,
speaks as follows : " Is there no hope of salvation out of the
church ? Without it there can be nothing but damnation, de
struction 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.""
o Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge r Essays on Ch. Polity, vol. ii.
p. 367.
P Noelli Catechismus, p. 108. ed. Oxon. 1835,
VOL. I. — 6

42 SALVATION IN THE CHURCH ONLY. [P. I. CH. 1.
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 ap
pointed 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 institution 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
appointment 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."'^
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 ; " Seeing there
fore that the Holy Ghost hath so positively afiirmed that the
Lord added to the church such as should be saved, and like
wise 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 Christ's Holy Catholic Church ; but
that whosoever would be a member of the church triumphant
"i Pearson on the Creed, art. ix. vol. ii. p. 254.

SECT, ill.] OBJECTIONS. 43
in heaven, he must first be a member of the church here mili
tant on earth."' 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.) Intole
rance might with equal justice be objected to the doctrine of
salvation through Christ only : it is therefore a frivolous ob
jection. 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 Gentiles,
Answer. (1.)-, The church of the Jews was only instituted
for .cf 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 a/ier the
Gospel was preached throughout the world ; all, however, who
believed not when they heard it, were condemned,
' Beveridge, Sermon lY. on Acts ii. 47.
• Bishop Wilson, Sermon on Acts ii, 32, 33,

CHAPTER H.
ON THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH 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 them
selves Christian, are not necessarily what they pretend to be ;
nor is it probable that the multiplied " denominations" around
us, should be all alike faithful and obedient to our Divine Mas
ter, The unanimous opinion indeed, of professing Christians,
is, that some of these societies belong not to Christ but to Anti
christ. Every particular doctrine and duty of Christianity is
made a matter of dispute, and denied or corrupted by some
community ; and it seems irrational to suppose that God could
have instituted " a kingdom divided against itself" 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 perpetuity, if all men be bound
to receive it, and if means be provided by Divine Providence
for enabling them to receive it ; it is incredible, I say, when
all its doctrines and precepts are made matters of dispute, and
denied by some, that all professing Christians should be equally
included in the church of Christ. Besides this, Christ himself

CHAP. II,] IMPORTANCE OF NOTES OF THE CHURCH, 45
and the Apostles predicted, that, after their departure, there
should arise 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. 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 di Christ.
By what means then can we determine with certainty, which,
among 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 adherence, 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 endura»c.e ; and the learning and judgment requisite to
determine such a.raultitude of difficult questions in doctrine and
morality, are possessed by very few men ; while if the research
be commenced fortuitously, without any clue to guide us toi
those societies which may most probably be of the church of
Christ, we may begin by devoting a great deal of time to the
examination 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
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

46 VARIOUS NOTES ASSIGNED BY THEOLOGIANS. [p.ART I.
church are meant some of its more prominent attributes, which
may be ascertained and applied to all existing communities of
professing Christians, without any very lengthened discussion
on obscure and difficult points.
In this point of view, general truth of doctrine and general
accordance with the law and institutions of Christ do not seem
notes such as are here spoken of. Each society pretends its
own soundness in these respects, and sustains its own views
by scriptural and otlier arguments ; and the critical investi
gation of all the doctrines and duties of Christianity in contro
versy, is impossible to the infinite majority of men. It would
demand, at all events, too lengthened a process ; and even if
a society were proved to be in error on some point, it would
not follow directly that it is Anti-christian, because it is
generally admitted, that there may be doctrinal blemishes, in
particular churches, which do not absolutely annul their char
acter. It is not doubtful, indeed, that the church of Christ
is on the whole, faithful and obedient to the Revelation of
Christ ; but the great majority of men are always obliged,
absolutely, either to follow the doctrine of their church, or to
be uncertain on many points ; and it is impossible that they
should discover the true church, by investigating all those doc
trines which, through tlieir ignorance, they are obliged by the
arrangements of Divine Providence to receive on her testimony.
The necessity of devising some general notes of the church,
and of not entering at once on controversial debates concerning
all points of doctrine and discipline, was early perceived by
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.*
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-
* Praescriptiones adv. Ha?reticos.
' Adv. Heereses, lib. i. c. 10 ; lib. iii.

CH. II.] VARIOUS NOTES ASSIGNED BY THEOLOGIANS. 47
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."
St. Jerome mentions the continual duration of the church from
the Apostles, and the very appellation of the Christian name.'^
In modern times Bellarmine 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 adver
saries, the unhappy end of those who opposed the church, and
the temporal felicity conferred on it.'' Luther assigned as notes
of the true church, the true and uncorrupted preaching of the
Gospel, administration of baptism, of the eucharist, and of the
keys ; a legitimate ministry, public service in a known lan
guage, and tribulations" internally and externally.*' Calvin
reckons only truth of doctrine, and right administration of the
sacraments ; and seems to reject succession.^ 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.'' Bishop Taylor admits as notes of the church,
antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of members
= Contra Epistolam Manichaei Fundamenti, c. 45. Tom. viii. p. 153,
ed. Benedict.
i Dialogus adversus Luciferianos, tom. iv. pars ii. p. 306, ed. Benedict.
e De Ecclesia, lib. iv. cap. 3, &c.
' Lutherus, De Ecclesia, et quae sint notae, &c., tom., vii, p. 147, oper.
ed. 1550, &c.
n Institutiones, lib. iv. c. I. s. 7 — 9.
' Of the Church, b, ii, c, 1, 2, 5, &c.

48 NOTES OF THE CHURCH, [PART I.
among themselves and with Christ, sanctity of doctrine,
&c,i It is plain that we are not obliged to follow implicitly the
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,^ and generally by modern
Romish theologians. They also difi'sr with him and several
other wi-iters 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.^ We have a right to the same liberty of selection
and addition as regards the notes assigned by our theologians ;
and if any of them have appeared to dwell too much on general
truth of doctrine as a note, or to adopt the notion of successive
universality, we are in no degree bound to sustain a line of
argument which we do not judge to be well founded.
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 Romish theologians generally 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 curise on the question whether the church of Christ is
visible or invisible, I shall first examine that point.
¦ Dissuasive from Popery, part ii. b. 1, s. 1 ; art, vi. p, 182, &c,, Oxford
ed, 1836,
k " Multi nihilominus inter Catholicos existimant duas posteriores notas,
quas assignat BeUarminus, nempe infelicem exitum hostium ecclesise, et
felicitatem temporalem eorum qui ecclesiam defenderunt, ab eo expungi
debuisse." — Tournely, De Ecclesia, qu. i. art, 2, p, 60, where he argues
against these notes. — See eiIso Bailly, Tract, de Eccl, c, v.
' Melchior Canus de Locis Theolog. lib. iv, cap, postremum, Resp. ad
13, , Bellarmin., 1. iv. de Notis Eccl., c. 7.

CHAPTER HI.
ON The visibility of the church.
By the visibility of the church is meant tlft manifest, public,
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 ; and
that Christianity was never to be reduced at any time to obscu
rity ; or to be a secret profession, held by a few scattered indi
viduals, living and uniting externally in the profession of a. false
religion. The question of an invisible church will be considered
among the objections.
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 moun
tains, 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 conspicuously visible or 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 he destroyed " (v. 44) : that is, the church, which
had been before described as "a great mountain," 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
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,
VOL. I. — 1

50 visibility of the church. [part I.
let him be unto thpe as a 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 to
judgments in the church (I 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 Christians
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 belieter who was not externally united with 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, which
always describes the church as a visible and conspicuous socie
ty. Irenaeus says : " The preaching of the church is true and
firm, wherein the same way of salvation is shown throughout 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 con
course,' &c. . , , For everywhere the church proclaims the truth,
and she is the candlestick with seven branches, bearing the light
of Christ." Origen observes, that " we ought not to give heed
to those who say, ' Here is Christ,' 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 is the pillar and
"Ireneeus adv. Haeres., lib. v. c. xx.

chap. III,] visibility of the church. 51
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 witb
you always, even to the end of the world.'"" 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,""
Chrysostom declares, that " it is easier for the sun to be extin
guished than for the church to disappear.'"^ Augustine says,
" There is no security for the preservation 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."'* 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 Gospel ; ' A city set on a hill cannot be hid.' "^
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
'¦ " Non debemus attendere eis qui dicunt : ' Ecce hie Christus,' non au
tem ostendunt eum in ecclesia quae plena est fiilgore ab oriente usque ad
Dccidentem, quas plena est lumine vero, quae est columna et firmamentum
veritatis, in qua tota totus est advehtus Fihi hominis dicentis omnibus qui
ubique sunt : ' Ecoe ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vitae, usque ad con-
summationem sseculi.' " — Origen in Matt, tract, xxx. tom. ii. p. 865. ed.
Benedict. c " Sic et ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios sues
porrigit ; unum tamen lumen est, quod ubique difiiinditur, nee unitas corporis
separatur. Cypri. de Unitate, p. 254. ed. Pamel.
J Etinih^Tigov riv nxuv tr^irSmai, i) tJv 'uulxuo-Ui i^sLvia-Snviu. — In iUud, vidi
Dominum, Horn. iv. tom. vi. p. 122. oper. ed. Bened.
e " NuUa est igitur securitas unitatis, nisi ex promissis Dei ecclesiw de-
clarata, quae super montem, ut dictum est, constituta, abscondi non potest :
et ideo necesse est ut omnibus terrarum partibus nota sit." — ^Aug. contr.
Epist. Parmeniani, lib. iii. c. 5. tom. ix. p. 75. ed. Benedict.
'' " Hinc fit ut ecclesia vera neminem lateat, Unde est iUud quod in
Evangelio ipse dicit : Non potest civitas abscondi super montem constitu
ta," — Cont. Petil., lib, ii, c, xxxii, tom. ix. p. 240.

52 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, [PART I,
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
the kingdom of Antichrist, wherein some few souls alone re
tained their Christianity in obscurity, while they externally
united in the abominations of an Antichristian 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 ex
isting visible churches are Antichristian.
But I proceed to show the general agreement of Christians in
modern times that the church is visible. It would be superflu
ous to prove that those of the Roman obedience and the Eastern
churches maintain the visibihty 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 veu-ious sects.
The confession of Augsburg professes, "that there is one holy
church which is to endure for ever," that it is " a congregation
of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacra
ments administered."^ The preaching of the gospel and admin
istration of the sacraments are attributes of a visible church
only. The ApMogy also, drawn up by Melancthon, declares,
that the impious only communicate externally with the true
Church, the notes of which aie : " the pure doctrine of the gos
pel, and the sacraments : and this church is properly the pillar
s " Item decent, quod una sancta Ecclesia perpetuo mansura sit. Est
autem Ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangehum recte docetur et
recte administrantur sacramenta, — Art. vii. de Ecclesia.

chap. III.] VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 53
of the truth."'' This proves that they esteem the church a
visible society; and the confession of Augsburg denies that
"all ceremonies, all old institutions were abolished in their
churches,"' 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 world ;' "
and that there is a visible church in which God operates.'' —
The Bohemian confession approved by Luther ;i the confession
of the Reformed of Strasburg ;™ the Helvetic confession ;"
that of Basil in 1536 ;" the Gallican ;p 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.^
1 " Docet impios Oos quamvis habeant societatem externorum signorum,
tamen non esse verum regnum Christi .... neque vero somniamus nos
Platonicam civitatem, ut quidam impie caviUantur, sed dicimus existere banc
Ecclesiam . . . Et addimus notas : puram doctrinam evangeUi et sacra
menta." — Apol. Conf. iv. de Ecclesia,
' " Falsa enim calumnia est, quod omnes ceremoniae, omnia Vetera insti-
tuta in Ecclesiis nostris aboleantur," — Conf August., pars i. xxii.
t " Non igitur de Ecclesia, tanquam de idea Platonica loquimur ; sed
Ecclesiam monstramus, quae oonspici et exaudiri potest ; juxta iHud : In
omnem terram exivit sonus eorum . . . Dicimus igitur, Ecclesiam visibilem
in hac vita oceturnesse amplectentium evangelium Christi, et recte utentium
sacramentis, in quo Deus per ministerium evangelii est efiicax, et multos ad
vitam aeternam regenerat." — Conf. Saxon., art. xii.
' Confess. Bohemica, cap. viii.
¦» Confessio Tetrapolit., cap. xvi. 16,
" Conf. Helvetica, c. xvii. " MHitans in terris Ecclesia semper plurimas
habet particulares Ecclesias, quae tamen omnes ad unitatem Catholioae Ec
clesiae referuntur." It is evident that the Church is all through regarded
as a visible society.
" Art. xiv. XV.
p Conf. GaUicana, cap. zxvii.
q " In symbolo, ubi profitemur nos credere Ecclesiam, id non solum ad
visibilem, de qua nunc agimus, refertur, sed ad omnes quoque electos Dei."
— Inst., iv. 1. s. 2. " Quia nunc de visibili Ecclesia disserere propositum
est, disoamus vel uno matris elogio quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio, imo
necessaria : quando non alius est in vitam ingressus, &c  extra ejus

54 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [pART I.
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,'^ and has endeavoured to prove that the Church of
Christ is essentially visible, and that it never remained obscmed
without ministry or sacraments, even in the persecutions, or in
the time of Arianism. The same truth has been acknowledged
by several denominations of dissenters in Britain. 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
possibihty of salvation,"^ 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, unchangea
ble, comprehending all the churches in the world at all times,
gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio, nee ulla salus," &c. —
Ibid. s. 4. If salvation is only to be obtained in the visible Church, it fol
lows that there must always be a visible Church. He adds, that: "patemus
Dei favor et peculiare spiritualis vitae testimonium ad gregem ejus restrin-
gitur: ut semper exitialis sit ab Ecclesia discessio.'" — Ibid.
-- In his Systeme de I'Eglise.
B Westminster Confession, chap. xxv.
t Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, p, 50.

CHAP. III.] VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, 55
. . . nor to be prevailed against by the gates of hell."" 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."^ Finally, I proceed to show that the visibility of the church
is recognized by the British churches and our theologians.
The articles of the Synod of London (1562) uniformly regard
the church as a visible society ; as in the following passages :
" The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful
men, in the which the word of God is preached, and the Sacra
ments be duly administered," &c  "As the Church of
Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred ; so also the
church of Rome hath erred."" ..." The Church hath power
to decree rights and ceremonies, and authority in contro
versies of faith. "^ . ..." It is repugnant to the word of
God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public

u Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, p. 403. — The modern dissen
ters in their " Ecclesiastical Library'' (on religious Creeds, p. 126.) say ;
" The Redeemer promised to be with His Church always, even to the end
of the world .... as defending and perpetuating the prosperity of His
whole body, and maintaining its purity and vitality to the consummation of
all earthly things. And if so, His Church wUl, to the end, continue to
prefer truth to falsehood, and wUl preserve that purity in its ministry by
virtue of its own ever-living purity, which wiU in vain be attempted by
instruments, artificial, and extraneous to itself." No words can more
strongly express the perpetuity of the Church, and the total impossibility
that it could ever have apostatized. Yet dissent only exists on the suppo
sition that the Universal Church has apostatized.
V Barclay's Apology for the Quakers, prop, xi, p. 272,
" Art, xix. " Art, xx.

56 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [PART I.
prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue
not understood of the people. "? . . . , " Although in the visi
ble Church .... sometimes the evil have chief authority in
the administration of the Word and Sacraments ; yet forasmuch
as they ... do minister by his commission and authority we
may use their ministry,"^ , . . , " 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 a heathen and a
publican, \mtil he be openly reconciled by penance, and
received into the Church."* " Whosoever through his private
judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the tra
ditions and ceremonies of the Church." . . , , " Every parti
cular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and
abolish ceremonies or rites,"'' &c. In all these passages the
church is uniformly regarded as a visible society, in which the
Gospel is preached, the Sacraments administered, a ministry
presides, rites and ceremonies are decreed, controversies of
faith determined, and oflfenders censured by authority, A
visible association ; visible sacraments ; a visible priesthood,
are all supposed to be instituted by Christ, and therefore essen
tial to the church ; and there is no trace of the notion that
Christianity should ever lie concealed, a few scattered believ
ers, surrounded and oveipowered by a triUfla]phant and
universal apostacy.
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
salvation." 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,"* &c.
y Art. xxiv, a Art, xxxiii,
z Art. xxvi. b Art. xxxiv.
"^ Noelli Catechismus, p. 106. 108. Oxford ed, 1836,
^ Juelli Apologia, p,27, 28, Ed, London, 1606,

CHAP, in.] VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 57
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 Himself 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,"" 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 Reforma
tion generally maintain the church to be invisible, Bellarmine,
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,"^
I shall conclude with the words of the profound Bishop
Butler. " Miraculous powers were given to the first preach
ers 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 PropTi^ts, 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 hke 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 ;
" On the Creed, art. ix. vol. ii. p. 256.
'¦ Field, Of the Church, booki. c. 10.
VOL. I, — 8

58 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [pART I,
to be the repository of the oracles of God ; to hold up the hght
of revelation in aid of that of nature, and propagate it through
out all generations to the end of the world."^
OBJECTIONS.
1 , 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 Chi.irch 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 and elect
are principally and essentially the church of Christ ; but
besides them are many sinners and hypocrites, who belong to
the Church, though only externally, temporarily, and imperfect
ly. 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
instance 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" (Rom. x. 10); and again: "Whosoever shall
confess me before men, him shall the Son of McUi 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 "dur heart."'' While therefore we admit that those
g Butler's Analogy, part ii. c. i.
I" " Quoniam scriptum est ... ' quia Justus ex fide vivit,' eaque fides

CHAP. III.] OBJECTIONS. ' 59
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 always
openly profess Christ, and are "therefore always and essentially
visible. II. The worship of the faithful is entirely spiritual, therefore
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. 33). " The hour cometh and now is, when the true wor
shippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth " (John
iv. 23). " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 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 in
ternal, 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 fo be mani
fested by external signs of obedience and profession.
ofRcium a nobis exigit et cordis et linguae ; ait enim Apostolus, ' Corde
creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem :' oportet nos esse
et justitia memores et salutis. Quando quidem in sempitema justitia
regnaturi, a praesenti seculo mahgno salvi fieri non possumus, nisi et nos ad
salutem proximorum nitentes, etiam ore profiteamur fidem, quam corde
gestamus." — August, de Fide et Symbolo, tom. vi. p. 151. ed. Bened.

60 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [pART 1.
IV, " 'When the Son of Man cometh shall He find faith on
the earth" (Luke xviii. 8)? it seems, from this, that the visi
ble church, if it then exist, shall not be the church of Christ.
Answer. Christ only speaks of " faith which worketh by love"
(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) ;* yet still 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 faUing
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 tem
ple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. ii, 3, 4),
Answer. (1.) It does not follow that because there is an
apostacy, 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).
i This explanation is given by St. Jerome (Dialog, adv. Lucifer.) Augus
tine, lib. de Unitate, and Sermo 36, de Yerbis Dom. Cyprian applies the
words to his own time, and explains their meaning as above. " Filius ho
minis cum venerit, putas inveniet fidem in terra 1 Yidemus fieri quod
iUe prsedixit. In Dei timore, in lege justitiae, in dilectione, in opere, fides
nulla est. Nemo futurorum metum cogitat, diem Domini, et iram Dei
.... Quod metueret conscientia nostra, si crederet ; quia non credit omni-
no nee metuit ; si autem crederet et caveret ; si caveret evaderet." — De
Unit. 260.

CHAP. Ill,] OBJECTIONS. 61
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. Besides the great Athanasius, there were numerous
confessors of the truth in all parts of the world ; and the
chm-ch generally held the orthodox faith simply, though Arian
bishops were forcibly intruded on her, and some other bishops
were apostate, and many were deceived for a time, by artfully-
contrived and ambiguous confessions of faith, which they re
jected as soon as they discovered their deceit ; but orthodoxy
was always maintained in the church. " The church," says
Augustine, " is sometimes obscured, and as it were clouded,
by the 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 ; , . , . Per
haps it was not said in vain, ' as the stars of heaven, and as
the sand on 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."''
VIII. The church of Christ was invisible during the Papal
domination. Ansiuer. I deny that it was so : part of the church was in-
k " Ipsa est quae aliquando obscuratur, et tamquam obnubilatur multitu-
dine scandalorum, quando peccatores intendunt arcum, ut sagittent in ob-
scura luna rectos corde. Sed etiam tunc in suis firmissimis eminet ....
fortasse non frustra dictum sit, ' sicut Stellas coeli, et sicut arena quae est ad
Oram maris :' ut in stellis coeli pauciores, fijmiores, clarioresque inteUigan-
tur ; in arena autem maritimi littoris magna multitude infirmorum atque
carnalium, quae aliquando tranquillitate temporis quieta et libera apparet,
aliquando autem tribulationura et tentationum fluotibus operitur atque turba-
tur." — August. Epist. xciii. al. xlviii. tom. ii. p. 243. ed. Bened.

62 VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [pART I,
deed subdued by the pontiflFs, 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 Reformed church could not have been the church of
Christ, for it was not visible before the Reformation.
Answer. (1.) I shall hereafter prove that although the Lu
theran and Reformed communities, as such, were not churches
of Christ, yet that they were not cut off from the church, but
were so far united to 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 Reforma
tion was unjustifiable ; for ijie xixth 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
is preached," and " the sacraments duly administered " in " all
things necessary." Therefore there was no need of reformation ;
and those who opposed the doctrine of the visible Roman
church, were enemies of Christ.
Answer. The pure word of God means the doctrine . cer
tainly revealed by Jesus Christ, neither mutilated nor corrupted
by heresies. The church, generally, never taught euiy other.
But erroneous opinions, not directly contrary to faith, and su
perstitious practices, were introduced by individuals, and be
came prevalent ; and hence it became necessary to correct and
reform abuses.' The Reformation was not directed against
any doctrines defined by the Cathohc church, as wiU be seen
in the course of this work.
XI. Several Protestant divines have considered the church
as sometimes invisible.
Ansiver. (I.) 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.
1 For proof that erroneous opinions and practices may for a time prevadi
very commonly in the Catliolic church, see Part iv. Chapter vi.

CHAPTER IV.
ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN RESPECT OP COMMUNION.
The question of the unity of the church embraces many
topics of the highest importance in religious controversy, I
propose to treat of it 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 rehgion, was instituted and commanded by
God. Secondly, That separation from this communion, either by a
voluntary act, or by the legitimate judgment of the church
itself, excludes from the church or the kingdom of Christ.
Thirdly, That there is no promise that external communion
shall never be interupted in the Catholic church.
From these principles several conclusions will be deduced,
which may greatly aid us in distinguishing the church of Christ.
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.
1. All Christians " are the children of God hy faith in Christ
Jesus " (Gal. iii. 26), who is " the first-born among many
brethren " (Rom. viii. 29). As brethren they are bound to all
the duties of the fraternal relation in religion ; and this neces-

64 UNITY OF COMMUNION A CHRISTIAN DUTY, [p, I. CH. IV.
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 another "
(Rom. xii. 5.) This implies the very closest ties and strongest
mutual interest between all Christians ; and therefore, 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 tlieir word, that they all may be one : as Thou,
Father, att 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
perfect 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 religioys
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) ; "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," &c. (1 Pet, ui, 8) ; "With

SECT, I,] UNITY OF COMMUNION, 65
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, oy
the name of Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things,
and that there be no divisions among you, but tha:t ye be per
fectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same
judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my
brethren . . , . 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. IG
— ^12), Nothing can prove more plainly the religious commu
nion of the Christian 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 exhor
tations 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, com
municated 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 transmitted
it to the elders of that Church by the hands of Barnabas and
Saul ; and they again evinced their communion by sending
messengers to consult the apostles who presided thert. The
church of Ephesus wrote to the' disciples in Achaia, exhorting
them to receive Apollos (Acts xviii. 27). Paul was accom
panied 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 Cenchrea, "in the Lord" (Rom, xvi. 1). "The
VOL. I. — 9

66 UNITY OF COMMUNION. [p. I. CH, IV,
churches of Christ" saluted the faithfiil 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
lawfiil cause (2 Cor. iii. I). The Colossians were enjoined to
salute the brethren of Laodicea, and to cause their epistles 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 commu
nion in various ways ; aiding each other, exchanging salutations,
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.
The same external communion and intercourse continued in
the 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.'' 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 example ;'' the
venerable Polycarp came to Rome to consult on the time of
keeping Easter ; and Anicetus, the bishop, to testify his com
munion, permitted him to consecrate the eucharist in his
presence." Finally, the use of commendatory letters was
\miversal ;* and the bishops and presbyters assembled in
numerous councils, and sent their judgments and circular epis
tles to all churches throughout the world.
5. The doctrine of all Christians, from the earliest ages,
was in perfect accordance with this apostolical practice. They

" Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, states this in an epistle to Soter of Rome.
— Euseb. Hist. iv. 23, Dionysius of Alexandriai, also, — Euseb, vii. 4.
b Euseb. Hist. iv. 23.
< Irenseus, cited by Eusebius, v. 24.
i Bingham, Origines Eccles, v, 1, s, 3.

SECT. II,] SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH, 67
esteemed it a most grievous and inexcusable sin, to separate
from the communion of the church ; and regarded all who did
so, as cut oflF 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 SCHISM AND SEPARATION PROM 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
provide for the ordinary exercise of divine worship in common,
and for the preservation of religion ; because, from the univer
sality of the Christian society, it was impossible that the same
teachers should ordinarily instruct all nations ; but this arrange-
ment, which was rendered essential by the constitution 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," Hence the communion of the church is two-fold, and
there may be oflFences 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 Christians
divide, or refuse to communicate with the particular church of
which they are members : the other, when particular churches
refuse to communicate with the universal church ; that is, with
the great body of Christians, The oflfence against communion
is called schism; and schism, in its extremest degree, is
separation, dissent, or (as it is sometimes called) heresy.
Division, or schism, impartial, when no rival worship is estab-
« " Though the Church in the world be one, yet every city has its own
Church, and it is one in aU, for though there are many, it is one in many,"
— Hilarius Pictav. Commentar. in Ps. xiv. p. 62, ed, Ben,

68 SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH. [P. I. CH. IV.
lished, 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 particular 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
chujTch 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 forbid
den by the apostles : " I beseech you, brethren, hy 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 oflfence of raising such
divisions was so serious, that they who vyere guilty of it were
not to be treated as Christians, — they were to be separated
from communion ,: " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them
which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned ; and avoid them, for they that are such,
serve not our ford Jesus Christ " (Rom, xvi, 17, 18). They
are thus classed with " fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers,
drunkards, extortioners," with whom also Christians are " not
to keep company " (1 Cor. v. 11). If it be supposed, as it has
been by some, that by "them which caused divisions," was
here meaiit 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, estab
lishing 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 continued with us ;" their
.separation was by an act of divine judgment, manifesting their

SECT. II.] SEPARATION FROM' THE CHURCH. 69
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 apos
tle : " These be they who separate themselves, sensual, not
having the Spirit" (Jude 19) ; and hence it was that the Fa
thers 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 overthrow
the tree supported by a solid root. Empty straws are tossed
by the tempest ; weak trees are prostrated by the violence 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,' &c."' Augustine adds his testimony to the same
doctrine : " Let us hold it as a thing unshaken and firm, that
no good men can divide themselves from the church."? It is
not indeed to be supposed or believed for a moment, that divine
grace would permit the really holy 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 Irenseus, " 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
'' " Nemo existimet bonos de ecclesia posse discedere. Triticum non
rapit ventus, nee arborem solida radice fundatam procella subvertit. Inanes
paleae tempestate jactantur, invalidae arbores turbinis incursione evertuntur.
Hos execratur et percutit Joannes apostolus' dicens," &c. — Cypr. de Uni
tate, p. 256, ed. Pamel.
s " Inconcussum fiimumque teneamus, nullos bonos ab ea (ecclesia) sg
posse dividere." — Adv. Paimenian. lib. iii. c. 5,

70 8INNERS ALONE SEPARATE THEMSELVES, [p. I, CH, IV.
church is, there is the Spirit of God ; and where the Spirit of
God is, there also the church and every grace exist."''
We may therefore conclude, that voluntary separation from
the church of Christ is a sin against our brethren, against our
selves, against God ; a sin which, unless repented of, is eter
nally destructive to the soul. The heinous nature of this oflfence
is incapable of exaggeration, because no human imagination, and
no human tongue can adequately describe its enormity,
2. It is certain that the primitive Christians regarded com-
•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.'" " As children of light and truth, avoid the division of
unity, and the evil doctrines of heretics,'"' Irenaeus says : —
" The spiritual man will also judge those who work divisions ;
vain men, devoid of the love of God, seeking their own advan
tage 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,'" Cyprian continues the chain of tra
dition : " Whosoever, divorced "from the church, is united to an
'¦ " In ecclesia enim, inquit, posuit Deus apostolos, prophetas, doctores,
et universam reliquam operationem Spiritus, cujus non sunt participes omnes
qui non currunt ad ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita per sententiam
malam et operationem pessimam, Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei ;
et ubi Spiritus Dei, iHic ecclesia et omnis gratia," — ^Adv, Hasres, iii. 24,
p, 223,
' Epist. ad Trail.
k Epist. ad Philadelph.
' " Nulla enim ab eis tanta potest fieri correctio, quanta est schismatis
pernicies."— Adv. Haeres, iv, c. 33, al, 62, p, 272,

SECT. II.] SEPARATION CONDEMNED BY THB FATHERS. 71
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 churcli
of Christ."" " An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ's
sacrifices ; as to faith, false ; as to religion, sacrilegious ; a dis
obedient 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,"'^ Dionysius 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
persuade or oblige the brethren to return to concord, your merit
will be greater than your offence. The one will not be imputed,
the other will be praised. But if they should be disobedient,
and you cannot accomplish it, save your own soul."° It would
fill volumes to transcribe the various arguments of the Fathers
against separation from the church. f The holy Cyprian wrote
"" " Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur, a promissis eccle
siae separatur. Nee perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam
Christi. Alienus est : profanus est : hostis est ... . Qui alibi prseter ec
clesiam coUigit, Christi ecclesiam spargit." — De Unit. p. 254.
- Ibid. p. 258.
<• "ESu fth yap x«i Tav oViouv wttiiiy, irrift t6u /^Si fitiu.j.eu tIIv 'ncuXna-Uv im ©Bu
.... it if'f iTaSativrm ifuvoLnim, a-Jil^m crC^i nrh rtnuTCiJ ¦^uvUt. — Euseb, Hist.
vi. 45.
P [It is to be observed, that all the passages above cited, indeed all the

72 PROTESTANTS CONDEMN SEPARATION, [p, I, CH. IV,
a treatise against it,i and Optatus, Augustine, and many others,
have written copiously against the various sects of the Nova-
tians, Donatists, Manicheeans, &c. who had separated them
selves from the communion of the church, Augustine declares,
that "there is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of
schism."' 3, Nor were these merely the sentiments of the early ages,
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 brethren
everywhere, 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- be
neath the thuftders 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."' The nonconformist Baxter
denunciations of schism previous to the Donatist secession, refer to it, not
as between churches and churches, nor between a part of the Catholic body
of Christ and the remainder, nor between a body of men once members of
the church universal and the whole body of believers with whom they had
then been associated ; but as between an individual, or individuals, and the
bishops to whose flock the providence of God had assigned them. Schism,
with the ante-Nicene fathers, is separation from the communion of a
church, involving as a necessary consequence, separation from the church
Catholic. Such separation they regarded as the denial or forsaking of
Christ, represented by his asrojo^oc or sent servant, who constituted the cen
tre of unity for each individual member, clerical or lay, of the church com
mitted to his charge. The latter were to look beyond that centre only in
the case of rival pretensions to a see. Then, the recognition of either party
bythe church Catholic legitimated his claim.]
5 De Unitate Ecclesiae Catholicse.
r Cont. Parmenian. ii. 2.
s " Unde sequitur, discessionem ab ecclesia, Dei et Christi negationem
esse : quo magis a tarn scelerato dissidio cavendum est : quia dum veritatis

SECT, II,] SEPARATION CONDEMNED BY DISSENTERS, 73
says : "He that is out of the 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 pre
sence and help of the physician. Nor will he be a pilot to them
¦wh.0 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 ;"^ 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. 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 pecuhar practice,
making it neglective of all due means of the edification of the
church catholic, is schismatical."" Owen accordingly admits
Dei ruinam, quantum in nobis est, molimur, digni sumus ad quos conterendos
toto irae suae impetu fulminet. Nee uUum atrocius fingi crimen potest, quam
sacrilega perfidia violare conjugium, quod nobiscum unigenitus Dei FUius
contrahere dignatus est." — Calvin, Institut. iv. c. i. ^ 10.
« Baxter's " Cure of Church Division."
" True nature of the Gospel Church, p. 413.
' Ibid. 414, 41.5. Even in the present day the Independents, as they
say, " believe that Jesus Christ directed his followers to live together in
Christian fellowship, and to maintain the communion of saints ; and that
for this purpose, they are jointly to observe all divine ordinances, and main
tain that church order and discipline, which is either expressly enjoined by
inspired institution, or sanctioned by the undoubted example of the apostles,
and apostolic churches." — Declaration of faith of the Congregational or
Indep. Dissenters, a.d. 1833, (No. 20.) The dissenting " Library of Eccl.
Knowledge" says, that among the " duties and enjoyments" of churches, is,
" communion with other churches, in letters recommendatory or dismissory,
VOL. I. — 10.

"74 SEPARATION CONDEMNED [p. I, CH. IV.
the propriety, and even necessity, of sjmods, and other modes
of mutual aids 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 Meth
odists in conference. Lutherans, Calvinists, Romanists, &c.
all feel it their bounden duty to communicate 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.
4. It is needless to spend much time in detailing the doctrine
of English theologians, and of our churches on this subject.
The canons of the synod of London, a.d. 1603, excommuni
cate any who shall separate from the church, or who shall affirm
that any meetings, assemblies, or congregations within this lajid,
which are separated from the estabhshed churches, may rightly
assume the name of true churches.'" Nowell's 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, until they agree and
are reconciled with the church."^ Archbishop Usher 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 ariselh unto every one
of them such a relation to, and a dependence upon the church
catholic, as parts use to have in respect of their whole,
when members remove from one place to another. These, and all other
expressions of Christian regard to sister churches  are a part
of the communion of saints, which constitutes one of the greatest blessings
of the <nie Catholic church," &c. — On Ch. Discipline, Essays on Ch. Polity^
vol. ii. p. 417.
" Canons, ix, x, and xi. " P. 108. Oxford ed. by Jacobson.

SECT. II.] BY OUR THEOLOGIANS. 75
Whereupon it foUoweth, 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 corporation, "y 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
apostacy, 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 fall
ing 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,"^ Finally, I shall cite the words of
Archbishop Potter : " Whoever is separated from any sound
part of the church by schism or just excommunication, is by
that means separated from the whole cliurch. 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, whatever is cut off from
any member, does by that separation lose . its union with the
whole body, . . . Whence appears the necessity which every
Christian lies under, of maintaining communion with the parti
cular church wherein he lives, in order to his communion with
the church catholic, and with Christ the head of it." '^
5. We may infer from the preceding part of this section, that
separation from the Church is incapable of justification. No
excuse can be admitted in the case of positive and deadly sin,
except the plea of ignorance ; and this does not render the act
y Sermon before the King, on Eph. iv. 13.
I On the Creed, art. Ploly Catholic Church.
» Church Government, p. 459.

76 SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH [p. I. CH. IV.
less heinous, though he who commit-s 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
churcli, on grounds and principles which equally involve sepa
ration from the universal church, is, as I have said, inexcusa
ble ; and St. Augustine affirms it thus : " We are certain that
no one can justly have separated himself from the communion
of all nations ;"'' 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 loithbut 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."<=
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 thai* we say. Let us do evil that good may
come, whose damnation is just."^ Irenasus rephed 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."''
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 harvest :
and the churches founded by the apostles contained unsanctified
members, for instance, those of Corinth, Pergamos, Thyatira,
Sardis, &c. The true church can never be free from evil
b " Nos autem certi sumus, neminem se a communione omnium gentium
juste separare potuisse." — Epist. 93. al. 48. c. 9. p. 242. Tom. ii. ed>
Bened. « Instit. iv, c, 1. s, 19. ^ Rom. iii, 8,
0 Adv, Haeres, lib, iv, c, xxxiii. al, Ixii, p, 272, ed, Benedict

SECT, 11,1 UNJUSTIFIABLE, 77
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, Augustine 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 him
self 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 idolatry, "^
The truth is, that every church and society of professing
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 commu
nion. 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 Lutherans too, in the Apology for the Confes
sion of Augsburgh, say : " Christ admonished us in his discour
ses 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 seditious," &c.s
The mere existence of doctrinal errors, or the corruption of
rites and sacraments in any church, afford no excuse whatever
for separation from its communion. The abuses of the Co-
f August. Epist. 93. al. 48. c. 4. tom. ii. p. 237. ed. Bened.
= "Monuit nos Christus in coUationibus de ecclesia, ne ofTensi. privatis
vitiis sive sacerdotum, sive populi, schismata excitemus ; sicut scelerate'
feoerunt Donatista^. Illos vero, qui ideo excitaverunt schismata, quia ne-
gabant sacerdotibus licere tenere possessiones aut proprium, plane seditiosos
judicamus." — Apologia Confessionis, art. iv. de ecclesia.

78 SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH. [p, I. CH. IV.
rinthians, the errors of the Galatians, did not justify any separa
tion from those churches ; on the contrary the duty of unioa
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 the administration of the sacra
ments themselves, which ought not to alienate us from its
communion."'^ 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 sys
tem, 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 command
ment; 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 of the church, but of a syna
gogue of Satan ; and in this case, the precept of Christ would
oblige his disciples to separate utterly from the apostate com
munity, and remain united with the true church. Separation
from such a society is as much a duty as separation from
heathenism and idolatry ; and therefore it is a case which affords
no justification to him that forsakes the church of Christ.
Those who, either at the Reformation, or at other times, pre
tended 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. '¦ Institut. iv. c. i. s. 12.

SECT, II.] SEPAHATION BY EXCOMMUNICATION, 79

ON SEPARATION BY EXCOMMUNICATION,
6. 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, 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," he adds, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven."'' This empowers the church
to take cognizance of all offences 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 ;' and injustice could never be accordant with the
design of the righteous and merciful Judge of all the earth ;
and secondly, that the judgment 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 deliver
ing 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.
' Rom. xvi. 17. '' Matt, xviii. 15—18.
' That Chi-ist has only promised his assistance and authority to the

80 SEPARATION BY EXCOMMUNICATION, [p. I, CH. IV.
If then individuals should be condemned by a particular
church, but that sentence should be disallowed by the great
body of the churcli universal, they are not cut off from the
church of Christ. If a particular church should be condemned
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. 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, sucli a sentence is to be
held invalid and unratified in heaven. If however the condem
nation of the universal cliurch is unanimous, 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
church on such conditions, even in deciding questions o{ faith, is asserted by
Melchior Canus, Tournely, Delahogue, and the Romish theologians gene
rally. The first says : " Commune est, crede mihi, omnibus ecclesiae judi-
cibus, ut si decreta ediderint temeritate quadam, sine judicio, repentino
quasi vento incitati, nihil omnino confidant, quod solidum, quod gravei
quod certum habeatur.'' (Loci Communes v. de Conciliis, p. 147. ed,
Patar. 1762.) The second says, that Christ only promised his presence to
the church assembled in councils, when " servata sufiragiorum libertate, et
adliibita humana industria et dihgentia, veritatem sedulo inquirerent."
(Praelect. de Eccl. Christi, t. i. quaest. iii. art. 3. p. 3S4.) See also
Delahogue, de Eccl. cap. iv. quaest. objectiones. BaUly, de Eccl. cap.
XV. in fine c. xvi. sect. vii. Bouvier de vera Eccl., pars i. c. ii art. v. s. 2.
Collet, Institut. Theolog. Scholast, tom. i. p. 30. If judgments in ques
tions of faith and discipline are nuU where the ordinary rules of judgment
have been manifestly transgressed, they must be also in all questions aflfect-
ing the unity of the church, because the latter is not less important than
faith itself. In fact, ^'an Espen (Tractatus de Censuris, c. 5, s. i.) ob
serves, that no one doubts that in cases of excommunication, the laws of
judicial proceedings should be observed : and Suarez, cited by him, alBrms,
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 tiot examining the facts of the case, or determining tliem
in blind obedience to a power erroneously supposed to be irresistible ?

SECT. II,] CONCLUSIONS. 81
examples of this in the case of Novatian, and the Donatists.
Novatian and his adherents, having separated from the com
munion of the church of the Romans about a.d. 250, and es
tabhshed a rival worship, were declared to be separated from
the church by a council of sixty bishops at Rome, and by all
the bishops in Africa and other vpestern provinces ;"" and in the
East by the bishops assembled at Antioch ;" and this judgment
being universally received, and the facts of the case being un
deniable and notorious, the Novatians were always accounted
schismatics, cut off entirely from the church of Christ. In the
same manner, the Donatists having separated from the com
munion of the church of Carthage, and prevailed on the bish
ops of Numidia to support their schism and create a rival
bishop ; and a division having arisen throughout Africa on
this account, their cause was successively heard by a council of
Italian and Gallican bishops at Rome ; by the council of Aries
convened -from all the West ; by the Emperor Constantino at
Milan ; and it was universally condemned after a full exami
nation. The Donatists were thenceforward regarded by all
Christians as separated entirely from the church of Christ, as
much as the Marcionites, Montanists, Sabellians, Arians, or
any other sect which denied the first principles of the Chris
tian religion. And they on their part declared the church
apostate, and rejected its communion.
CONCLUSIONS.
1. Unity of communion being 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, authorized by God and united to
Christ, In the case of rival communions in a particular locali
ty, it is possible that none of them may be Christian ; but one
alone can be the church of Christ ; and it is as impossible that
m Euseb. Hist. Eccl. hb. vi. c. 43.
» Ibid. c. 46. See also Fleury, Mb. vii. c. 5.^
VOL.1, — 11

82 CONCLUSIONS. [p. 1. CH. IV,
there should be two particular churches in the same place, as
two universal churches in the world. I do not deny that per
sons may be, in fact, separated from the communion of the
church in a particular place, who are not truly separated from
the universal church : this may arise from an excommunica
tion founded in an error of fact, not yet made manifest. But
what I contend for is, that in one locality there can be but one
society whose communion .Christians are bound to seek in pre
ference to all others. The supposition, indeed, that Chris
tians in each locality could be bound to entertain fraternal inter
course in religion with several communities mutually separated,
would carry an absurdity and contradiction on the very face of
it, because the obligation of each individual to communicate
with all, would render it impossible that there should be differ
ent 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 shepherds, or many flocks ? The apostle
Pau I ,recommending the same unity to us, beseeches and ex
horts, saying : " I beseech you, bretliren, 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.' "°
2. Since God has commanded unity in his church, and since
Christ so earnestly desired and prayed for it, it follows neces
sarily that he must have provided means for sustaining this
unity ; and that any society which does not possess means for
upholding unity of communion, and whose fundamental prin-

y " Monet ipse (Christus) in evangelio sue et docet, dicens : Et erit
unus grex et unus pastor. Et esse posse uno in loco aliquis existimat aut
multos pastores aut plures greges ? Apostolus item Paulus banc eandem
nobis insinuans unitatem, obsecrat et hortatur dicens : Obsecro, inquit, vos
ratres per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi," &c. — De Unitate, p. 255.
ed, Pamelii.

SECT. II.] COMMUNION WITH SEPARATISTS UNLAWFUL. 83
ciples oblige them to tolerate, and even encourage separation
without limit, cannot be a church of God.
3. Any society which originally separated voluntarily from
the communion of the whole church, or from that of a portion
of the church, on principles which involved equally separation
from the whole, and which is accordingly separated from the
communion of all societies descended regularly from those
which existed before its separation : such a society can form
no part of the church of Christ.
4, Any society which originally separated itself voluntarily
from the church in any locality, is inexcusable, even though
some church in another part of the world may not have separat
ed it from its communion, through ignorance of its offence, or
under the influence of prejudice and mistake.
5. It is unlawful for members of the church to hold religious
communion with those vvho have separated themselves from it.
I mean, that it is unlawful to unite in their worship, or gene
rally 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 separated, in order, if possi
ble, to convert them from the error of their ways. This fol
lows from the admission, that separation is a sin of the deepest
die ; for acts of religion performed apart from the church, and
in rivalry of it, are precisely those things which constitute some
of the very worst parts of separation itself. It is in these
rival religious acts alone, that the schism is completed. There
is nothing more requisite to show the unlawfulness of commu
nicating in ¦ any such acts ; because the rule of the Scriptures
forbids Christians absolutely to unite in, or in any degree coun
tenance 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 ;" " 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

84 CONCLUSIONS. [p, I. CH. IV,
acts of separate worship may be included, for they are per
formed beyond the kingdom of Christ. . It was in accordance
with this principle, that the canons of the universal church de
creed, 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 cemete
ries, or contract marriages with them, &c,p By heretics, the
general council of Constantinople understood, " those who,
while they pretend to confess the sound faith, have separated
and held meetings in opposition to our canonical bishops,"*
6, Unity is also a positive sign of the church in this man
ner : ajl particular churches, or parts of the whole church, are
free from the guilt of separation, and the penalty of excommu
nication. If, therefore it can be shown, that any society of pro
fessing 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, and, in fine, that it was never excommuni
cated from the rest of the church, by any regular or valid judg
ment ; 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. 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 separa
tion, or by the lawful judgment of others,
p Apostol, can. xi. I ; Concil. Laodicen. can. 32. 34 ; Antioch. 2 ; Lao-
dicen. 9. 31. See also Gangra, c. 6 ; Nicen. 5 ; Antioch. 6 ; African. 9.
I take this opportunity of saying, that Mr. Percival's book on "the Roman
schism" contains many of the most important ancient canons. It is almost
needless to mention Dr. Routh's ." Reliquiae Sacrae," Justel, Bingham,
Beveridge, Johnson's "A'ade Mecum," Fleury's "Institution au Droit
Eccles.," and Van Espen, as the best authorities on the sacred canons.
Touc T«v mirrtv fxh thv uyi» Tr^turTrotou/jthotj; ofjto\oyfiy, Saroo'ytrQiy'TAs St ka)
,cljT/r»mj'i>vT«t Toic navovtuoii i/^Zt imtrxmois. — Cone. Const, can. vi.

SECT. III.] ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY. 85

SECTION I [I.
WHETHER THE EXTERNAL COMMUN'ON OF THE UNIVERSAL
CHURCH CAN EVER BE INTERRUPTED.
It has been shown that Christ enjoined perfect unity in his
church, and therefore that whatever society of Christians shall
either separate itself from, or be regularly excommunicated
by the great body of Christians, is cut off from the church.
This was the case with the Novatians, Donatists, Arians, Pela
gians, Luciferians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Monothelites, &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 theologi
ans absolutely deny the possibility of any such case. Their
popular argument in proof that their community constitutes thfr.
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 so
ciety. This is the beaten course pursued by all their writers,
since the time of Bellarmine at least ; and it is entirely based
on the assumption, that the catholic church can never exist, ex
cept 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,' (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 blameable.^ Such principles" were indeed absurd, and
' Unite de I'Eglise,
' Vrai Systeme de V Eglise, and Defence of the same.

86 ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY EXAMINED, [p. I, CH. IT.
¦ totally subversive of the catholic doctrine of unity ; and Jurieu
himself confessed, that from the time of Cyprian at least, all
the fathers maintained a system entirely opposed to his.' But
while the doctrine of Jurieu merits censure, as novel and erro
neous, it appears that 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 uninterrupt
edly, 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 possible
that in some case the fault and the justification might be so
equally divided between two parties, that it might be impossible
to aflfirm, that either w^s 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 constituted ; 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 that
the external communion of the church will always be perfectly
one, or that it will be divided, Romanists allege the words of
our Saviour in reference to the Gentiles : " Other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring, and they
shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shep-
herd,"'' 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 subsist, even if external
communion were sometimes interrupted through misunder-
¦ Unite de I'Eglise, " John iii, 16,

SECT, III,] ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY EXAMINED, 87
Standings or infirmities. They also adduce those words of
Christ : " A kingdom divided against itself cannot but fall."
This passage does not prove, that the church can never be divid
ed in point of external communion, because our Lord was
here alluding to the case of kingdoms 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 over
throw 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 ffom
its being spoken of in the singular number, as the " kingdom,"
" household," " body," and " spouse" of Christ ; it is proba
bly to be understood of a spiritual unity of relations to Christ,
which might exist, even if external unity were' interrupted.
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., what 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 inter
pretation so symbolical, in a question of so much importance, :
as that which is here under consideration.'
' No one pretends that the particular arguments of theologians, even in
the earlier ages, are always to be received without examination. Even the

88 EOMISH DOCTRINE OF :UNITY EXAMINED. [P, I. CH, IV.
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 church consisting of imperfect men, when viewed in this re
spect, as " without spot and withoift 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 can
not 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 misunderst^dings*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, &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 exter-
arguments of general councils themselves are not binding, as the Romanist
Delahogue argues from Vasquez, and Vernon, iJie latter of whom says,
" Id solum esse de fide quod definitur ; sen ut loquuntur juristse, solum dispo-
sitivum arresti, sen contenti in capite aut canone, est de fide : motivum
vero arresti, sen ejus probatio, non sunt de fide 1" — (Delahogue, De Eccl.
¦cap. V. prop. 2, Annot. circa decreta Concil.) If this is the case even in
the decrees of general councils, how much more so in the case of individual
fathers and theologians ? [See Part iv, Ch, vi,]
" Eph, iv. 4, 5,

SECT, in,] ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY EXAMINED. 89
nal 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 may also be one in us : that the world may be
lieve that thou hast sent rhe."^ 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 father infer from the earnestness
of that prayer, that the church was in imminent danger of dis
union, 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 earnestly
inculcated in the New Testament, than that of perfect unity
with the brethren. It was the new and special commandment
of the, Saviour himself, and when the first symptoms of division
manifested themselves in the Christian family, he took occasion
to eradicate J,he 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 ^0 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," &c.y Ambition was, as our Saviour
knew, the source of divisions, and therefore he warned his dis
ciples against all desire of earthly dominion and aggrandise
ment, under any pretence whatever. Nor did he mean that they
should merely assume the title of servants, while they endea
voured 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
" John xvii. 21. " Matt. xx. 25—27.
VOL. I. — 12

90 ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY EXAMINED, [p. I. CH. IV,
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, delivered
to the Israelites those awful warnings of the evils which would
overtake them, if they declined to idolatry, it may be reason
ably 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, indeed, 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
Romanists 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 church
can never be divided in point of external communion, we may
conclude from the very quotations adduced by the Roman
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 1 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 church, or whom the church condemned ; their doc
trine of the impossibility of several true churches co-existing
together in the same place : these are entirely received -and
approved by us ; but they do not touch the question in debate.

SECT. III.] ROMISH DOCTRINE OF UNITY EXAMINED. 91
namely, whether the catholic church itself may ever 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 speak
ing of the unity of the church, says : " Unity cannot be severed ;
nor the one body by laceration be divided"'' 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 Rome, and established a rival com
munity, 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 o?ie place there shall be several
true churches, as he observes in the same treatise ;'' but he does
not touch on the question of estrangement between the churches
of different parts of the world, St, Augustine, in his trea
tise against Petilian says, with reference to the Donatists :
" He that does not communicate with this church (universal)
thus diffused, communicates not with him whose words have
been recited " (Christ)." He means those who rejected the
communion of the catholic church and pronounced it apostate,
as the Donatists did, or who were cut off by the regular con
demnation of the whole church ; but not simply those who did
not communicate with the whole church. Innocentius of
Rome, with whom St. Augustine communicated, was himself
not in communion with the eastern churches.
^ [" They used statements which were not realized to their minds, except
in that form in which we accept them as fully as the Romanists. The
point virtually in debate then was, whether tivo true churches could be
rivals in one place ; but the question whether tioo churches in two places
could be in a state of estrangement, had never fairly been contemplated at
that time,[and the words of the Fathers are but words and not ideas, which
seem to bear upon a state of things not existing." — British Critic, Oct.,
1838, p. 360.]
» De Unitate, near the end, p. 260, ed. Pamel. [P. 149, Oxf. tr.]
b ibid. p. 255. [P. 136, Oxf. tr.]
¦= Contra Literas Petihani, hb. 2. c. 55. tom. ix.

92 COMAIUNION OF CATHOLIC CHURCH. [P. I. CH.' IV.
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.
Thirdly, it is undeniable from history, that external com
munion between all churches has at various times been inter
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 Hilaiy of Aries by Leo.* 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
division 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."'
This division continued for several j'ears.
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 The

Ii Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xxviL s. 5.
' Hist. Eccl. 1. xxii. 13.
f Ibid. 1. xxxi. 16.

SECT. III.] INTERRUPTED. 93
Roman bishops informed them of the mode in which they
might recover their communion,^ and in fine, when the re-union
had been accomplished between the churches of Rome 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 commu
nion."^ 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 "
adhered 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 Roman theologians is,
that although in these cases, some portions of the church were
separated from mutual communion, they still communicated
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 himself 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 :
« Fleury, 1. xxxi. s. 16. See also s. 26.
'¦ Ibid. s. 43.

94 COMMUNION MAY BE INTERRUPTED, [p, I. CH, IT,
the external union is evidently interrupted, Romanists are
sensible that they cannot sustain the perpetual external unity
of the church on so imperfect a communion ; and therefore
they endeavour to 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 pon
tiff, 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,"' &c. Now if different
parties, though actually separated from external communion,
may yet all form parts of the one catholic church, and be free
from schism, in consequence of their motives and priiiciples,
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 deter
mine the dimensions necessary 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 ?
Fourthly. I ask whether the church universal may not,
i Tournely, Praelect. Theol. de Ecclesia, quasst. iv. art. iv. objectiones.
Delahogue, de Eccl. cap. i. pars ii. propos. ii. objectiones. BaiUy, Tract.
de Eccl. tom. i. c. vi. object.

SECT. III.] COMMUNION MAY BE INTERRUPTED. 95
consistently with the principles of Romanists themselves, be
divided into two parts which hold no direct external communion ?
It is their doctrine, that the external unity of the church con
sists 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 ;'' therefore a pa^-i it may be inter
rupted between the members also. 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 branch
es 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 communion 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 Roman theologians, that
schism consists in a " separation from the communion of the
universal church, which happens either when the church
excludes any one from its body, or when any one leaves its
communion."^ 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 1 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 irresisti
ble, or from mutual misunderstandings ; in such a case both
'' " Caeterum notandum est, centrum unitatis, licet ecclesiae necessarium,
interrumpi posse, sub quo respectu ejus ope eodem visibili communionis vin
culo connectuntur omnes catholici ; namque per quadraginta annos magni
schismatis occidentis, varii competitores in pontificatu suas habebant obedi-
entias, et singuli eas quae illis non adhaerebant excommunicatione feriebant.
Quomodo autem nulla ex illis fuerit schismatica probavimus,'' &c.^De
Ecclesia, c. viii. q. 3. prop. 2. p. 393.
' Delahogue, p. i. p. 1. propos. 2. object. Tournely, ut supra.

96 COMMUNION MAY BE INTERRUPTED, [p. I. CH, IV.
sides would be free from schism according to this definition,
and therefore both would remain portions of the one catholic
church, though separated from mutual external communion,
Tournely "^ and other Roman theologians distinguish three
species of excommunication, one " by which bishops are de
prived 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 ancients,"
which " consisted in bare subtraction or denial of communion,
by which bishops or churches separated themselves from mutual
communion, and thus one, as it were, excommunicated the
other, though not subject to it." This excommunication,
according to Tournely, "was not excommumcation 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 con
troversy 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 gene
ral council."" Therefore, according to the principle here laid
¦¦¦ De Ecclesia, Ibid.
n Cited by Jurieu, Unite de I'Eglise, p. 360, 361.

SECT. 111.] OBJECTIONS. 97
down by Nicole, whose book has been copied by all succeejding
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, history,
and theological reasons, are so far from proving the impossi
bility of any division of external communion in the catholic
church, that they rather combine to establish its possibility,
and I do not seek more than this. All we desire is, that other
churches of apostolical form and succession, or who at least,
claim a regular succession from the apostles, shall not be con
demned unheard by those of the Roman communion ; but that
the question of actual schism, separation from, or by the catho
lic church shall be fairly examined.
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^ny case if 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;
Ansioer. It cannot be intolerant in any evil sense, if it be
tbe 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.
III. We are commanded in Scripture to " come out of
VOL. I. — 13

98 OBJECTIONS. [p. I. CH. IV.
Babylon."° "Depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no
unclean thing ; go ye out of the midst of her."* " I have
written to you not to keep company if any man that is called
a brother be a fornificator, or covetous, "« &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 well do without forsaking the communion of the
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 togeth
er in the name of Christ, who have plainly separated from
Christ and from his Gospel ? For we have not departed from
them, but they from us ; and since schisms and heresies are
bom afterwards, they left the fountain-head and origin of truth,
when they constituted different conventicles for themselves."^
" Rev, xviii, 4, p Is. Iii. 11. "^ 1 Cor. v. IL
' De Unit. 256.

CHAPTER V.
ON 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 salutary 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 invariable
unity of the church in faith, and the possibility of salvation
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. Fourthly, I shall examine the question of unity in faith, as
an attribute and sign of the church of Christ ; and,
Fifthly, deduce some conclusions which may aid us in dis
criminating the church of Christ from all rival communities.

SECTION I.
the truth revealed BY CHRIST IS TO BE BELIEVED BY ALL
CHRISTIANS.
The whole system and body of the Christian religion is ne
cessarily free from the least mixture of error or falsehood, be
cause it proceeds from the infinitely wise and only-begotten

100 NECESSITY" OF BELIEVING THE TRUTH, [p. I. CH. V.
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, diat I should bear witness
unto the truth " (John xviii. 37) ; and the reason was : " God
hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanc
tification of the Spirit and belief of the truth " (2 Thess, ii.
13). His promise to his disciples was ; "\e 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.
1 3). It is to be observed, that salvation, and freedom from the
dominion of evil, are here connected with the behef 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" (Eph. iv. 5), for which "faith once dehvered to
the saints," a faith incapable of improvement, of addition, or
correction, all Christians are commanded " Ccirnestly to con
tend" (Jude 3). In this faith they are to remain " stahlished
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 stremge
doctrines " (Heb, xiii. 9) ; nor " like children tossed to and fi:o
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). No-
thins is more evident than the wiU and commandment of
Christ, that his whole church should firmly believe and sustain
the one truth which he came to reveal by himself and by 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 ii} the petition which he immediately added : " that

SECT. II.] HERESY, 101
they may all be one" In fine, St. Paul describes the Chris
tian church as estabhshed for the maintenance of the truth.
" The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth." 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.'' Every portion of this truth comes
from God himself, and rests on his authority ; and we cannot
without temerity divide the doctrines which He has revealed,
into those which may be denied, and those which may be be
lieved. Independently of the rashness and folly of such a dis
tinction made without any authority of revelation, its impiety
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 denominalions."
Even the Unitarian cannot allow that it is lawful to deny that
pardon is given on condition of repentance, or that future re
wards 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
shewing 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
revealed. I say " pertinacious," because it is agreed gene
rally that pertinacity or obstinacy is required to constitute formal
» See Rogers's Discourse of the Church, chap. iii. Hook, Sermon II.
before the University of Oxford.

102 HERESY A SIN. [P. I, CH, V,
heresy. Field defines heretics as " they that obstinately per
sist in error contrary to the church's faith.'"' Hooker says that
" heresy is heretically maintained by such as obstinately hold it
after wholesome admonition."" 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," and that " he alone is to be accounted a
heretic who resists the doctrine of the. church, and is therefore
pertinacious."'^ I add " certainly revealed," because if there
be a legitimate doubt in a controversy, which of the two con
trary doctrines was actually revealed, either may be held with
out heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a tem
porary error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy,
1. Heresy is in fact a species of infidelity ; it denies a por
tion of what God has revealed ; and the words of Christ 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," consigning to destruction those who do not
believe the apostolic preaching, prove the infinite danger of dis
puting or denying it in any point. As it has been shown above
that the Scriptures 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 believe
not the truth." Heresy is here represented as a judgment of
God on the wicked, by which he permits Satan to gain do
minion over them, and precipitate them into destruction, St,
Paul, in writing to the Galatians, with reference to the Judaiz-
ing teachers who maintained the necessity of obedience to
the old Law without denying the mission of Christ, says:

b Field, Of the Church, book i, ch. 14,
c Hooker's Works by Keble, vol. iii. p. 620,
¦* Melchior Canus, De Locis Theologicis, lib. xii. c. vii. resp. ad 5. The
same doctrme is maintained by Bossuet, Defens. declar, cler, Gallicani,
tom, iii, p, 286.

SECT, II.] HERESY A SIN, 103
" 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 (t. 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 " confess
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (2 John 7). St. John
continues : " Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doc
trine of Christ, 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 passage to the Gnostics, who de
nied that Christ's body was real, and consequently subverted
the doctrine of his real incarnation, passion, death, atonement,
&c. ; and no words can more plainly show the guilt of separat
ing from the unity of the true faith. Evil doctrine is else
where 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 apostolical 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 godli
ness : from such withdraw thyself" (l Tim. vi, 3 — 5), " A

104 HERESY CONDEMNED BY THE [p. I. CH, V.
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 prcof from Scripture to the same effect. It may be
concluded, 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,
acknowledged this principle, Ignatius ¦writes thus to the
church in Ephesus : " Do not err, my 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 doctrine, for which faith Jesus Christ was crucified ? Such
a one, being defiled, shall depart into fixe unquenchable , Like
wise he who heareth him."" To the Trallians he writes :
" Therefore I exhort you, and yet not I, but the love of Jesus
Christ, to use only Christian food, and to abstain from strange
pasture, which is heresy. For the heretics, to appear worthy
of 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."^ Jus
tin 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 practices ;
e M» irKoLyia-^i, iJ'eX'^oi /jtau. Ol oixo<p6c^oi ^atfftxaety ©au cv xA;:^yO(U«VcuffiV. Ei
ovK 01 x«Ta o-afitx TauT* vfia-roy'tu Im^nyty, mtra /AohKoy so» mo-Tiy ©au xi»» Mttr-
icAy^U <f)6«^M uTTip Yis 'luff-oZe Xpttrras gsrritufwflw ; o towuto?, puretpcc ysyif/syos, si; t9
Tuf TO a<r^e3-Tov "i^fffitVo- o'^oiait <fj iiuim aLtov — Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. u. xvi.
f Xla.fM.ixZ ouy uftas, cix. iy^ dxx' » iyam "leeroa Xfimu, /iiytf t« XficrrctT?
TfOifii Xf''^'"i i>^M-Tfiit! (fi ^oTo'nf imxyr^au, Stu \<nh ajfxru, «. t. X  Ad
Trail, c. vi.

SECT. II.] PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 105
and we caU 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, unrighte
ous, iniquitous, who instead of venerating Jesus Christ, only
profess him in name. "s " The Lord," says Irenseus, " 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,' who also judged, that "heresies had
not inflicted less injury on the Christians by their perverse doc
trines, than Antichrist by his horrible persecutions.'"" Clement
of Alexandria affirms, that " he who revolts against the eccle
siastical doctrine, and falls into the opinions of human heresies,
ceases to be a rrian of God, and faithful to the Lord."' 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 he
retics.""" " If any one, reading the gospel, applies to it his
own interpretation, not understanding 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."" " Nor
can that man be accounted a Christian," says Cyprian, " who
doth not remain in the truth of his gospel and faith.""
g TLoXKol ol aSs* Jtat) ^AaVpw^A \6yitv laii TTptxTTitv ftT/Jk^ctv , . , . 5v aiSiv) y.oiym-
vaZfjiiy, ol yyupi^ovri^ dQsout: xstl dtri^lc »*' oJikou^ tcAt d.yo/i/.ou5 ctyToyf vTrdp^oVTae, —
Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 208. ed. Thirl.
¦i " Dominus judicaturus est eos omnes qui sunt extra veritatem, id est,
qui sunt extra ecclesiam." — Adv. Haeres. 1. iv. c. 33. al. 62.
' " Si haeretici sunt, Chfistiani esse non possunt." — De Praescript. c. 37.
p. 215. ed. Rigalt. 1664.
k Praescript. c. 4.
( "AvBpaiTros uvAt nrov Qiou ttM vnTTot r^ Kvpia Sici/jtivitv &7roXujXeK£y, o iyuT^euvria-Ai
T«v itucxefrtxT^iiciiv ^'xpaSoTty, ka) dTrotrKipr^crAc iU Jo^atc Aipiawv &v$par7riyaiy. — Stro-
mat. lib. vii. p. 890. ed. Potter.
... Origen. ap. Pamphil, Apol. tom. v. p. 225. Oper. Hieron. Paris, 1706.
n Horn. ii. in Ezech. tom. iii. p. 362. ,
o " Nee Christianus videri potest qui non pefmanet in Evangelii ejus et
fidei veritate."— De Unit. Eccl.
VOL. I. — 14

106 HERESY CONDEMNED BY THE [p. I. CH, V.
The practice of the church was in accordance with these
principles. Heretics were always regarded as cut off from the
church, and to be avoided by all Christians. Irenaeus relates,
from the tradition of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, that when
the apostle went to the bath at Ephesus, and beheld Cerin-
thus there, he departed, saying, " Let us fly, lest it should fall
upon us, for Cerinthus the enemy of the truth is there,"?
Polycarp himself, when asked by the heretic Marcion, " Whe
ther he knew him," answered, " I know, thee, the first-born of
Satan." " So great care," says Irenseus, " 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 con
demned by himself.' "i Heretics were only received into the
church on confessing their fault, as IrenaBus intimates in the
case of Cerdo.' Those who taught false doctrines were
condemned and anathematized. Thus Victor and the Roman
church expelled Theodotus, Artemon, and their followers, who
held that Christ was a mere man.^ Noetu swas condemned at
Ephesus,' 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"'^ .... 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 mystery, and boasted him-
p Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. lib. iii. c. 3. — 'laavmc o tou Kt/gi'ou /jt-A^mK, h t»
'E<p£cr(j^ ^o^iuBeU xova-Aff^At, xxi iJwV £o-oo Km'p^vSov, e^«\ctTO ToZ ^AKAyiiov fjt.it xoutrafAiyoz,
dXA* iTritTiTMy' ^uyof^iy, fj^tj ica] to (^AKAyiioy crvfATritnt, hSoy o'vToc KygiVflou, too T«f dxjjQaW
1 Ibid.
' Adv. Haeres. iii. c. 4.
s Euseb. V. 28. Fleury, iv. 33.
'- Fleury, hv. v. c. 52.
" 'E^io-TiWcfAiv Je ci^A KAt TTApmA'Kti^fxiy TTOXT^ovs Ko.) tZv fjt.AU.Pav iTftcTK/jTraiy, tmT^y
di^AmtAy T»! BAtATiKfo^tuJ'tS'Aaii.n.t^iAg. — Euseb. vii. c. 30.

SECT. II.] PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 107
self in the accursed heresy of i!^temon : for why should we
not declare his parent ? . . . . Having therefore expelled him
as an enemy of God, and remaining obstinate, we are compelled
to ordain another bishop,"'' &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." 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 com
municated with.
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 luhole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish ever
lastingly." Nothing can be more decisive than this of the doc
trine of the reformation ; for Lutherans, and Zuinglians, and
Calvinists vied with each other in their adoption of the
Athanasian Creed." Nor was this merely a speculative doc-
" Tov Si i^og'^its-a./jt.iyoy to fjtvtri-itpitiy, xsti ifATrofjtTrvjoyTA th fJiiAp^ At^iau rrf ^prsjuiji
(t* yap ou ^^» /AO?./C TOV TTATf^A AUToZ S)}KZaAt) OuSiV SitV iiyOtJftiBA TtiUrOby TOl)? MyttT-
jaou? ^LTTAtTiiy . . . * hAyKtxtrByfjtiy ovy ityTtvA^trofxiytiy oitTov t^ ©s^kxI jtAii UKoyrrA
iKiLyip'j^AyAiz, rt., T. A., — Ibid.
" Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. c. 8. Theodoret. ii. c. 12.
" See the Articles of Smalcald, Formula Concordiae, Confess. Helvet. i.
c. xi. ; Confess. Gallic, art. v. ; Belgica, art. ix. ; Bohemica, art. iii. &c.
The Zuinglians said in their Confession : " We abominate the impious
doctrine of Arius and the Arians against the Son of God, especially the
blasphemies of Michael Servetus and his sect, which Satan drew as from
hell by their means against the Son of God, and most audaciously and
impiously scattered through the world." " We execrate the madness of
Eutyches and the Monothelites,'' &c. Confess, Helvet. i. c. xi. AU the

108 HERESY CONDEMNED BY THE [p, I. CH. T,
trine with them, Luther held Zuinglius, (Ecolampadius, and
their followers, as heretics in the question of the eucharist,
and accordingly yefused to hold any communion with them.
The Lutherans regarded the Sacramentarians as heretics, while
both in their turn denounced the Socinians and Anabaptists as
most grievous heretics, and separated them from all commu
nion. Calvin styles Servetus (one of the Socinian and Ana
baptist sect) " amonster,"y and was instrumental in his being
burned alive for heresy.^ 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.
The Athanasian Creed, which she declares, " ought thoroughly
to be beheved and received," as it " may be proved by most
certain warrants of holy Scripture,"^ is decisive on the ques
tion ; and in the collect for Good Friday we pray for " here
tics," 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 doctrine. Bishop Jewel says : " Heresy is a forsaking
of salvation, a rejection of God's grace, a departure from the
confessions of the Lutherans and Calvinists are full of condemnations of
various heresies in the strongest terms. — See chap. xii.
y " Nostro quoque saeculo emersit non minus exitiale monstrum Michael
Servetus." — Inst. ii. 14. 5. " ManichaBorum delirio occurrere necesse est,
quod rursus hac aetate invehere tentavit Servetus .... hie diabolicus
error quam crassas et foedas absurditates secum trahat," &c. — Inst. i. 16.
5. " Cavendum tamen est a diaholica imaginatione Serveti." — ii. 9. 3.
^ Mosheim, cent. xvi. sect. iii. part 2. c. 4. s. 4.
" Art. viii.

SECT. II.] BRITISH CHURCH, 109
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,"" 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 esteemed ipso
facto to be cut off and separated, who in any point deserted
that faith ; ' such a one,' (saith St. Paul) lleVT^as-T*;, ' is turned
aside,' 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 in early times, he adds :
" Hence in common practice, whosoever did appear to differ
from the common faith, was rejected as an apostate from Chris
tianity, and unworthy the communion of Christians ."'^
5. Even dissenters have admitted the same doctrine. The
divines of Westminster (Presbyterians,) in their "Humble
Advice," 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:" 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
conceptions 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 communion with the
catholic church in faith." .... And " in case, through the
subtlety, &c. of those, by whom damnable doctrines are broach
ed, the church itself whereunto they do belong, is not able to
'¦ Apologia, p. 18. '^ On the Creed, art. ix.
'' On" the Unity of the Church. Works, vol. 2. p. 762.

110 HERESY CONDEMNED BY SEPARATISTS, [p. I, CH. V.
rebuke and suppress them," &c., in such a case synods may be
resorted to.* The admissions of some of the modem dissen
ters on this point are also clear and decisive. " Can any
person then, who professes to be a believer in ChristianiU',
doubt whether there are not some doctrines essential to
religion, ' truths according to godliness,' the cordial and duly
impressive belief of which is indispensable to holy character,
admission into the Divine faYour, and the attaining of future
blessedness ? What, in particular those fundamental truths
are, every person, every community, is bound to form the best
judgment in their power ; but it is self-evident that a Christian
church must exercise its solemn decision upon this point, and
that such a decision must lie at the basis of its union." Such
docti'ines "a faithful church must hold fast, and even make
them conditions of commnnion ; conditions not by a formal and
merely verbal confession, but by the evidence of their soul-
animating power. Nor is this requirement chargeable with
persecution, or usurpation, or intolerance, or an infringement
of any man's liberty .... The intolerance, the attack upon
liberty, is on the side of those, if such there be who call us
narrow, bigoted, or uncharitable, and who would force
themselves into our communion, in opposition to our con
scientious sense of duty to Clirist our sovereign, and a regard
to our own peace and edification."^ 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.
6. Having thus proved that according to Scripture and univer
sal consent, heresy is a most deadly sin, I shall only add here
that the church must certainly have the power of expelling
those who are guilty of it, from her communion. If Christians
may separate even those who are guilty of offences against
' The true Nature of a Gospel Chiurch, p. 404, 405. 417.
f Library of Eccles. Knowledge, Essays on Ch. Polity, vol, ii. p. 401.
See also Tract on Const, of Prim. Ch. vol. i. p. 39.

SECT. 11.] EXCOMMUN'ICATION OF HERETICS. Ill
fraternal charity, as I have elsewhere observed ;b how much
more must they be bound to remove from their communion
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 offences against morals and charity carry their own
condemnation with them : every one observes in a moment
theii' deformity and contradiction to the divine law ; but 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 transformed 'as the ministers of
righteousness ; whose end shall be according to their works "
(2 Cor, xi. 14, 15). And so we know from ecclesiastical his
tory, that the founders of almost all heresies, as Arius, Pelagius,
Nestorius, &c. have been famed for external piety and sanctity.
Were it otherwise, indeed, the novelty of their opinions would
excite too much apprehension among their hearers to render
them in reality dangerous : but when men of apparent sanctity
and integrity earnestly assert their doctrines as true and ortho
dox, then even the faithful may be in danger of forsaking their
stedfastness ; and it was necessary that such temptations should
arise, in order to sift the chaff from the wheat ; for, 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 they are appa
rently destined to destroy.
It is therefore absolutely necessary that the church should
be able to separate heretics from its communion ; and the Scrip
ture gives such a power : " A heretic after the first and second
admonition reject" . . , , "From such wiJMraw thyself" . . .
and finally : " If he shall neglect to hear the church, let him be
» In the preceding chapter, sect. ii. art. 6.

112 EXCOMMUNICATION OP HERETICS. [p. I. CH. V.
unto thee as a heathen man and a pubHcan. 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 hea
ven." 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, that Christians have in all ages, from
the beginning, regarded the Christian society as invested with
such a right, and perpetually 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) ;
but here it must 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 judg
ment, 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 were condemned were rightly condemned. I hear
speak of sentences pronounced by the universal church ; but of
these, and the judgments of particular churches, I shall further
treat in the next section.

SECT. III.] ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. 113

SECTION HI.
ALL ERRORS, EVEN IN MATTERS OF FAITH, ARE NOf
HERETICAL.
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.
I. Amongst doctrines maintained by Christians, some have
been certainly revealed, and are known to be so by the clear
words of Scripture, and the voice of universal tradition. These
are matters of faith, and cannot be pertinaciously denied without
heresy. Other doctrines are! deduced from passages of Scrip
ture 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 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 par
ticular 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."!' This distinction is admitted by all parties.
Calvin observes, that " there are some things which may he
controverted amongst churches, yet do not destroy the unity of
' " Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optuni
regulae Catholicae defensores, salva fidei eompage non consonant." — Contr,
Jul. i. 22. p. 510, tom. x.
VOL. I, — 15

114 ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. [p, I. CH. V.
faith. For what churches ought to separate merely for this
cause, if one should suppose without any contentiousness or
positive assertion, that souls departing from the body ascend to
heaven, and the other should not dare to determine the place,
yet hold that they are alive to God ?"' In the same manner the
Romish divines distinguished between theological opinions and
doctrines defide. Amongst the former they included the points
disputed between the Thomists and Scotists, the Jesuits and
Dominicans, the Ultramontane and the Cisalpine parties, the
doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, &c. (See
Part iv. ch. vi. and xiv. Sect, ii.) It is certain, therefore, that
there are doctrines which may be disputed without heresy,
2. When a doctrine in controversy appears to be taught by
Scripture and tradition, and the universal church has not pro
nounced any judgment against it ; particular churches are not
guilty of heresy in maintaining this doctrine, even though it may
be an error, and may have been denounced by some other par
ticular churches. An instance of this is afforded by the contro
versy between St. Cyprian and Stephen of Rome, in the question
of the validity of heretical baptism. No one, even of those who
dispute his doctrine, supposes that St. Cyprian and those who
judged with him were guilty of heresy. They were indeed
condemned by the Roman church, but the rest of the church did
not approve this measure. This is admitted by all the Romish
theologians, and they do not themselves pretend that it is hereti
cal to maintain a doctrine apparently supported by Scripture
and tradition, against any authority inferior to that of the uni
versal church. Thus they exempt the Gallican church in the
' Calvin.' Institut. lib. iv. c. i. s. 12. — ^The Lutherans admitted the same
in their Apology, where, in reference to the universal church, it is said,
" Haec ecclesia proprie est columna veritatis. Retinet enim purum evan-,
gelium, et, ut Patdus inquit, fnndamentum, hoc est, veram Christi cognitio-
nem et fidem, etsi sunt in his etiam multi imbecilles, qui supra fundamentum
ffidificant stipulas perituras, hoc est, quasdem inutiles opiniones, quae tamen,
quia non evertuirt fundamentum, tunc condonantur iUis, turn etiam emen-
iantur." — ^Apol, Conf. August, iv.

SECT. Ill,] ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. 115
time of Charlemagne and afterwards from heresy, though it
rejected the worship of images decreed in the Synod of Nice,
A.D, 787, but which it did not acknowledge to be oecumenical,''
Even Transubstantiation and Purgatory, according to them,
were not matters of faith, till the Councils of Lateran and Flo
rence had defined those doctrines,
3, If even a doctrine has been declared defide by the legiti
mate judgment of the universal church, still if through an error
of fact it is supposed by some churches not to have been so
declared, they do not incur heresy in retaining a different doc
trine. This is admitted by Romanists, and it is a principle of
considerable importance. They excuse from heresy those
churches which did not receive the condemnation of the " three
chapters " by the fifth oecumenical synod, on the ground that
these churches were uncertain whether it was cecumenical.^ —
For the same reason they excuse the Western bishops who
rejected the Synod of Nice (called the Seventh Synod),"' The
Galileans 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,"
In like manner the cardinal of Lorraine and the Galileans gene
rally did not receive the Synod of Florence as oecumenical, nor
its decree on the Papal supremacy, and yet were free from
heresy," It appears, therefore, that those who on strong grounds
deny that the church has actually judged in a particular contrO-
'' Tournely, de Ecclesia, tom. i. p. 402. Collet, Tractatus de Incarna-
tione, appendix, s. 5. Bossuet, Defensio declar. cler. Gallic, tom. ii. p.
. 527, &c.
i Tournely, tom. i. p. 401.
» Bailly, Tractatus de Eccl. Christi, tom. i.'p. 423. Delahogue, de Ec
clesia, p. 177.
» Bailly, tom. i. p. 425, Bossuet, Defens. declarat. cleri Gallicani.
o Fleury, liv. 164. s. 74. — It is acknowledged by To^urnely, Hooke, and
other Romish theologians, that the oecumenicity of the synod of Florence
is doubted by some. — See Part iv. Chapter xi. Section v. According to
Andradius (de Script, et Trad. Auctor. lib. ii. foi. 251), France never ac
knowledged the Synods of Florence as general.

116 ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. [p. I. CH. V,
versy, 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.
4. From the preceding principle it follows, that churches
which through an error of fact, but on strong reasons, believe
a doctrine to have been defined by the universal church as a
matter of faith, which was in reality not so defined, and which
is erroneous even in faith, are not guilty of heresy in holding
that doctrine. Thus the African and some other Western
churches opposed themselves to the judgment of the fifth (Ecu
menical Synod against the "three chapters," because they
believed, through mistake, that the fourth OEcumenical 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 scriptural
and ecclesiastical authority than that of their opponents.
5. In conclusion it must be observed that there is a great dif
ference 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 imbibed 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," 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,' &c. ; they however who
defend their opinion, th»ugh false and perverse, with no perti
nacious vehemence, especially if they have not themselves in
vented 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

SECT. Ill,] ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. 117
no means to be accounted among heretics,"? This is also the
doctrine of Archbishop Laud, who says : " If any man be a
leader and a teaching heretic, and will add schism to heresy,
and be obstinate in both, he without repentance must needs be
lost ; while many that succeed him in the error only, without
the obstinacy, may be saved. For they which are misled and
swayed with the current of the time, hold the same errors with
their misleaders, yet not supinely, but with all sober diligence
to find out the truth ; not pertinaciously, but with all readiness
to submit to truth so soon as it^hall be found ; not uncharitably,
but retaining an internal communion with the whole visible
church of Christ in the fundamental points of faith, and per
formance of acts of charity ; not factiously, but with an earnest
desire and a sincere endeavour (as their place and calling gives
them means,) for a perfect union and communion with all Chris
tians in truth as well as peace : I say these, however misled, are
neither heretics nor schismatics in the sight of God, and are
therefore in a state of salvation."*
This last clause 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 " (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. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall
be much required" (Luke xii. 47, 48), Hence we may infer
P " Qui sententiam suum quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci
animositate defendunt, prsssertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae pe-
pererunt, sed a seduotis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, qus-
runt autem cauta soUicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum in'venerint, ne
quaquam sunt inter hasreticos deputandi," — Aug, Ep. 43. al, 162. Oper. t.
2. p. 88.
¦i Laud, Controversy with Fisher, s. 36, p. 315.

118 ALL ERROR NOT HERESY. [p. I. CH. V.
that those who maintain heretical doctrines in ignorance, are in
a very different condition from those w^ho 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,
its members, are not in the way of salvation pointed out by Jesus
Christ. They and their generations are as the heathen ; and
though we may have reason to believe that many of their de
scendants are not obstinate in their errors, still it seems to me
that we are not warranted in afiirming absolutely that they can
be saved. We should not affirnj any thing of the future con
dition of such persons. We have no right to "judge them that
are without ; " but we know that Jesus Christ has proposed
his gospel to be believed and his church to be united with ; and
that it is the duty of every man to whom they are sufficiently
proposed, to receive them with entire devotion.

SECTION IV.
UNITY IN FAITH CONSIDERED AS AN ATTRIBUTE AND SIGN OF
THE CHURCH.
From what has been said in the last section, it appears that
particular churches or individuals may be in error sometimes
without incurring the guilt of heresy, or being separated in any
respect froiii the catholic church, Bellarmine himself admits that
there may be true churches without the entire and sincere pro
fession of the truth of God : e. g. those of Corinth and Galatia,
which erred in the matter of the resurrection and the law of
Moses.' I proceed now to apply the principles established, to
the question of unity of faith considered, first, as an attribute,
and secondly, as a sign, of the church of Christ.
1 , It has been shown that there may be doctrinal differences
in the catholic church generally, or between particular churches ;
' Bellarnun. de Cone, et Eccl. lib, iv. c. 2.

SECT. IV.] NO PROMISE OF PERFECT UNITY. 119
that doctrines of faith actually revealed may sometimes be con
troverted in the catholic church ; and that eiToneous doctrines
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 the
duty of all Christians to receive the whole truth revealed, and
though they are bound unceasingly to watch over the precious
deposit of the faith, and to desire most earnestly a 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 recover
ing within itself, perfect unity in this respect. So strong an
obligation to beheve 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 some dif
ferences for a time in particular doctrines, arising from different
but probable application of the same rule ; and yet without he
resy on either side. I do not suppose, however, that these dif
ferences would extend (except under very peculiar circum
stances) to any matter of faith certainly revealed by Christ ;
because it is improbable that churches should entirely mistake
the application of the general rule of judgment in such a case,
if they apparently apply it with diligence and good intentions ;
and especially when the divine aid is promised to the disciples
of Christ : "Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them ; " and again : " The
Spirit of ¦ truth shall lead you into all truth." It is possible,
however, that through some great ignorance, or some strong
prejudice, particular churches, or a part of the universal church,
may be for a time misled in some point : I do not here speak

120 UNITY IN FAITH NOT A SIGN. [p. I. CH. V.
of the universal church, or affirm that it can err when judging
collectively. This will be treated on elsewhere.
2. I am now to speak of unity in faith as a sign of the
church, or a means by which we can discriminate it easily from
all rival societies.
I contend that actual unity in all matters of faith, cannot be a
sign of the church in this sense ; for.
First, an apparent difference in doctrine between Christian
societies, 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 truths certain
ly revealed and matters of opinion : we must apply this rule
equitably and patiently to the questions in controversy, to deter
mine 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 par
ticular case there is a difference in a matter of 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, Calvinists, and Zuinglians, who differ, •
There are disputes in the Eastern churches ; and in the Roman
Obedience,' (not to mention the differences about Jansenism,)
the controversies 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 re
ally do not concern matters of faith, it is necessary to proceed
through the lengthened process above alluded to ; for surely
Romanists would not have us to beUeve the mere assertion of

SECT. IV.] UNITY IN FAITH NOT A SIGN. 121
some controversialists ; especially when several other theolo
gians of their own affirm that these disputes do concern faith,
and that one or other party amongst them are heretics.^
Secondly. 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 apparent
unity as the church in doctrine. For example, the Nestojians
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.
It may be concluded then, that apparent unity or apparent
difference in faith is not a safe ground to proceed on, in discri
minating the true church from all rival communities ; 'and the
question of real unity involves a too extensive examination.
But I shall in the next section show, that we may deduce from

s Dr. Milner admits that " they have also disputes in their schools," but
" these disputes are not about articles of faith." — End of Controv. lett. xvi.
Dr. Baines also asserts : " the doctrines of the catholic rehgion 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.
As an illustration of these assertions, it may be sufiicient to direct the reader
to Bossuet's Defens. declar. Cleri Gall. (Appendix, lib. ii. u. 13.) where he
says, that Bellarmine, Stapleton, &c. hold the Gallican doctrine of the su
periority of a general council to the Pope, to be heretical, and that Chris
tianus Lupus, Nicholas Dubois, the bishop of Strigonium, &c. regard the
question as one defide. Nicholas Cevoli even maintained that " the pro
positions of the Gallican clergy are every one taken out of Calvin's Insti
tutes, ahd are plainly heretical : that the bishops who confirmed them are,
as schismatics and heretics, cut oflffrom the church, and ipso facto depriv
ed of all episcopal jurisdiction ; that their communion should be avoided,
and even that they ought to be burned ! " On the other side the Cardinal
of Lorrain, and Richerius, with a large number of others, held that the
Ultramontane doctrine, as condemned by the Councils of Constance and
Basil, was heretical, (see Bossuet, Gallia Orthodoxa, s. xvii.) Even Bos
suet says, in his " Defensio," that the question is one de fide, though he
does not condemn the Ultramontanes as heretics. See Part iv. Chap, vi,
VOL. I. — 16

122 CONCLUSIONS  OBJECTIONS. [pART 1.
the obligation of unity in faith, certain conclusions which will
aid us to discriminate the true church.

SECTION V.
CONCLUSIONS.
1. 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 fundamental principles
from sustaining unity in the truth, cannot be churches of Christ.
2. Any society which either separated itself from, or was
cut off by the great body of the church of Christ in any one
qilestion of faith, after due examination and without any mani
fest irregularity of proceeding, is not to be accounted a portion
of Christ's church.'
3. Communities which notoriously differ from each other on
every point of Christian doctrine, cannot all be of the church
of Christ. 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 there
fore they cannot maintain any doctrine to be false and heretical.
Ansiver. This objection assumes as its basis, that there are
now no certain means of ascertaining what is true and what is
' [So long as it continues to hold the error for which it was cut off. If,
with a jurisdiction originally valid, the succession of the ministry, and the
orderly administration of the word and sacraments, are continued, and after
a time the origuial error is either formally or tacitly abandoned, the want
of a formal reception into communion with other churches, from whatever
cause, can hardly be deemed to be an effectual exclusion from the church
catholic]

CHAP, v.] UNITY IN FAITH. 123
false in rehgion. Were this the case, the regulations and
declarations of Scripture with regard to heresy, would certainly
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 beheve 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
essentially 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. Conse
quently this principle is not Christian." We are bound, on
the supposition that revelation is designed for us, to assume it
as certain, that there are means of clearly and positively
ascertaining some truth to have been actually revealed by
Christ, What those means are, is a subject for separate con
sideration ; I shall hereafter show that they are Scripture and
universal tradition. But we are entitled as Christians to cal
culate positively on their existence, and therefore to affirm that
the truth as revealed by Christ is imperative on us,
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
u See Hook, sermon ii, before the University of Oxford, p. 39.

124 UNITY IN FAITH. [pART I.
principle of the Reformation) no degree of uniformity of faith
can be requisite to salvation.
Answer. (1.) If the essential principle of the Reformation
justified individuals in maintaining what was contrary to the
truth revealed by Christ, the Reformation would be indefen
sible ; 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 such as they judged heretics, and by their
reception of the Athanasian creed, maintained the necessity of
believing the truth revealed by Jesus Christ, (2,) If the con
clusion of the objection be defended as a truth, independently
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 be either obsolete or false. Therefore
the conclusion leads directly to the subversion of religion. But
if it be admitted that any truth revealed by Christ can now be
ascertained, it must be necessary to believe that truth. There
fore the principle must be admitted.
Ill, 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 tyranically
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.
' See chapter xii. sect, iii, and part II, chapter vi.

CHAP. V.J OBJECTIONS. 125
Answer. (I.) I deny the consequence; for it sufficiently
vindicates the merciful design of God, if the means of salvation
be offered to men, without any compulsion on them to 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 Christianity
be rejected or perverted by some men, while it is received by
others, it does not fail of its design. (2.) Many disputes
among 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. Therefore it is
impossible to affirm that any individual does not maintain the
truth, because the persuasion of his own mind is the truth.
Answer. (I,) If the sense of each individual mind is truth,
then those who hold Christ to be 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 con
dition, 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

126 UNITY IN FAITH. [PART I.
now a reason which is irresistibly convincing; namely, the
infallibility of God himself.'^ Consequently it is not impos
sible to believe the truth certainly revealed by Christ, and it
cannot be cruel or imreasonable in Him to require behef in it.
(2.) It has been before observed, that every difference in mat
ters of religion does not infer heresy, and the distinctions there
made, exempt many from the operation of this principle.
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 externally
members of it, like those who are justly excommunicated for
their sins.
VIII. Those who upheld the Mosaic law after the decree of
the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, were heretics ; and
yet the apostles held communion with them (Acts xxi, 20),
Therefore they formed part of the church.
Answnr. The apostles had not decreed the abolition of legal
observances as related to the Jews, but only to the Gentiles ;
but those who were zealous of the law in this place were Jews,
Therefore they were not disobedient to the apostles.
" [It is obvious that this answer presumes the objection to be made in
behalf of heresy in the strictest sense, viz., the pertinacious refiisal to be
lieve what is known to be divinity taught. It does not meet the plea that
it is hard to punish men for not believing that God has revealed certain
doctrines. But then, on the other hand, that plea does not Ue against the
author's doctrine, Umited as it has been in the outset of his statement. The
ground of punishment of heresy is not the fact that a portion of revealed
truth is not received as such, but the disposition which is the producing
cause. The evidence of the truth being the same, the difference is in the
recipient, and therefore punishable.]

CHAP, v.] OBJECTIONS. 127
IX. 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 faileth ; 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 " (Gal. i. 9) ; and " If any man come unto you,
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house "
(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.
X. " 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," &c. (2 Tim, ii. 20), The apostle here
includes heretics and false teachers in the church, having just
before spoken of Hymensus and Philetus (v, 17),
Answer. Assuming that the apostle here speaks of heretics
as "vessels of wood and earth" made to " dishonour," he only
refers to those who having not yet been openly separated, or
excommunicated, are imperfectly in the church ; and, even of
these, he declares, that they are to " dishonour," that is, to de
straction, A fortiori then all those who are openly separated
from the church.
XI. 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,^ that if this alone be in all
' Visible and Invisible Church, part i. c. 6.

128 ON FUNDAMENTALS. [p. I. CH. V.
cases sufficient, then no one is strictly bound to obey any
laws of Christ in the meaning he intended in them ; no plain
ness is sufficient to oblige us to understand them, and there can be
no such thing as a culpable mistake. Even he who rejects
Christianity because he is persuaded it is false, must be as
acceptable 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 DOCttllNE OF FUNDAMENTALS,
Dr, Waterland, in his discourse on Fundamentals, observes,
that since the beginning of the seventeenth century this subject
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,"^ Ac
cording to certain theologians of Holland, Germany, and Gene
va, quoted by him, the questions of toleration, heresjr, secession,
schism, union of churches, excommunication, &c. all depend on
distinguishing fundamentals in religion. It appears, I think, on
examining various controversies which 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 Christian doctrine, and it actu
ally is, has been, and must continue to be, used in so great a
diversity of senses, that it is morally impossible to avoid per
plexity while it is employed in controversy. As an ambiguous
J' Waterland's Works, by Van Mildert, vol. viii. p. 87.

APPENDIX.] ON FUNDAMENTALS, 129
term, as conveying no one definite notion, it seems unqualified to
be of any practical utility in questions of controversy,
1 . The term " fundamental " may rightly and properly be ap
plied to very different notions in religion. It may mean what is
at the basis of all religion ; that is, belief in the existence 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 mes
senger sent from God, It may signify those articles of Chris
tianity 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 salva
tion, or those doctrines which must be believed by every one
to whom they are sufficiently proposed, or which must be be
lieved either explicitly, or else implicitly, in order to salvation.
The term " fundamental " may be employed without any im
propriety in any one of these senses, and even in others which
it is needless to specify iij this place. There is nothing in the
term itself which fixes it to any one of them. It seems to imply
by its constitution anything which is at the foundation or begin
ning, and therefore is important or essential in some sense or
other, either positively essential to Christianity itself, or rela
tively essential to us or some of us, in some sense. This
vagueness and generality of the term itself is not limited by
common usage ; for
2. The term ." fundamental" is actually used in the greatest
variety of meanings by different writers of eminence, and even
by the same writers. Chillingworth, in one part of his " Reh
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 which to another is not
so."^ In a few pages afterwards he says : " Fundamental
'• Religion of Protestants, chap. iii. s. 13.
VOL. 1. — 17

130 ON FUNDAMENTALS, [p, I. CH, V.
points are those only which are revealed by God, and com
manded to be preached to all and believed hy all."^ In the
first quotation fundamentals are regarded as doctrines which
must be beheved by those only to whom they are sufficiently
declared ; in the second, they are regarded as doctrines neces
sary to be believed by all men. Laud in one place understands
by them, doctrines which must be believed expressly and expli
citly by all men without exception, and which no man can be
ignorant of without loss of salvation.'"' In another place he
says, that certain points " are i^oi formally fundamental for all
men, but for such as are able to make or understand them," fcc."
Accordingly, he teaches in one place that the Apostles' Creed
contains all fundamentals ;'i in another, that not only the creed
itself but certain deductions from it are fundamental.^ Water-
land regards fundamentals in religion or Christianity as matters
" so necessary to its being, or at least its luell-being, that it
could not subsist, or not maintain itself tolerably without it. "
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.
This may suffice as a specimen of the great diversity of mean
ings in which the term is used by writers of respectability .s In
" ReUgion of Protestants, chap. iii. s. 20.
b Conference with Fisher, s. 10. ¦= Ibid. p. 334. ^ § 11.
' P. 28. 334. "¦ Works, viU. p. 88.
i [It may be worth while to observe that those meanings vary accordingly
as the term is used subjectively or objectively, and according to the different
grades of subjectivity and modes of objectivity.
Laud and ChilUngworth, for example, use it subjectively, and in two
grades. (1.) With reference to a church, in the first passcige of Laud and
the Icist of ChUluigworth. (2.) With reference to an individual, in the
other passages. In this way, there may be three grades of fundamentals.
(1.) Those which are such to the church catholic, which always have form
ed and always must form part of its faith. This is the widest sense, and at
the same time the most definite ; comprising what IMr. Palmer designates as
doctrines " actually " and '• certainly" " revealed by Chkist." (2.) Those
which are such to a particular church ; the denial of which, in any way,

APPENDIX.] ON FUNDAMENTALS. 131
fact, all those various senses which I have alluded to above as
fairly and rightly to be connected with the term, have been
really in fact so connected by writers of our own churches, and
of various other churches and sects.
3. Waterland observes, with perfect truth, that there are
" almost as many different ¦)-ules for determining fundamentals,
as there are sects or parties,'"' and thus, " that which might
otherwise serve (if all men were reasonable)' to end all differ
ences, has itself been too often made one principal bone of con
tention." Accordingly, having himself first laid down the
Christian covenant and its parts, as the rule for determining
fundamentals, he proceeds to detail the different rules of other
writers as follows. (1.) Some regard the definition of the
church as the rule of fundamentals. (This is the doctrine gene
rally maintained by Romanists, as we may see in Knott,
would destroy its character as a church of Christ, and so cut it off from the
church catholic. To this sense, the writers maintaining the 5th opinion re
counted in our author's next paragraph, usually refer. (3.) Those which
are such to every individual member of a church, without which his mem
bership is dead, and devoid of saving efiicacy. This is the narrowest, and
least determinable sense ; and to the attempts to cope with its difficulties
much of the perplexity attending the discussion of the subject of fundamen
tals may be attributed.
On the other hand, Waterland furnishes an example of the objective use
of the term " fundamental," with reference sometimes to the relative objec
tivity of doctrines, as they bear upon the relations of the individual to God,
and sometimes to their abstract objectivity, as parts of an entire and con
nected system of truth.
No doubt, the objective and subjective necessity of revealed truth are ex
actly co-relative, and would invariably so appear to us, were we entirely
competent to the scrutiny. But the practical aspect of the inquiry is in the
latter branch, and the speculative character of the former has generally
tended to the undue exaltation of human reason.]
i> Works, viii. p. 90.
' Or, rather, united in their sense of the term, and their rule for apply
ing it. It does not seem that there is any thing unreasonable in employing
the term in a sense different from what we judge best. It is merely a dif
ference of language and usage.

132 ON FUNDAMENTALS. [p. I, CH, V.
the Jesuit, Tournely, Bailly, and other of their divines.) (2.)
Some regard whatever is asserted in sacred Scripture as fun
damental. (3.) Others hold every thing that is eocpressly taught
in Scripture to be fundamental, and nothing which is not so
taught. (4.) Another rule is, that what Scripture has eocpress
ly declared necessary is alone fundamental. (5.) Several
eminent writers, as Petit, Usher, Davenant, Caltxtus, Chilling-
worth, Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Whitby, &c. have referred to
the Apostles' Creed as the rule and samjile of fundamentals.
(6.) Others, 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. (7.) Locke and others regard the
profession of faith made by converts to Christianity in the apos-
tohc age, viz. " that Jesus is the Messiah," as the only funda
mental. (8.) Universality of agreement among Christians so
called, is the rule of fundamentals with some. (9.) Herbert
and other infidels regarded the universal agreement of the whole
race of mankind as the true measure of fundamentals,
(10.) Some throw off all concern for a right faith as insignifi
cant, and comprise all fundamentals in the single article of a
good life, as they call it ; to which some are pleased to add
faith in the Aivint promises.^ (11,) Some consider professed
love to the Lord Jesus Christ as the only fundamental,
4. As it might be conjectured from the infinite variety and
contradiction of the above definitions and rules, there is the
greatest difficulty and uncertainty as to what doctrines are fun
damental, Chillingworth declares that the variety of the cir
cumstances of different men, " makes it impossible to set down
an exact catalogue of fundamentals,"^ and he is obliged to pro
pose, 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
' Works, viii. p. 105—123 ' ReUg. of Prot ch. iii. s. 13.
¦" Relig. of Prot. ch. iii. s. 13.

APPENDIX,] ON FUNDAMENTALS. 133
what are fundamentals in Christianity, the distinction is surely
not available for practical purposes. Knott the Jesuit, Tourne
ly, Bailly, &c. regard all the definitions of the Synod of Trent
as fundamentals. Chillingworth holds nothing fundamental be
yond the Apostles' Creed. Others regard some of its articles
as not fundamental. Laud esteems not only the creed, but
some of the deductions from it fundamental. Locke includes
the Socinians, Arians, and all other Unitarians among those that
believe fundamentals. Jurieu, and others, exclude all that do
not believe the Trinity. In short, this term is used in an infi
nite variety of different senses, according to contradictory rules
and with contradictory conclusions.
5. Now it does not seem that individuals have any right to
limit the term to any one meaning. In fact, it is impossible to
do so. Men will, in despite of remonstrance, continue to use
terms in the sense commonly understood, or customary among
those with whom they associate. It is therefore perfectly use
less to require of them to employ this term in the sense we
judge most desirable. We cannot command human language,
and therefore it would be better to abstain from the controversial
use of a term which is so highly ambiguous. Its extraordinary
ambiguity renders it unfit for all useful purposes in controversy.
It can only cause confusion and perplexity, while it affords the
most perfect facility to sophistical reasoners to escape from co
gent arguments, by changing imperceptibly the sense of their
propositions. Therefore those who propose any argument against
the church, derived from " fundamentals," ought to be re
quired at once to define the term, and to prove that their defini
tion is correct, and that all other definitions are incorrect. They
are next to be asked for the rule by which fundamentals are to
be ascertained, and to prove that rule, and to prove that all other
rules are wrong. Were this process resorted to, before we en
tered on a discussion concerning fundamentals, the perplexities
which it invariably brings with it, would be at an end. If, as
Waterland observes, there are as many rules for determining fun
damentals as there are parties in religion, and if, (as he might

134 ON FUNDAMENTALS, [p. I, CH, V,
have added,) there are nearly as many different senses of the
term ; how can it be imagined that the doctrine of fundamentals
can tend to diminish existing disputes, or throw any hght on the
questions of schism, heresy, excommunication, union of church
es, &c, ? This doctrine is itself the " chief bone of controver
sy," as Waterland says ; " and while it continues to be so, how
can it aid in determining other controversies ? I do not deny
that every one may form a notion of fimdamentals in his own
mind, and employ it in speculation to discriminate some parts
of religion from others ; but what I contend for is, that it is use
less in general controversy,
6, It is very true, indeed, and very important to be remem
bered, that a distinction is to be made between doctrines, i. e.
that all doctrines are not matters of faith. This distinction I
have already alluded to, (chap, v, sect, iii,), and in another place
it will be more fully examined (see Part iv. chap. vi.). But the
distinction here referred to, and which is of the utmost value in
all questions affecting the church, is rendered at once perplexed
and unavailable, when the ambiguous term " fundamental " is
connected with it.
7. Jurieu, and others after him, have pretended that the catho
lic church of Christ consists of all sects or denominations which
agree in " fundamentals," and hence they include in the true
church, Romanists, Greeks, Churchmen, Dissenters of all sorts,
Nestorians, Eutychians, and only exclude Socinians.
This notion is altogether without solid foundation. In the
first place it has been shown that the term " fundamental " is
ambiguous and that we have no right to restrain it to one sense.
Therefore the distinction in Jurieu's sense is entirely arbitrary,
and there is no reason why he should affirm that the Socinians
alone deny fundamental articles of religion. The Socinians
themselves affirm that they believe fundamentals. The Roman
ists affirm that Jurieu and his party deny fundamentals. By
what rule can it be proved that both are wrong ? Secondly, it
" Works, viii, p. 90.

APPENDIX.] ON FUNDAMENTALS. 135
has been shown that voluntary separation from the church, ex
cludes those who are guilty of it entirely from the church of
Christ, and that those are also cut off from the church, who are
regularly and legitimately excommunicated by it. Therefore
sects which are in such a condition, form no portion of the
church, even though they should be tolerably sound in the arti
cles of the Christian faith.
8. There is a notion floating in some minds, that some doc
trines of revelation are more important than others, and that,
provided men believe aright in the more important matters, it is
not of much consequence if they err in lesser doctrines. Water-
land himself seems to have been led inadvertently to counte
nance 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. "i" Taking his words in con
nexion with the mode in which he determines fundamental doc
trines, 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 consideration. 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 doc
trines. 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
may be possible that the Holy Spirit should so far enlighten the
understanding of some saints, as to enable them to measure
those truths immeasurable by human wisdom ; but a process of
" [Plainly, by confounding the abstract objective necessity of a doctrine
with its subjective necessity.]
p P. 102.

136 ON FUNDAMENTALS. [p. I. CH. V.
theological reasoning for this purpose seems scarcely consistent
with the simplicity of faith. It constitutes man as it were the
judge of his Creator, and it must be impossible to the infinite
majority of inen, because there is a much more practical and
important question first to be determined : 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. As it has been truly observed by an
eminent and excellent \ATiter : " The sacred building is so di
vinely though invisibly cemented, that for aught we know, it is
impossible to remove any portion, either of scriptural or tradi
tionary truth, without weakening the whole arch. We, to whom
the whole is committed, . . let us above aU things, beware of
the presumption of selecting for ourselves among the truths and
laws of the ]\Iost High, which we will retain, and which we may
ventm-e to dispense with."' 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 unimportant to us, or that it may
be safely disbelieved, or that we may recognize as Christians
those who obstinately disbelieve such a doctrine. If, indeed,
there be some special and strong reason, which exempts them
from the imputation of pertinacity in opposition to the manifest
tiTith ; or if it be on\j probable that the doctrine in question was
revealed by Christ, while there is also a probability that he did
not reveal it ; in such a case error is tolerable ; but if there be
not any such evident excuse, the denial of any truth of faith or
morahty revealed by Christ is heretical, anti-christian, and de
structive of salvation.
q Sermon on Primitive Tradition, by the Rev. J. Keble, Professor of
Poetry, p. 46.

CHAPTER VI.
ON THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH.
The sanctity of the church may be considered in several dif
ferent 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.
1 . The Divine Head and Founder of the church is the essen
tial origin and source of all its holiness. " He gave himself for
us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a peculiar' people zealous of good works."'' The glori
ous 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 ori
ginally founded by the apostolic preaching, and have perpetually
existed as societies from that moment to the preseht ; or else
they must be prepared to show that, at their origin, they were
derived peaceably and with Christian charity from the apos
tolical churches, or that they were subsequently 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 immediately or mediately.
If any society was not founded actually by the apostles, nor yet
founded by the successors of the apostles and the apostolical
" Tit. ii. 14,
VOL. I. — 18

138 SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH. [pART I.
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 engrafted into the communion of
churches, apostolical in their origin or derivation ; it is impossi
ble that such a society can in any way show that it was 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,
and it affords an excellent sign or test of the church of Christ.
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."" Therefore if it
could be clearly shown that any society professing to be Chris
tian, denied the obligation of good works, and taught its mem
bers that they might freely indulge in wickedness, such a society
would be evidently anathema from Jesus Christ. Nothing fur
ther could be required to prove it.
3. The means of sanctity in the sacraments cannot with pro
priety be reckoned among the signs of the church, for before
we determine whether a society is deficient in any of these
means, we must enter on the whole subject of the sacraments,
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,* therefore they cannot consistently enter on
the discussion of those sacraments as a means of holiness.
4. I now come to the question of the actual holiness of the
members of the church." It is asserted by some that a society
which includes a number of unholy men cannot be a church of
" 2 Tim. i. 9. <: 1 Thess. iv. 3.
^ Tournely, de Ecclesia, tom. i. p. 63, &c. Bailly, Tractatus de Eccl.
Christ, tom. i. p. 62. Bouvier, de vera Ecclesia, p. 79. Collet, Inst. The
olog. Scholast. tom. ii. p. 450.
" [The seeming paradox that unholy men may be members of a holy
church, and as such, therefore holy, arises in great measure from the ambi
guity of the terms " sanctus," " sanctitts," " holy,", "hoUness." Between
the aytoTus or ayiotrt/yn which the Scriptures and primitive writers ascribe to

CHAP. VI,] CHURCH COMPRISES SINNERS, 139
Christ, that the 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 predesti
nate. The Anabaptists and tlife 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 so many sinners in her communion.
Therefore they departed from her to form a pure society of
saints in which no sinner was to find place. Their whole sys
tem was founded, and continues to be maintained on the fiction
that their communities are all holy, pure, perfect saints, incapa
ble of passion, strife, tyranny, &c.^' 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,
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 worid (Matt; xiii. 24—30. 37—43) ; 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
the visible church, and the oVbt«c which is the characteristic of its lively
members there is a clear and broad distinction, never left out of view. This
is especially observable in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthi
ans, It is to be regretted that writers on theology have so often allowed
themselves to be entangled by the looser language of the Western cliurch
when the precision of the native language of the church might have saved
them from many difiiculties and much discussion.]
f See Chapter XIII.

140 CHURCH COMPRISES SINNERS. [pART I,
found, both bad and good" (Matt, xxii. 10); and to "a grea,t
house," in which " there are not only vessels of gold and sil
ver, 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 comprise
evil men as well as good in its communion ; and accordingly,
as we learn from St. Augustine in his account of the confer
ence at Carthage, the Donatists were entirely overcome by
them.s It is almost superfluous to add, that the primitive
church fully concurred with the above principle, as might be
easily shown from Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, Gregory,
&c,^ As soon as the Donatist and Pelagian errors on this sub
ject 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 Petilia-
nus, and in other treatises. The Lutherans and Calvinists 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 re
lates to external participation in its signs, that is the word, the
profession, and the sacraments, especially if they be not ex
communicated,"' Calvin argues at great length, and with his
usual energy, against the doctrine of the Anabaptists and the
modern dissenters,'' He says, " In the church are many hy-

f. August, Brev. CoU. et Liber post CoUationem.
h Hier. dial. adv. Lucifer, ultra medium. Fulgentius, de Remiss. Peccat.
c. 18. Gregor. lib. 2. in Ezek. hom. iv. ii. 16. See Peareon on the Creed,
art. ix. Field, Of the Church, book i. ch. 16, 17, 18. ;-¦
Apologia Confessionis August, iv. de Ecclesia. See also the Confes
sion of Augsburg, art. viii. The Formula Concordiaey another Lutheran
Confession, " rejects and condemns" amongst the " Errores Anabaptista-
rum" this ; " Non esse eam veram et Christianam Ecclesiam, in qua pec
catores reperiantur." (Form. Cone. pars. u. ad fin.) The Sax. Conf.
(art. xii.) says, " Improbamus et coUuviem Anabaptisticam, quie.finxit ec
clesiam visibilem, in qua omnes sint sancti."
k Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. i. sect. 13 — 29.

CHAP, VI.] MANIFEST SINNERS IN THE CHURCH, 141
pocrites mixed, who have nothing of Christ except the name
and appearance : many ambitious, covetous, envious, slander
ing 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,"'
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 PRIVILEGE OF ITS MEMBERS,
St, Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, styles them, " the
church of God which is at Corinth" (I 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. I. 6, 7) ; and even "fornication, such is not so
much as named among the Gentiles " (v. i). This clearly
proves that manifest sinners are sometimes found in the church,
for the person last alluded to was not separated from the church
of Corinth, until the apostle had rebuked them, and command
ed hiin to be delivered to Satan (v. 5) ; yet the Corinthian
church is not considered by the apostle to have been apostate,
because this sinner was in their communion. The same is
proved bythe vvords to " the church in Thyatira." — " I have' a
few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jeze
bel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my
servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to
i
' Ibid. sect. 7. ¦ The same doctrine is taught by the Tetrapolitan Con
fession, in which it is said, that " many wiU be mixed in the church even
to the end of the world, who do not really beUeve in Christ, but pretend to
do so " (cap. XV.). It is also taught by the Helvetic Confession (cap.
xvii.), the Gallican (xxvu.), the Bohemian (art. viii.).

142 MANIFEST SINNERS IN THE CHURCH. [PART I,
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 offen
ces. 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 possession of authority over
the church, and in its external communion, while they are
guilty of gross sins : it is thus interpreted by Hilary, Jerome,
and Chrysostom. The mere fact then, that there are known
sinners in any church, does not annihilate its character, render
it apostate, or deprive it of the rights which belong to it by di
vine 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 evei-y 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 drankards, and others,
have remained in undisturbed possession of their membership ;
while, in other cases, there has been manifested a considerable
unwilhngness to inquire into accusations, to bring faults to light,
and to act with consistency and decision upon them when
proved.""" " Our character," they say, " as professors, has not
been duly distinct from that of the world around us ; to say
nothing of occasional (but too frequent) instances of immora
lity, to say nothing even of habitual faults far short of immo
rality, there is between the world and the congregational
churches (in common we admit, but with no pleasftre, with the
¦^ Essays on Church PoUty, vol. ii. p, 185.

CHAP. VI.] manifest SINNERS IN THE CHURCH. 143
bulk of Other communities,) far too small a difference of
level."" Notwithstanding this, it is clear, that such defects of disci
pline in their own cgmmunities, are tolerated with great charity
by the dissenters. They hold communion and intercourse
with societies in which discipline is thus relaxed, and acknow
ledge 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 foi: 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 th.eir 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 qf those who admit that
there must always be sinners among them.
That the ungodly, whether secret or mahifest, do not really
belong to the church, considered as to its invisible character, —
namely, as consisting of its essential and permanent members,
the elect, predestinate, and sanctified, who are known to God
only, I 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 "i^t 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 excom
municated, for otherwise excommunication would be a mere
nullity,) or until they withdraw themselves from the church by
some formal act of separation.
It is further contended by dissenters, that none but those who
are visibly holy iii their lives, can lawfully be admitted into the
church. In opposition to this principle, I affirm that
" Essays on Church Polity, vol. u. p. 188.

144 CHURCH ADMITS SINNERS. [PAET I
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 thou
sand souls were at once baptized, and added to tlie church CActs
ii, 41. 47). Philip baptized the eunuch, on his simply, profess
ing his faith (Acts viii. 37, 38). Therefore a profession of
repentance and faith in Christ, of wilhngness to obey his laws,
and beheve his words is a sufficient condition of baptism, unless
there be some evident proof, at the same time, that the profes
sion is hypocritical.
Secondly, the Scriptures and the universal church appoint
only one mode in which Christians are to be made member? of
the church. It is baptism which renders us, by divine right,
members of the church, and entitles us to all the privileges of
the faithful : " For as many of }-ou 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 ne
cessarily that they must have, at once, a right to all the privi
leges of that part of the church in which they abide. It is admit
ted by those dissenters who allow the validity of infant baptism,
that " it giveth them all the external rights and privileges which
belong unto them that are regenerate, until they comedo 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 baptism therefore
gives infants the external rights of the regenerate, those rights
must still remain ; (for it is absurd to suppose that the develop
ment of reason alone, should deprive them of them ;) and con
sequently, at the age of reason, every baptized Christian has a
right to all the external and general privileges of the church
' Owen's Gospel Church, p, 28.

CH.iP, VI.] MIRACULOUS ATTESTATIONS OF SANCTITY. 145
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 ccimmunion ; but other
wise as a baptized Christian, he has a divine right to every ex
ternal privilege of the church, (See Chapter XIII,)
5. We are now to consider the question of miracles, as
divine attestations of sanctity. It is needless to say, that
Romanists are fond of arguing, that the performance of mira
cles is a sign of the true church, as it evinces the sanctity and
orthodoxy of those who work them. The stupendous physical
and moral miracles on which the truth of Christianity is based,
are indeed beyond doubt, and irrefragably true : they stand
alone, and demonstrate the divine mission of those who per
formed 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,"' 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 ;'^ that though we should speak with tongues,
cast out devils, raise the dead, and yet be destitute of charity,
it shall profit us nothing,^ It is clear then, that signs and
p Dissenters are obliged to confess that their mode of admitting people
into the church is not mentioned in the Bible. " The manner,'' they say,
" of admitting members to this church, is not indeed precisely stated in the
sacred records." — Essays on Ch. Polity, vol. ii. p. 383. If this be so, the
Scriptures cannot afford that exclusive guidance in matters of discipline,
which the dissenters contend for. Surely " the admission of members " to
the church, is one of the most practically important matters affecting it ;
if ..this be, not exactly detailed in scripture, it cannot be expected that all
the forms of government, rites, &c. should : and in that case, what be
comes of the accusations against the Church, as guilty of adding to scrip
ture ; and what becomes of the duty of separating from her on this account 1
q Matt, xxiv, 24. Mark xiii. 22.
' Matt. vii. 22. _. ' 1 Cor- xiii. 1,2.
VOL. I.  19

146 MIRACULOUS ATTESTATIONS OF SANCTITY. [PART I,
wonders are, since the Christian Revelation, not necessarily
proofs of sanctity ; and moreover, it is obviously the duty of
Christians to look with jealousy on all pretended miracles.
Even amongst Romanists it does not seem that signs and
wonders alone, are universally judged a sufficient proof of
¦perfect sanctity, Christianus Lupus says, that "not every sort
of sanctity is sufficient for canonization, even though it be dis
tinguished 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.'" Baillet observes,
that " men who are shining with miracles and sanctity," are
sometimes not placed in the catalogue of Roman Saints, be
cause they have troubled the Roman court, or in some maimer
given scandal.'^
It is acknowledged by the Jesuit Salmeron, that miracles
may be done by a false church. Espencreus, another Roman
theologian, says, that "miracles are condmon to God and to
the devil, to Christ and to Antichrist."'' It is admitted by the
fathers, Irenseus, Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine, that heretics
wrought signs and wonders, and this is not denied even by
Romanists ;" They have been wrought in profusion by the
Jansenists ;" and they are pretended to not only by the Roman
churches, but by the Oriental,'' the Nestorians and Eutychians,
1 Tom. iu. Schol. in Can. p. 571, quoted by Van Espen, Jus Canonicum,
pars i. tit. xxu. c. vU. sect. 7,
" BaUlet, praefat. ad Vitas Sanctorum, n, 90. cited by Van Espen, ibid.
V EspenCEeus in 2 ad Tim.
w Tournely, de Ecclesia, tom. i. p. 153, See also, " A brief Discourse
concerning the Notes of the Church," p, 261—264. ed. London, 1688.
* See Chapter XI. section iii.
5 See Nectarii Hierosol. Confutatio Imperu Pape, pp. 306. 337. 321 —

CHAP. VI,] MIRACULOUS ATTESTATIONS OF SANCTITY, 147
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, Epi-
phanius, 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,
appear td be silent as to any wrought by these holy men, I
can only allude in general to the multitude of martyrs and con
fessors who constitute almost the whole mass of the ancient
saints, and scarcely any of whom appear to have wrought
miracles. History records the miracles of some individuals,
but the great majority of the saints were only remarkable for
holiness of life, zeal for the faith, confession, or martyrdom.
Tillemont observes, in his notice of St. Gregory Thauma-
turgus, that " there are very few saints in whom God had 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
332 (ed. Loud. 1732), where a multitude of signs and wonders are claimed
for the Oriental Church.

148 MIRACULOUS ATTESTATIONS OF SANCTITY. [PART I.
whose virtue was without dispute the most eminent and the
most solid. We observe this in St, Cyprian, St. Athanasius,
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 hfe alone
was a greater miracle than any that they could have per
formed." (Hist. Eccl. tom. ix. p. 24.)
It is also to be observed, that God has not made any promise
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. Bouvier,
now bishop of Mans, says, after Ccirdinal de la Luzerne,
" \Vliether 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 positive
note of the true church."^ This is most reasonable ; and, at
all events, no one can pretend that miracles were promised
always to parficwZar churches.
In conclusion, then, it may be said, tliat the question of
miracles cannot, with propriety, enter into the notes of the
true church. It involves too extensive inquiries 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 em
ploy 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
Christians, and especially for the conversion of the heathen.
There is every probability, nay, certainty, that such signs have
^ " An vero Deus divina hujusmodi signa sanctitatis in ecclesia sua per
petuo exhibere teneatur, definiri non audemus, nee idcu'co adfii'mamus sane-
titatem, ita intellectam, essentialiter esse notam vera? ecclesiae positivam.
Sic ferme ' de la Luzerne, Dissertation sur les Eglises Gatholiques et
Protestantes, t. 2.' " — Bouvier, Tractatus de vera Ecclesia, p. 103.

CHAP. VI.] SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH, 149
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
controversies of faith or discipline between the existing com
munities 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
to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any
such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish "
(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 communion of
the church.
II. According to Christ's will, none but saints and the
regenerate ought to be admitted into the church, therefore
those who are not saints, cease to be members of it.
Answer. (I.) 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 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.)
Ansioer. 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 CHURCH.
Universality, of course, could not have been a characteristic
of the church at its commencement, when it only existed at
Jerusalem ; but the testimony of Scripture and history, and
general opinion, oblige us to believe, that it was afterwards to
become universal, and to remain so always. It is not necessary
for us to suppose a physical and absolute universahty, 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 persecu
tions, fluctuations, and losses.
1 , I argue from Scripture, that the Church was to be moral
ly universal, or to be propagated in all nations. The pro
phecies relating to the kingdom of Christ all express this charac
ter : " 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 estabhshed 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 /ace 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 inheri
tance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession "
(Ps. ii, 8); "All the erids of the world shall remember and
turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall

CHAP. VII,] UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH, 151
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 17).
Our blessed Saviour himself referred to these prophecies, in
his discourse with his 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
witnesses to him "unto the uttermost part of the earth"
(Acts i, 8), and commanded them to "go teach all nations,"
promising his presence with them " always, even unto the
end of the world " (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). 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 diffusiveness were
already fulfilled.
Now, since all these predictions were delivered without any
exception or limitation as to time, we are bound to infer, that
they are intended to describe the permanent condition of the
Christian church. The character of Christianity as described
by the prophets, is always universality. They never contem
plate any failure or overthrow : they never announce the virtual
extinction of Christianity at any future time, or its reduction to
narrow and insignificant limits.
That the church was not 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"
(Matt, xvi, 18), It is also inferred from that parable, where
the kingdom of God is compared to a grain of mustard-seed,
which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds

152 universality of the church. [part I.
that be in the earth ; but when it is sown, it groweth up, and
becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branch
es ; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of
it" (Mark iv. 31, 32). Such is the greatness of the church of
Christ, which is represented as its proper characteristic, and
therefore cannot be lost,
2, 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 assert
ing the fact, that the church of Christ was really diffused
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 numbers
of the Arian party," Jerome, arguing against the Luciferians,
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 mere cor
ner of the world.'"' Optatus argues thus : " Thou hast said,
brother Parmenianus, that the church is only amongst you . . .
Therefore that it may exist with you in a part of Africa, a
corner of a small region, it must not be amongst us in the other
part of Africa, nor in Spain, Italy, Gaul, where you are not, . .
nor among the innumerable islands and other provinces which
a Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 3.
i" " Si ecclesiam non habet Christus, aut si in Sardinia tantum habet,
nimium pauper factus est. Et si Britannias, Gallias, Orientem, Indorum
populos, barbaras natiohes, et totem semel mundum possidet Satanas ; quo
modo ad angulum universes terra? crusis tropheea collata sunt." — Hier. adv.
Luciferianos, tom. iv. pars 2. p. 298, ed, Ben,

CHAP. V'll,] UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH. 153
can scarcely be counted. Where then is the propriety of the
name of cathohc, since the church is called catholic because it
is reasonable, and diffused everywhere ?"" 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 com
munity redeemed by the blood of the Lord,"^ Augustine cites
almost all the passages ef Scripture adduced above," in his
book " de Unitate Ecclesiae," against the Donatists, 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, professes
belief in a " catholic" (or universal) " apostolic church,"^
3, In fact, the universality of the church is generally admit
ted. The Nicene and the Apostles' Creeds are received by
the Eastern church, and by the Roman churches, as well as by
all the Reformation, 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 catholicity is also expressly admitted by the confession of
" " Eam tu, frater Parmeniane, apud vos solos esse dixisti .... Ergo
ut in particula Africae, in angulo parvee regionis, apud vos esse possit ; apud
nos in alia parte Africae non erit. In Hispaniis, in Italia, in Gallia, ubi vos
non estis, non erit, &c  Et per tot innumerabiles insulas et ceeteras
provincias, quae numerari vix possunt, ubi vos non estis, non erit. Ubi
ergo proprietas catholici nominis, cum inde dicta sit catholica, quod sit
rationabihs et ubique diffusa 1 " — Optatus, liber ii. de schismate Donatist.
p. 28. ed. Du Pm.
d " Tenemus haereditatem Domini : iUi eam non tenent : non commu
nicant orbi terrarum, non communicant universitati redemtte sanguine
Domini." — Tract, iu. in Epist. Johan. p. 846. tom. iii. oper ed. Bened.
" Tom. ix. p. 337, &c. ed. Bened.
' Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. viii.
VOL. I. — 20

154 UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH. [PART I
Augsburgh,^ and the Apology of the Confession,'' both of which
were the standing formularies of the Lutherans. The Zuin
glians said in their " Helvetic Confession," " 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 in no particular localities or ages. There
fore 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 cathohc."' Cal
vin acknowledges that " the universal church is a multitude
gathered out of all nations, which though divided and dispersed
by distance of place, yet agreeth to the one true and divine
doctrine, and is united by the bond of a common religion.
That under this church particular churches, which to meet the
wants of man are disposed throughout the towns, &c. are so
comprehended, that each of them rightly possesses the name
and authority of a church.'"' The same doctrine of the univer-

5 ' Cum ecclesisB apud nos de nullo artioulo fidei dissentiant ab ecclesia
catholica." — Pars u. Prologus.
^ " Catholicam ecclesiam dicit, ne intelligamus, ecclesiam esse poUtiam
externam certarum gentium, sed magis homines sparsos per totum orbem,
qui de evangelio consentiunt, et habent eundem Christum, eundem Spiritum
sanctum, et eadem sacramenta, sive habeant easdem traditiones humanas,
sive dissimiles." — Apolog. Confess, iv, de Ecclesia.
' " Consequitur unam duntaxat esse ecclesiam : quam propterea catho
licam nuncupamus, quod sit universalis, et diffundatur per omnes mundi
partes, et ad omnia se tempera extendat, nuEis vel locis inclusa vel tempo-
ribus, Damnamus ergo Donatistas, qui, ecclesiam in nescio quos Africae
coarctabant angulos. Nee Romanensem approbamus clerum, qui solam
prope Romanam ecclesiam venditant pro Catholica," — Conf. Helvetica,
cap. xvii.
t " Ecclesiam universalem esse collectam ex quibuscumque gentibus
multitudinem, quas intervaJlis locorum dissita et dispersa, in unam tamen
divinae doctrinse veritatem consentit, et ejusdem reUgionis vinculo coUigata
est. Sub hac ita comprehendi singulas ecclesias, quae oppidatim et vica-
tim pro necessitatis humanee ratione dispositae sunt, ut unaquieque nomen
ct auctoritatem ecclesias, jure obtineat,'' &c. — Calvin. Institut. iv. 1. s. 9.

CHAP. VII.] UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH. 155
sality of the church is inculcated by the Geneva Catechism,^
the Bohemian Confession,'" the Catechism of Heidelburgh," the
Declaration of Thorn," &c.
Even various denominations of dissenters admit the same
truth : thus the Presbyterians, in 1647, admitted that " thevisible
church" is " cathohc" or " universal."' ^ The Quaker Barclay
acknowledges the church to be catholici Dr. Owen admits
the same for the Independents, thus : " The end of all particu
lar 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,"^ And the modern dissenters, in their " Library of
Ecclesiastical Knowledge," also confess, that there is a catholic
or universal church.'
Is it possible that a stronger proof can be offered for the
' Catechismus Genevensis,de fide.
'" Conf. Bohemica, art. viii.
» Catechesis Heidelburgensis, quaest. Uv.
o Declarat. Thoruniensis, vii, de Ecclesia,
p 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.
1 He acknowledges there is " one catholic church," " out of which
church we freely acknowledge there can be no salvation," and that it
is so because there is a " universal or catholic spirit, by which many are
caUed from the four comers of the earth, and shcJl sit down with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob." — Apology for the Quakers, prop. x. p. 273. It is
needless to detail the strange meaning in which he takes these propo
sitions. "¦ Nature of the Gospel Church, p. 414.
. Ibid. p. 413.
' " Communion with other churches, in letters recommendatory or dis
missory , . . and aU other expressions of regard to sister churches ....
are a part of the communion of saints, which constitutes one of the great
est blessings of the true catholic church." — Essays on Ch. Polity, (on
church discipline) vol. ii. p. 417.

156 UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH. [PART I.
essential universahty of the church, than this consent of all
ages, churches and sects ?
4. The doctrine of the British churches, on this point, does
not admit of any question. The creeds always used 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 ser
mons, we are exhorted to pray " for Christ's holy catholic
church," Nothing therefore, can be more evident, than that these
churches have always recognised the cathohcity or universahty
of the church ; and surely nothing could have induced them to
do so, except 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 ampng ' all that in every
place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs
and ours' (1 Cor. i, 2). Therefore to their Lord and ours it was
said, ' Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance,' &c, (Ps, ii, 8) ; and to this mystical body, the
cathohc church, accordingly, ' 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' (Is, xliii, 5 — 7).
Thus must we conceive of the catholic church, as of one entire
body, made up by the collection and aggregation of all the faith-

CHAP, VII,] OBJECTIONS. 157
ful unto the unity thereof,"" &c. Dr, Field says, that Bellar
mine "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 sacra
ments ; for all this we do most willingly yield unto ;" though
some few, as he says, may have held a different opinion," Dr,
Rogers speaks well of the visible catholic church,'' Bishop
Pearson admits and proves the universality of the church, as
follows : " The most obvious and most general notion of this
Catholicism consisteth in the diffusiveness of the church, ground
ed upon the commission given to the builders of it, ' Go, teach
all nations'  The church of Christ, in its primary
institution, was made to be of a diffusive nature, to spread and
extend itself from the city of Jerusalem, where it first began, to
all the parts and corners of the earth .... 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 dis
seminated through all nations, to be extended to all places, to
be propagated to all ages."^

OBJECTIONS,
1 . If the true church must always be universal, the Luthe
rans and Reformed could not have been the church of Christ,
for they were never universal, and when Luther began to preach,
he stood alone.

" Sermon before the King on Eph. iv. 13.
V Field, of the Church, book i. c. i.
" Rogers, Discourse of the visib. and invisib. Church, part ii. c. L
" Bp. Pearson on the Creed, art. ix.

158 OBJECTIONS. [part I.
Answer. These societies were not properly churches, but
yet were not to be condemned as schismatically separated from
the church, as I shall hereafter prove, (chap, xii,)
II. The universality of the church is only to be understood
as a successive imiversality ; 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 in a single province.
Answer. This explanation is inconsistent with the direct and
evident 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 incarna
tion and death of Jesus Christ, and all the miracles of his dis-
' ciples, 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, mo
rally speaking, universal ; therefore we must reasonably infer
that this was the universality designed by the prophecies, I
therefore cannot admit the principle of successive universality ;
though it is granted by Bellarmine, Driedo, and Melchior Canus,
among the Romanists, by the schoolmen Occam, Cameracen-
sis, and Turrecremata,'' and supported by some of our own
theologians, 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 Ariminum, for Arianism generally prevailed then.
Answer. This will be noticed in part, iv,, (on the Synod of
Ariminum,) 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
y Field, Of the Church book, i. c, 10.

CHAP, VII,] OBJECTIONS. 159
greatly increase ; therefore the smallness of the church at first,
is no objection to its subsequent universahty.
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
inystical 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 mis
taken for the church, (2.) It is inferior to Christianity in diffu
sion, 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 visible society may be governed by a plu
rality of rulers. It is not necessarily a monarchy. (2.) The
mere apparent expediency of a spiritual monarchy is no proof
of its actual existence, because we might infer the continuance
of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, or the infallibility of
individuals on the same grounds.

CHAPTER VHI.
ON THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH.
The church of Christ is, by the admission of all parties,
apostolical, or derived in some manner from the apostles. I
have already, in a preceding chapter, (chap. vi. sect, i.) ob
served 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 so
ciety which is in fact derived from them, must be so, by spi
ritual propagation, or derivation, or union, 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 de-
I scent of an illustrious family from its original founder. In the
latter case it is merely an assumption, in which the most essen
tial 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 wa!y, I shall proceed to the discussion of this question,
and lead it on gradually to those conclusions, which will enable
us to apply " the apostohcity of the ministry," as a test of the
true church,
1,) 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."" Therefore Christ
" Rom. X. 14.

CHAP, VIII.] THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL, 161
himself became a preacher and minister ; and at the last sent
his apostles, wilh a commandment, to " go and teach all na
tions."^ We find the Apostles not only fulfilling this office,
but constituting " presbyters in every church,"" 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 ; till we all
come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of God, unto
a perfect man , . , , that we be no more children tossed to and
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in
wait to deceive ; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up
into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ,"'^ This
passage intimates, that the Christian ministry was instituted
by Christ, for the most permanent and essential objects ; the
sanctification of the brethren, and their preservation in Chris
tian truth and love, against the deceits of false and antichristian
teachers. And in fine the pastors of Ephesus were, by the
" Holy Ghost made overseers to feed the church of God,""
and " teachers " are declared to be set in the church by God,
no less than apostles and prophets.^ 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
" Matt, xxviu, 20, c Acts xiv, 23 d Eph. iv. 8—15,
' Acts x.\. 28. I 1 Cor. xii. 28.
VOL. I. — 21

162 THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. [PART I.
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 a perpetual divine aid to the
apostles, and their successors in the Christian ministry. And
if there has ever been a period when this ministry was extin
guished, it cannot be necessary to the church.
The opinion 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,"s St, Jerome says, that a society " which has no
clergy is not a church,"'' But without further dwelling on the
well-known sentiments of the primitive church, let us come to
more modern times. The Lutherans, in the Confession of
Augsburgh, declared, that, " in order that we might obtain this
(justifying) faith, the ministry of preaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments was instituted ;" and they add,
that "they condemn the Anabaptists and others, who think
that men receive the Holy Spirit without the external word."'
In the Apology of the Confession they 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,'"' &c. The " Helvetic Confession " of the Zuin
glians says, that " The original institution and office of minis
ters is most ancient, and from God himself; not a new or
g Xapis Toi/Tfflv e«K^}Jo¦/{t oy KAXitToi, — Ad Trail, c. 3.
h " Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotes." — Hier, adv. Lucifer.
' " Ut banc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi
evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta .... Damnant Anabaptistas et alios,
qui sentiunt Spiritum Sanctum contingere sine verbo externo hominibus
per ipsorum praeparationes et opera." — Conf. August, pars i. art v.
' " Si autem ordo de ministerio verbi intelUgatur, non gravatim voca-
verimus ordinem sacramentum. Nam ministerium verbi habet mandatum
Dei, et habet magnificas promissiones." (Referring to Rom. i. 16. and
Isaiah Iv. 11). — Apologia Confess. August, vii. de uu. et usu Sacrament.

CHAP. VIII.] THB CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. 163
human appointment.'" The apostles, they say, " 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.""' The Con
fession of the Hugonots says : " We beheve 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.""
The Bohemian Confession,p and the Tetrapolitan,'' acknow
ledge its divine institution ; and the Geneva Catechism affirms,
that " he who despises or refuses to hear the ministers, de
spises Christ.""^ Calvin argues at length in proof of the neces
sity of the ministry in the church ;' saying, that the church is
not otherwise edified than by external preaching :"' he affirms,
that " Christ so ordained the office of the ministry in the
church, that, were it taken away, the church would perish.""
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
' " Ergo ministrorum origo, institutio, et functio vetustissima et ipsius
Dei ; non nova aut hominum est ordinatio." — Confess. Helvet. caput xviii.
¦n Ibid. n Conf. GaUicana, xxix.
o Conf. Belgica, xxx. xxxi. p Conf Bohemica, art. ix.
q Conf. Tetrapolitan a, cap. xiii. The Saxon Confession, art. xii, also
teaches that without the ministry the church would perish utterly.
¦¦ " Estne igitur necesse prsesse Ecclesiis pastores ? Quin etiam ne
cesse est audire eos, et quam proponunt Christi doctrinam, ex eorum ore
cum timore et reverentia excipere. Itaque qui ipsos contemnit, audireve
detrectat, Christum contemnit, ac discessionem facit a societate fidelium."
— Catechis. Genev. (De Verbo Dei.)
s Calvin, Institut, iv. c. i. sect. 5, 6.
t " Nobis vero quod ex Paulo citavimus tenendum est, ecclesiam non
aliter adificari quam externa prcedicatione." (Sect, v.)
u " Incumbit (Satan) ad labefactandum ministerium : quod tamen sic in
Ecclesia Christus ordinavit, ut illo sublato, hujus sdificatio pereat." — iv
c. i. sect. 11,

164 . THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL, [PART I.
the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God,"^ where the min
istry is regarded as much the work of God, as the Bible or
the sacraments. The dissenting "Library of Ecclesiastical
Knowledge " contains on this subject some sound positions.
It proposes the question, " Are there, or are there not, the
means provided ... by which, if faithfully pursued, the light
..of heavenly truth would not go out, would shine without eclipse
upon successive generations," &c.'"  This is explained
to refer to " a system of means — of means to be diffusive,
operative, and permanent ; , not without divine power, but yet
without miraculous accompaniments or new inspiration,"" The
reply is, that the eternal happiness of mankind is mainly sus
pended on means ; and, amongst means, chiefly on a preached
gospel : ' It hath pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching,
to save them that believe.' "^ 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,
In the Old Testament we read of the awful punishment of
Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, for usurping the priests' office ;^
and King Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for daring to imitate
their example,'' Those who undertook the prophetical office

' Westminster Conf. chapter xxv. art. iii.
w. Essays on Ch. Polity (the Church the Conservator of a Christian
Ministry), vol. ii. p. 347.
'- Ibid. 348. y Ibid. 349,
' Numbers xvi. " 2 Chron. xxvi.

CHAP. VIII.] THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. 165
without divine mission were most severely rebuked,^ In the
New Testament we observe the same principle of the necessity
of a conimission 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 glorified not himself
to be made a high-priest" (Heb. v, 5.); but, as Isaiah says :
" the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, because the Lord hath
anointed him to preach good tidings" (Is. Ixn. 1). The old
priesthood had bqien 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 ministra
tion of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of
righteousness exceedin 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 that sent the apos
tles ;° HE also " gave pastors and teachers, "* and the Holy
Spirit made them overseers of the church of God :" therefore
they ran, only because they were commanded and authorized
by God to run ; they were his ministers, bearing his commis
sion, 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

" Jeremiah xxiii. 21. 32. c John xx. 21. '• Eph. iv. II.
' Acts XX. 28.

166 THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. [pART I.
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 loill of God to
so mighty an office, they would never have undertaken it.
The notion that men may undertake to be ministers of God,
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 char
acterized by our Lord, as men " that came in their own name^^
(Johnv. 43); he declares 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 com
mission. The Helvetic Confession says : " We condemn all
who run of their own accord, who are not chosen, sent, nor or
dained '"^ (John xxiii. 32). The same doctrine is taught by
the Confession of the Hugonots, ? and by that of the Belgian
Prdtestants, 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."'' The
Bohemian Confession,' and the Polish Declaration,'' concur in
f " Damnamus hie omnes, qui sua sponte currunt, cum non sint electi,
missi, vel ordinati." — Conf. Helvetica, c. xvui.
g Conf. GaUicana, xxxi, ' '' Conf Belgica, xxxi,
' Conf. Boh. art. ix. '^ Declaratio Thoruniensis, De Ordine.

CHAP. VIII,] TPIE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. 167
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 teach
ing 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 .... If so great a minister of Christ (St, Paul)
does not dare to arrogate to himself the authority to be heard
in the church, only that he has been ordained to this office by
the Lord's commandment, and faithfully discharges what is com
mitted to him ; how great will be the impudence of any man,
who, devoid of either or both these qualifications, demands this
honour for himself ?"'. Owen, the independent, says : "None
can or may take this office upon him, or discharge the duties of
it, which are pecuHfirly its own, with authority, but he who is
called and set apart thereunto, according to the mind of Jesus
Christ ",..." The general force of the rule, Heb. v. 4. in
cludes a prohibition of undertaking any office without a divine
call.""'
(3.) AN INTERNAL VOCATION IS INSUFFICIENT ALONE TO CONSTI
TUTE 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," They were hallowed by fiery
tongues on the day of Pentecost, and invariably performed
miracles. The other disciples, who acted as ministers, received
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 essen-
' Calvin. Institut. iv. c. iii. sect. 10.
m Gospel Church, chapter iv. (The Officers of the Church) where he
strongly condemns those that intrude on the sacred ofiice.

168 THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL, [pART I.-
. tial 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 hypocriti
cal pretension to sanctity, which such impostors too often as
sume, is precisely the mode in which we might expect that peo
ple would be deceived. Nor is it to be said in reply, that mi
racles are only nepessary 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, andjnutilate that which
has been made ; and thus may, in effect, preach " another gos
pel," which the holy apostle pronounces " anathema " (Gal.
i. 8, 9), I do not, in any degree, doubt that the true ministers
of Jesus Christ are internally " moved by the Holy 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 CONSTITUTE
A MINISTER OF CHRIST.
The Scripture affords no example of a popular election of
ministers independently of the apostles' sanction : the seven
deacons named by the people were afterwards ordained by
them." 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
" Matt. xxiv. 11. See also 1 John iv. 1. Acts xx. 30. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2,
Jude, " Actsvi. 6.

CHAP, VIII.] THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. 169
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 oc
curs in. the inspired histary ivhere it is mentioned that a church
elected its pastor."^ This fact is undeniable, and it is conclu
sive. Popular election alone cannot constitute a minister of
Christ, and besides this, it cannot even be requisite to his mis
sion ; 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 de
monstrates, beyond all possibility of a reply, that popular elec
tions 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 sometimes in
the primitive church, the people elected their pastors, but this
custom was not universal, and the ministers of Jesus Christ
always confirmed and ordained the pastors so elected. These
facts however are only learned from catholic tradition, and can
not consistently be appealed to in any way by those who declare
that "the Bible only" is their rule of discipline.
(5.) AN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION OF ORDINATIONS IS ESSENTIAL
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

p James' Church Member's Guide, p, 12. 2d ed.
VOL. I.---22

170 . THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. [PART I.
ho 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 ;"4
empowering them by these words to give to others the mission
which by the very act of conferring it on the apostles he show
ed to be transmissible. Those who received from the apostles
the mission of Jesus Christ, received a similar power to trans
mit 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.' There
fore 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.""" The ministers of Christ are, according to Scriptural exam
ple, 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. ^ St. Paul ordained Timothy
in hke manner,'" and he commanded him to " lay hands sud
denly on no man."^ Accordingly, the universal church always
considered the imposition of hands by the ministers of Christ
q John XX. 21. r 1 Cor. xii. 28. ^ a Acts xx. 28.
t [i. e. The apostles. It by no means foUows that all to whom they give
a divine mission, received at the same time a commission to impart that
mission again to others.]
" Matt, xxviii, 20. ' Acts vi. 6. " 2 Tim. i. 6. "^1 Tim. v. 22.

CHAP, VIII,] THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL, ' 171
essential to ordination. The (Ecumenical Council of Nice,^
and the various synods of Antioch,^ Ancyra," Carthage,'' &c,
all recognize this rite, which is also acknowledged as apostoli
cal and essential, in the Helvetic", the Bohemian,'' the Polish,"
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 will argue that the
imposition of hands by ministers of Christ is unnecessary, tes
tify to the contrary by their conduct and rule ; and the Wesley-
ans, whose ministers were formerly instituted by a verbal com
mission, have lately felt it necessary to adopt the imposition of
hands. Such is the force and clearness of the apostolical tra
dition. 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 invention ;
it could never have constituted ministers of Christ, and therefore
the whole church would for many ages have been without true
y Canon ix. ^ Canon xvii, ' Canon ix,
b IV, Cone. Carthag. (398) cap. 2, 3, 4.
c Confessio Helvetica, cap. xviii.
d Confess. Bohemica, art. ix,
e Declaratio Thoruniensis, (De Ordine.)

172 THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. [PART I.
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. The great external sign of such a continuance of ordinations
in any church, is derived from the legitimate succession of its
chief pastors derived from the apostles ; for it is morally certain,
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 mark 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, Irenaeus says, " We can enumerate those who were by
the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and their succes
sors 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,"*^ " Wherefore it is ne
cessary 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 ava
rice and vain-glory ."?
Tertullian : " If any heresies dare to connect themselves with
the apostolic age, pretending to be derived from the apostles
'' " Habemus annumerare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ec
clesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos." — Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. c. iii.
" Hac ordinatione et successione, ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio,
et veritatis prseconatio pervenit usque ad nos." — Ibid.
8 " Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia sunt, presbjrteris obaudire oportet, Ws
qui successionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus ; qui cum episcopatus
successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris accepe
runt," &c.— Adv. Haer. iv. c. 26.

CHAP. VIII.] THE CHURCH APOSTOLICAL. 173
because they existed in their time, we may say : Let them de
clare the origin of their churches : let them unfold the catalogue
of their bishops, so descending by succession from the begin
ning, that the fiirst bishop had as his ordainer and predecessor
some one of the apostles, or of the apostolic men who remained
united to the apostles."''
Cyprian : " Novatian is not in the church, nor can he be
deemed a bishop, who, despising the evangehcal and apostolical
tradition, and succeeding to no one, is sprung from himself. —
One not ordained in the church has no church."' "These"
(heretics) " are they who, of their own accord, without the divine
will, appoint themselves to preside over some random conven
ticle ; who, without any lawful ordination constitute themselves
pastors ; who, without receiving it from any of the bishops, as
sume to themselves the title of bishop.'"'
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 re-
h " Caeterum si quae audent interserere se aetati apostolicae, ut ideo videan-
tur ab apostolis traditse, quia sub apostolis fuerunt, possumus dicere : edant
ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum ; evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum,
ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem
ex apostolis vel apostoliois viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit,
habuerit auctorem et anteoessorem." — TertuU. de Prescript, c. 32.
' " Novatianus in ecclesia non est, nee episcopus computari potest, qui
evangelica et apostolica traditione contempta, nemini suocedens, a se ipso
ortus est : habere namque aut tenere ecclesiam nullo modo potest, qui ordi-
natus in ecclesia non est." — Epist. ad Magnum (ep. Ixxvi.).
'' " Hi sunt qui se ultro apud temerarios convenas, sine divina disposi-
tione, preeficiunt ; qui se preepositos sine ulla ordinationis lege constituunt ;
qui nemine episcoporum dante, episcopi sibi nomen assumunt." — Cypr. de
Unit. Ecclesiae.
' " Vos vestrae cathedrae originem reddite, qui vobis vultis sanotam eccle
siam vindicare." — Lib. ii. cont. Parmen.

174 OBJECTIONS. [part 1,
ceived the imposition of hands ? 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,"""
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.
Ansiver. 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 yourselves, 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 assum
ing 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 reasonably sup
pose 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 min
istry of the saints" (1 Cor, xvi, 15).
Answer. They did so with the sanction and approbation of
St, Paul, and not merely from their own impulse,
"° Serm. xxii. adv. Haer. tom. ii. p. 487, 488. Oper. Ephr. Syri Syriace
et Lat. ed, Assemani.

CHAP, VIII,] OBJECTIONS, 175
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
shall lead you unto all truth" (John xvi. 13),
Answer, (l,) 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 ORIENTAL CHURCHES.

The Oriental (sometimes called the Greek) church pre
vails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland,
European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the
Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian Islands, Georgia, Cir-
cassia, 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 was subject to a fifth patriarch from the latter
part of the sixteenth 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." I maintain that these various churches form a
portion of the catholic church of Christ.
1. They have always existed visibly as Christian societies.
No period can be assigned since the introduction of Christianity,
in which vast numbers of these churches were not visibly exist
ing. The invasions and persecutions of barbarians and Mahom-
medans extinguished for a time many ancient branches of the
Oriental church, but their loss has been repaired continually by
the conversion of infidels and the foundation of new societies ;
so that there has never yet been a period, in which we cannot
' See Mosheim, vol. iv. sect. 3. part i. chapter 2 ; Consett's Present State
of the Church of Russia, (1729) which contains the " Spiritual Regulation"
for the Synod, composed by Theophanes, archbishop of Novogrod, and pub
lished by Peter the Great.

SECT. I,] THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. 177
trace the existence of great societies of Christians in the East,
from which the existing Oriental churches have been all regu
larly and peaceably derived by spiritual propagation. These
communities all constitute the original churches of their respec
tive districts. They did not in any case separate themselves
from an older Christian society existing in those localities.
Whatever may be said as to their change of doctrines, or their
cessation from the communion of the Western churches, there
can be no dispute that they are the original Christian societies
of their own districts,
2. It is certain that the Oriental churches maintain principles
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. They regard the bishops as
successors of the apostles, and esteem it necessarjr to commu
nicate with and obey them. And accordingly it is evident that
these churches are in fact generally united in themselves and
with each other.
Nor have these churches ever separated themselves from the
communion of the catholic church, because they, themselves
have at all times constituted a very great portion of that church,
(as we shall see hereafter,) and for the same reason, they could
never have been excommunicated by the catholic church.
Therefore they remain in the unity of the church, and it may
easily be shown, that the imputation of real schism cannot rest
upon them. 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 Romanists themselves do not pretend.
Therefore we can only determine the question by looking at
the facts of the original division ; and these will exculpate
both the Oriental and the Western churches, in general, from
the charge of schism.
VOL. I. — 23

178 THE ORIENT.VL CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, IX.
3. The Oriental churches maintain principles which lead to
unity in faith. They receive Scripture as the rule of their faith,
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," to which they require the assent of the clergy.* It
is certain that they reject every heresy formerly condemned by
'' See the Summary of Christian Divinity, by Plato, archbishop of Mos
cow, published in Sclavonian, 1765, and translated by Mr. Pinkerton, in
his " Present State of the Greek Church in Russia," 1814. The doctrine
of this work in all matters of faith and morality appears generally unex
ceptionable. It only differs from ours in defending certain practices which
we have judged it more wise and pious to remove, and in the verbal dispute
concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost. See also the Answer of
Plato to M. Dutens, (CEuvres Melees, part. 2. p. 162, &c.) commended by
Methodius, archbishop of Twer, in his " Liber Historicus de reb. in prim.
Eccl. Mosquae, typis sanctissimi Synodi, 1805." Smith's book on the
Greek Church is brief but useful. King's " Rites of the Greek Church "
is written in a latitudinarian spirit,
•= Nectarii Patr. Hieros. Confutatio Imperii Papae in Ecclesiam, p.
205, &c. They acknowledge only seven oecumenical synods, of which
the last was the Second Nicene under Irene in 787. See the Reply of the
patriarch Jeremias to the Wittemburg Theologians, p. 56. 255 ; Plato's
Summary of Christian Divinity; 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 our
orthodox vnriters, Beveridge, Bingham, Ussher, Cave, Wotton, Pearson,
Bull, &c,
^ 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 experience, liable
to the most serious abuses. Even Archbishop Plato confesses, that the
honour paid to pictures " may be turned into the most abominable idolatry."
(p. 230. ) His doctrine, that the obeisance before them, " we do not render
to the pictures themselves," but " to the persons they represent," (229) is
not exactly that of the Synod of Nice, which declares that the images
are themselves to receive an honour which passes to the original.

SECT. I,] THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES, 179
the catholic church ; and if any one presumes to teach novel
ties, they condemn and excommunicate him," In fine, the
authority of the church is fully and unreservedly acknowledged
and upheld among them, in opposition to the license of an unbri
dled private judgment. Consequently they have, both in prin
ciple 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 conclude that the Oriental church, as a
body, denies no article of the faith which we ourselves main
tain. But, without entering on the particulars of their doctrine,
it is fairly to be presumed orthodox on the whole ; because
they profess a perfect adhesion to the Scripture, the apostolical
tradition, and to all the definitions of the catholic church.
4, These churches inculcate holiness by their doctrine.'
No one pretends to accuse them of denying the necessity of
sanctification. They have given birth to many of the most
celebrated 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, Scla-
vonians, Moravians, Transylvanians, 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

e Plato, ut supra, p. 101. 169.
f Plato, p. 205, &c. They maintain the doctrine of justification by faith,
ibid. 108. See also Acta et Scripta Theolog. Witeberg. et Patr. Hieremi»,
p. 64. Witeberg, 1584.

180 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES, [p. I, CH. IX.
inferior to that of the Roman churches generally. However,-
admitting, for the Bake of argument, that it is so, this would
afford no proof that the Oriental is not a branch of the Cathohc
church, because particular churches may differ in hohness,
5, These churches are Catholic. Since I only maintain that
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
Perpetuite 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 ;"'' " our Oriental
Church ;'" " the Greek Church ;'"' " the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church of the East ;"' " our Church of the East,
Catholic and Apostolic.""' They argue, that there cannot have
been more than seven oecumenical synods, because the Eastern
and Western churches have been divided since the last was
held ;" nor do they universally regard those of the Latin
churches as heretics, as we shall see hereafter. In fine, there
have been, at various times, some marks of communion be
tween members of the Oriental church, and of the British,"
g Perpetuite de la Foi touchant I'Eucharistie, tom. iii. p. 518.
h Ibid, 521. ' Ibid, 522, t Ibid. 525. ' Ibid. 532.
m Ibid. 562. Plato, archbishop of Moscow, seems to allow the Latin
to be a part of the church (p. 101), and afterwards rather to deny it (p.
161, 162). Nectarius, patriarch of Jerusalem, in his learned and most
interesting " Confutatio Imperii Papae in Ecclesiam," (London, 1702),
reckons the Latin as a particular church, a portion of the universal. — See
pages 354. 357. 360. Nectarius lived in the 17th century. Methodius,
archbishop of Twer, seems to regard the Eastern and Western churches,
although divided, as parts of the catholic church. — Liber Hist. p. 79, 80.
« Bouvier, de Vera Ecclesia. De Maistre, du Pape, t. ii. p. 597.
» Cyrillus Luoaris, patriarch of Constantinople, dedicated his work on
the Faith and Doctrme of the Eastern Church, to King Charles I. ; and
presented to him the celebrated Alexandrian manuscript. (See Smith on

SECT. I.] THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. 181
and other Western churches, as I shall prove. The Oriental
churches are included in the Catholic church by all our theo
logians, though they observe with regret certain imperfections,
abuses, and errors among them, which detract from their per
fection, but do not deprive them of the character of Christian
churches. Bishops Jewell, Bramhall, Laud, Stillingfleet, &c.
may be cited to prove this.
6. These churches are apostolical. Many of them still sub
sist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred
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 in
vasion 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 apos
tolical 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 held close communion ;
and thus, bythe consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity,
were themselves apostolical. They were also apostolical in
their ministry; for it is undeniable, that they can produce a
the Greek Church,) He also corresponded with the archbishop of Can
terbury, In 1653, Dr, Basire, archdeacon of Northumberland, in the
course of his travels in the East, was invited, by the Metropolitan 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 patri
archal seal (the regular sign of credence among them), to express his desire
of communion with the church of England. (See Basire's Life and Cor
respondence, by DarneU, p. 116.) He was also permitted to preach fre
quently in the Greek churches at Constantinople ; wher^_in testimony of
his doctrine, he presented to the patriarch of Jerusalem, in the presence
of all the priests and people, the Catechism of the Church of England,
which was also highly approved by the other Oriental patriarchs. (Ibid.
p. 123, 124.) However, the conununion between the British and Oriental
churches, which was interrupted in the middle ages through misunder
standings, has not yet been restored.

182 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. IX.
regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of vahd ordinations
in their churches, from the beginning. No one denies the va
lidity of their ordinations.
7, Since the Oriental churches have therefore all the external
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 REN
DER 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 Con
stantinople, yet in the middle of the eleventh century, the East
ern and Western churches held communion, and acknowledged
each other as parts of the same holy catholic church. Their
intercourse 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 church." .In this letter he strongly inveighed
against several of their rites and customs, and especially 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 Constan
tinople. p This epistle is found in Canisii Thesaurus Monument. Eccl. tom. iii.
281. It was to be communicated " ad ipsum reverendissimum Papam."

SECT. II.] DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST. 183
These unreasonable and uncharitable proceedings naturally
excited indignation in the West. Pope Leo wrote to complain
of them ; and, the Greek emperor and Cerularius having ex
pressed 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 presented 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 :i Humbert and his colleagues pro
ceeded 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,' 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 desiroiis of conciliating the favour of the Roman see, and
procuring its aid against the Normans, they compelled Nicetas
to abjure his writings, and to anathematize " all who contradicted
the faith of the Roman church,"' They also themselves pub-
hcly excommunicated "all who contradicted the faith of the holy,
Roman, apostolical see,"' And, finally, before they left Con-
1 His reply to Cerularius terminates thus : " Pro quibus omnibus et aliis
quos longum est seripto prosequi erroribus, nisi resipueritis et digne satis-
feceritis ; irrevocabile anathema hie et in future eritis a Deo et ab omnibus
Catholicis." — Canisii Thesaurus, iii. 307. His reply to Nicetas was
equally violent. — Ibid. p. 324.
r See the epistle of Cerularius to Peter, patriarch of Antioch, in Cotelerii
Eccl. Graec. Monumenta, ii. 138, 139, He complains of their unspeakable
insolence, boasting, and temerity in his presence ; but what was most offen
sive of aU, they said, hi ou SiSA^Siia-ofiiyoi S SiAXi}(^h<ri/Aiy!ii, m ii/TttiJSa KAriKAjSav,
&KKa StSd^^yT6s /jtakXov tcAtvaTovri; tc^Aruy »/j.ac ra SoyjUiAfrA TOyTov Jtsti tavta jutr^
e|ouo-/stt Ki) ivAKr^vyriA! vTfigfiajKMua-ns. — ^p. 145. He repeats the same com
plaint in his second letter, p, 164.
s Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 60. s. 8.
' Canisu Thesaurus, iii. 328.

184 THE ORIENTAL CjHURCHES, [p. I, CH. IX,
stantinople, they placed on the altar of St. Sophia a paper Con
taining an excommunication of Cerularius, and his adherents, in
which they made a charge 'of heresy on those who maintained
several ancient and established customs of the Eastern church."
Cerularius in his turn denounced anathema against the authors
and supporters of the eXcommunication,'"'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 mutu
ally estranged.
From this it appears evident that the fault did not rest exclu
sively or peculiarly with either par.ty. In fact, it would be
difficult to determine which weife njoj^ guilty of haish and un
charitable conduct ; Cerularius, in depriving the Latins of their
churches, or the legates, for their arrogance and their needless
and uncharitable dehuficiation of such customs as the marriage
of the clergy^ and the use of the Nicene Creed without the ad
dition 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

" This excommunication is found in Canisii Thesaurus, iii. p. 326. It
begins thus : " Sancta et Romana prima et apostolica sedes, ad quam tan
quam ad caput solicitude omnium ecclesiarum specialius pertinet," &c. and
having accused Michael and his followers of numerous heresies on the most
frivolous grounds, concludes as foUows : " Michael abusivus patriarcha neo-
phytus. . , . atque cum eo Leo Acridanus episcopus , . . . et omnes se-
quaces eorum in praefatis erroribus et praesumptionibus, sint Anathema
Maranatha, cum Simonaicis, Vallesus, Arianis, Donatistis, Nicholaitis, Se-
verianis, Pneumatomachis, et Manichais, et Nazarenis, et cum omnibus
haereticis, imo cum Diabolo et angelis ejus, nisi forte resipuerint. Amen.
Amen. Amen."
" Leo AUatius, de Lib. et rebus Eccl. p. 161. gives this excommunica
tion.

SECT. II.] DIVISION OF" THE EAST AND WEST. 185
church. At most, therefore, they naerely ¦ separated the par
ticular churches of Rome and Constantinople from friendly mu
tual communion. Nor can it be pretended that either the
Greeks or- the Latins separated themselves from the majority of
the church : the Romau pontiffs and those who accused the.
Greeks of schism, drd so on another ground, " their separation
from the chair of Peter." ^
It is not to be imagined that either the church of Rome or
of Constantinople was by these acts separated from catholic
unity ; and ^till less, that* the vyhole West or the whole East
could be cut off from the ' Christian church by the acts of one
or two passionate arid prejudiced bisljops. Such notions would
be opposed to all reason and precedent,
(2.) THE CHURCH GENERALLY DID NOT gONSIDER EITHER PARTY
EXCOMMUNICATED.
We find that long after the time of Cerularius, a certain
degree of communion still subsisted between the East and
West. Leo Allatius^ has produced several proofs that tMe acts
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, patriarch of Antioch, in
replying to a letter sent to him by a western prelate, Dominic,
archbishop of Grade, expressed sentiments of Christian com-
w Leo AUatius, de Consens. p. 624, &c,
" Perpetuite de la For, t. i. p. 202.
VOL. I. — 24

186 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. IX;
munion ;y 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, = In 1094, Simon, patriarch 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."
Fleury, in relating that Wilham, archbishop of Tyre, in 1 180,
praised the Greek emperor Manuel, and " said that his soul
was gone to heaven, and that his memory was blessed," ob
serves, that this proves that the prelate, " Latin as he was,
held the emperor to be catholic." Manuel had also communi-
y " Non adeo praefracte ac scripsisti sanctissimus' patriarcha Constanti-
nopolitanus (Cerularius) vestram existimationem invadit, vosjue appellat
cacodoxos abscinditque a sancta catholica ecclesia : sed probe cognoscens
orthodoxos esse, idemque nobiscum sentire circa solidam theologiam,'' &c.
— Cotelerii Eccl. Graec. Monumenta, tom. ii. p. 117. According to him,
the use of unleavened bread was the only material point of difference be
tween the churches — Ibid, and p, 122.
^ Cotelerii Eccl, Grsec. Monum. ii. 154, &Si\t^oi yap xai ii/jtZy oSto;. See
also p. 160, where he recommends the question of unleavened bread to be
left indifferent, if the Latins wdl remove their interpolation from the Creed,
" "Quid igitur ad nos ' errantis ovis' .similitude sanctissime Papal
Quid imago ' amissae drachmae V Non enim e sinu tuo excidisse negamus,
et filiorum appeUationem aut pastoralem curam non refugimus, ut tale coh-
vicium exprobretur, Tuto autem ac firmiter, Dei gratia, stetimus in B,
Petri confessione, et quem Ule confessus est et praedicavit, confitemur et
prasdicamus, nihil ex synodalibus S. Patrum innovantes, nee adjicientis
evangelicis et apostolicis verbis ad unum apicem . . , Neque enim aUud
novimus fundamentum, quam quod substructum est, eademque tecum praedi-
camus et docemus, ego iique onrnes qui ad magnam apostolicamque sedem
Constantinopolitanam pertinemus. Et unus qui in utrisque ecclesiis per
sonal sermo fidei, idemque sacrificatur agnus , . , inter Occidentales An-
tistites qui sub tuum principale culmen agunt, et nos qui ab oriente sole,
sublimi Constantinopolitana sede, sacerdotii accipimus splendorem." — Ba-
ronius, an. 1155.

SECT. II,] DIVISION OP THE EAST AND WEST. 187
cated with Pope Alexander, and " one cannot say that in his
time the schism of the Greeks was yet formed,'"" In 1199,
John Camaterus, patriarch of Constantinople, addressed the
Roman pontiff asa, Christian prelate, and "his beloved bro
ther," while. he wondered at his styling tbe Roman church
"universal."" In 1203, Demetrius Chomaterus, archbishop
of Bulgaria, in accordance with the opinion of many distinguish
ed men of the Eastern church, condemned .the decision of
Theodore 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
publicly cast out as heretics, but they take their meals and per
form their worship along with us.''
(4.) THE WESTERN CHURCH DID NOT UNIVERSALLY REJECT THE
EASTERN.
When the Christians of the West took Antioch from the
Saracens in 1098, they restored to his see John, patriarch of

•> Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 73. s. 32.
c It begins : " Innocentio sanctissimo Papae Romano, et in Christo T)o-
vaino, dilecto fratri nostro, Johannes, &c. . . . amorem etpacema Domino
nostro J. C," , . , He then praises Innocent for his zeal for the union of
the churches, and continues : " Quod autem mihi in tuas sanctitatis seripto
non modicam superinduxit ambiguitatem, non abscondam. Nam pro miro
habeo, quomodo unam et universalem' Romanorum vocasti ecclesiam, ut
quasi jam divisam in species quasdam specialissimas, et haec, uno existente
grege, ovilium Christi, nobis quodammodo pastoribus sub eo constitutis,
. pastorum principe communique doctore, Et quomodo erit quod apud vos
Romanoruih ecclesia mater ut dixisti aliarum ecclesiarum, et secundum
quas aUquas rationes et per quas unquam causas, quaere 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. Inno-
centii III. tom. i. p. 471. edit. Baluzii.
d OvK ay iyyMtr^wAy taZta crmoSticZe, ka) ovS' ahrol w? alpiirtZa-At ^m^KnTOt ShjuocrtA
ytyovAtriy, dx\a ka) trvyiMotitj-iy Sifiiy «.At trtiyiit^yrAi, — Demetr. Chomaterus, Re-
spons; ad Constantin. Cabasilam. Leo AUatius, de Consens. lib. ii. c. 9. s.
3. Even Michael Anchialus, patriarch of Constant., though a violent op-

188 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES, [P, I. CH, IX.
Antioch, and held communion with him for several years, until
he retired to Constantinople ;» and yet this prelate was in full
communion With the Eastern church. In the middle of the fol
lowing 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 f and accordingly he wrote to the Greek emperor,
John Comnenus, and to Constantino, patriarch of Constantino
ple, 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 sohcits for himself and the congregation of
Cluny ; offering to him in return all the spiritual benefits which
they could impart.^ It is evident then, that the Western church
generally did not reject the Eastern as heretic or schismatic,
(5,) It cannot be denied, however, that the moderate and
charitable sentiments manifested by some members of the
Eastern and Western churches, were not universal. The
patriarchs of Constantinople, and a considerable part of the
Eastern church, were not merely satisfied to remain separated
from the communion of the Roman 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
ponent of the Roman pontiff, admitted that the Latins had never been
anathematized as heretics, — Leo AUatius, ibid.
' Guil. Tyrensis, lib. vi. o. 23. Perpetuite de la Foi, tom. i. p. 196.
f " Nee apud modernos, ipsius sacrificii Christiani inter Graecos et La
tinos nota varietas, charitatem laedere vel schisma aliquod unitatis gignere"
potuerit . . . Cum hoc ita sit, nee antiqui nee moderni, propter tam cele
bres et famosas usuum dissonantias, a charitate mutua desciverunt." — Pe-
trus Cluniacensis Abbas, Ub. v. epist. 16 ad S. Bemardum.
g Petrus Clun, lib, iv. epist. 39. ad Johan, Imperat. Constant, also epist.
40, " VenerabUi et magno pontifici Dei Constantinop. patriarchae frater
P . . . . Quamvis et terrae remotio et linguarum divisio, nobis invicem et
vultus invideant et verba subducant : tamen unus Dominus, una fides, unum
baptisma, una charitas, et divisa conjungere, et affectus unire, et serraones
debent aliquando communicare," &c.

SECT, II.] DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST, 189
even heretics. Thus Theodore Balsamon, and some more
violent partizans, rejected all the Latins as heretics^ 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 ; so that while we blame both parties,
we cannot affirm that either were, strictly speaking, separated
from the catholic- church of Christ,
On the other hand, the patriarchs of Rome and their imme
diate partizans, as distinguished from the Western church,
generally regarded the church of Constantinaple, and all who
communicated with it as schismatical, and separated from the
catholic church. St, Bernard was of this opinion,' but it is
evident, that it resulted from the exaggerated notions which
he entertained on the authority of the Romish church,''
Adrian IV, of Rome, in his letter to Basil, of Thessalo
nica, speaks of the English church as having separated from
the unity of the church, and compares it to the lost sheep,
and the lost piece of silver in the parables,' Innocent III,,""
h Leo AUatius, de Consens. &c. lib. ii. c. 9. s. 3.
i " Ego addo et de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt et nobiscum
non sunt, juncti fide, pace divisi : quanquam et in fide ipsa claudicaverint a
semitis rectis." — Bernard, de Consid. ad Pap. Eugenium, lib. ui. c. 1.
' Bernardus, de Consideratione ad Pap. Eugen. lib. ii. c. 8, where he
styles the Pope of Rome " Princeps episcoporum, haeres apostolorum, po-
testate Petrus, unctione Christus," &c. " Nee modo ovium sed et pasto
rum tu unus omnium pastor," &c.
I " Ex quo per invidiam, hostem antiquam, Constantinopolitana sedes
a sacrosancta Romana et Apostolica (quod sine lachrymarum inundatione
vix famur) Ecclesia seipsam separavit, et hominis inimicus proprium
malitiae venenum effiidit, et a matris obedientia liberi secesserunt . . . . la-
borem multum et studium . , , B. Petri successores adhibuerunt, ut schisma de
medio toUeretur, et unitati Ecclesiae, qui se ab ea separarunt redderentur
, . , . Ideoque ad introductionem liberorum in locum ecclesiae et unitatis,
i7iventionemque amissee drachma properemus , . . ilUus exemplo edocti qui
. . , seipsum exinanivit ut ovis amissa suo gregi restitueretur , , , Da operam,
ut grex cum Ecclesia uniatur, et qui se ipsos Dominicas oves confitentur,
ad gregem B, Petri revertantur, qui Domini jussu eorum curam suscepit."
Baronius, Anno 1155.
¦" In his reply to John Camaterus patriarch, of Constantinople, Innocent

190 . THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. I, CH, IX.
and the other popes were of the. same sentiments, as we see
not only by their epistles but by their acts. Thus, on the
conquest of Sjrria in 1099, they installed at Jerusalem a Latin
patriarch, under the obedience of the pope of Rome," The
same was soon done at Antioch ; and the see of Rome 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 Constan
tinople in 1204, they expelled the Greek clergy^ whom they
violently persecuted, to induce them to obey the Roman
church ;" and a Lfflin patriarch and clergy were immediately
installed.? They pursued the same course throughout all
Greece, and everywhere treated the established clergy as
schismatics. 1 When Cyprus came into possession of the
extols the Roman primacy as of divine institution, and says, that he who
wUI not have the successor of Peter for his pastor, is to be considered
alienated from the Lord's flock — that the Roman, being by divine appoint
ment the head and mother of all churches, no diversity of rites or doctrines
ought to prevent them from obeying the pope devotedly : — that, however,
he means to summon a general synod, and if the patriarch wiU come to it, as
a member 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 wUl receive
him as a brother, &c, — Innocent Epist, 209, tom, u. p. 472, &c,
n Paschal ii. Epist. 18, 19.
o See Georgius Acropolita, cited by AUatius, de Consensu, Ub. 2. c. 13.
Du Pin, Biblioth, tom, x, p", 88.
p Innocent III. not content with confirming the election of Morosini, the
first Latin patriarch, pretended to elect, confirm, and ordain him himself;
and exacted an oath of fidelity and obedience in return for the paU. He
also empowered him to confer the pall on the archbishops subject to him,
and exact from these also a promise of obedience to the pope, and enjoined
his clergy and people to pay him due and devoted obedience, saving in aU
things the authority, reverence and honour of the Roman see.: — Gesta
Innocentii Epist. i. 60, 61. edit. Baluzii. He had made regulations for the
Eastern patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem equally subversive of their
liberty, requiring every patriarch to take an oath to obey the pope, and that
he shaU humbly defer to appeals to Rome. Thus were' the schismatic
Latin patriarchs enslaved.
q An anonymous Greek writer, cited by Leo AUatius, de Consensu, lib.

SECT, tl.] DIVISION OF THB EAST AND WEST. 191
Latins, they expelled and cruelly persecuted all the bishops
and clergy of the Eastern church, and crowded the island with
Latin clergy.'' The Roman pontiffs approved and urged
these proceedings as the Eastern church was, hi 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 REMAIN
ING SEPARATED 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 imme
morial custom confirmed by the decrees of general synods.
Within twenty 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 all 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.^ 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
2. u. 13, complains that the Latins ejected the orthodox prelates wherever
they could,
r The same writer mentioned in the last note says, that when the Greek
monks of Cyprus refused submission, the Latins tied them on wild horses to
be dashed to pieces, or threw them into the flames. AUatius by no means
disapproves of such conduct.
B Du Pin, History of the Church, vol. iu. century x, ch. 10.
' " Subessee Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae, declaramus, dici-
muf, definimus, ct pronunciamus, omnino esse denecessitate salutis." Bonifa-
cius VIII. in extravagant. De Majoritate et Obedientia, cap. Unam Sanctam.

192 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. I. OH, IX,
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 unlimit
ed 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," 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 schismatics ; and accordingly, we find in a series of
negotiations 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 sub
mission and obedience to the Roman see,"
Of this there are innumerable proofs. In 1170, 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," Michael Anchialus who was at this time patriarch
of Constantinople says, that the papal legates who came to Con
stantinople on the occasion, required nothing else from the Greek
church, but an acknowledgment of the primacy of the Roman
see, the right of appeals, and honourable mention in the dip-
tychs.'^ 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.^ Innocent III. wrote to the Latin
" See Fleury, Discours iv. sur I'Histoire Ecclesiastique.
" See Du Pin, t. ix. p. 128. 204, Fleury, Hist, Eccl. liv. 71., s. 35.
" See the Dialogue of Anchialus with the emperor, dissuading him from
the proposed union, when the papal delegates came rZy 'tuxxnu-iZy ^ntrouyTisny
iy:etrty, Kxt fA>tSey ire^oy rt d^o rZy X^AjttZy d.7rAtrovyris, ^ TTA^A^optiiT-Aj r^ ^tx'^cf rZv
sTfaiTSiaiv, K*i rri; txKWiTou, SovyAt S'i mira, Ktu to fin/Jtitrtjyiiy. — Leo AUatius, de '
Consens. lib. 2. c. 12.
" Fleury, lib, 75, s. 52.

SECT, II,] ORIENTAL CHURCHES NOT SCHISMATICAL, 193
bishops at Constantinople, to urge Baldwin, the Latin emperor, to
reduce the Greeks under the obedience of the holy see,'' His
legate at Constantinople, with the aid of the civil power, perse
cuted 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 articles of submission
to the Holy See," granted by the Greek emperor in the time of
Innocent III.^ The duke of Moscovy in 1246, seeking the title
of king from the pontiff, promised on that condition to submit his
subjects to the Roman church.'' 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
t/ieir sees by the pontiff." The emperor constrained many of
the Greeks to acknowledge the pope, but notwithstanding this,
he was excommunicated by Martin IV. for not obeying the or
ders of his predecessor,^ and Pere Le Quien confesses that the
division in this case was caused by the pontiff." In 1369, the
emperor John Palaeologus came to Italy, to solicit succour
against the Turks ; when he was compelled, as a preliminary,
Baronius, ad an. 1204.
Georgius Acropolita, cited by AUatius, de Consensu, lib. 2. c. 13.
Du Pin, Biblioth. X. 89. ' ^ Fleury, Hist. liv. 92. s. 60.
c Du Pin, Biblioth. x. 91. d Ibid.
' " I must say with pain, that the union begun in the second synod of
Lyons under- Michael Palsologus and Pope Gregory X. would perhaps have
been permanent, had not certain of the points agreed on, been derogated from,
in the time of Nicholas III. at the instigation of Charles king of SicUy, and
others. " The Greeks were in short commanded to add the filioque to their
creed, contrary to the synod of Lyons, "which so exasperated their minds
against the Romans, that no way was left open to reconcile them to us." —
Le Quien, Oriens Christ, tom. i. p, 157,
VOL, I, — 25

194 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p, I, CH. IX
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."f The Roman pontiffs therefore required from the Eastern
church as the terms of communion, submission, and obedience
to the 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 extin
guished. Their patriarchs and bishops would have been bornid
by oath to obey the papal laws. The discipline of their churches
would have been subverted by appeals to Rome. Their most
established customs, even those supported by the decrees of
general councils, would have been annulled at the nod of pon
tiffs 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 liberties 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 Ro
man see under such conditions. They would have inflicted a last
ing injury on the church of Christ by doing so. They would
have stimulated a spirit of aggression and usurpation 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 councils, those rights and liber
ties which general councils, approved by the universal church,
had cofirmed to them. In this respect, therefore, they are en
tirely free from blame, and consequently, even if any one main
tains communion with the Roman see as essential, generally
' Du Pin. xi. 95.

SECT, II,] ORIENTAL CHURCHES NOT SCHISMATICAL, 195
speaking ; yet he must. admit that these churches, being exclud
ed from the external signs of that communion without their own
fault, were not really, but only apparently, separated from the
church,^ The sentiments and mode of argument common in those ages,
are exemphfied in the conference at Constantinople, between
Anselm, bishop of Harvelburg 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 church
es, and we acknowledge that she presides in a general council ;
but she, separated from us by her pride, when, exceeding her
power, she divided the empire, and the churches of the East and
West, When she celebrates 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 divided from the Roman church in faith, how could we re
ceive 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 children 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 beheve it a duty to follow her necessarily in every
thing, nor that we ought to relinquish our rites, to receive her
g Even the Romanist MUner says, " Nor is the vindication of the rights
of an ancient church, at any time, a denial of the pope's general suprema
cy," — End of Controversy, Prefatory Address, p. xii. M. Trevern, bishop
of Strasburg, in Bis Discussion Amicale (t. i. p. 231.), regards the exag
gerated opinions of the Ultramontanes on the papal power, as the principal
obstacle to the reunion of the Eastern and Western churches.

190 ARGUMENTS OF NECHITES AGAINST ROME, [p, I, CH. IX,
usage in the sacraments, without examining it by reason or the
Scriptures," &c. The Greek prelate altogether argued in a
very rational and convincing manner, but the Latin " interrupt
ed this discourse, not being able to endure, he said, that the
Greek archbishop should break out so against the Roman
church," He could offer no reply, however, except to assure
him that the most perfect reliance might be reposed in the reli
gion, sincerity, equity, goodness, &c. of the Roman church.''
The Eastern churches then were perfectly justified in refus
ing to accept the proffered communion of the Roman see, and
of the churches which it swayed in the West ; because the
only terms on which that communion could be obtained, were
unreasonable and subversive of their ecclesiastical rights and
liberties, which had descended from the remotest ages. 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,
(7,) THE EASTERN CHURCHES ARE FREE FROM HERESY,
It would have 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 be
tween the East and West, as we learn from St, Anselm,' from
Gregory VII, of Rome,'' and from his successor Innocent III.
^ Fleury, Hist. liv. 69. sect. 42. This conference took place in 1137.
' Perpetuite de la Foi, t, i, 176,
k Ibid, Baronius, ad an, 1074, n, 54,

SECT, II,] ORIENTAL CHURCHES NOT IN HERESY. 197
The latter speaks twice of the Procession of the Holy Ghost,
as the only point of difference between the churches :' 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 Aqui
nas, Bandinus, Bonaventure, Scotus, Grosteste, among the
scholastics, and in more modern times by Bellarmine, Clich-
tovseus, Tolletus, Azorius, Fricius, Thomas a Jesu of the
Roman communion, and by Field, Laud, and other Anglo-
catholic theologians. "^ Therefore 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 (in
Part IV,), these synods did not possess sufficient authority to
make absolutely binding decrees in controversies of faith ; and
if the Eastern churches were a part of the cathohc 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.
' Innocentu III. Epist, lib, vii, 154, See also Raynaldus, an. 1205.
n. 10.
"' See Field, Of the Church, p. 50, &c. Laud, Conference, s. 9.

198 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 Westerp church, were
about equally numerous on each side.
According to the " Notitia," compiled in the time of the
patriarch Phocius, and the emperor Leo Sapiens, about a.d.
891, compared with other accounts collected by Bingham, the
Asiatic bishoprics under the patriarchate of Constantinople, in
cluding the province of Isauria, taken from the patriarchate of
Antioch, were in number 432; the European bishoprics in
lUyricum, Dacia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, &c. were 160 ;
those urjder the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem were
240 ; under the patriarch of Alexandria, 108 ; in Cyprus, 15 ;
making a total of 955, besides the dioceses in Armenia, Assyria,
Chaldea, and other dominions of the Persians, in which alone
twenty-four bishops suffered martyrdom about the same time ;
and among the Homerites under the archbishop of Tephra,
the Indians and the Saracens, 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 1 020. Let us
now turn to the Western church. In Africa there were 466
bishoprics, in the time of St. Augustine ; in Italy, Sicily, and
the adjoining isles, 293 ; in Spain, 76 ; in Gaul and Germany,
" • [One of Mr. Palmer's critics has seemed disposed to lay stress on this
paragraph, as evincing the insufficiency of his mode of procedure for arriv
ing at a satisfactory conclusion as to the claims of a church or churches.
But whatever may be thought of his arithmetical argument, it is merely
ex abundantia. The catholicity of the Oriental churches has been even
more than sufliciently sustained without it.]

SECT. II.] GREATNESS OF THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. 199
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 de
termine 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 Eutychian
heresies. It is true, that great losses had been sustained from
these causes, but it is quite uncertain whether the Western
church had not suffered equally,
Africa, with its 466 churches, had disappeared from Christi
anity. Spain, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, were occupied by the
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
populoiis. 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 occur
ring 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 tb 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, Servi
ans, Gazarians, Moesians, Bohemians, Moravians, Hungarians,
Transylvanians, Moldavians, Wallachians, and (what alone was

200 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. I, CH, IX,
equal to all the conversions of the West,) the Russians, There
is therefore no probabihty that the Eastern church, in the mid
dle 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 impossible to determine precisely the number
of bishops on each side ; but there is neither proof nor presump
tion, 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,

OBJECTIONS OF ROMANISTS,
I, The Greeks are proved schismatics, by "the simple fact
that they are not in communion with the Roman see ; for this
communion is absolutely essential by the institution of Jesus
Christ, Answer. (1,) I deny that communion with the Roman see,
more than any other, is absolutely required by Christ, as I shall
prove elsewhere, (2,) Romanists cannot maintain it to be es
sential, because they do not admit the pontiff to be absolute and
infallible, in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual ; but if com
munion with him is absolutely necessary, he must be infallible,
and free from the possibility of fault.
II, The Eastern church has not unity of doctrine, because
(1,) Methodius, archbishop of Twer (1805), 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, praises his books, and .cites them in testi
mony of the faith of the Muscovites. (See D, de Maistre, Du
Pape, t, ii. p. 561.) (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 doctrines. (Bouvier.)

SECT. II,] OBJECTIONS.

201

Answer. (1,) In the place cited (Methodius, p. 168), the
archbishop probably only refers to the opinions of the dissenters
from the Russian church ; but admitting that he alludes to mem
bers of that church, I ask whether there are not also clergy of
the Roman churches who are inclined to Calvinism, or Jansen
ism, which is the same thing? Methodius indeed calls Calvin
a great man, but he blames him for "daring to administer sacred
things" without ordination. The truth is, that Calvin was a
man of great ability and no inconsiderable learning ; and Ro
manists themselves are exceedingly glad to cite him in prdof of
their doctrines, whenever they can. (2.) The Eastern church
has not varied on the primacy ; for she does not deny that the
pontiff, might fairly be considered the first bishop, according^ to
the customs and synods of the church ; but she has never admit
ted that this primacy is divino jure. The Eastern church dotes
net substantially differ, from the West, on the procession, as
we have seen,
III, 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, (Bouvier.)
Answer. There is but one Head of the church according to
divine appointment, who is invisible, but who administers the
affairs of his church by the body of pastors who succeed the
apostles. It will elsewhere be proved that there is no visible
head of the whole church, of divine or human appointment.
IV. 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. —
(Bouvier.) Answer. They are guided by the ancient decisions, laws,
canons, and customs of the church, which each bishop adminis
ters ; 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
VOL, I.— 26

202 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p. 1. CH, IX,
necessary to convene general synods, or seek the judgment of
the whole church in questions of discipline,
V, 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 ap
parent reason as the Romanists," (2,) If they had none, they
might still be a part of the catholic church ; because no particu
lar portion of the church is promised miracles, or bound to show
them. VI, Its founders were not holy, that is Photius and Cerularius ;
for their immoderate ambition in assuming the title of (Ecu
menical Patriarch, led to the separation.
Answer. (1,) Photius and Cerularius did not found the East
ern church, (2,) Bingham proves that the title of (Ecumenical
Patriarch was given to the Patriarch of Constantinople by Jus
tinian, more than three hundred years before the time of Photius,
and five hundred before that of Cerularius," (3,) The separa
tion is attributable as much to the Roman patriarch's ambition,
as to that of the patriarch of Constantinople.
VII. The Eastern church has not produced such eminent
saints as the Western church.
Answer. All the greatest saints of antiquity were of the
Eastern church ; ar. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Alexan
dria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory
Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssene, Cyril, and others too numerous
to mention. The missionaries of the Eastern Church con
verted to the faith many heathen nations ; as the Russians, Bo
hemians, Poles, Moravians, Wallachians, Moldavians, Bulga
rians, &c. <fcc, ; and, according to modern historians, many
» See Nectaru Hierosol. Confutatio Imperii Papae (p. 306, 307. 321 —
332), where a multitude of miracles are claimed for the Oriental churches.
p Le Quien also, in his Oriens Christianus, tom. i. p. 67, shows that the
patriarchs of Constantinople were .styled CEcumenical Patriarchs, in the
reign of Justin, 518, and in 536, as weU as by Justinian.

SECT. II,] OBJECTIONS. 203
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
is found in many of the Latin convents, i
VIII. It is not universal, having no societies in Africa or
America. (Bouvier.)
Answer. There are churches in communion with the East
ern churches in North America and Egypt ; but I do not pre
tend that the Eastern churches alone are churches of Christ,
therefore they do not require universality,
IX, The Greek church is not apostolical, for she bears mani
fest indications of change ; e, g. she was formerly for many
ages, united and subject to the Roman church, but afterwards
separated from her : then the union of the churches having
been twice completed in the synods of Lyons and Florence, the
Greeks twice departed from that union.
Answer (I.) It is denied that the Greek church was subject
to the Roman jurisdiction at any time, (2,) The separation
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 (Oriens Christ, tom. i, p.
157), by the unreasonable 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 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, as it was
not truly fficumenical, OTHER OBJECTIONS,
X, The Eastern churches practice the invocation of saints,
but this is contrary to Scripture ; therefore they cannot form
part of Christ's church, 1 See Smith on the Gk, Church,

204 THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, IX.
Answer. Though we found long ago, by experience, that
this custom leads to the grossest superstition among the
uid^arned ; yet the practice of invoking the saints to pray for
us to ( God, is rather superfluous, and tending to idolatry, than
actually idolatrous (strictly speaking) ; and therefore cannot
exclude the Eastern churches from the catholic community.
It is not directly and formally prohibited by Scripture, and the
practice is of such antiquity in their churches, that we cannot
absolutely condemn the Eastern catholics for supposing that it
is allowable. Besides this, our theologians. Hooker, Bramhall,
Andrewes, &c. allow the Roman to be a true church, though
they well knew that this invocation is practiced there.
XI. They pay a relative honour or worship to pictures,
which is idolatrous.
Answer. 1 grant that it approaches toward idolatry, and in
some instances doubtless must become actually idolatrous, be
cause 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 sup
posed 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, they cannot be charged with formal
idolatry, in principle or universally ; and therefore, while with
the whole Western church, from the time of Charlemagne, and
with the synod of Frankfort, we reject all worship of images
whatsoever, 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, and therefore cannot be a part of the Christian
church.

SECT. II.] '' OBJECTIONS. — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 205
Answer. (1.) Admitting that they use the term transubstan
tiation, and that many of them receive the doctrine in the Ro
mish sense, it is not certain that all do. Archbishop Plato
says : " Ecclesia Cathohca Orientalis, et Graeco-Russica,
admittit quidem vocem Transubstantiatio, Greece //.sTovtriairii ;
non physicam illam transubstantiationem et carnalem, sed
sacramentalem et mysticam ; eodemque sensu banc vocem
Transubstantiatio accipit, quam quo antiquissimi Ecclesiae
Graecae patres has voces fieretXXayi, fi^erahn-it;, neTan-Toixitaa-ii
accipiebant."'^ It would seem as if the term transubstantiation
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 " come-
derant panem et biberant vinum, Christo utrumque conse-
crante et praeberite ; 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."' (2.) The Romish doctrine of tran
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 consubstantia-
tion nor transubstantiation, however ill-grounded soever we
take them to be, ought to dissolve the union or communion of
churches.'" Archbishop Bramhall places the doctrine of
r See the answer of Plato, Archbishop of Moscow, to M. Dutens, on the
doctrines of the Oriental church. — Dutens, CEuvres Melees, part ii. p. 171,
ed, 1797. This answer is referred to as of high authority by Methodius,
Archbishop of Twer, m the preface to his " Liber Historicus de rebus in
Primitiva Ecclesia."
8 Methodii Liber Histor, p. 207.
i Burnet on the xxviiith article, near the end. The Lutherans' doctrine
of Consubstantiation, and the ubiquity of Christ's body, is quite as much an
error as the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, yet they are not usuaUy
accounted heretics.

206 OBJECTIONS. — TRANSUBSTANTIATION, [p, I. CH. IX.
transubstantiation among "the opinions of the schools, not
among the articles of our faith, ""^ And besides this our theo
logians generally, as Hooker, Andrewes, Bramhall, &c, ac
knowledge tl^e Roman to be a part of the true church, though it
is manifest that the doctrine of transubstantiation is held
there, " Bramhall, Answer to Militiere, p, 1,

CHAPTER X.

ON THE BRITISH CHURCHES,

The catholic and apostolical churches of England, Scotland,
and Ireland, are the parent stock from whence many flourishing
churches of Christ have been derived in the United States, the
Islands, and other parts of North America ; in Hindostan,
Ceylon, Australia, and other parts of the East ; and even in.
Africa, congregations and pastors are to be found,' who have
derived their Christianity and their authority from our churches.
I propose to show in this chapter, that the British churches form
a portion of the catholic church of Christ ; and that every indi
vidual within their district is bound to unite himself to them, as
being exclusively and solely the way of salvation established by
divine authority amongst us. This will be chiefly proved by
applying all the notes of the true church to our part of it, and
showing that in every particular they entirely accord with it.
1. The churches of Britain and Ireland have been visible
societies from the most remote antiquity. — We read of the exist
ence of Christian churches in Britain, in the writings of Ter
tullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Hilary. '^ Theodo
ret attributes their foundation to 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
" TertuUian contr. Judaeos, c. 7. Origen. in Ezech. hom. iv. in Lue. c.
1. hom. vi. Athan. Apologia. Hist. Arian. ad monachos. Hilarius Pictav.
de S3modis. See also StiUingfleet's Antiquities of the British Churches,
Usserii Brit. Eccl. Antiquitates.
>¦ Theodoret, tom. iv. Serm. ix. p. 610.

208 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I, CH, X,
churches in the synod of Aries, convened by the emperor Con-
stantine from all the Western churches, to take cognizance of
the Donatist controversy.'^ 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 Ccelestinus, bishop of
Rome.' About the same time (432), the Irish churches were
founded by Patrick, who was consecrated bishop by Ccelesti
nus ; ^ and these churches were acknowledged immediately, by
by all the Christian, world, to form part of the catholic church.
The British churches were afterwards subject to severe persecu
tion and depression, in consequence of the invasion and subjuga
tion of England by the heathen Saxons, Christianity for a time
flourished only in the Western parts of Britain ; but it still con
tinued in some degree visible even among the heathen invaders, s
In the following century, the venerable Augustine was sent
by Gregory the great, bishop of Rome, to convert the Anglo-
Saxons, which the British churches had been unable to effect ;
and by his exertions, several churches were either founded or
= Sirmond, ConcUia GaUic. tom. i. p. 9.
ti Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii.
= Beda, Hist. Eccl. Ub. i. c. 17. Prosper, Chronicon. ann. 429. Stil
lingfleet argues, and apparently with reason, that these bishops were sent
by the Gallican Synod only. Antiq. p. 192.
f [It is surprising that Mr. Palmer should implicitly allow this exploded
fable. Very little is known concerning Patrick with any certainty ; but that
little is aU adverse to the supposition that he had any connexion with Rome.
This has been proved (inter aUis) in the British Magazine, Vol. VIII. 269.
s. 1. 399 ss. 609 ss.]
s Seven British bishops assembled and conferred with St. Augustine. —
Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. u. c. 2. Theonus was bishop of London, and Tha-
diocus of York among the Saxons, about a. d. 586. — Usserii Brit. Eccl.
Antiq. c. 5. Kentigern, about the same time, ruled the British church in
Glasgow and Cumberland. — Ibid, c, 14, 15.

SECT, I.] ANTIQUITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES, 209
revived, .before or about the year 600, such as the churches of
Canterbury, tlochester, London, &C,'' Many other churches
were founded among the Anglo-Saxons by Irish missionaries ;
such as the churches of Lindisfarn, or Durham, Lichfield,
York, (fee' In fine, Scotland received Christianity, and visible
churches were founded there bythe Irish and Saxon churches,''
Some disagreements between the ancient British and Saxons
having been removed ; the church was perfectly imited in all
parts of Britain and Ireland, and was acknowledged by all the
Christian world, as a branch of the catholic church. These
societies continued always to exist : history records their acts
in every age ; the ordination of their bishops, the synods which
they held for the correction of abuses, and the enforcement of
discipline ;' the charters of monarchs confirming in many ages
their liberties and rights, their convocations, their reformation,
the dangers and persecutions which they have suffered, their
adversity and their prosperity. All our churches were origi
nally founded by the labours of holy missionaries, who, in obedi
ence 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 incorporation with it, and in no case by separation
from a more ancient Christian society, have in all ages, without
interruption, continued visibly to profess Christ, to administer
Christian rites and sacraments, to be guided by a ministry pro
fessing to be Christian and apostolical, and to add continually
new members to themselves by baptism. No other Christian
societies formerly existed in these countries, from which our
churches separated themselves originally, and acquired existence
i" See Godwin " de Praesulibus Angliae,"
i Beda, Historia, lib. iu. c. 3. 5, 6. 21, 22.
t Beda, lib. ui. c. 4.
' See WUkins' " ConcUia Magnae Britanniae," where the acts of the Bri
tish churches are recorded in regular succession, from a.d. 440 to a.d. 1717.
VOL. I. — ^27

210 THE BRITISH CHURCHES, [p. I. CH, X,
by the act of separation. The church of Canterbury has contin
ued as a Christian society in unbroken succession for more than
twelve centuries ;"' that of Armagh has existed for fourteen cen
turies ;" those of Menevia and others in Wales, for at least the
same time ; and all these churches were derived by spiritual
descent, and fraternal association, from the still more ancient
and apostolical churches of Britain, Gaul, and Rome. It may
be objected, indeed, that our churches departed from their an
cient faith, or were separated from the rest of the catholic church
at the Reformation, That is a different question, and must be
separately considered : but the fact is beyond all possibility of
dispute : it is as certain as the truth of Christianity itself, that
these churches have always continued as visible societies, in un
broken succession from the very earliest ages of Christianity,
They may be called heretical, schismatical, apostate or any
thing else : but their perpetuity as visible societies professing
Christianity ; their antiquity, superior by full thirteen centu
ries to all those that surround them ; are matters of fact so ab
solutely certain, that he who denies them must be prepared to
deny all historical truths whatever.
II. The British churches preserve unity of communion
among themselves and in each particular church ; — their doc
trine requires it ; their practice promotes it. Every member of
these churches is taught that the commandment of God requires
him to submit himself to his governors, teachers, and spiritual
pastors."" Each of these pastors is obliged " reverently to obey
his ordinary, and other chief ministers, unto whom is committed
the charge and government over them,"'' Each bishop is bound
to " correct and punish such as be unquiet, disobedient, and
¦" See the catalogue of aU its archbishops in Godwin " de Praesulibus
Angliae," More than a hundred and fifty bishops in regular succession
from St. Peter to the present time, have presided over the primitive Roman
church, and over that of Canterbury, derived from it in the sixth century.
n Sir James Ware's history of the Irish bishops, with additions by Harris.
° Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer.
p Ordinat. of priests and deacons.

SECT. II.] ANTIQUITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES. 211
criminous within his diocese,"i Thus it is evident, that the
church of England requires and provides fof unity and order
within all her boundaries. Besides this she does not hesitate to
denounce those who separate from her as guilty of a most
grievous sin. Her canons pronounce that "whosoever shall
hereafter separate themselves from the communion of saints, as
it is approved by the apostles' rules in the church of England,
and combine themselves together in a new brotherhood," ac
counting the church of England unfit to be joined with in Chris- \
tian profession, shall be excommunicated, and not restored till;
" after their repentance and public revocation of such their?
wicked errors."^ Those even who shall maintain such schis
matics, and allow them the name of a Christian church, are
equally excommunicated by the cliurch of England.^ Schism
is condemned in every way. Its authors, its maintainors, its
conventicles, the supporters of its laws, rules, and orders, are all
subjected to excommunication, and regarded as " wicked,"'
Can any more convincing proof be afforded that the church of
England provides assiduously for the maintenance of entire
unity of communion ? I have before shown that her theologians
teach the necessity of adhering to the unity of the church ; and
this arises from the firm belief of all, that salvation is only offer
ed in that church,'^ But this is not the whole. The church of
England, by her principles nips in the bud, or prevents all pre
tences for disturbance or separation. She declares that who
ever "through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth
openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which
be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and ap
proved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly,"
&c.;^ and the canons subject them to excommunication,^ She

1 Consecration of bishops, ¦¦ Canon ix. 1603.
» Canon x. ' Canon ix. — xii.
" See above. Chapter IV. sect. ii. art. iv. ; and Chapter I. sect. ui. on
Salvation in the Church only,
' Article XXXIV, " Canon xxvii. 1603,

212 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH, X.
holds that " any particular or national church hath authority to
ordain, change, ahd abolish ceremonies or rites of the church
ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to
edifying,"'' In fine, she declares that " the church has power
to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of
faith,"y Now it is evident that these principles are calculated
altogether to prevent disturbance and schism. The dissenter,
Micaiah Towgood, confesses 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,"^
The church however unquestionably claims this power, whether
well or ill-founded, and therefore her principle is altogether sub
versive 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 Scrip
ture 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 other
wise 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,^ Such are the principles of unity maintained by the Bri
tish churches. They may be accused of severity by those who
j do not believe as she does, that salvation is offered only in the
. church,'' and that she herself is decidedly and unquestionably
the church of God in these countries.
III. These churches also continue in the unity of the com
munion with respect to the rest of the catholic church. — It is,
and always has been, an article of their belief, that there is a
:¦ Article XXXIV. v Article XX.
' Towgood on Dissent, p. 2. ' Ibid. p. 6, 7.
^ 3ee Chapter I. section iii.

SECT. III.] UNITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES. 213
visible and universal church of Christ, out of which there is
no salvation :" consequently they must believe it in the highest
degree sinful to separate from the universal church ; and if
separation from a particular national church is sinful in their
opinion, how much more must be a separation from all the
church ?' Hence it is altogether improbable that these churches
should ever themselves have separated from the universal
church ; because their own principles would at once condemn
them. Is it credible that, if they had voluntarily departed from
the catholic church, they should continue always to profess
their "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 ? How improbable is it, if we had separated ourselves
from the universal church, that we should make so many con
fessions condemnatory of ourselves ! The church of England,
in fact, does not imagine for a moment that she has ever sepa
rated from the catholic church, or been separated by its autho
rity. We altogether reject the former notion, as totally un
founded; without the shadow of a proof. It is evident to
those who have perused her* history, that the church of Eng
land never did at any time, by any voluntary act whatever,
separate herself from the communion of the universal church.''
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. All that is pretended
by our adversaries is, that our churches are separated from the
communion of the Roman pontiff, and therefore must necessa-
" See Chapter 111. ad finem, and the place referred to in the preceding
note. ¦1 See Part IL Chapter II.

214 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. i. CH. X.
rily be cut off from the church of Christ, Before they can
prove this, however, they must show that the Roman pontiff is
by divine institution the centre of unity in such a sense, that
whoever is not in his communion must be cut off from the
church of Christ, This would take a very long time to prove,
and would lead to a controversy of so much difficulty, as ren
ders it apparently unfit to be adduced among the notes of the
church ; but what is a more serious difficulty is, that our oppo
nents cannot consistently argue thus, for they admit that the
Roman pontiffs are hable to error in doctrine and disciphne,
and to ambition, anger, pride, injustice, avarice, in a word, to
all the passions and infirmities of human nature. The separa
tion between the pontiff and our churches may have arisen
from such faults on his part, and therefore we may be alto
gether blameless. If this is denied, then the pontiff must be •
impeccable and infallible ; and, moreover, must be invested
with all power temporal as well as spiritual, which is absurd,
and denied 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 schis
matics because they did not communicate with the Roman
church ; or who, on the contrary, would not confess that Paii-
linus 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 schisma
tics, 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 patri
archs, schismatics and excommunicated, although they were for
a time divided from the communion of the Roman church."^
Therefore nothing can be more vain and futile than the pretence
that we are necessarily schismatical because we are not in com
munion with the Roman see. Those who charge us with
schism on this account, have no resource but to look at facts,
« Du Pin, de Antiq, Eccl. Disciplina, p, 256,

SECT. Ill,] BRITISH CHURCHES FREE FROM SCHISM. • 215
and prove that the church of England originally separated vo
luntarily from the communion of the Roman pontiff. But this
they cannot do. The church of England removed the juris
diction of the pontiff, but did not separate from his communion.
The act of excommunication was entirely on his part, and if,
long afterwards, measures were taken by the civil power to
prevent communication with the Roman see, it was as a measure
of self-defence, caused by its restless intrigues for the subjuga
tion of our churches, and the control of our state.
Nor is it any proof whatever that our churches are schisma
tic, to allege that they are not actually in communion with the
rest of the catholic church : because I have before proved that
there is no impossibility in the supposition, that different por
tions of the catholic church may for a time be separated from
mutual communion,*' Our churches may therefore be a portion
of the one, holy catholic church, though they are not actually
in external communion with the greater part of it. The sim
ple fact of non-communion is unavailing to prove us in schism.
It must be proved that these churches have separated from all
the rest, or that all the rest have by some regular judgment ex
communicated them. Neither can be proved, I have already
denied the former, and defied our adversaries to produce a
shadow of proof for it. I also deny that the great body of the
church ever excommunicated our churches. It has been
already shown, that neither the Eastern nor the Western
churches were excommunicated by any binding decree up to
the period of the Reformation, s Consequently the British
churches were not cut off from the catholic church up to the
Reformation ; but at that time, whatever decrees or judgments
were made by some Western churches in respect of ours, were
not confirmed or received by the Eastern churches, who re
mained exactly in the same position towards us that they had
previously done. Consequently there could not have been any
ree of excommunication passed by the catholic church

*¦ Chapter IV, section iii. See last chapter.

216 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH, X.
against us at the period of the Reformation ; and besides this
we know that the theological opinion then prevalent in the
Western churches was, that the Roman see was absolutely
and always the centre of unity ; whence they adjudged us
schismatics merely on this prejudice, without examining the
cause ; and their judgment was accordingly informal, null,
and void.
IV, 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 everlast
ingly,"'' She accordingly regards heretics as cut off from the
church, and out of the way of salvation. This I have also
shown to be the doctrine of our most eminent theologians,' It
does not seem possible that the necessity of an orthodox faith
can be more strongly enforced by a church. But she is not
contented with this ; she makes provision for preserving the
unity of faith by her practice. No one is admitted to her com
munion by baptism until, either by himself or his sponsors, he
promises " to believe all the articles of the Christian faith."''
Her children are all, from the earliest age, diligently instructed
in the divine truths of religion, by pastors especially authorized
by the church : and thus the catholic doctrine is infused into
their minds not ,by reasoning, but by authority. In order to
secure still more the unity of faith, it is provided that all her
members shall hear and assent to several creeds and formula
ries of cathohc faith in her various offices ;' and unite in the

ii Athanasian Creed in the Book of Common Prayer. The eighth arti
cle says of this and the other creeds, that they " ought thoroughly to be
received and believed : for they may be proved by most certain warrants
of holy Scripture."
' Chap. V. sect. ii. art. 4, t Ofiice for Baptism.
' e.g. the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds.

SECT, IV.] UNITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES. 217
profession of all the Christian doctrines, which are assiduously
interwoven in all her prayers, anthems, hymns, &e.™ The
clergy themselves are required by her customs to subscribe
their assent, without any reservation whatever, to the body of
faith and religious truth contained in the thirty-nine articles of
religion. So that, in every imaginable way, these churches
teach the necessity of receiving the whole uncorrupted truth
of Christianity, and provide effective means for it among them
selves. And further, we do not in any degree separate our
selves from the common faith of the catholic church. We do j
not pretend to found our faith on our interpretation of Scrip- I
ture alone, to the exclusion of the doctrine or tradition of the '
church universal. Far from it. 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 \
doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and what the catholic
fathers and ancient bishops have collected from the same doc- •
trine."" This recognizes most fully the guidance of tradition
in matters of faith ; and in matters of disciphne the same is
also admitted ; for the three orders of the sacred ministry are
received by the church of England, because their apostohc
antiquity is proved by "ancient authors," as well as "holy
Scripture ;" and because they " were evermore had in reve
rend estimation in the church."" In short, the reverence of the
church of England for the tradition of the universal church in
all matters of doctrine and discipline, is so manifest, and the
consent of her theologians at all times so perfectly accordant
•with the same sentiment, that the Lutheran Walchius accounts
" the Episcopalians," (he means the catholics of the church
of England,) " excessive in their reverence for the fathers."?
m Arians and Socinians bitterly complaui of this, and urge the alteration
of the ritual by force, in order to divest it of those distinctive doctrines of
Christianity with which it abounds,
¦> Canons, 1572, o Preface to the Ordmal.
P See Part II. Chapter VI. " On the Principles of the English Refor
mation." VOL. I.— 28

218 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. cH, X.
Hence the church of England has a fixed rule to guide her in
the interpretation of Scripture, and a rule which is acknow
ledged also by all the rest of the catholic church. And hence
it is very probable that in reality she agrees in all matters of
faith with other churches, for she admits the same rule ; and at
all events it is not to be supposed, 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 ancient fathers and councils, and generally those of the
universal church, clearly condemnatory of her doctrines ; did
they universally esteem matters of faith, what she esteems
error or heresy; would it not follow that the church of Eng
land, or at least her theologians, must in process of time have
revolted against antiquity, and represented it as entirely unwor
thy of credit ? We know what the universal conduct of those
who esteem the tradition of the church opposed to their doc
trines, 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. They decry them as the
doctrines of men, and endeavour by all means to prevent an
appeal to them. How widely different is the conduct of the
church of England, and the whole body of her eminent theolo
gians, who are only desirous to follow in the footsteps of an
tiquity, and ever ready to give an answer to any one that ask-
eth them concerning, their adherence to the doctrines of the uni
versal church !
But there is another principle of the church of England, which
is in the highest degree calculated to preserve her in unity of
faith. That principle is contained in the twentieth article :—
" The church hath , , , authority in controversies of
FAITH : " that is, not only have national churches the power of
defining the faith for their own members ; but national churches
themselves are subject in matters of faith to the superior au
thority of the universal church. The opponents of the church
of England cannot deny that she really claims authority for the

sect, iv,] BRITISH CHURCHES FREE FROM HERESY, 210
church. The dissenter Towgood admits it,i and the Romanist
Milner is compelled by the force of truth, in contradiction to the
impudent assertions of many of his brethren, to make the eon-
• fession 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 rights ; 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 es
tablished terms of communion, (The church hath power ' to
decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of
faith, Art. XX. inter. 39,) and from her repeated practice in
holding synods at home, and in sending representatives to those
abroad, particularly to the famous synod of Dort, in the reign of
James I. when we all know that religious questions were de
cided in as high a tone of authority, as they were in the council
of Trent. ""^ Now admitting, 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 au
thority of the church is not against her. It may be supposed,
perhaps, that she is mistaken as to the question oifact. 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 probable reasons ; but the authority of the universal
church, when clearly manifested, she never rejects. Therefore

<! On dissent, p, 5, 6.
"• MUner's Letters to a Prebendary, Lett. II. The last assertion is not
strictly correct, as the church of England did not, in fact, send any deputies
to the synod of Dort. They were sent by King James I. ; and the act of
this monarch alone, could not bind the church of England.

220 THE BRITISH CHURCHES, [p, I. CH. X.
it is impossible 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 au
thority of the universal church ; I reply, without the least doubt
or hesitation, that we do. The church of England, in fact, re
jects every doctrine 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, 1 receive
every decree, council, doctrine, which the catholic church re
ceives ; and anathematize every heresy which she anathema
tizes. It is not to be supposed credible, that the church of
England, which maintains such principles as I have spoken of,
can be in any heresy contrary to the faith. But I proceed to
adduce further proofs of this, from the circumstance that her
doctrine has never been condemned by the catholic church. It
is pretended that our doctrines were condemned by the church,
at the synod of Trent. Now admitting that there is an opposi
tion, in some points, between the decisions of that assembly
and those of the English synod, we can easily prove that the
universal church made no judgment in that synod ; for the
Eastern churches and our own were neither present there, nor
ever received its decrees. The church universal therefore made
no judgment in that synod ; and although the greater part of the
Western church received its decrees, this is not to be taken as
any proof of the judgment of the Western churches ; for it is
capable of positive proof, that at that time theological opinions
were universally prevalent among them, which rendered it im
possible for them to take cognizance of the controversy in a
legitimate manner, that is, to examine its merits ; and therefore,
that their reception of the synod of Trent, was a mere registra
tion of the decrees of a certain number of bishops assembled
there, and not the approving judgment of the Western church.^
» See Part IV, Chap, XII, where the authority of the synod of Trent is
discussed at large.

SECT, IV,] BRITISH CHURCHES FREE FROM HERESY, 221
As to the other Western synods which were previously held,
and which are said to contradict our doctrine, we are prepared
to show, that they were merely particular synods, not confirmed
by catholic authority ; and, moreover, that several of those ob
jected, in no degree differ from our doctrine,* This is the
position we sustain : but to enter into a particular examination
whether it is well or ill-founded, cannot be requisite to deter
mine whether the church of England is a portion of the cathohc
church ; because it would lead to lengthened investigations,
which must be impossible to the great majority of men. 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 English does actually
differ, in several points of doctrine, from the Oriental and Latin
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 between particular churches ; and
that even under very peculiar circumstances, these differences
may extend to matters of faith, without heresy,'^ Consequenfly
the mere fact of differences in religion, proves nothing as to the
heresy of either party ; and the Enghsh and other churches
which differ in some points from her, may yet all be connected
by the unity of the catholic faith. To prove that either of them
is separated from this unity, we must enter into a most exten
sive examination of doctrines in controversy, with a view not
merely to ascertain what the truth of Revelation really is, but to
determine whether it is believed or denied by particular churches ;
or whether the difference is apparent rather than real, whether
it is a difference between individuals or churches ; finally,
whether it is obstinately maintained. The inconvenience of
such a process, and its unsuitableness to the great mass of man
kind, for the discovery of the true church, is sufficiently obvious,
' See Part IV, " Chapter V, section iii.

222 THE BRITISH CHURCHES, [p. J, CH, X,
In fine, our adversaries, however reluctantly, are obhged to bear
witness to the general orthodoxy of our faith. The very points
on which we are assailed by some Romanists, are rehnquished
by others. The points of difference are acknowledged to be
but few, by some of their most noted and learned writers ;" and
the church of England is triumphantly, cleared from heresy, on
every point, by their confessions. Are we charged by Bossuet
with denying the authority of the church, and rendering it sub-
se;rvient to the civil power ? Milner replies to him, that the
church of England holds, in these points, the principles of the
catholic church,'" Are we accused of denying the real presence ?
Milner and Hornyhold acknowledge our perfect behef of that
doctrine,^ 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,'' and Du
Pin ;^ and that various Romanists of note have held the differ
ence between us to be so small; as to render a re-union of _the
churches by no means impossible," All this proves that, al-

' O'Conor, Dr, Doyle, See also, the " Essay towards a Proposal for
Catholic Communion," reprinted and commended by Papists.
" MUner's Letters to a Prebendary, Lett. II.
X Ibid. Lett. VIII, Homyhold's Real Principles of Catholics, p. 243.
" Franc. Davenport, al. d, S. Clara, Paraphrastica Exposit. Artie. Confess.
Anglicanae. See also Barnes, Catholico-Romanus Pacificus,
^ Mosheim,' Eccl. Hist. vol. vi. where the heads of Du Pin's Commoni-
torium are stated in the correspondence relative to Archbishop 'Wake.
" EspeciaUy the late Dr. Doyle, who in his letter to Robertson (See
Catholic MisceUany, 1824, p. 234, &c.) observed : " This union is not so
difficult as appears to many. It is not difficult ; for in the discussions which
were held, and the correspondence v/hich occurred on this subject early in
the last century, as weU that in which Archbishop TUlotson (Wake) was
engaged, as the others which were carried on between Bossuet and Leib
nitz, it appeared that the points of agreement between the churches were
numerous ; those on which the parties hesitated few, and apparently not the
most important. The eflfort which was then made was not attended with
success; but its failure was owing more to princes than priests; more to
state poUcy, than a difference of belief." He states, that the cliief points

SECT, IV,] SANCTITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES, 223
though Romanists remain separate from our churches, and
accuse them of heresy, there is no certainty of the justice of
such an imputation, even among themselves. But there is one
other way in which the adversaries of our churches all bear
testimony, involuntarily, to their orthodoxy on all points. The
cause of the church is, in every point of controversy, defended
by a number of those who have separated from her. The au
thority which she claims for the church of Christ, and for which
she is vehemently assailed by dissenters, is supported by Ro
manists. 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 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 is con
tending against some other, on account of its condemnation of

in discussion are, the canon of the sacred Scripture, faith, justification, the
mass, the sacraments, the authority of tradition, of councUs, the pope, the
celibacy of the clergy, language of the liturgy, invocation of saints, respect
for images, prayers for the dead, " On most of these," he adds, " it appears
to me, that there is no essential difference between the ' Catholics ' and
' Protestants.' The existing diversity of opinion arises, in most cases, from
certain forms of words, which admit of satisfactory explanation, or from the
ignorance or misconceptions which ancient prejudices and Ul-will produce
and strengthen ; but which could be removed." 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 ' Protes
tants ' from ' Catholics ' might be laid aside ; that they serve only to exas
perate 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.

S24 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, X,
the church's doctrine (for they believe nothing in common) ; and
meanwhfle, by their contradictions, they confirm our faith."''
V, 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."" It is
impossible to express more strongly the necessity of sancti
fication, and this too in the very creed of the church, which
she proposes to all her members to be " thoroughly received
and believed ;" and which is continually repeated in her pubhc
service, that they may give testimony of this belief and recep
tion, by joining heartily in so holy a confession. Hence it is
absurd to pretend that the church of England dispenses with
holiness in her members. Her 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 article intimates.'' In
fact, so careful is the church of England to urge the necessity
of hohness, that she does not admit any new member to her
communion without exacting from him, or his sponsors in his
name, a solemn 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
another solemn promise, " obediently to keep God's command
ments, and walk in the same all the days of his life."= The
church of England only admits members to her communion
under a vow of holiness ; and she requires them afterwards, at
^ HUarius Pictav. de Trinitate, I. vu. p. 917, ed. Ben,
c Athanasian Creed. ^ Articles XI, XII.
' Office of Baptism,

SECT, v.] SANCTITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES, 225
confirmation, to renew in the presence of God and the church,
that solemn vow made at baptism ; and to acknowledge them
selves " bound to believe and do accordingly,"^ She forbids
sinners to approach the holy' table, ^ and if their sins are no
torious, commands her ministers to repel them from it,'' Her
prayers, her hymns, all her services, breathe a horror of sin,
and an ardent desire for spiritual holiness and perfection. But
it is needless to dwell'on further particular proofs of the sanc
tity of our doctrine, for there cannot be a doubt of it after
what has been alleged.
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, and 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, Au,-
gustine, Columba, Birinus, Chad, Swithin, Colman, Cuthbert,
Columbanus, venerable Bede, king Edward the confessor, Al-
phege, Odo, Anselm, Osmund, and others innumerable, carried
on the line of sanctity in our church. In later ages, Hugh of
Lincoln, Richard of Chichester, Groteste, Hampple, Ockham,
Hooker, Andrewes, Usher, Hammond, Leighton, Sanderson,
Beveridge, Kenn, 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, Kili-
anus went from us to convert the Franks ; Willibrod to preach to
the Batavians, Frieslanders, and Danes ; Winfrid, or Boniface,
to Germany, where he founded extensive churches. Lebuin we
sent to Saxony and Friesland, Guthebald to Norway, and Sig-
frid to Sweden, Nor has the missionary spirit of our churches
failed to show itself at various later times, in establishing mis-
f Office of Confirmation.
' i Exhortation in communion office.
' Rubric at the head of the communion office,
VOL. I.— 29

226 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [P. I. CH. X.
sions for the conversion of the Indians of North America, the
Negroes, th6 idolaters of Hindostan, China, &c. ; and many
holy and devoted servants of Christ have speijt their lives in
labouring to enlarge the kingdom of Christ, even to the present
day. Thus it is evident that our churches have all the marks
of sanctity which can be expected in any part of the catholic
church ; and without 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 rehgious 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. If is the wealth, the
charity of her children, who constitute the vast majority of our
population, 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 consci
entious refusal to submit tp the dictation of an infidel Conven
tion ; the liberahty, arid stiU 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,
VI. The British churches are catholic. — Of course we do
not pretend that our particular churches constitute the whole
church of Christ. We beheve 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 exactly those churches in all nations
which we acknowledge to be parts of the one catholic church.
This we are perfectiy willing and able to do : and as we have
never separated ourselves from those churches in faith or com-

SECT, VI.] THE BRITISH CHURCHES CATHOLIC, 227
munion, so have they never passed any sentence of condemna
tion against us. Our communion is interrupted by accidental
circumstances, misunderstandings, faults, &c., which do not,
strictly speaking, involve either party in schism or heresy.
This at least is our assertion, and in order to prove it false, our
adversaries must resort to a long discussion of facts and
principles. Our churches are catholic, because they acknowledge the
catholic church, respect its authority, receive its faith, and have
never been divided from it. Thus they have all the qualities
of catholicity which particular churches can have. The Galli
can church cannot have more, nor the Greek, nor the Russian,
nor the Spanish. None of these churches are in themselves
universal ; they are all parts of the catholic church ; and so
also are our churches. In fine, we use the name of catho
lic as appropriate to -our churches,' while we give other titles to
the various denominations which have separated from us ; as
Independents, Quakers, Swedenborgians, Baptists, Romanists
or Papists, Huntingdonians, Methodists, Socinians, Unitarians,
&c. None of these communities dispute with us the posses-
' For example, in the order for prayer before sermons in 1535, the preach
er was to "pray for the whole catholic church of Christ, &c, and espe
cially for the catholic church of this realm,'' and for king Henry VIII. the
supreme head " of this catholic church of England." — See Burnet, vol, iii.
Records, n. 29. In the act against appeals to Rome (24 Hen. VIII. c. 12),
it is said that the clergy of the realm shaU administer all sacraments, &c.
' unto aU the subjects of the same, as catholic and Christian men owen to
do." In the act against Annates (23 Hen. VIII. c. 33), it is said that the
king and all his subjects " as well spiritual as temporal, been as obedient,
devout, catholic, and humble chUdren of God, and holy church, as any peo
ple be within any realm christened." The act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. against
Peter-pence, declares that the king and people of England " do not intend
to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ's church in any things
concerning the very articles of the catholic faith of Christendom." The
English ritual contains prayers for the " cathoUc " church only : nor do
any of our formularies recognize any titles or names as applied to designate
the church of England, except those of the primitive church. The lan
guage of our learned theologians is always regulated by this principle.

228 THE BRITISH CHURCHES [p, I, CH. X.
¦sion of this name except Romanists ; and their impudent perti
nacity in the assumption of it, induces sometimes the ignorant
or the indifferent to countenance their claim in some degree ;
but all who are sufficiently informed do not recognize them
under this appellation, because they know not any other catho
lics in these countries except the members of our apostolical
churches, VII. The British churches are apostolical. — I have already
shown that they have existed visibly and perpetually as socie
ties of professing Christians, partaking of Christian rites, and
guided by ministers professing to be ministers of Christ.
These societies were originally derived, if not from the actual
preaching of the apostles, at least from the churches founded
by the aposties ; and they were incorporated at their foundation
with the whole body of the church ; not ejected or separated from
it at the very moment of their existence. They are the original
Christian societies of these countries, descended by unbroken
succession from a most profound antiquity ; 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. Thus it is clear that they are apostolical in their
succession as Christian societies. And further, their ministry
is also descended from the aposties. They alone, of all socie
ties around 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 only to meet the objections advanced by
Romanists, and others after them, to the validity of our ordina
tions, and the mission of our clergy. Now in the first place,
it is well to lay as a foundation, the admission of our adversa
ries, that the church of England claims a perpetual succession
of vahd ordinations. Milner, a Romanist, says, the church of,
England " teaches that the orders of her ministers have de-

SECT. VII.] THE BRITISH CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 229
scended from the apostles and are appointed by God ; and
that the power given to them in the ceremony of ordination is
communicated by the Holy Ghost ; moreover, that the form of
episcopacy is divine and essentially necessary to her existence."
This he proves from her formularies, and from various histori
cal facts, which, he says, " may be alleged in proof of the
church of England's opinion concerning the necessity of regu
lar and uninterrupted succession from Christ and his apostles
in the sacred ministry.'"' The claim then of the church of
England is manifest ; but the Romanists pretend that it is ill-
founded, and endeavour to show that our ordinations are inva
lid in several points. Now there are two arguments which
prove that they themselves do not believe that our ordinations
are really invalid. First, it appears from the history of the
controversy, that new objections were continually invented by
them, as their former objections were found untenable. Origi
nally it was denied, that our bishops at the Reformation had
received any ordination. After forty years, it was pretended
that the ordination 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 validity 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 difficul
ty. Difficulties were got up, invented, sought for : which is a
sufficient proof that they all arose from the spirit of controver
sy.' Latterly, however, these old objections are usually neg
lected by Romish controversialists, and they limit themselves
to prove that our ordinations are irregular and schismatic, not
absolutely null. The second argument is, that some of the
most eminent divines of the Roman obedience have acknow
ledged the validity of our orders. Bossuet himself, the prince
of their controversialists, was thoroughly convinced of it ;
' Letters to a Prebendary, Lett. VIII. p. 220, 221.
1 See Part VI. Chapter X. " On EngUsh Ordinations."

230 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, X,
Courayer expressly and ably defended it ; and many others
have fully concurred in the same opinion."' 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 favourable to us ? When to this we add the in
consistency, and the evident design of those who have invented.
objections ; no rational doubt can remain that our ordinations
are indeed valid, as the church of England believes them to be.
It is surely not credible that, believing as she does, even by our
adversaries' confession, the necessity of valid episcopal ordina
tion, she should have failed to maintain such an ordination, or
have risked it in any way.
Thus our ordinations are evidently derived by valid succes
sion from the apostles ; and it only remains to show that they
were legitimate and free from schism. Now I have before
proved that these churches are free from schism ; therefore the
clergy must have mission ; and though it would lead to a too
lengthened discussion, to examine here all the points in which
they are charged with irregularity, at the time of the Reforma
tion ; still we are prepared to justify them in all respects, when
ever 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 valid ordinations in these countries:"
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 intru
ders into sees already filled,"
VIII, Since then it is certain that our churches have been
perpetually visible even from the earliest ages ; since they pre-
" See Part VI, Chapter X. " On English Ordinations," -
n See Part VI, Chapter XI. " On Romish Ordinations."
" See their " Ordo" for Ireland, cited in Brit. Magazine for 1836, p. 615,
&c. See also Part II, Chapter IX, " On the Reformation and Schism in
Ireland,"

SECT. VIII.] TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN ENGLAND, 231
serve the unity of communion both in themselves, and as re
spects the catholic church ; since they equally preserve the unity
of fa.ith ; since they have never been in any way separated from
the unity of the catholic church ; since they have all the charac
teristics of Christian holiness vvhich can belong to a branch
of the true church ; and since their ministry is derived in regu
lar 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
any man without further examination to unite himself to them.
And this probability is heightened to moral certainty, when it
is remembered that no fact in history is more clear than this ;
that every other community or denomination of professing
Christians among us, originally separated itself or was cut off
from our churches. This is a peculiar character which distin
guishes the church of England in the most brilliant manner from
all the rest, and marks her amongst us as " that city set upon a
hill which cannot be hid." Her antiquity, superior by full
THIRTEEN CENTURIES to all thosc around her : her orthodoxy,
confirmed by the admissions, and still more by the contests and
mutual differences of all her rebellious children : her perpetuity
amidst the persecutions 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, among all the communities
which profess Christianity in these realms. Does any society
except ours even pretend to apostohcal and perpetual succession
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 Ehzabeth.
They existed then for the first time, and gained existence only
by separating from an older, Christian society. Therefore, to

232 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH, X.
pretend that they have apostolical succession, would be alto
gether absurd, and cannot be listened to for a moment.
There is therefore the strongest probability, amounting to
moral certainty, that the British churches constitute really the
church of God in these countries ; for how incredible is it that
God should permit a false church to wear all the attributes of a
true one, and therefore to lead such a vast multitude of people
to destruction. Hence it is plain that it is the duty of every one
. to unite himself to our churches without delay ; nor is it in any
, degree necessary to enter ¦ on an examination of all the doc-
¦ trines and practices of these churches, to ascertain their con
formity with Christianity, P It is true that several of our doc
trines are carped at by various communities around us. The
Romanists accuse us of heresy on several points. We deny
the charge most absolutely and peremptorily. Is it then neces
sary to go into an examination of all these points, on which the
church is assailed by her adversaries, before we join her com
munion ? Were this the case, few men would ever be enabled
to unite themselves to her, even though she be the church of
God, in which salvation is offered ; because their lives would
be spent in investigating critically all these controversies of faith.
It cannot be needful, for example, to enter into the controver-
1- According to aU Romish controversialists, the discussion of particular
doctrines is not the proper mode of discriminating the true church. Tour
nely says, " Neque vera Christi doctrina, neque legitimus sacramentorum
usus, sunt verae notae quibus certo dignosci possit Ecclesia Christi, et dis-
cerni a quacumque alia falsi nominis Ecclesia." (De Ecclesia, i. p. 62.)
Because, as he argues, all sects boast that the truth of doctrine and sacra
ments is with them. " Tam obscurum est, imo longe magis, dignoscere
quie est pura Christi doctrina, et quae vera ejus sacramenta, quam quae sit
vera Ecclesia," (p. 66.) . . . . " " simplices rustici, Uliterati, plebaei, &c.
prorsus incapaces sunt diseussionis sen examinis doctrins,'' (p. 71.) Car
dinal de la Luzerne argues weU to the same effect : Dissertation sur les
Eglises Cath. et Prot. t. i. p. 102, &c. On these principles it is needless to
examine the doctrine of the British churches in order to be convinced of
their soundness. Their orthodoxy should be assumed as certain from their
possessing all the marks of the true church.

SECT, VIII.] OBJECTIONS.  DIFFERENCE OF RELIGION. 238
sies concerning the Trinity, incarnation, original sin, predesti
nation, the sacraments, the power of the Roman pontiff, the
forms of church government, &c, &c. and to master them all
before we unite ourselves to the church. This would impose
an impenetrable bar in the way of those who are called by
God to unite themselves vyithout delay to the Christian and
catholic church, and to receive from her, as "the pillar and
ground of truth," that instruction and guidance which she is au
thorized by God, and aided by his Holy Spirit, to bestow. We
are ready, however, to clear up the difficulties which press more
particularly on the minds of those, who are otherwise wilhng
to enter the church of Christ ; nor do we pretend to repress the
inquiries of those who are of our communion, provided they
are always directed humbly in accordance with Scripture and
catholic tradition, and do not transgress the articles of the catho
lic faith, which we guard with the utmost vigilance.
OBJECTIONS.
I. The church of England cannot pretend to be spiritually
descended from the ancient British and Enghsh churches,
because she changed her faith at the Reformation, The doc
trines now maintained by the church of England, differ in
several points from those which vvere held by the church be
fore the Reformation.
Ansiver. It has been before proved, that all differences in
doctrine are not differences in faith ; and that differences in
faith do not always involve heresy,* Consequently the church
of England may differ, even in some point of faith, from her
former self; and yet may always have continued free from
heresy. The African churches did not change their religion
because they admitted in the time of Augustine, the baptism
of heretics, which they had rejected in the time of Cyprian,
The Western churches did not change their religion because,

1 Chapter V, sect, iii.
VOL, I. — 30

234 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I, CH, X.
after administering the eucharist in both kinds, for many cen
turies, they at last administered it in one kind only. The
Spanish churches did not change their rehgion, when they ,
abolished the practice of trine immersion in baptism, on account
of the Arian heresy which abused it. And, in hke manner,
the churches of England did not necessarily change their reli
gion, because in one age certain opinions and practices were
introduced, and in another were corrected or removed. To
prove that the church of England differs, in articles of faith,
from her belief in any former age, it would be necessary to go
into a very loi)g examination of particular doctrines, and of the
mode and degree in which they have been held by the church
in different ages, which would obviously lead to great inconve
nience ; for the great body of mankind are totally incapable
of instituting such a comparison. Therefore this objection
cannot afford any excuse for being separate from our branch
of the catholic church.
II. The church of England was founded by Heiury VIII.
and Cranmer, therefore she cannot be apostolical.
Ansioer. It is said by the same objectors, that the Eastern
church was founded by Cerularius, We might add, with equal
historical truth and decency, that the Roman church was
founded by Bossuet, or by the late Dr, Milner,
III, The British churches do not possess unity of doctrine,
for several of their theologians, such as Hoadley, Clarke,
Blackburne, &c. were infected with Arian or Socinian notions,
contrary to her doctrines.
Answer. Every church, without exception, is occasionally
troubled by false brethren, Jansenism, infidehty, and indiffer
ence, exist in the bosom of the Roman churches,' Hoadley
escaped punishment only by his arts, and the interference of
the civil power ; Clarke was censured by the convocation ; the
others were so cautious, that they generally avoided open con
tradiction to the doctrines of the church. In fine, it is certain,

' See the Appendices to the next chapter.

OBJECT.] 0BJECTI0NS-r-DIVISI0N3. 235
by the confession and the practice of Romanists, that the
church is sometimes obhged, for various good reasons, to tole
rate heretics for a time ; but she does not regard them as her
children.' IV. There are parties in the British churches (evangehcal
and orthodox) which differ in doctrine : therefore they have
not unity of faith.
Answer. There are similar parties divided on the same ques
tions, in the Roman churches ; viz. the Dominicans, Augus
tinians, and Jesuits ; not'to speak of the Ultramontane and the
Gallican ; the Jansenists and Jesuits, the Reformers and Anti-
reformers, who all differ on several points of doctrine. But it
is plain, that there can be no very great or essential difference
between the members of our churches, from the fact of their
remaining united in the same communion, without any separa
tion, and with general mutual good will.
V. There are different societies which claim to be the church
of England ; e. g. besides the estabhshed church, there are
the Nonjurors and the Methodists,
Answer. (1,) The Nonjurors came to an end long ago; and
even they did not claim, exclusively, to be the church of Eng
land ; that is, the more learned of them. The Methodists do
not pretend to be a church at all : but call themselves a society
or association, which they would represent to be united to the
church of England, and subsidiary to its ministrations, (2,)
Other churches are subject to this objection still more than
ours. For example : the Roman churches are confronted and
rivalled, first, by the Constitutional church, derived from the
" BaiUy, a Roman theologian, in reply to the objection, that the Roman
church sometimes tolerates heretics in her bosom ; and suffers some who
resist the definitions of the churcfe, to unite with the faithfiil in sacred
offices, says ; " Ejusmodi homines tolerat Ecclesia, id est, nominatim a
communione sua non arcet, concede : eos habet ut filios, nego, Aliquando
Ecclesia, prudentiae causa, ut pejora devitet, atque ut facilius ad meliora
reducantur, tolerat nonnuUos suis definitionibus adversantes," &c. — Tract.
de Eccl. Christi, cap, vi. prop. iv. inter objectiones.

236 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I, CH, X.
bishops and church established- in France in the revolution ;
secondly, by the adherents of the Galhcan bishops, exiled at
that time, and deprived of their sees, in direct contradiction to
the canons, by Pius VII, of Rome, in 1801 ; thirdly, the Jan-
senist church, existing in several parts, and established in
Holland, under their archbishop of Utrecht and other prelates.
Each of these societies regard themselves as constituting the
true Roman Catholic Church, and impute schism or heresy to
some or all of those who are subject to the Roman pontiffs.
VI. The church of England is adrAitted, 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 "'...." 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," (fee,"
Answer. Jewell corrects himself elsewhere, and says, that
we rather departed from the errors of the Roman church, than
from the church itself;" and in another place he says, "We
have not so much departed from ^hem, as been ejected by
curses and excommunications,"^ Therefore it is plain that
Jewell, in the former passages, spoke loosely, and needs cor
rection. Chilhngworth 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 ; no more than
it is for me to renounce my brother's or my friend's vices or

« JueUi Apologia, p. 141. ed. 1606.
¦ Ibid. 56. See Dr. Wordsworth's Christian Institutes, vol. iv. p. 313,
for some very exoeUent observations on this subject. Dr. W. shows that
JeweU has not, in this place, done justice to the church of England ; and
cites Hooker, Laud, and Sir R. Twysden, in proof that we did not sepa
rate from the church. 'Ibid. p. 9a wlbid. p, 145.

OBJECT.] . OBJECTIONS — WANT OF SANCTITY. 237
errors, and to renounce my brother or my friend. 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,"^ I adduce this pas
sage from Chillingworth, because such a testimony derives
additional value in coming from an undervaluer of Church
authority, as he was. Hooker says: "We hope, that tore-
form ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to
sevgr ourselves from the church we were of before. In the
church we were, and we are so still, "^
VII, 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 the
saints were of our communion, is to assume the point in de
bate ; for if the church of England be a part of the catholic
church, all the saints belong to us. (2.) The cathohc church
had no monastic institutions for the first three centuries : and
monasteries have been abolished, even in many countries sub
ject to the Roman jurisdiction, as well as amongst us. Besides
this : such institutions are commonly very degenerate 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 papist Milner himself proves, that the duty of fasting is
established by the church of England :^ but it is certain that
every church is deficient sometimes, in some points of disci-
" ChiUingworth, chapter iii. s. 11. *
y Ecclesiastical Polity, Works, vol. i. p. 437. ed. Keble.
^ Letters to a Prebendary, lett. iu. He proves it from the Honulies,
the Book of Common Prayer, the 'Whole Duty of Man, and the works of
Bishops Patrick, Beveridge, and Gunning.

238 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. X.
pline ; and there is none which has greater deficiencies than
the Roman- itself. Van Espen, one of their most learned wri
ters, deplores the utter neglect of discipline among thpm, and
the multitude of offences and crimes suffered to pass without
rebuke.'' In fine, there is no necessity whatever 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 will turn to our disadvantage
in this respect, and I shall show this in the next chapter.
VIII, The reformers of the church of England were not
holy. Henry VIII, was a tyrant, and a prey to his passions,
Cranmer was in several respects unholy.
Answer. Romanists affirm that the only alteration introduced
by Hemy 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 himself
admits the reverse, " Who doubts," he says, " that God has
made use of very evil princes to accomplish great works ?"''
Therefore the character of Henry, Somerset, &c, affords no
presumption against the church of England : and as to Cran
mer, though we do not observe in his character any extraordi
nary sanctity or firmness, still he is easily defended from all
those accusations of hypocrisy, perjury, and other abominable
crimes, which have been so industriously fastened on him by
our opponents." In short, it is evident that every effort has
been made to blacken his character and that of Henry VIII,,
a A''an Espen, Jus Canonicum, pars i, tit, xx, d. i. s, 11.
" M. Burnet prend beaucoup de peine h entasser des exemples de
princes tres deregles dont Dieu s'est servi pour de grans ouvrages. Qui
en doute ?" — Variations, liv. vii. s. xlix.
c See Part II. Chapter VIII.

OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS — DONATIST PRINCIPLES. 239
and all others who promoted the reformation, in order to throw
discredit on the church of England,
IX. The argument of St. Augustine and 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. The Donatists pretended that they alone constituted
the church of Christ, the rest of the Christian world having
fallen into apostacy : but we do not make the same claim, but
admit that there are churches in all parts of the world, and can
point out which they are. Therefore the argument from the
universality of the church, which was so cogent against the
Donatists, has no application to us : for we account for the
absence of communion between ourselves and other churches
without imputing heresy, schism, or apostacy to them, or to
ourselves, X. The churches of England, &c, are not apostolical, be
cause various vnriters 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
unsound members of our churches, who endeavoured to under
mine the reverence paid to catholic tradition, in order that they
might open a way for the subversion of our catholic faith,
which is so strongly confirmed by the tradition of the church.
Middleton resolved the account of the fall of man into a mere
allegory, thereby undermining the whole fabric of Christianity,
Therefore the sentiments of such a man can have no weight
on any religious subject. It is certain, however, that the church
of England, and the whole body of our eminent and learned
theologians, receive the doctrine of the church universal, and
the apostolical tradition, with great reverence and devotion.*
XI. Where was the rehgion of the church of England before
^ See Part. II. Chapter VI.

240 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, X,
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 1
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.
XII, Papists do not admit that the members of the British
churches can be saved, while the latter allow that .papists^can
be saved. Therefore it is plain that there is greater safety in
the papal communion.
Answer. The argument ought to be directly reversed, thus.
Papists allow that the members of the church can be saved.
They cannot allow that papists are in the way of salvation.
Therefore the communion of the church is safer than that of
the papal schism, I prove the two first propositions thus. (1.)
Papists allow that we can be saved. Dr. Milner says : " Ca
thohc 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 ex
ception in favour of what is termed invincible ignorance ; which
occurs when persons out of the true church are sincerely and
firmly resolved, in spite of all worldly allurements on the one
hand, and of all opposition on the other, to enter into it, if they
can find it out, and when they use their best endeavours for
this purpose, . . .Our great controvertist, Bellarmine, asserts
that such Christians, in virtue of the disposition of their hearts,
belong to the catholic church."' 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-
" End of Controversy, letter xvUi. The same doctrine of the salvabili-
ty of some of those who are externally separated from the Roman com
munion, is taught by Dr. Bishop, a noted Romanist, cited by archbishop
BramhaU, Works, p. 100,

¦OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS.  GREATER SAFETY IN POPERY. 241
tholic church."f (2.) On the other hand, the church of England
excommunicates any one who shall dare to affirm that the Ro
mish community in these countries is a true church ;s and as
we therefore cannot allow Romanists to be in the 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 communion, in
which alone both parties allow that salvation may be ob
tained, XIII. The church of England; in acknowledgiiig 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 man
ner as shall help to close their mouths on the subject. (1.) I
must insist upon it, that the principles of the church of Eng
land 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 'fene 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
opinions, 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

r Milner, letter xxvi. s Canon x.
h Chapter I. section iii,
VOL. I. — 31

242 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. X.
proviso, "quantum per Christi legem licet;" which origi
nal condition is ever to he supposed in our acknowledg
ment of the royal supremacy, Consequentiy 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 God, by apostolical
succession, as is evident from the Ordination Services, and has
been proved by the papist Milner himself (Letters to a Pre
bendary, lett. viii) ; and it is decidedly the doctrine of the great
majority of her theologians. (5.) The acts of Enghsh mon
archs have been objected 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 parliaments of France did not for a long
series of years, exercise jurisdiction over the administration of
the sacraments, compelling the Roman 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 obhgation 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 convo
cations, were not wholly under the control of the king, who
could proscribe their subjects of debate, prevent them from
debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c. Did they not repeatedly beg
in vain from the kings of France, for a long series of years, to
be permitted to hold provincial synods for the suppression of im-
morahty, heresy, and infidelity ? Is not this liberty still withheld
from them, and from every other Roman church in Europe ?
T further ask, whether the emperor Joseph II, did not enslave
the churches of Germany and Italy ; whether he did not sup-

OBJECT,] OBJECTIONS, — REGAL SUPREMACY. 243
press monasteries suppress and unite bishoprics, whether he
did not suspend the bishops from conferring orders, exact from
them oaths of obedience to all his measures present and future,
issue royal decrees for removing images from churches, and
for the regulation 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 declaim
ed against persons of unsound faith ? Whether he did not issue
decrees against the Bull " Unigenitus," thus interfering with
the doctrinal decisions of the whole Roman church ? I ask
whether this conduct was not accurately imitated by the grand
duke of Tuscany, 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 gov
ernment ? Whether the bishops were not forbidden by law to
confer orders without the permission of government'? Whe
ther 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, friars, and monks, and
nuns, of every sort and kind, were, not extinguished, suppress
ed, annihilated by royal commissions, and by the temporal
power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily, Spain,
Portugal, &c. &c. ; and in opposition to the petitions and pro
tests of the pope and the bishops ? I again ask whether the
king of Sicily does not in his " Tribunal of the Monarchy," up
to the present day, try ecclesiastical causes, censure, excom
municate, absolve? Whether this tribunal did not in 1712
give absolution from episcopal excommunications ; and whe
ther it was not restored by Benedict XIII. in 1728 ? Is there a

244 THE BRITISH CHURCHES, [p. I. CH. X,
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 bufls, rescripts, briefs, &c.
are not subjected to a ligoTOUS surveillance on the part of gov
ernment, and allowed or disallowed at its pleasure ? In fine,
has not Gregory XVI, himself been compelled in his Encyclical
Letto of 1832, to utter the most vehement complaints and
lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman Obe
dience ? Does he not confess that the church is " subjected to
eartMy 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 Roman historians, and
to many other writers of authority ;' and they form but a part
of what might be said on this subject, Romanists should
blush to accuse the church of England for the acts of our civil
rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those
M'ords : " Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine
own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to oast 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 what
of that ? Can they have gone further than the whole school of
Gallican writers, of modern canonists, and reforming theologi-
' See Memoires pour servir £t I'Histoire Eccl. &c. xviiie si^cle ; Me
moires sur les Affaires Ecclesiast. de France ; La Mennais, Reflexions
sur I'Eglise en France, Essai sur I'lndifference, Affaires de Rome ; Me
moires Historiques sur Pie VI. et son Pontificat (by Bourgoing) ; Bou
vier, Episc, Cenomanensis, de Vera Ecclesia, Appendix ; and the " Re
port from the Select Committee on the regulations of Roman CathoUc
subjects in foreign countries " (Parliamentary Papers, 1816). This Re-^
port contains a mass of authentic documents of the highest importance,
which it is impossible to find elsewhere. L'Ami de la Religion, a religious
periodical, published at Paris, and which has existed ever since the restora
tion of the Bourbons, is also fuU of valuable detaUs.

OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS,  REGAL SUPREMACY. 245
ans, in the Roman church, whose object is to overthrow the pa
pal power, and render the church subservient in all things to
tlie state ? Do Romanists imagine that we are ignorant of the
principles of Pithou and the Gallican school, of Giannone, Van
Espen, Zallwein, De Honthiem, Ricci, Eybel, Stoch, Rech-
berger,.Oberhauser', Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty
others, who were tinged with the very principles imputed tJfus ?
Do they forget that their clergy in many parts have petitioned
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 themselves most vulnerable, and where
they are actually most keenly suffering. Our churches, though
subject to some inconveniences, and lately aggrieved by the
suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn pro
tests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable
and independent position, than the Roman churches. Those
amongst us who maintain 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.
XIV, 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.
(2,) She only attributes to him temporal and external authority,
but no jurisdiction purely spiritual, which belongs to the minis
ters 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 exag
gerate the authorit}'- of temporal rulers in ecclesiastical affairs ;
but the church of England is not obliged to subscribe to any of

246 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I, CH. X,
their opinions. (4.) Dissenters admit that from the time of Con
stantino the Great, the civil magistrate exercised various pow
ers over the church. And not merely the unreformed churches
of the East and West, but the Lutherans, Zuinghans, Calvin
ists, and Presbyterians, universally acted on, and adopted the
principle of the authority of the civil magistrate in some eccle
siastical affairs. The Puritans of England availed themselves
of the aid of the civil power ; and the community of Indepen
dents alone exclaimed against all authority of the magistrate in
ecclesiastical matters. From these facts I argue thus. The
civil magistrates' authority was acknowledged and admitted to-
extend to some church matters by the universal church, and even
by all sects from the age of Constantine to the seventeenth cen
tury. Therefore this admission cannot be antichristian, or un
church any society which maintains it, for the church of Christ
can never fail, and therefore can never embrace antichristian
doctrine. It ist utterly impossible then, that such a doctrine
can be antichristian ; and we may conclude, that the objection
itself is founded in a schismatical principle, and evidently tends
to heresy. (5.) Djssenters cannot bring this objection against
the church of England, for some of their own most eminent wri
ters, such as Owen, GiU, &c. have admitted the authority of the
civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs. The Nonconformists
of 1662 whom they praise, and from whom they even pretend
to be in part spiritually descended, held occasional communion
with the church of England, thereby acknowledging her a Chris
tian church notwithstanding her recognition of the regal supre
macy. And what is still more cogent is, that the ministers of
every dissenting denomination without exception, actually sub
scribed to the royal supremacy as explained in the Thirty-nine
Articles up to the year 1779.'' Now if dissenters pretend that
'' Bythe Act of Toleration (1 WiU. and Mar. c. 18), confirmed 10 Anne,
c. 2, dissenters were exempted from the penalties of the law, only on condi
tion of their subscribing and repeating the declaration against transubstan
tiation, invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, made by parlia-

OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS,  A PARLIAMENTARY CHURCH, 247
the acknowledgment of the royal supremacy is antichristian,
they must consign to perdition all their own predecessors ; and
further, as a mere act of parliament could not, by their own ad
mission, make a church ; so if they had previously been apos
tate, and no true churches ; they could not have become so by
the act of parliament in 1779, Such are the .perplexities into
which dissenters fall, in opposing themselves to the doctrine and
practice of the catholic church.
XV. 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 produced
which pretended to found it. If it be said that our church was
founded in the time of Henry VIII,, 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 deter
mine 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,'" The act

ment, 30 Car. II. c, 1, And their teachers were only quaUfied by making
and subscribing the said declaration, and declaring their approbation of, and
subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles, except the XXXIVth, XXXVth,
and the XXXVIth, and except also those words of the XXth article " The
church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority ih contro
versies of faith." No objection was aUowed to the XXXVIIth Article,
concerning the civU magistrate, including the doctrine of the royal supre
macy. — See Grey's Eccl. Law, p. 170 — 172, Anabaptist teachers were
obUged to perform the same conditions : except that they were excused
from subscribing the XXVIIth Article, concerning infant baptism, Qua
kers were obUged to subscribe the above declaration, a declaration of fideli
ty to the king, and of his supremacy ; and a profession of their belief in
the doctrine of the Trinity, and the inspiration of the Scripture. — Ibid.
' Burnet's Reformation, vol. i. p. 232. (Oxford ed. 1816.)

248 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. X,
for the royal supremacy declared, that the king had been
acknowledged supreme head of the church of England ;'° there
by proving that the church was already in existence ; and in fine,
the act for the deprivation of Campegius 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 established in the estate and degree
of prelatic dignities, and other promotions spiritual," (fee."
Therefore the church of England had been founded before the
time of Henry VIII. even by the admissions of parhament itself,
and not founded by parliament. In truth, it would have been
impossible to affirm the contrary with any decency, because it
is certain that the church of England was in existence a thousand
years before parliaments were heard of, and many hundreds of
years before there was a king of England. The perpetual ex
istence 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.
(2.) As to the maintenance and support of the church of Eng-
landj her property, institutions, &c. by law, the dissenters them
selves are protected in the same manner. This was lately ex
emplified in the case of Lady Hewley's Charity. The dissent
ers deeming its funds misapplied to the support of a religion
different from that designedi)y the foundress, petition the king's
court of equity to judge this doctrinal fact, and to transfer the
= Burnet's Reformation, vol. i. p. 205, vol, ui, p. 90 — ^92.
n 25 Hen. VIII. act. v. See Burnet's Records, vol, i, part u, p, 189.

OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS,  IMPOSITION OF CREEDS, - 249
property to the right hands. They succeed, and entex without
scruple on the possession of what the law has given to them.
The Roman and Greek churches are equally protected by the
civil authorities in their respective locahties : and it is certain
that in all ages from the time of Constantine, the greater part of
the universal church has been supported, and its regulations en
forced by the additional authority of Christian princes.
XVI, The imposition of creeds and articles of faith is an in
vasion of the kingly prerogative of Christ, and is antichristian.
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, sub
scribed the Articles and Creed of the church ofE7igland. " There
fore they must, on this principle, have been antichristian ; and
what are we to think ef 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 inspira
tion of Scripture, to take the oath of supremacy, and make the
declaration against transubstantiation, &c,p So that they were
StiU involved in the very same practices which they object to us ;
and, for aught I know, may continue so to the present day.
How utterly absurd therefore is such an objection in their
mouths against the church of England ! Besides, it is well
kniown that they themselves exact professions of faith from their
ministers before ordination, i

" By the Axit of Toleration, 1 WiU, and Mary, c, 18, above alluded to.
P Adam's^ Religious World, vol. iu. p. 40.
¦> ", 'We, conceive the conduct of those Jbodies which require a specific con
fession of faith from the individual who is proposed as their instructor, whUe
they do not previously prescribe a certain fixed and systematic standard of
sentiment as the sine qua non — most accordant with Scripture, reason, an d
the interests of the church of Christ." — Library of Eccl, Knowledge (Re-
VOL. I.— 32

250^ THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I. CH. X,
XVII, The church of England cannot be a Christian church,
because she does not maintain apostolical discipline in the cen
sure 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 Sa
crament to notorious offenders. However, it must always re
quire 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, when this disciphne 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, it is certain that dissenters cannot consist
ently deny the church of England to be a true church, because
discipline is neglected by some of her members ; for, (2,) Dis
senters are liable to the very same objection themselves. They
acknowledge that in their own churches the same or greater
defects of discipline exist : "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 immora
lity, such as habitual drunkards and others, have remained in
undisturbed possession of their membership ; while in other
cases there has been manifested a considerable unwillingness to
inquire into accusations, to bring faults to light, and to act with
consistency and decision upon them when proved."' Now,

ligious Creeds, p, 127), In short, we are apostate, because our clergy are
required to confess the faith in the church's words : dissenters are Christians
because their ministers are required to make the same confession in their
own words. The question of Christianity does not in the least depend on
doctrine but on the far more important consideration of the right of extem
porary composition.
' Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii. p, 185, Essays on Ch. Polity.

OBJECT.] OBJECTIONS, — IMPERFECT DISCIPLINE, 251
though it is manifest that several of their churches are thus de
ficient in discipline, yet they are still considered by dissenters
as Christian churches ; nor do we hear of any inquiry into the
conduct of particular churches in this respect, nor of the exclu
sion of any one of them from the communion of the remainder.
Therefore it is plain that dissenters are inconsistent in denying
the church of England to be a true church for similar defects of
disciphne ; and the simple fact, that what is tolerable in them
selves, is regarded as a crime in us, proves that they are guided
in their opposition to the church by mere prejudice and love of
controversy. XVIII. 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 de
rived by a regular succession within herself in all ages from
the aposties, But I have already denied that this church ever
fell into heresy or apostacy, though for a time abuses prevailed
to a certain degree among us. The chief objections to the
Christianity of the Western churches before the reformation,
will be considered in the next chapter,
XIX. The church of England cannot be a true church, for
all the baptisms of her members are invalid, infant baptism be
ing contrary to the institution of Christ,
Answer. A difficulty of this kind, raised by a mere handful
of professing Christians, in opposition to the judgment and
practice of the church and of all sects, in all ages, from the
beginning, is not worthy of attention. We may refuse all con
troversy on the subject, for, as St. Augustine says, " Si quid
horum tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia . . . quin ita faciendum
sit, disputare, insolentissimse insanis est.'" In fact, there can
not be a more certain mark of heresy and apostacy from Christ,
than such a condemnation of what the church in all ages has
° Augustinus, epist. 54, alias 118, tom. ii. p, 126.

S52 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, X..
received and approved. If infant baptism render our churches
apostate, all churches must have been so for many ages, and
therefore the church of Christ must have entirely perished,
contrary to the promises of holy Scripture.

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 in
difference among some of her members, or the persuasion that
all sects and doctrines are equally secure, and that no particu
lar belief or communion is necessary to salvation. Bossuet,
Milner, and others, have asserted that this system is extensive
ly 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,* 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
versy for defence oi the truth, some individuals during the time
of the Reformation, may have let fall expressions, which, in
their legitimate consequences, might actually remove the ne
cessity 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
» Mosheim says, they " permit every one to foUow his particular fancy in
composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general
the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the pre
cepts the Gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions." —
Eccl. Hist, cent, xvi. sect. 3. part ii. oh. 4. s, 16.

APPEND.] INDIFFERENCE IN RELIGION. 253
which the absolute necessity of behoving 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.'^ Chillingworth, in
the vain attempt to defend on common principles, all who were
separated from the Roman church, and 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 indepen
dent inquiries, removed some of the strongest barriers against
the intrusion of heresy ;^ and his principle, that Scripture 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 doc
trine of indifference. Still, as Chillingworth did not draw the
conclusions which led to this result, and as his work contained
acute though unsound arguments, in favour of what people wished
to defend, it obtained a more considerable name than it deserved ;
and his arguments were unsuspectingly adopted by many, who
" The dissenters observe of the " first reformers," that " the views they
entertained of the constitution of the church were deficient in some impor
tant respects. The right of the civU magistrate to control its proceedmgs,
and to visit the delinquencies of its members with temporal inflictions, was
very generally admitted. The terms of fellowship were rendered narrower
and more sectarian, than in the primitive church, TIniformity of opinion
rather than unity of spirit was sought ; and public formularies and sys
tems of faith had an importance attached to them, superior to that with
which the word of God, in many cases appeared to be invested. As the
natural result of such views, measures were adopted for the suppression of
what was esteemed heresy, and the defence and extension of the truth over
which piety must ever mourn." — Library of Eccl. Knowledge (Correct
Views of the Ch. p. 21). After this, it is strange the dissenters can pre
tend that they hold the principles of the Reformation.
1 Whether Chillingworth himself was tainted with the Arian heresy or
not, is a matter of dispute ; but it is certain that he has been the idol of Arians
and Socinians, as weU as of other dissenters. Micaiah Towgood, an Arian,
in his Defence of Dissent, extols him most highly.

254 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I, CH, X,
would have shrunk with horror from the conclusions which
others afterwards deduced from them. The history of indiffer
ence, 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 :
I. That the true church of Christ being invisible, it is not
a matter of necessity to be of any particulai' 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 correctness
of our opinions (whether well or ill founded), is the only con
dition of acceptance with God,
IV, That the apostolical succession of the clergy, ministerial
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 tem
poral 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 King
dom of Christ," and his " Preservative against the principles,
&c, of Nonjurors ;" though he endeavoured to explain away
his expressions, when in danger of punishment."" 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,^
" They were ably refuted by Law, in his three " Letters to Hoadly,"
and by a multitude of orthodox theologians,
» Micaiah Towgood on Dissent, and aU the modern dissenters, take no
other ground. They prove that the Church of England does claim au-

APPEND.] INDIFFERENCE IN RELIGION. 255
Those principles were deemed so objectionable and dangerous,
by the Convocation of the church of England, that a committee
of the lower house was appointed, in order to select propositions
from Hoadly's writings, and procure his censure by regular
authority ; 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. So strongly
were the clergy opposed to indifference, and so apprehensive
were the government of their resolution in respect to Hoadly,
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, a usurpation, and a
revolt ; 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, sepa
rate from all religions and all churches on earth ! That Black
burn was obliged to conceal his name, is another proof of the
general and strong sentiment of the church of England ;'' and
thority in matters of religion. They exaggerate the authority of the tem
poral magistrate, in relation to the church ; and thence, on Hoadley's
principles, argue that it is unla-wful to communicate with us. They also
expressly cite Hoadly and his disciples, in proof of dissenting principles.
Not only the dissenters, but the Romanists were supported by Hoadley's
errors. The acute controversialist, MUner, says : " It is an incontestable
fact, that Bishop Hoadly has surrendered a great part of the leading
points of controversy, which the ' cathoUc ' authors of the two preceding
centuries had loaded the shelves of libraries in endeavouring to prove.
Your most learned and able writers have seen and lamented the event." —
Letters to a Prebendary, lett. vUi. It would be easy to show the correct
ness of this statement. Hoadly's doctrine on the eucharist was directly
Socinian, as Bishop Cleaver remarked in his Sermon on the Sacrament,
before the University of Oxford, Nov. 25, 1787. (2nd ed. p. 7.) How
ever, if we have had a Hoadly, Romanists have had a Soanen, a Ricci,
a de Hontheim, a Geddes, and a Voltaire, as we shaU see.
y The judgment of the dissenters, as to his doctrine, was unequivocaUy
manifested. The dissenting congregation in the Old Jewry, on the death

256 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p, I, CH, X,
an additional proof was afforded in 1772, when, some clergy
having been so far deluded as to petition parliament to be
exempted from subscription to the Articles, their request was
refused.^ 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
bf each iadividual ; that all theological doctrines are human
inventions ; that Revelation contains no doctrine, but is merely
a collectiofl of historical facts, or a code of ethics ; that all
r^igions are equally safe ; and, that no religious errors whatever
ought to be censured or condemned." 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 do hot apparently, as yet,
draw the conclusions, which would at once open the door to
infidelity. If all existing doctrines, ordinances, worships, and
communions, are matters of indifference, and we may adopt
any or none, according to our individual taste or choice, whe
ther well or ill-directed ; if all are equally safe ; then we cannot
be far from the conclusion, that all are equally true and equally
of Dr. Chandler, their minister, who was an Arian, actuaUy invited Black
burn to be his successor.
' Lindsey, Disney, Jebb, Wakefield, Evanson, and other Socinians, in
despair of effecting any alteration in the church of England, avowed their
heresy, and separated from her communion.
" It wUl be curious to contrast these maxims of modern phUosophy,
with the conduct and principles of the Reformation. (See Chapter XII.
sect, iii.) The weU-known proposition of one of these -writers, that all
existing sects should be united in one church and communion, retaining all
their peculiar doctrines and practices, was, however apparently absurd,
based on the principle, that aU doctrines are equaUy safe. This proposal
had at least no novelty to recommend it. M. d'Huisseau, protestant min
ister at Saumur, in the 17th century, published a " Reunion du Christian-
isme," on the system of universal toleration, without excluding any heretics,
not even Socinians. He was deposed from his office in consequence.

APPEND.] INDIFFERENCE IN RELIGION. 257
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 con
tradictions and falsehoods may find refuge, ,,.
But, to meet the objection of our adversaries, as to th© exist
ence of such opinions, I would observe, first, that the Romaraist
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 auxilia
ries, threw contempt on her ordinances, a'ccused her of incon
sistency and actual impiety, in prescribing the belief of Scrip
tural and apostolical doctrines, and engaged in a crusade against
her Creeds and Articles, Therefore, there is no community
of interest or faith between the church of England and indiffer
ence, which are as much Opposed as light and darkness.
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
authority. 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
b MUner's Letters to a Prebendary,- lett. viu.
VOL. I.— 33

258 THE BRITISH CHURCHES. [p. I. CH, X.
prevails among them to a great extent." Fifthly, those wh6
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 doctrine 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 sim
plicity of faith. We may say, with the holy martyr Cyprian :
"Nee vos moveat, fratres dilectissimi, si apud quosdam in
novissimis temporibus, aut lubrica fides nutat, aut Dei timer
irreligiosus vacillat, aut pacifica concordia non perseverat.
Fraenunciata sunt 'heec futura in ssculi fine .... Viderit vel
preevaricatorum numerus vel proditorum, qui nunc in ecclesia
contra ecclesiam surgere, et fidem pariter ac veritatem labe-
factare 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 illoram fidem Dei
evacuavit ? Absit,"*
° See the following Chapter.
^ Cyprianus, Epist, ad Clerum et Plebes, in Hispania, de Basilide et
Mart. p. 167. ed. Pamel.

CHAPTER XI.
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;
whether they continued to be churches of Christ up to the Re
formation ? Secondly : whether they remained churches of
Christ after the Reformation ? Thirdly : whether they consti
tute exclusively 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 foun
dation, viz, those of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany,
Hungary, Austria, Poland. Some are of modern foundation,
viz, those of South America, Mexico, part of the West Indies,
two or three in India, the Phihppine 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 churches of Christ up to the period of the Reformation,
Every one admits that the Western churches were, in the
earliest ages, churches of Christ, They were in communion
with all the apostolical churches of the East, and with the great
apostolical church of Rome, They continued in communion
with the East, till the eleventh century, and afterwards. In
fine, no period can be assigned at which they ceased to be
churches of Christ. Scarcely anything can be objected to
them during these ages, which would not apply equally to the

260 WESTERN CHURCHES CONTINUED [p, I. CH, XI.
Eastern church. Their union with the civil power could not
render them apostate, because the whole church would equally
have been apostate, and that would be contrary to Christ's
promises. For the same reason their connection 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 ordina
tions 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 some doctrinal errors, and some superstitious practices,
prevailed in them in latter ages ; but it has been already ob
served, that the existence of some faults and imperfections by no
means annuls the character of a church ;^ and, as in the present
case, it arose from want of information and discussion, and
besides no article of the fqith^ appears to have been denied
or corrupted by these churches in general, there seems no reason
whatever to dispute their Christianity,
In fact, this has been admitted by all wise and charitable
men. The Lutherans repeatedly acknowledged that the Ro-
° See above. Chapter V. section iu.
b The Confession of Augsburg says of the Lutheran doctrine : "There is
nothing in it, which difiers from the Scriptures or the catholic church, or
the Roman church as far as is known from her -writers." — Confess. August.
Pars i. art. 22. And elsewhere : " Since the churches among us dtfier .
concerning no article of faith (de nullo articulo fidei) from the catholic
church, but only omit some abuses, which are novel, and received contrary
to the canons, by the fault of the times," &c. — Pars u. prolog. This Con
fession of Augsburg was received by the Calvinists about 1557, and at the
Colloquy of Poissy in 1561. See also Archbishop Bramhall, Rephcation
to the bishop of Chaloedon, — Works, p, 151,

SECT, I,] CHRISTIAN UP TO THE REFORMATION. 261
man church even in their time was a Christian church.'^ Lu
ther himself reckons Bernard, Francis, and Bonaventure
among the saints, though they lived in the Western church
during the middle ages.* The Apology of the Confession of
Augsburg reckons Bernard and Francis as saints.^ In the
Confession of Augsburg, the character and authority of the
catholic, and even the Roman church are acknowledged.^
Luther himself, in 1534, seventeen years after he had begun
his career, acknowledged, most 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 their
last agony were shown the image of Christ crucified, and ad
monished of the death and blood of Christ, Then, by a divine
miracle, there Amained in the church, the Psalter, the. Lord's
Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments. Likewise many
pious and excellent hymns, as well Latin as German, such as,
' Veni Sancte Spiritus,' and ' Emitte lucis tuas radium,' &c.
These hymns were left to posterity by truly spiritual and
- This appears by their continual appeals to a general councU, and their
protests that they did not separate from the Roman^church. See the next
chapter, sect. i.
J Lutheri Theses, 1522, Oper. tom. i. p. 377, &c. ; De Abroo-. Miss*
Priv. tom. ii. p. 258, 259 ; De Votis Mon. ibid. 271. 278,
= Apolog. Conf. August. De vot. Mon. 21.
^ Ut supra.

262 WESTERN CHURCHES CONTINUED [p. I. CH. xi,
Cluristian men, though oppressed by tyranny. Wherever were
these truly sacred rehcs, the rehcs of holy men, there was and
is the true, holy chmrch of Christ, and therein remained the
saints of Christ; for all these are ordinances and fruits of
Christ, except the forcible removal of one species from Chris
tians. 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 sacrament 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.''^
How charitable, and at the same time how rational are these
sentiments. But such notions are not limited to Luther, they
are those of the church of England, and of all her most emi
nent divines. The several formularies of doctrine published by
authority in the reign of Henry VIII., acknowledged the
churches of the Roman Obedience to be parts of the catholic
church,^ The canons of 1603 speak of the othern Western
unreformed churches in such terms, as evidently imply a re
cognition of them as still Christian, though iif some respects
fallen from their ancient integrity or perfection. " It was so
far from the purpose of the church of England to forsake and
e Lutherus, de Missa Privata, tom, vu, p. 236, 237.
i> "The Institution of a Christian Man," approved by twenty-one
bishops in 1537, acknowledges the churches of Rome, France, Spain, &c,
to be members of the catholic church, (Formularies of Faith, Oxford ed.
p, 55.) The " Necessary Doctrine," approved by the bishops in 1543,
includes in the catholic church the particular churches of England, Spain,
Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Rome. (Ibid. p. 247.) See also Part II.
Chap. II.

SECT. I.] CHRISTIAN UP TO THE REFORMATION. 263
reject the churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any
other such like churches, in all things which they held and
practised ; that, as the Apology of the church of England con-
fesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which
do neither endamage the church of God, nor offend the minds
of sober men ; and only departed from them in those particu
lar points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their
ancient integrity, and from the apostolical churches which
were their first founders,"' In strict accordance with these
principles, it is maintained by our theologians, that the churches
of the West continually remained a portion of Christ's 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, not
withstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions which in
time crept into it, and the dangerous and damnable false doc
trine, that some taught and defended in the midst of it."''
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."^ Arch
bishop Ussher, in reply to the question, " Where was your
church before Luther ?" 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 principles 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 forefa
thers who lived in the communion of the church of Rome ?"
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,
' Canon xxx. '' Field, Of the Church, book iii. ch. 6,
' HaU, Of the Old Religion, p. 202.

264 WESTERN CHURCHES, [p, I. CH, XI,.
as the apostie doth antichrist from the temple of God wherein
he sitteth."™ 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 en
tirely to his death, cover themselves with it ;'' " place the death
of the Lord Jesus Christ between themselves and God's judg
ment ;" " offer the merit of his inost worthy passion instead of
the merit which they had not themselves."" 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 Refor
mation were really churches of Christ, though oppressed by the
papacy, and by several superstitions," Calvin, however, con
tradicts himself on this matter in his Institutions,''
m Sermon before the King, on Eph. iv. 13.
n Usser. de Christian. Eccl. Successione et Statu, c. 7. sect. 21, 22.
o Of the Church, Appendix, part iii. p. 880.
p He says, (Lib. iv. c. 2. sect. 1, 2.) " Si vera Etclesia columna est ac
firmamentum veritatis, certum est non esse ecclesiam, ubi regnum occupa-
vit mendacium et falsitas. In eum modum quum res habeat sub Papismo,
inteUigere licet quid ecclesia illic supersit," &c. Certainly nothing can be
clearer. But at the end of the chapter he says : " Antichistum in templo
Dei sessurum praedixerunt Daniel et Paulus ; Ulius scelerati et abominandi
regni ducem et antesignanum apud nos facimus Romanum Pontificem.
Quod sedes ejus in templo Dei collocatu#, ita innuitur, tale fore ejus regnum
quod nee Christi nee ecclesiae nomen aboleat. Hinc igitur patet nos mi-
nime negare, quin sub ejus quoque tyrannide Ecclesia maneant." So
manifest a variation proves, that Calvin had not thoroughly investigated
this part of the subject, [This, appears, too, from his very discrepant as
sertions concerning the corrupt Jewish church, in Lib. iv. c. 1. sect. 18,
and in c. 2. sect. 10. His position concerning the Roman churches is; —
" Quum ecclesiae, titulum «on simpliciter volumus concedere Papistis, non
ideo ecclesias apud eos esse inticiamur." (c. 2. sect. 12.) — and that they are
not to be held " pro Ecclesii in quarum plena communione perstandum
sit homini Christiano." (sect. 10.) Moderate enough, if it were only clear !]

SECT. II,] ROMAN CHURCHES, 265

SECTION IL
WHETHER THE CHURCHES OF THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE CONTINUED
TO BE CHURCHES OF CHRIST AFTER THE REFORMATION,
There are different opinions as to the claim of the Roman
to the title of a true church since the Reformation ; and Jewel,
Field, and others who deny it, are not without some probability
on their side. We will suppose that in some one or more
points of faith, the Roman church is actually in error. This
is, at least, very possible ; and to those theologians of whom I
speak it appeared perfectly certain, from an actual examination
of Scripture and catholic tradition. We will then suppose this
to be the case, and if so, then there is a strong apparent proba
bility that the Roman Obedience is in heresy, because it seems
that those errors against faith were defended with the greatest
pertinacity, after abundant discussion and information ; and that
Romanists proceeded so far as to excommunicate, and most
cruelly persecute those who defended the truth. Under these
circumstances it cannot be wondered kt, that, in the opinion of
many persons, the churches of the Roman obedience were
heretical and apostate : nor can we blame those who judged
from such circumstances. There was not even any Intolerable
inconvenience in the supposition, because the true church would
still have subsisted in the East and West, though in some parts
of it, in a shattered and disorganized state.
But to me it appears infinitely safer and more charitable, to
prefer the opinion of the majority of theologians, who consider
the Roman churches, though in several respects faulty and
corrupted in doctrine and' discipline, yet still to continue a por
tion of the cathohc church of Christ. Hooker reckons among
the errors of the Presbyterian or Puritan schismatics in his time,
their " suffering 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 neverthe-
voL. I. — 34

266 ROMAN CHURCHES [p. I CH. XI.
less 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,"<i 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 griev
ous 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."^
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.' 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
external communion with all the members of all other Christian
churches . . , and would most wiUingly, by the use of the
ancient method of litercB 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.'" Bramhall, Andrewes, Chillingworth, Tillotson,
Burnet, &c. might also be cited in acknowledgment that the
Roman is still a portion of the catholic church, though infected
with several errors.
This appears infinitely the more probable opinion, and the
objection, which was stated at the beginning, and which led to
the contrary conclusion, may be answered without difficulty.
That the Romanists were not obstinately pertinacious, and
1 Works, ii. 478. Edit. Keble, ' Works, i. 438,
• Conference, s, 20. nu. 3. ¦ Of Schism, ch. ix, s, 3,

SECT, II.] CHRISTIAN AFTER THE REFORMATION. 267
heretical, generally, in upholding the errors of the Council of
Trent, I argue thus. First, 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 communicate 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,'' From this doctrine it fol
lowed, that the Western was the whole catholic church of
Christ, and that whatever Western councils had decreed, was
obediently to be received by Christians. 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 prac
tices of some of the reformed 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 inno
vations, on very ancient customs which had been abused, and
become inexpedient and prejudicial to piety. And many
churches were afraid of innovations and changes, and deemed
n So deeply-rooted was this prejudice long afterwards, even in the most
enlightened part of the Roman church, that the learned Du Pin, doctor
of the Sorbonne, was compeUed to abstain from publishing to the world
his belief that non-communion with the Roman see was no proof of schism.
This curious fact was discovered by Jurieu, who in his work, De I'Unite
de I'Eglise, p. 211, has printed the suppressed passages of Du Pin's trea
tise De Antiqua Eccl. Disciplina, p. 256, where he spoke thus : " When
churches or bishops break mutual peace, there may be a doubt which is in
schism, and which ought to be held separated from the communion of the
whole church. Some persons believe they can easily reply to this difliculty
by saying, that those should be reputed schismatic and excommunicated,
who were separated from the communion of the Roman church and bishop.
As for me, whUe I doubt not that the authority of the bishop of Rome, who
is the primate of the church, and therefore the centre of unity, has always
been very great ; I am nevertheless obliged to abandon the opinion of those
who say, that aU those who are separated from the Roman see, have
always been reputed schismatics, and ought now to be considered such."

268

ROMAN CHURCHES [p, I. CH, Xr.

it most prudent to remain as they were. Thirdly, the reformed
were not exempt from faults and errors themselves, in doctrine
as well as discipline ; and their numerous divisions naturally
excited a prejudice against their system. The language of
some leaders of the Reformation was too violent and harsh in
relation to the Roman church, and kept alive feelings of irrita
tion and estrangement : while the principles of unbounded
hberty and hcense 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 generally were in a difficult and unfa
vourable condition, from being apparentiy 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. Fifth, 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 prevalent amongst Romanists at
that time, a good title to be considered equal in authority to
the ancient cecumenical councils ; and therefore, though they
were mistaken in point of fact," they cannot fairly be accused
of heresy in admitting its decrees, for they judged, on reasons
of no inconsiderable strength, that it was irrefragable and in
falhble,' It appears to me, that these considerations should exculpate
the members of the Roman church generally, from such per
tinacious opposition to the evident truth, as would properly
constitute heresy. It is true that their church is in error on
several points, 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 exclude from the church
of Christ so vast a multitude of believers, so many nations, and
such a crowd of ancient churches,
' See Part IV, where the authority of the Synod of Trent is investigated.

SECT. II.] ALWAYS CONTINUED CHRISTIAN. 269
That these churches should even now be regarded as churches
of Christ, 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 undeniable that
these churches preserve unity of communion among themselves,
both in principle and practice. They urge its necessity asa
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 communion, it
can be easily 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 endea-
"vour in practice to sustain to the best of their power the catho
lic faith. Nor is there evidence that any of their doctrines have
been ever formally and clearly condemned by the catholic
church. No one pretends that they have been so ; and the truth
is, that many of their theologians so explain and teach the doc
trines in dispute, that the difference, as represented by them, is,
in most points, not considerable,"^ It is true that they esteem-
the synod of Trent (ecumenical, and are thus tied in fact to cer
tain errors, notwithstanding all their explanations ; but I have
already observed that they are excusable in this. Fourthly,
they inculcate the duty of hohness, and endeavour, by a certain
sort of discipline, and by religious exercises, to promote it, and
it is certain that many men of genuine piety and excellence
have adorned their communion. Fifthly, they are extended
w There is scarcely a point in debate between us, in which our doctrine
might not be proved simply from Romish theologians. I have observed a
thousand proofs of this.

270 ROMAN CHURCHES [p, I. CH, XI,
over many countries, and with the addition of the Eastern' and
British churches, have all the catholicity which the true church
can require. Sixthly, they possess a ministry descended by
regular succession from the apostles, I conclude from this,
that they are really to be considered churches of Christ.
SECTION III.
WHETHER THESE CHURCHES CONSTITUTE EXCLUSIVELY THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CHRIST.
The exclusive claim which Romanists make for their branch
of the church, asserting that it constitutes the whole catholic
church, has been adduced as affording in itself a presumption
of its correctness. But it is forgotten that the Donatists and
the Luciferians of old, made the very same claim for their
churches, and yet no one will pretend that it afforded any pre
sumption in their favour. The proofs by which Romish theo
logians attempt to sustain their position, are classed under the
four heads of unity, 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 merely baseless assertions. UNITY.
It. is asserted that the Roman church alone has not separat
ed 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

SECT. Ill,] NOT SUPERIOR TO OTHER CHURCHES, 271
opinion, not decided by the church. In fine, she alone possesses
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, ^
Answer. I deny that the Roman church alone has not sepa
rated from any more ancient church ; or that she alone 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.
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 preservation of his 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 ; and if she
does not connive at schism and heresy, it is at least certain that
there are abundance of both in her communion. The existence
of Jansenism in all parts of the Roman communion up to the
present day, although it was condemned as a heresy two hun
dred years ago ;y the existence of infidelity and indiffer
ence which threaten to swallow up the faith of its members ;'^
are sufficient proofs that unity of faith is, in a lamentably small
degree, a characteristic of the Roman church, and that her
own children do not acknowledge her infallibility nor her au
thority. The introduction of schismatics to her communion in
the persons of the constitutional bishops, proves that there is
no perfect unity of disciphne ;^ and the very papal authori
ty, which is represented as so efficacious a principle of unity,
^ See Bouvier, Delahogue, Milner, Trevern, Tournely, BaiUy, &c,
y See Appendix I. where the existence and ravages of Jansenism in the
Roman churches to the present day, are proved from the confessions of
Romanists. See Appendix II. « See Appendix III.

272 THE ROMAN CHURCHES. [P. I, CH, XI,
is systematically 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 admonishes 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 church
es with her, a union from which alone they derive support and
existence, inculcate an exceeding zeal and veneration for her,"
&c. This last pretended principle of unity is well known to
have divided the Eastern from the Western churches ; and it
continues to form the grand impediment to their reunion, as it
do^s to the reunion of the British and Roman churches. There
fore it is a principle of division rather than of union,
SANCTITY,
Peculiar and ejcclusive sanctity is claimed for the Roman
church on the following 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 sanctification in her sa
craments, &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 proceeded all the missionaries and apos
tles 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 institute is found in her
only." Answer. I deny the truth of every one of these propositions,
(I.) The Eastern and British churches never separated from
^ Appendix I, and IV. . ,. .
= See the works of Tournely, BaiUy, Delahogue, Bouvier, CoUet, Mil
ner, &c. &c.

SECT, ill.] NOT SUPERIOR TO OTHER CHURCHES. 273
any older churches. (2.) They equally maintain the necessity
of holiness, and administer all the means of grace of divine
institution. As to the sanctity of doctrine in the Roman church,
it may be observed, without denying that good works are re-,
quired in theory by their church, that it is much to be fearedj
holiness is but httle required or followed in practice among!
them. It is certain that there are many doctrines and practices
common in their communion, which tend to injure 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 probabihty,
opus operatum, equivocation, mental reservation, vain repeti
tions, idolatrous worship of saints and images,'^ &c. We
know that some of their members reject most of what is bad
in these things, but they are held and practised without censure
by others, and the Roman churches have never yet taken any
effectual steps to correct the abuses prevalent among them.
And when we come to view the lives of Romanists, we see but
too little sanctity. Even at the beginning of last century things
had proceeded to such a length, that the learned Van Espen,
professor of canon law in the university of Louvain, declared,
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 re
garded as nothing ; and the people drink in iniquity like
water."" This deplorable state of immorality has since that
¦' Bp. Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, chapters ii. and iii. Oxford
edit, by CardweH. The grossly immoral tendency of Dens' Theology,
which has been so weU exposed of late, is rivaUed or surpassed by that of
the ¦' Theologia moralis" of Ligorio, bishop of S. Agatha, who was not
long ago canonized as a saint by one of the Roman pontifis. , The detaUs
of this work are truly revolting. The writers on moral theology in the
Roman churches seem to forget the apostolic words : " Qu» enim in oc-
eulto fiunt.ab ipsis, turpe est et dicere." — Eph. v. ,
I ' Van Espen, Jus Canonicum, pars i. tit. xx. d. i. s. 11.
VOL. I. — 35

274 ROMAN CHURCHES [p. I. CH. XI,
time been rendered still worse. Without disputing that there
are many good men among them, it may be asserted as a mat
ter of pubhc 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 ; 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 offi
ces of the church ; that they are constant at confession, com
municate at Easter, and then revert to their usual habits, with
out any sense of compunction for the profanations of which they
have been guilty. The banditti of the Abruzzi are remarkable
for attention to their devotions. The harlots and assassins of
Spain confess, communicate, and return to their sins. In Ire
land it has been observed, that murderers have frequently been
found assiduous in all the services of their religion. Every
where all the external signs of an ardent devotion, even to tears,
are found united with a systematic moral depravity. I ask,
can that be a sound or wholesome system which teaches men
to look with indifference on sin ; and must there not be some
thing 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 her beneath both the Oriental
and the British churches, (3,) It is childish to say that all the
saints, martyrs, doctors, &c, 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.) Is equally absurd, as 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 ad
mission, that a vast quantity of so-called miracles among them

SECT. III.] NOT SUPERIOR TO OTHER CHURCHES. 275
have been either fictitious or not properly miraculous ,' Mira
cles have been pretended to by the Jansenists from the middle
of the seventeenth century,^ and about the year 1731 they
claimed two hundred well-attested miracles in their favour, per
formed all about the same time at the tomb of the Abbe Paris,''
Soanen, Barchman, Quesnel, Rousse, Levier, Desangins, Tour-
nus, and many other Jansenists, performed miracles (as they
called them), which their party boast of to the present day,'
' No authority on this subject can be superior to that of the late Dr.
MUner. He said : " I admit that a vast number of incredible and false
miracles, as weU as other fables, have been forged by some, and believed
by other catholics in every age of the church, including that of the apos
tles. I agree with you in rejecting the 'Legenda aurea' of Jacobus de
Voragine, the ' Speculum ' of Vincentius BeUuacensis, the - ' Saints'
Lives ' of the Patrician Metaphrastes, and scores of simflar Legends,
stufted, as they are, with miracles of every description." — End of Contro
versy, letter xxiv. The fact is, that Romish miracles are almost prover
bially impostures ; and their very mention provokes a smUe of incredulity.
The falsehood of many of these tales was also acknowledged by Vives,
Melchior Canus, Lindanus, &c.
£ Mosheim, Eccl, Hist. vol. v. p. 211. They claimed miracles in their
favour in 1656, 1661, and 1664.
b Memoires Eccles. xviii. siecle, tom. ii. p. 83.
' 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. xvui, siecle ii. p. 399. The
Pere Lambert, a Dominican, in, 1806, published " P Exposition des predic
tions,^' &c. in which he speaks of these Jansenistic miracles as " a heav
enly sign which God had raised in the church for 66 years," &c.-T-Ib. 402.
See also Mosheun, 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 recommended 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 repUed that " it was unnecessa
ry." It is easy to see Jansenistic principles in this. His parish-clergyman
declared that Labre would never perform his Easter duties, i. e. receive the
communion, &c. in his parish. His miracles were laughed at in Spain, and

276 ROMAN CHURCHES [p. I, CH. XI,
It is certain, also, that the Oriental church pretends to show
its miracles, and even the Nestorians and Eutychians. But
we are neither bound to investigate nor to deny all these claims ;
for first, the miracles of Xavier, and any others which they put
forward as most probable, were wrought in confirmation of
Christianity against paganism, not in proof of the truth of
Romish doctrine and the error of ours ; secondly, M. Bouvier,
bishop of Mans, after cardinal de la Luzerne, says : " Whether
God will perpetually exhibit such divine signs of sanctity in his
church, we dare not define ; and therefore we do not affirm
that sanctity so understood, is essentially a positive note of the
true church.'"' Thirdly, at all events, there is no promise of
miracles to particular churches, and therefore if the British
churches have not pretended to any for some time past, it
affords no presumption against them. (6.) The monastic in
stitute 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 degenerating in the
West, and scarcely any age has not witnessed reformed congre
gations who have returned to the ancient discipline 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 noc
turnal office, and the observance of maigre." Their clothing,
they said, made them "ridiculous!" .... " For many years
a great laxity had been observed in some monasteries. Dissi
pation, idleness, and love of luxury and of the world, had taken
not believed generally in France (Mem. de Pie VI. et son Pontificat, ii. ch,
5). These Jansenist miracles, however, converted an American dissenter
named Thayer ; and are boasted of by Romanists among us to this day.
k Tractatus de vera Ecclesia, p, 103.
I Smith's account of the Greek church, p. 93, &c.

SECT. III.] NOT SUPERIOR TO OTHER CHURCHES, 277
the place of retirement, labour, and the spirit of poverty, &c.
. . , "Finally, this Tpartlj prevailed in the Benedictine congre
gation, , , , Disorders broke out in many houses. There,
they abolished without formality the use of maigre ; here they
retrenched the nocturnal office. Elsewhere repasts, fetes, con
certs, profaned a place destined to penitence and prayers,""" 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 immorality of the monastic
orders is notorious and scandalous. If, therefore, the religious
of the British churches do not unite in peculiar fraternities, re
ligion amongst us is at least free from many of the scandals
which the Roman church has experienced.
CATHOLICITY,
The Romish theologians argue, from the superior diffusive
ness of their communion, the multitude of nations in all parts
of the world who are subject to the Roman pontiff, and their
peculiar possession of the name of catholic, that they are alone
in possession of that attribute of the true church — catholicity
or universality,
I do not deny that their churches are widely spread and nu
merous : without doubt they have churches not only in a great
part of Europe, but in North and South America,. Africa, India,
the' Phillippines, some in Syria, Chaldaea, &c. This is all
very true. But we must lay down a principle which is of the
utmost importance in determining the claim of any church to
catholicity. Catholicity then is 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
tain which filled the whole earth."" Now it must be remem-
" Memoires Eccl. xviii. siecle ii. p. 477, 478.
" Daniel ii. 35. The whole body of Roman theologians contend at length
agamst cardinal BeUarmine, and the protestants, that the universality of the
church was not to be successive, but simultaneous and permanent. — See

278 ROMAN. CHURCHES [p. I, CH, XI,
bered, that in the fifteenth century all these Roman churches
beyond the continent of Europe were as yet unfounded. The
Roman obedience then was limited to Europe, It numbered
no permanent adherents in Africa, Asia, or America, The
Latin churches of the East, transplanted by the crusaders, had
long ago expired. The Oriental church remained independent,
notwithstanding the submission of the Greek emperor, and a
few of his servile bishops, at the Synod of Florence, In short,
the Roman obedience was then, as it had been for a long time,
and ordinarily was, from the time of the dispute between Ceru
larius and Cardinal Humbert (a,d. 1054), limited almost entirely
to a part of Europe, 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 mo
mentary, scarcely sincere, and by no means general. It is
plain, therefore, that the Latin churches were not then univer
sal ; and if they were not then universal, it is in vain to urge
their subsequent growth and present magnitude ; because uni
versality is a permanent attribute of the universal church of
Christ, They were not always universal from the eleventh to
the fifteenth century, and therefore could then only have consti
tuted a part of the true church : and as the remainder (viz, the
Oriental church) still has always continued, and the British was
afterwards separated from the Roman church by the unworthy
jealousy of the pontiffs, it is evident that the churches of the
Roman obedience are only a part of the catholic church now,
as they have always been.
This being so, we of course, on principle, do not deny the
title of catholics to the members of those Roman churches which
exist on the continent of Europe, and in other places where they
have not separated from any older Christian society ;° and this
Delahogue, Tract, de Ecclesia Christi, pars, ii. quaest. iii. propositio i.
Bouvier, pars i. c. 2. sect. 3. prop. 3. See also Tournely, Bailly, &c.
° [Or intruded themselves upon the previously existing jurisdiction of
.such society.]

SECT. Ill,] NOT THB CATHOLIC CHURCH, 279 ,
is the case ivith the infinite majority of their communion. 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 imitate the conduct of Romanists, in pretending
that their branches of the church are alone catholic ; and there
fore do not apply the term catholic to themselves, as distinguished
from the Roman churches generally ; while the latter assume
this title, to discriminate themselves from the other branches of
the church ; it follows naturally, that the ignorant, who observe
the title of catholic usurped exclusively by the one party, and
not denied absolutely by the other, should often from civility give
that title under circumstances where a right discrimination, and
competent knowledge, would dictate a contrary course. For in
stance, no one of sufficient information could recognize the appel
lation of " catholics " as assumed by any schismatics of GreatBri-
tain, Ireland, or America. He knows of no catholics in these coun
tries, except those who are members of our catholic and apostoli
cal churches. As to those separatists who obey the Roman pon
tiff, he recognizes them only under their proper appellations of
Papists or Romanists, and would not profane the holy name of
catholic, by conferring it on those who are separated from the
church of Christ. To do so knowingly, would indeed be highly
sinful, and would come under the condemnation of them "that
call evil good, and good evil."'' In fine, it may be observed,
that the title of catholic is by no means peculiar to the Roman
churches ; it is equally enjoyed by the British and the Oriental,
and it is never conceded by them to any schism, which the Ro
man pontiff has excited amongst the subjects of their jurisdictions.'
APOSTOLICITY.
The Roman church alone is apostohcal ; for history proves
that she has existed from the time of the aposties. The unin
terrupted series of her bishops can be shown, extending from

f Isaiah v. 20.

280 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. XI.
St. Peter to the present pontiff; and, unlike other churches, she
alone has not separated from any more ancient Christian soci
ety ; 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, de
rived originally peaceably from this, or other apostolical churches,
may also justly be considered as apostolical. But the very same
may be said of the Eastern and British churches, which consti
tute the original Christian societies in their respective localities;
consequently, the Roman churches are not alone apostolical.
It is further contended that the Roman churches only have an
apostolical ministry ; because their ordinations are valid, and
they only have true mission, having never fallen into schism or
heresy. 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 51 part of the catho
lic church of Christ ; that their authority, institution, sanctity,
&c. are by no means superior to 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, %y\. in his encyclical letter to all the bishops in 1832,
is truly deplorable, though it embraces but a part of the evils
which affliqt that church.
"We speak, venerable brethren, that which ye behold with
your own eyes ; whic)i, therefore, we deplore with united tears.
An unrestrained wickedness, a shameless science, a dissolute
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 ofall kinds are daringly disseminated. The
laws of sacred things, the institutions, the very holiest disciphne,
are not safe from the audacity of those who speak unrighteous
ly. This, our see of the most blessed Peter, in which Christ
laid the foundation of his church, is most grievously assailed ;

SECT. III.] DREADFUL CONDITION OF ROMAN CHURCHES, 281
. and the bonds of unity are daily more weakened and broken.'^
The divine authority of the church is impugned, and, her rights
being torn away, she is subjected to earthly considerafions ; 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 impious 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 corru,ption of morals becomes
general," He afterwards alludes thus to the opinions of the re
forming party in the Romish 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 discipline 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 principles of the rights of nature ; or to pronounce it de
fective and imperfect, and subject to the civil magistrate.^ As

1 This probably alludes to the dissemination of anti-papal prinoiples in
Italy, Austria, and Germany, where the maxims introduced by De Hontheim,
Van Espen, Eybel, and all the school of modern canonists, under the influ
ence of Joseph IL, Leopold grand duke_ of Tuscany, Tannucci, &c. stUl
prevail, and are encoUraged by the govern-ments of those ojJUntries. These
principles reduce the papal power to a mere name, and transfer it partly to
the bishops, but chiefly to the civU magistrate. See Appendix I.
r The servitude to which the German, Austrian, and Italian churches
were reduced, m the time of Joseph II. has continued ever since. The
Gallican church is equaUy enslaved by the " Organic Articles," which Na
poleon annexed, by his-own authority, to the Concordate of I80I,by which
Christianity was restored in France. — See Appendix III.
" This is a manifest allusion to the principles promulgated by aU the new
canonists and reforming theologians, in the Roman church, from the mid
dle of last century.
VOL. I.— 36

282 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. XI.
it is certain • . • 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 sup
posed 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, Cyp
rian detested may occur ; namely, that what is divine, may be
come a human church."" . ..." And here we vrish 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, forgetful of their character and office, carried away by the
blandishments of pleasure, have proceeded to such a pitch of
license, that in some places they have dared to address public
and reiterated petitions to princes, to destroy this holy disci
pline,"" Such is the state of the Roman church ; full of infi
dehty, immorality, division, uneasiness, innovations, enslaved
by the civil powers, and rent internally by Jansenism, heresy,
schism, and indifference. If she alone constituted the catholic
church, Christianity would indeed be at the lowest ebb, and the
gates of hell would almost have prevailed against it.

' The aUusion here is to the Jansenistic principles and practices, which
wUl be detaUed in Appendix 1,
" In Bavaria, and other parts of Germany, See an article on the Church
in SUesia, Foreign Quarterly Review for 1827, p, 515, &c. The original
of these passages, from the bull of Gregory XVI., -wiU be found in Appen
dix IV.

SECT, IV,] ROMAN SOCIETIES. 283

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 originahy gathered
from the heathen world, I .am now to speak of modern com
munities, under the titie of churches established or protected
by the care of the Roman. 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
selves resident, in quest of merchandize or other temporal
objects, 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 Latin priests, with consent of the ecclesias
tical authorities of the East." Accordingly it is known; that
 L_J 
" [A more doubtful and curious question arises, relative to the establish
ment of distinct episcopal jurisdictions in such circumstances. To the
writer there seems to be no good ground for denying the fitness of such
establishment where the distinction of jurisdiction by language or lineage,
is perfectly well defined. The position of the bishop of the Scotch suc
cession (Dr. Luscombe), resident in Paris, is defensible on this ground,
rather than on that taken by Mr. Palmer in the last clause of his fifth para
graph. The English on the continent form a perfectly distinct community,
needing provision for separate worship on account of diversity of language,
&c. and in no way endangering the unity of the church where they reside,
by any confusion or collision of jurisdiction. The same may be said of
the French population m the Canadas. On similar grounds, no doubt, the
episcopal jurisdiction of John a Lasco (himself in episcopal orders) over

284 ROMAN SOCIETIES [p. I. CH. 51.
Latin convents existed in Constantinople, Jerusalem, and other
parts of the East, before the division Of the Eastern and West
ern 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 ordination
and confirmation. This would be justified by the necessity of
the case ; and being in its nature only a temporary arrangement,
would not interfere with the essential principles of unity.'"
Hence we cannot altogether condemn the Latins for appointing
some Latin priests and bishops in Palestine and Syria, in the
time of the crusades, 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
the foreign -refugees in England, was committed to him by the English
reformers^ " [That depends upon the terms of the exclusion. If it were not, (as
in fact, in the specified case, it was not,) absolute and unconditional, the
terms required must be proven to be contrary to Christian duty, before the
separated party can be justified in remaining so, and the question is at once
involved in all the intricacies of the adiaphoristic controversy. Were any
of the points in discussion between the Eastern and Western churches
sufficient to warrant the Latins resident in the East, in refusing compliance
with the demands of the Greeks 1 Their refusal, and not the demand,
must be regarded as the immediate occasion of their separated state ; and
the writer does not see how, on the sound principles of Mr. Palmer's trea
tise, they can be justified from the charge of schism, as setting up altar
against altar in the circumstances stated in the text.]
» [Does the author regard the transactions at Goa as a bona fide renun
ciation on the part of the persecuted Syrians ? and consider the native
Christians of Malabar as brought by it under Roman jurisdiction ? The

SECT. IV.] OF MODERN FOUNDATION. 285
to the Roman see, are not cut off from catholic unity, though
they do not communicate with the otlier Oriental churches.
Fourthly, it was entirely unlawful for the Latins to eject the
Greek bishops or priests, or to force them lay 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
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.
Fifthly, when Roman churches were founded in South
America, Canada, the Philippines, &c. by the Europeans who
first colonized or subdued those countries, such churches are
altogether free from schism, and are invested with the original
rights of catholic churches, so that no one has a right to estab
lish rival communities among them, with a view to oppose their
authority, or draw proselytes from them. If, in Canada, the
English community united to our catholic churches have bish
ops and priests, it is only as a matter of necessity, because the
church there refuses them communion, and they are pfoperly
for the English only. The arrangement must be 'considered
only provisional in a certain measure, and not designed to inter
fere with the prior claims of the Roman churches there, within
their proper districts. The same may- be observed of our
clergy on the continent of Europe.
Sixthly, when certain individuals, in obedience to the exhor
tation of papal emissaries, or to the directions of Roman pon
tiffs, went out and separated themselves from the communion
of the catholic church of their country, when they established
rival altars, a rival priesthood, and endeavoured to withdraw
¦writer would be inclined to look upon their last state, in such case, as worse
than the first.]

286 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. XI.
the faithful from obedience to their legitimate pastors ; then it
is plain that such men were guilty of that aggravated schism,
which the Second CEcumenical Council calls heresy ; and that
they were altogether cut off from the unity of the church.
Such was the conduct of the Romish or popish party in Eng
land and Ireland, who fell from the catholic church in the reign
of Queen Ehzabeth, 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.''
Seventhly, Schismatics do not cease to be so by a mere
change of country. 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 remaining separated from that branch of the catholic
apostolic church which was established there, they only perpetu
ated their schism. In fine, when America received bishops
from our churches, the schismatics constituted a rival episco
pacy,^ and so remain to this day separated from the true church.

y See Part II, Chapters II, and X,
'¦ Dr, Seabury, Bishop of Connecticut, was consecrated by the Most
Reverelid Primus, Dr. KUgour, and other bishops of Scotland, a.d. 1784.
Dr. Provost, bishop of New-York, and Dr. White of Pennsylvania, were
consecrated by Dr. Moore, the Most Reverend Primate of all England,
and other English bishops, in 1787 ; as was Dr. Madison, bishop of Vir
ginia, in 1790. The dioceses of Maryland. South Carolina, Massachusetts,
&c., which had all been previously constituted, received bishops about the
same time. The Roman pontiff erected, in 1789, the rival bishopric of
Baltimore ; and nominated to it Dr. John CarroU, who was consecrated in
England 1790, and headed the schism in America. In 1808, the pontiff
raised the see of Baltimore to be archi-episcopal, and pretended to erect sees
of New- York, PhUadelphia, Boston and Bardstown, in opposition to the pre
viously existing churches of those localities. There are very serious diffi
culties affecting the regularity, and even the validity of the ordination of
the above-mentioned CarroU, and all the Romish clergy of the United
States derived from him ; in consequence of his ordination having been
performed by only one titular bishop. Dr. Walmsley, who appears to have

OlQJECT.] ROMAN CHURCHES. 287

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 will perceive the
state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true
church that nothing can be more."" Therefore the Homilies
deny the Roman to be a part of the church of Christ.
Answer. (1.) This is merely used in the way oi 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."
The " godly and wholesome doctrine " inculcated by the
Homily, in denying this position, we are bound to receive ;
but the particular argument on which this denial rests, is not a
thing to which we are in any degree bound. (2.) These ex
pressions relate only to the Roman pontiffs and their immedi
ate " adherents," as the context shows, and by no means to the
whole Western church. (3.) Being used in a discourse de
signed for the people, and intended to guard them against the
papal emissaries, they must be considered in some degree popu
lar and rhetorical, and are not to be taken literally a.nd 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 an
cient years,") &c.''
laboured under a similar irregularity, or deficiency himself. — See Memoires
Eccl. xvui. siecle, tom. in. p, 142. 145. 485. See also Part VI. chapter
Romish Ordinations.
> Sermon for Whitsunday, pt. ii.
^ Sermon against PerU of Idolatry, part iu..

288 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p, I, CH, XI.
Answer. In this place it is not said, what church is the
' " idolatrous church," and we may most properly understand
these expressions to apply to that^ar^y in the Roman church,
vvhich is involved in idolatrous honouring of images, not to the
whole of fhat 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,
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 blindee^ by the bewitching of
images, as blind guides of the blind, fell both into the pit of
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,""
Ans'u)er. The meaning is, that some persons in every class
were guilty of idolatry, which is very certain ; but not that the
whole church, literally speaking, fell into damnable idolatry,
for if.so, it must have entirely failed, which would be contrary
to the belief of the church of England. In fact, the Homilies
themselves. (Sermon on Whitsunday, part ii.) affirm that the
Holy Ghost was always to abide with the church. " Neither
must we think that this Comforter was either promised, or else
given only to the apostles, but also to the universal church of
Christ, dispersed through the whole world. For unless the
Holy Ghost had been always present, governing and preserv
ing the church from the beginning, it could never have sustain-

Sermon against PerU of Idolatry, part iii.

OBJECT.] ANTICHRIST. 289
ed so many and great brunts of affliction and persecution, with
so little damage as it hath. And the words of Christ are most
plain in this behalf, saying, that ' the Spirit of truth shall abide
with them for ever, that he would be with them always, (he
meaneth by grace, virtue, and power,) even to the world's
end.' " This is the real "godly and wholesome doctrine" of
the Homilies, formally and clearly laid down : and hence it fol
lows, that the whole church (speaking strictiy) can never have
fallen into damnable idolatry, because the Spirit of truth would
no longer have been with her. We must therefore interpret
the passage objected, and those of the preceding objections, in
a sense consistent with the perpetuity and catholicity of the
church. IV. The errors of the Roman churches contrary to the doc
trine and morality of the Gospel, are destructive of their charac
ter as churches of Christ.
Answer. Whatever maybe the -extent of these errors, I an
swer in the words of Chillingworth, a most determined opponent
of Romanism : " Those revelations, the church of Rome not
seeing, by reason of the veil before their eyes, their church's
supposed infallibility ; I hope the denial of them shall vnot be
laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and
stubble on the foundation, not overthrowing the foundation itr
self'-i V. The Roman pontiff is Antichrist, the beast, and the man
of sin ; therefore all who have tlie sign of the beast," that is, all
of the Roman communion, are cut off from the trufi 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 at
tempted to be drawn from them, for all who apply these prophe-

'' ChUlingworth, chapter iU. s. 21.
e [See the Supplement, at the end of the second volume, section IL]
VOL. I, — 37

290 R0M.4.N CHURCHES. [p, t. CH, XI.
cies to the Roman see affirm, that the reign of Antichrist had
begun, at latest, in the eighth century ; but the universal church
of Christ held communion with the see of Rome, till the ele
venth century at least ; therefore, according to this objection
the whole church of Christ must have failed and become apos
tate for several centuries, which is a decidedly heretical posi
tion, contrary to the Christian faith. Therefore we may assume
it as certain, that communion with the Roman see is no sign of
apostacy from Christ. It must be further added, that the
Western churches were subjugated to the Roman pontiffs by
the aid of forged decretals, and other impostures, by the force of
the civil powers, and by the usurpations and threats of the pon
tiffs, not by their own mere choice and free will,^ and the sub
mission they now pay to Rome, does not arise from any desire
on their part to uphold an unlawful and usurped authority, but
from a belief founded on deceitful but probable reasons, that it
is of Divine institution. Therefore they ought rather to be
pitied and excused for this, than harshly condemned,
VI, The adoration of the host, practised in all the Western
churches before the Reformation, was grossly idolatrous, and
as every one was compelled to unite in this act, the whole
Western church must have been idolatrous and apostate, and
have ceased to be a part of Christ's church.
Answer. I do not deny that idolatry was practised by some
in the adoration of the host, but unless it can be proved that aU
the members of the Western churches were, as such, obliged
to commit those acts of idolatry, there would be no proof that
those churches were apostate ; for the idolatry may have been
merely the abuse of individuals, not the institution of the
church. Such, in fact, appears to have been the case. In the
office of the mass or Roman liturgy, the host, or consecrated
elements, are elevated by the priest immediately after the words
of institution, and at the same instant all the congregation pros
trate themselves, with the intention of worshipping the body
f See Part VIL

OBJECT,] ADORATION OF THE HOST. 291
and blood of Christ with divine honour. Such at least is now
commonly understood to be the object of the people in this par
ticular action. But there is reason to suppose, that the adora
tion of the host was not contemplated by the Western churches,
in appointing the elevation and its accompanying rites, and that
no one was obliged to worship the host at the elevation.
The elevation is, comparatively speaking, not an ancient rite.
The Roman ritualists, Bona,^ Merati,'' Benedict XIV,,' Le
Brun,'' &c,, acknowledge that the time of its origin is uncer
tain, and that there is no trace of its existence before the ele
venth 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 Sulh, bishop of Paris, about
1200, appoint this elevation,' and it was probably then first
introduced into the diocese of Paris, Innocent III,, who wrote
on the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning 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
bow. " Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut
cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris,- quilibet
reverenter inclinet,'"" This was inserted in the decretals (c.
sane de celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX, his successor,
and thus became the law of the West, It is spoken of by

E Bona, Rer, Liturgic, lib. ii. c. 13.
k Gavanti Thesaurus a Merati,
' Lambertinus, de Missa, p. 115, &c.
' Le Brun, Ceremonies de la Messe, tom. i, p. 469, &c.
' Harduini ConcUia, tom, vi. p. 1946.
•n See Raynaldus, ad ,ann, 1219.

292 ROMAN CHURCHES, [p, I. CH, XI,
Bonaventure," Durand,° and the Council of Lambeth* in the
latter part of the same century, and cardinal Guide is said to
have introduced this rite, or some part of it, at Cologne about
1265,1 These are the first authentic notices of the elevation,
for the passages adduced by Le Brun from Robertus Paululus,
or Hugo St, Victor, and from Hildebert, who lived in the twelfth
century, are, (as he admits,) not sufficientiy clear to be of use
unless aided by other evidence; and the "customs" of thp
Carthusians, Premonstratenses, and Camaldulite monks, which
he alleges to prove its existence in the twelfth century, were
most probably added to in later times,' Honorius speaks of
some elevation,' but it is doubtful whether he means this, or
the lesser elevation at the end of the canon, when there is no
adoration. We know then, that in the thirteenth century the host was
elevated, and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But
it is worthy of remark, that if we are to judge by the authori
ties referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the writers
of that, and the following ages, did not generally interpret this
as designed for the adoration of the eucharist, or of Christ in
the eucharist. Bonaventure (a.d. 1270) assigns nine reasons
for the elevation,' some of which relate to the duty or disposi
tions of the people on the occasion ; but he does not notice the
adoration of the host. Wilham, 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. " Praecipitur quod

n De Myst. Missae, oper. vu, 83,
° Rationale Div, Off. iv, c, 41,
'' Lyndwood, Provinciate Angliae, Const. Peckham, 1281,
1 Raynaldus, ann. 1203. This date assigned in Raynaldus' Annals is
obviously an error, as both Fleury and he himself afterwards speak of this
very cardinal on the Scune mission in Germany, a,d, 1265.
' Ceremonies de la Messe, i. 469.
' Gemma, Ub, i, c, 46,
De Myster. Missae, opera, tom. vii, p, S3,

OBJECT.] ADORATION OF THB HOST. 293
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,""
Cardinal Guide (a,d, 1265) ordained, that at the elevation all
the people should pray for pardon. " Bonam illic consuetudi-
nem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostise omnis populus in Ec
clesia ad sonitum nolae veniam peteret, sicque usque ad cahcis
benedictionem prostratus jaceret,"" The Synod of Cologne
(a.d, 1536) explained the people's duty at the elevation to con
sist, in remembering the Lord's death, and returning him
thanks with minds raised to heaven. " Post elevationem con-
secrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini . . , , tum videretur silen-
dum, et ab omni populo mortis Dominicee commemoratio ha-
benda, prostratisque humi corporibus, dnimis in caelum erectjs,
gratiae agendas Christo Redemptori, qui nos sanguine suo lavit
morteque redemit,"^
On the other hand, Durand^ (1286), Lyndwoody (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 ; and it does not seem that such a
practice is even now unlawful in the Roman churches.-
If this be the case, the Western churches before the Refor
mation cannot be accused of such idolatry in the mass as would
have amounted to apostacy, for they did not enjoin or require

u Binii ConciUa, t, vu, pars i, p. 536.
' Raynaldus, ann. 1203.
* Synodus Colon, pars U, can. 14,
» Rationale Div, Off. iv. 41.
» Provinciale, de Celebratione Missarum. c. Altisaimus v. Elevatione.

294 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p. I. CH. XI.
any one to worship the host at the elevation. I say this even
on the supposition that there is nothing in the Eucharist but
mere bread and wine. The argument is entirely independent
of the question of the real presence. But if Christ be in a
special and mysterious manner present in these " holy myste-
ries,"'i 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 reli
gious 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 th6 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." Now, there is
every reason to believe, that of those who intended their wor
ship at the elevation to be directed to Christ, as more immedi
ately present in the holy Eucharist ; many directed it simply to
Christ himself, and not to the external part of the sacrament
whether substance ol species. And such men could not be
properly charged with idolatry, because their worship was not
directed to an idol, nor to a false god, nor to a creature. It is
clear, however, that others have worshipped the elements them
selves with divine honour, as our writer^ have shown, and those
who did so cannot be excused from the guilt of idolatry. But
this imputation cannot justly rest either on the whole Western
church before the Reformation, nor on the Roman churches in
general since, as bishops Bramhall,* Jeremy Taylor,'' &c. have
taughti ¦
VII, It may be further objected, in reply to the preceding
conclusions, that the declaration against transubstantiation, pe-
scribed by act of parliament (80 Car. II. c. 1.), affirms the Ro-

« Exhortation in the Office of the Holy Communion.
Bramhall, Works, p. 172. ¦¦ Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying,

OBJECT,] DECLARATION AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 295
man churches to be idolatrous, "I, A, B. do solemnly and
sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, &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.
ATiswer. When it was proposed in parliament to establish this
test in order to exclude papists from various offices, the deeply
learned Dr, Gunning, bishop of Ely, contended, after bishop
Jeremy Taylor and others, that the Roman churches in general
were not properly idolatrous ; but when the act had passed, he
found nothing in this declaration absolutely to prevent him from
taking it. Therefore it is to be supposed capable of an inter
pretation consistent with his views," Now in a formulary of
this sort, where various points are noted in common with seve
ral marks of censure, it is sufficient if we believe that each
particular point condemned, rightly comes under some one head
of censure, or that each of the censures is applicable to some
one of the points condemned. Thus, when we affirm the " in
vocation or adoration of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass to
be superstitious and idolatrous," it is sufficient if we under
stand the " idolatry " to refer to the " adoration of saints," and
the " superstition " to their " invocation, and the sacrifice of
the mass," And who can reasonably deny that the adoration
of saints actually practised by some "in the church of Ron;ie,"
is idolatrous ; that the invocation of saints is superstitious,
unnecessary, and tending to great abuses ; or that the sacrifice
of the mass, or the Roman liturgy, is encumbered by supersti
tious rites and ceremonies ? All this we readily admit ; but it
does not oblige us to maintain, that the whole Roman church is
so idolatrous, that it is really apostate, and no part of the church
of Christ.
<= [This remark seems incautious. It looks very like the Jesuitical doc
trine of probabUity, Dr. Gunning, no doubt, had his solution. But to pro
nounce such unknown solution to be one of which the act " is capable,"
is venturing too much on the wisdom and integrity of an individual]

296 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p, I, CH, XI,
VIII. The XlXth Article of the church of England declares
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, ^, in the case of Liberius and
Honorius ; there is no assertion that it does now err in faith.
The object is to deny the infallibility of the particular church of
/Rome, IX. If the Roman churches be churches of Christ, it must
be unlawful for any one to separate himself from them, and be
come 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 ex
communicated by those who are misled by the authority of their
church, erroneously supposed infallible, he is not in schism, and
may lawfully consort with those who are not themselves in
volved in schism, and by whom the truth is maintained. But
he ought not to forsake his church voluntarily, but rather remain
in its communion, and endeavour with prudence and humihty
to edify his brethren.
X. If the Romish be true churches, then it is unlawful to
send missionaries among them, to establish any rival worship,
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 with
out acerbity, and without intrusion on the appointed sphere of
others, may be lawfully resorted to. But it is inconsistent with
the true principles of catholic unity for any branch of the church
to send missionaries to raise a rival worship, and seek for
converts in the bosom of another. This has been the conduct
of the Roman pontiffs in relation to our churches. But it is
not schismatical to provide for the worship of our own people
who may travel in foreign lands, supposing that through some

OBJECT.] VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES. 297
error or prejudice, they are not received by the churches of
those countries. In fine, it must always be borne in mind,
that the rights attributed to the Roman churches do not in any
degree concern the schisms raised by the pontiffs in these
countries, which are to be viewed and treated as 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 Ro
man churches there, and, in order to do so, ought to subscribe
the creed of Pius IV, in which the invocation of saints, purga
tory, the papal supremacy, &c. are included. For according
to you, there is no necessity to examine the truth of these
doctrines : they should be received on the authority of the
church. Answer. The law of unity requires that he should be wilhng
to communicate with those churches ; but he cannot lawfully
subscribe or profess the creed of Pius IV, for the following
reasons, (1,) This creed is proposed 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, and such
an admission and condemnation cannot be made consistently
with truth. Therefore the creed of Pius is to be firmly re
jected, (2,) The Roman church, in exacting from him the
profession of this creed, as the condition of communion with
her, evidently expects that the particular doctrines therein con
tained 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 Christian truth, to profess
exphcitly all points of this creed, especially as matters of faith,
because several of them are uncertain and erroneous, and dis
puted in many parts of the Catholic church. The same objec
tions would lie against any similar formulary whatever,
VOL. I.— 38

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 termination of religious
controversies, and its freedom from all heresy. According to Bou
vier, now bishop of Mans, the Roman church has 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 themselves 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, "When debates rise among
' Catholics ' concerning points of faith," says Milner, " the pastors
of the church , . . fail not to examine them by the received Rule
of Faith, and to pronounce an authoritative sentence upon them.
The dispute is thus quashed,. and peace is re-itored,"^ &c. " The
church never changes her doctrine, nor suffers any persons in her
communion to change it, or to question any part of it"" &c. The
dogmatical tone of these assertions is highly imposing ; but it is
" De Vera Ecclesia, p. 145.
b End of Controversy,,p. 102.
<: Ibid. p. 147. Dr. Baines is equaUy positive in his assurance of the
unity of faith in the Roman communion. " The doctrines of the catholic
religion are every where the same. Not a difference will be found on any
single article of faith, (sic) amongst aU its countless miUions" . . . "Unity
like this is indispensable in any church which claims to teach the uniform
and unchangeable doctrines of Christ. Need I add, that you wiU in vain
seek for it in any other communion or sect." — Sermon at Bradford, 1825.

APPEND, I,] VAUNTS OF ROMISH THEOLOGIANS.

299

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 consequence, than the Roman,
during the last two hundred years.
I. Romanists commonly, I suppose, regard the followers of
Jansenius and Quesnel as heretics. Their theologians, Tournely,
Delahogue, Bailly, &c. &c. 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's book, entitled Augustinus,
by Urban VIII. in 1641, the five principal tenets of Jansenism
(which amount in fact to the doctrine 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 con
demning the propositions in the sense oi Jansenius. This was
followed, in 1705, by the bull of Clement XI. confirming the
former, and condemning the subterfuges of the Jansenists. In
1713 the bull Unigenitus was fulminated by Clement XI. against
the doctrines of Quesnel, a Jansenist ; this was confirmed by the
bull Pastoralis Officii, the papal Synod of Rome, 1725, and by
other bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. of succeeding pontiffs. The
Romish theologians prove very clearly, 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 this very Jansenist heresy has, in opposition to all these ana
themas and condemnations, and in spite of the persecution of the
temporal powers, continued to exist for nearly two hundred years ;
and what is more, that it has existed all along in the very heart
of the Roman church itself. Yes, it has perpetuated itself in all
parts of that church, sometimes covertly, sometimes openly, ex
citing uneasiness, tumults, innovations, " reforms, persecutions,
schisms, but always adhering to the Roman communion with in
vincible tenacity. It is in vain that, sensible of so great an evil,
the Roman church struggles and resorts to every expedient to free

300 JANSENISM. [p. I. CH. XI.
herself from its presence : the loathed and abhorred heresy per
petuates itself in her vitals, and infects her bishops, her priests,
her monks, her universities ; and depressed for a time by the arm
of civil power, gains the ascendancy at length, influences the
councils of kings, overthrows the Jesuits, produces religious inno
vations of the most extraordinary character, and inflicts infinite and
permanent injury and disgrace on the cause of the Roman church.
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 per
petuated 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 ecclesiasti
cal power. The obstinacy with which they sustained false mira
cles, led Deists to cast doubts even on those which support Chris
tianity. This party offers to the impartial observer, all the features
of a real sect . . . the church was troubled wherever it existed ;
she was only tranquil where it existed not. During fifty years it
rent the church of France, producing a multitude of incidental dis
putes, fomenting deplorable illusions, exciting a spirit of opposition,
of mutiny, and slander against the bishops. From France this
spirit passed to other countries ; and, in the latter half of the eigh
teenth century, Germany and Italy saw it develop itself in their
bosom, under the protection of some deceived princes, or some se
duced ministers. To the same influence must be attributed the
changes introduced into the schools of those countries, 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 ihe secular
arm."^ Such was the boasted unity of the Roman church during
the eighteenth century !

^ Memoires pour servir a I'histoire Ecclfes. xviii. siecle. Preface, iv —
vi. This work is commended by Cardinal Pacca in his Memoirs, tom. n.
p, 113.

APPEND, I.] JANSENISTS IN THE GALLICAN CHURCH, 301
III, I proceed to verify these observations by facts, and to show
that Jansenism has continued always to exist in the coraraunion 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 eigh
teenth 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. iii 1653, imploring him not to condemn the
work of Jansenius." The divisions were not terminated even by
the bull of Alexander VII. in 1665, prescribing the signature of
the Formulary condemning Jansenism. M. de Gondrin, Arch
bishop of Sens, subscribed, but his friends said that he had not
changed his opinions.^ In short, many of those who subscribed
were of opinion, " that they might sign, though they did not be
lieve 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." s Others signed
with various restrictions : and thus the party continued to possess
their bishoprics and other benefices in the Gallican chiAch. Four
bishops published mandates, in which they only required a respect
ful silence as to the question of the fact, adopting thus the Jansen
ist distinction ; and when an attempt was made to punish them by
the opposite party, nineteen other bishops, headed byt^ie Arch
bishop of Sens, wrote to Clement IX. in their. favour.* This'.ag.ain
shows the strength of the Jansenist party in the church.- ._Th« re-

= Ibid. p. cclxv. ^ f ccbcxix.
s Ibid. This conduct resembled that of the Arians, Eusebius of Nicome
dia, Theognis, and Maris, at the CouncU of Nice, and their successors,
Clarke, Sykes, Hoadly, &c., in later times, who subscribed articles which
they disbelieved, and were not ashamed to recommend the same to others.
¦¦ cclxxxvii.

302 JANSENISM, [p, I, CH. XI.
suit. was, that the four Jansenist bishops were allowed to subscribe
a formulary in such a manner, " that they and their partizans did
not really abandon their sentiments." They profited by the oppor
tunity to strengthen their party, and " Port Royal became the place
of assembly of the enemies of authority."' Thus Jansenism still
continued in the Roman church. At the same time we learn, that
Flanders " was also a prey to the new opinionists."'' The very
first bull against the book of Jansenius had encountered opposition
in the university of Louvain. ^ Afterwards Arnauld, Nicole, Ques
nel, 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."" In fine. Dr. Van Espen,
professor of canon law in the university of Louvain, and " the most
learned canonist of his time," ., , " gave himself up to this same
party oi 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.''" 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 Janfenist party," . . . . " 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 appear
ed to increase under M. Codde his successor."" M, Codde was
accused of Jansenism, suspended and deposed by the pope, but
the Jansenist party prevented any one from assuming his place.?
IV. r now proceed to the progress of Jansenism in the eigh
teenth' century, and first, in France. On the appearance of the
bull " Unigenitus," in 1713, six of the French bishops did not pub
lish it, as was required. The bishops of Metz and Sisteron, and
the archbishop of Embrun, published explanatory mandates not

> ccxciv, V. ^ ccxcv. ' cclxiii, cclxvii. ¦» cxliii.
° cxlvii. cxlviii, ° cl, , p cli. clii. cliii-

APPEND. I.] THE APPELLANTS. 303
receiving it simply. " Fourteen bishops formally opposed the bull.
Three or four pursued a middle course.^ So strong was the Jan
senist party in the Gallican church.. Cardinal de Noailles, arch
bishop of Paris, was now at the head of the Jansenists,^ and con
tinued so for fifteen years. On the accession of the regent Or
leans, (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 recompense
of zeal for the cardinal and his adherents," i. e. the Jansenists.
" The abbes de Lorraine, Bossuet, d'Entraigues, &c., were nomi
nated to bishopries. "^ These Jansenist prelates, after much oppo
sition, actually obtained their.bulls and became bishops of the Gal
lican church.* In 1717, the bishops of Mirepoix, Senez, Mont-
pelier, and Boulogne, signed an appeal from the constitution " Uni
genitus " to a general council. To this appeal the faculty of Theo
logy at Paris adhered.'" They were followed by the faculties of
arts and law ; by rectors, canons, monks, nuns, laymen. Noailles
encouraged these proceedings ;"' 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 ecclesias
tics, and many laymen,^ and thus the Jansenist party, called Ap
pellants (as Appealing from the bull Unigenitus to a general coun
cil,) were still within the bosom of the Roman church, and con
tinued to maintain their preferments and their communion with the
rest of their church, in spite of the anathemas launched against
them. I shall not notice all the minor contests and controversies
in France, which were perpetual, and prove the existence of this
party ; but content myself with a few facts showing its existence
in the communion of the church. In 1720, seven French bishops
wrote to Innocent XIII, against his predecessor and the bull Uni
genitus, " a judgment," they said, " so irregular that pagan Rome
itself would not have suffered it.'"' In 1726, M, Soanen, bishop
of Senez, was an appellant, and published a Jansenist instruction,

1 Memoires, tom, i,p. 97. ' 100. '116. ' 149.
.. 124. ' 125. ' 126. " 187.

304 JANSENISM. [p, I. CH, XI,
which brought him into difficulties. He used to ordain the Jan
senists of Holland.y 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 everyday; it acquires new followers; it receives
with avidity and scatters with profusion ; it vaunts to excess the
numberless books which are written to authorize it, and neglects
nothing to strengthen its errors and its disobedience."^ Neverthe
less this party was still within the church itself. M. Soanen hav
ing been suspended by the provincial synod of Embrun, twelve
bishops interceded again and again for him. They were, like him,
opponentf^of the bull.* M. Soanen, however,'though a Jansenist
was not exconNn*nicated, but remained still in the Roman church.
The diocese of Paris at this time was full of Jansenist priests.''
In 1.730, the king issued an ordonnance requiring all the clergy to
subscribe their adherence to the bull on pain of losing their bene
fices, but the parliament of Paris, under the influence of the Jan
senist party, frustrated its execution, and maintained them in pos
session of their benefices." 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, 1732, 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." Thus Jansenism was still within the
Roman communion. ' '
The parliaments of Paris, Rouen, Aix, Toulouse, &c. were jhe
steady friends of Jansenism in France. About 1749, some of the
clergy having refused to administer the sacrament to Jansenists ;
the latter appealed to the civil arm. The parliaments punished
with fine, imprisonment, and perpetual exile those clergy who re
fused to give the sacraments to Jansenists.' The king in vain op-
y Tom. ii, p. 30. '^ 44. » 45. » 54, c 74. a 105, ' 109,
' 220. 235. 253. 260. 354. Se also De Barral (Archeveque de Tours),
Defense des Libertes de I'Eglise Gall. p. 113.

APP. I,] REFORMING PRINCIPLES OF DE HONTHEIM, 305
posed these proceedings : the parliaments almost invariably tri
umphed. In 1754, and the following years, the archbishops of
Paris and Aix, the bishops of Orieans, Troyes, S. Pons, and many
other bishops, were exiled, condemned, their goods seized, &c.
by order of the parliaments, in consequence of their opposition to
Jansenism.s The pariiament of Paris " held the faculty of theo
logy under its yoke for many years."!' -phg Jansenists inflamed
the public mind against the Jesuits in 1760, and under their influ
ence the parliaments suppressed that order."" In 1765, the faculty
of law at Paris was still appellant against the bull j'' and the par
liament continued long afterwards to punish any of the clergy who
refused communion to the Jansenists.^ In 1780, the works of
Bossuet were published with Jansenist annotations by Deforis, a
monk of the Benedictine monastery of Blancs-Manteaiix, at Paris,
" well known for its attachment to the tenacious party,"™ &c.
Therefore it is clear, that for the greater part of this century at
least, in fact while' Christianity subsisted in France, so long did
Jansenism firmly adhere to the Roman commuhion, in spite of all
efforts to expel it. 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 influ
ence of Jansenism by the Romish historian of the period. (See
above, p. 300.) In 1720, the Jansenists had adherents at Vienna."
The work of M. de Hontheim, bishop of Myriophita and suffragan
of Treves, which was entitled " Justini Febronii de statu preesenti
Ecclesiae, liber," and published 1763, produied an extraordinary
effect in Germany. " Already for many years Vienna had been
full of reforming theologians, who took the trouble to reponstruct
the instruction of the church. M. de Hontheim completed their
work, and a sort of revolution took place in the public mind.""
Febronius is said to have been " entirely conformable to the no
tions of the new canonists, who undertake to dispose of the gov
ernment of the church, to , destroy the legitimate authority of the
g Mem. 288—293. 329. " 329 i 387. 389. " 474. ' 508,
¦» III, 18. » Tom. i, p. 187, " II. 650.
VOL. I,— -39

306 J.,iNSENISM. [p. I, CH. XI.
holy see, and to renew all the maxims of the Protestants against
the ecclesiastical power,"? 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 Paola and Van Espen " (a Jansenist writer),
" and others of this stampi more than the books and principles au
thorized in the church, devoted themselves to propagate the les
sons of their masters ; and pretended in adopting them, to revive
the best days of Christianity  The church, according to
them, was in a state of desolation and ruin, its government 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 prin
cipal 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 system, saw noth
ing in the church but a sort of republic, in which the pope
could not, without usurpation, have arrogated the powers he en
joyed. 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 con
cerns her, the slave of the civil power,"i &c. Such were the
tenets, heretical in the opinion of Romanists generally, which ex
isted in the bosom of their church in Germany ; and which, not
withstanding the condemnation of Febronius by Clement XIII. in
1764, gained ground, and prevailed, 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 profes
sors of theology were changed, in many places, to substitute others
p 454. See Biographic Universelle, art, Hontheim,
1 453—457.

APPEND, I,] PROC^BEDINS OF JOSEPH II. 307
who had contrary ideas. They went so far as to deprive the bish
ops of the direction of their seminaries, and of the choice of theo
logians 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 re
ceiving novices. The protestants were favoured; the clergy
required to give an account of their revenues. It was no longer
permitted to have recourse to Rome for dispensations of marriage.
The irnperial placet was prescribed 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 regula
tions, 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,"'^ This reforming emperor
was all the time in the communion of the Roman church, which
was obliged to submit to all his regulations. So secure are the mem
bers of that communion against innovations in doctrine and dis
cipline !
But to proceed : Joseph, it seems, "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 semina
ry of Brunn, lately appointed by his choice, " were accused of foi-.
lowing the same principles as the appellants {Jansenists), oi dis
seminating their books, and of seeking to introduce 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
¦¦ III. 20, 21,;
» 22. He went so far as to issue a decree "qui obligeoit tous les eveques
des Etats hereditaires & promettre d'obeir a tous les ordres qui etoient deja
emanes de I'empereur, ou qui pourroient en emaner par la suite ! ,'" — Me
moires sur Pie VI, et son Pontificat, tome i, p. 236.

308 JANSENISM. [p. I. CH, XI.
who had dared to sustain the constitution Unigenitus, interdicted
the pulpit forever, and in aU places, to those preachers who had
spoken against the accused; declared that the bulls Unigenitus ^xA
In Ccena 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.' In
short, Jansenism was triumphant. Presently " a new decree or
dered an absolute silence on the constitution Unigenitus;" but,
nevertheless, the court theologians were permitted to declaim against
it, and to spread books in favour of the appeal.'^ It was in vain
that several prelates, aided by the papal nuncio, remonstrated with
the emperor, and represented that the bull " Unigenitus " 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 sees of Lombardy, which had hitherto belonged
to the Roman see. Presently he made a new circumscription of
all the bishoprics of his states. He even issued a decree " to
remove images from the churches." This was of course heretical
in the judgment of Romanists, and directly contrary to the decrees
of the Synods of Nice and Trent, which they regard as oecumeni
cal. 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, established
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 " sup
pressed his see, commanded him to send in his resignation, and on

¦ Mem. Eccl. ibid.
" Ib. 23. This imperial constitution, commanding sUence concerning the
buU Unigenitus, was stiU in force in the Austrian empire in 1809. — See
Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. Eccl. Austriaci, cited in " Report of Com
mittee on Roman Catholic subjects in foreign countries" (1816), p, 112.

APPEND, I.] JANSENISM AND REFORM IN GERMANY. 309
his refusal ordered him to set off" for Rome."^ " He reserved the
dignities of the church for the admirers of his system ; he engaged
writers to undertake its defence. He protected, at Pavia, a society
of theologians who, like Ricci at Pistoia, sought to lower the
holy seej 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 declama
tion, 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 theologi
ans. No regard was paid to his complaints."™
Thus we see the Jansenist heresy, 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 terminated among them ! And such
their independence of the civil power ! The new system advanced
in Germany. The archbishop elector of Saltzburg, in 1782, had
published a Pastoral Instruction " against the luxury of churches,
against images, .... pretended that the worship of saints is not an
essential point of religion,"'' &c. These doctrines, accounted
heretical by Romanists, were thus avowed in their own communion ;
and, in 1785, the same archbishop and elector, with his brethren
of Cologne, Treves, and Mayence, agreed to a model of ecclesias
tical 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 de
pend on foreign superiors. Every bishop was to dispense, even in
' The memoirs of Pope Pius VI. add the sequel. He was compelled to
take an oath of obedience to the emperor's orders, to confess that he had
grossly disobeyed those orders, and to throw himself on his clemency. In
fine, he was ordered to go to his diocese, and put the royal edicts in execu
tion,— Mem, de Pie VI, i. 262.
" Mem. Eccl. ui, 36, 37, z 61.

310 JANSENISM, [p, I, CH, XI,
cases reserved to the pope, to absolve the religious from their vows.
Papal bulls to be of no obligation, unless received by the bishop,
&c. They decided on abolishing the oath of bishops to the pope.^'
If the pope " refused to confirm the bishops, they would find in the
ancient discipline means to preserve their office, under the protec
tion of the emperor." This plan was objected to by several of the
German bishops, but the four archbishops proceeded to put its re
gulations in force' in their dioceses.? The pope remonstrated in
vain. Eybel, professor of canon law at Vienna, having published
books against auricular confession, and against the papal power,
his writings were condemned by Pius VI. in 1784 and 1786, as
containing heresies ; but the emperor ordered the suppression of
the papal decree, and Eybel, although a heretic, remained in com
munion with the Roman church.^ The principles 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 ecclesiasti
cal reforms in this part of his dominions. =¦ 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,' were abolished ;"^ and thus Jansenism was suf-
, fered to intrude. General seminaries for the clergy were estab
lished to promote the spread of the new opinions ; and directors of
the four faculties of Louvain were sent from Vienna, one of whom
" had been expelled from Vienna for his heterodoxy." He was
made " president of the general seminary" for the clergy." The
Belgians, however, were so angry at these proceedings that Jan
senism 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 ' Ex
position 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

»60— 65, »ei— 87, >75, ''76, .''76—77.

APPEND. I,] RELIGIOUS INNOVATION IN ITALY, 311
were renewed," had been censured in 1757 by Benedict XIV.
Clement XIII. pubhshed 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 .in
struction. Hatred of the holy see, and change of all the ecclesi
astical discipline formed its basis. It was but an emanation froth
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 especially 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.'^ Thus we see Jansenism openly
taught in the Italian church.
In Naples, the minister. Marquis Tanucci, in 1776 suppressed
seventy-eight monasteries of Sicily at once, united some bishoprics,
and gave abbeys without the pope's consent." Serrao, the Jan
senist before mentioned, was named by the king bishop of Potenza,
and notwithstanding the jealouSy of the pope, succeeded by arti
fices, and the royal support, in actually obtaining that see.^ 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 Cora-
mission for hearing an appeal in a cause of marriage which ought,
according to the former system, to have gone before the Roman
see, •' renounced the ordinary formulary by which bishops are
accustomed to begin their ordonnances, ' 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." f Jansenism and reform had partizans, it seems, in the
Neapolitan church as well as elsewhere.
In Tuscany, Jansenism was equally troublesome. The arch-

d Tom. II. p. 403, 404. = III. 115, f 117.
g 120, 121. Instead of this he took the title of "bishop by the grace
of the king."

312 JANSENISM. [p, I. CH. XI,
duke Leopold " followed blindly the councils of Scipio Ricci, who
was made, in 1780, bishop of Pistoia and Prato.'' Ricci " resolved
to introduce into Italy the opinions to which France owed a cen
tury of disputes." By his council the prince issued frequent and
prolix circulars, sent "catechisms to 'the bishops, directed the
books which they should place in the hands of the faithful, abol
ished confraternities, diminished processions, regulated divine
worship and ceremonies^' &c. Ricci filled his diocese "with men
subservient to his notions, whom he invited from all parts. He
caused ecclesiastical academies to be established,- where the new
theology was taught. He wrote against devotion to the heart of
Jesus, &g?i,ii\st indulgences, which he reduced to be nothing but the
relaxation of the canonical penance formerly imposed for sins.''
He changed rites, reformed discipline, overthrew the system of
instruction, &c. A faithful imitator of the appellants of France,
he proposed them as his models. Under his pen Soanen became
• a holy bishop,' Quesnel ' a learned and pious martyr of the truth,'
other Jansenists ' lights of the church.' He caused their writings
to be translated into Italian." Pius VI. remonstrated in vain against
all this.'
In 1786, a royal edict was published, " in which nothing was
forgotten concerning discipline, instruction, worship, ceremonies,
&c. The smallest articles were entered into with the most minute
exactness."'^ 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," and others of
the same party, viz. " Vecchi, Guarisci, Monti, Bottieri, and Pal
mier}." In tjie first session 234 priests were present. They
decreed that ."in tlie latter ages a general obscurity has overspread
the •most important truths of religion, which are the bases of Chris
tian faith and morality."! • They afterwards adopted all the doc-
i This doctrine, which was maintained by Luther, and for which he was
condemned, was also maintained by Mr. Charles Butler, an EngUsh Ro
manist in the latter part of the eighteenth century. — See " Catholic Miscel
lany," vol. i. for 1822, p. 585. Butler has been charged with Jansenism
by Plowden, another Romanist.
i Mem. Eccl. III. 1—4. " 69. ' 71,

APPEND, I,] JANSENISM IN PORTUGAL, 313
trines of Baius and Quesnel, and all the Jansenists.™ They made
a decree in which " they rejected the devotion of the heart of
Jesus, images, and other pious practices."" The bishops of Colle
and Arezzo held their synods after the example of Ricci." In
1788, Leopold " abolished all the authority of the papal nuncios,
forbad all appeals fo 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 p^ty in the Italian church. " Two
bishops of Tuscany showed themselves unfavourable 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."9 Another
Italian author is mentioned, who supported this bishop by writings
" in which he showed himself a faithful copyist and admirer of
the French appellants,"'^ &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 ecclesias
tical power,"^ &c. Italy has continued ever since under the
influence of these reforming principles, and the civil magistrate
lords it over every part of the Italian church with perfect and
absolute power.
VII. Even Portugal was not exempt from the novel opinions.
The ministry of the marquis of Pombal was distinguished in this
respect. " He was seen to introduce even into the church his re
forming views, to change, destroy, enslave the bishops to Ijis 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 instruction altogether different .from that which had
been previously followed, and in fine to open the door to systems
and illusions of evil doctrines, in a country hjtherto peaceable and
religious."' The bishop of Coirrtbra having issued (1768) a man
date against the perusal of evil books, which were circulated under

71, 72. " 73, " 74. p 107. 1 269. ' 270
» Tom. M. p. 530. ' 367.
VOL. I. — 40

314 JANSENISM, [p, I, CH. XI.
the protection of some government agents, was imprisoned, and the
chapter of Coimbra was obliged by the king to appoint an adminis
trator of the see." 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 Por
tugal 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 mem
bers. 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.^ Varlet, suffragan bishop of Babylon hav
ing fallen under the suspicion of Jansenism, was obliged to return
to Europe, and resided at Amsterdam, where he consecrated Stee
noven in 1724, assisted only by two canons ; " which is contrary to
the discipline observed in the church, and which is not permitted
except with dispensations, that were not asked."" Varlet ordained
successively four archbishops of Utrecht. Among the successors
of Steenoven are mentioned Barchman 1725,y Vandercroon 1734,^
Meindartz 1739,* (under whom a Jansenist synod was held at
Utrecht in 1763, at which their bishops of Utrecht, Haarlem, and
Deventer were present,)'' Van Nieuen-huysen who died in 1797,
Van Rhyn elected the same year," Van Os consecrated 1814.''
These Jansenist bishops have continued to the present age, assisted
by fifty or sixty priests and a few thousand followers. They
always pretend td berunited with the Roman church, duly inform
ing the pontiff of their elections, &c. in a most fraternal manner,
and occasionally addressing epistles to him," to all which they re
ceive no other reply than bulls of excommunication, deposition,
censure, &c. which they do not seem much to regard.

. 545, 546, » Tom. i. p. 197. « 198. i 200, y Tom, ii. p. 8.
^ 137. » 166 '¦ 440. ' III. 408—9. ° 629. ' II. 506,

APPEND, I.] ENGLISH JANSENISTS, 315
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 portraits of Arnauld
and St. C)rran (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 Provincial Letters, &c. ;"^ with
out dwelling on these and other facts, which might be adduced to
show the existence of Jansenism 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 O'Conor, their most learned author,
and many others, have been openly charged with Jansenism by
other papists, and with very great probability. Mr. Plowden, a
papist of considerable note, cites from Berrington's Memoirs of
Panzani (published 1793,) passages which evince an evident par
tiality for Jansenism.ff He also shows the same tendency in Dr,
O'Conor, the author of the Letters of Columbanus, and in Mr. C.
Butler. The latter, it will be remembered, held the same doctrine
on indulgences as that of Scipio de Ricci, the Jansenist bishop of
Pistoia, for which he was vehemently assailed by the priest Mil
ner. His writings entitled the " Blue Books '' 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 him
self little favourable to the holy see, whose, prerogatives and rights
he attached, and he spoke on this subject like the constitutionalists
of France." These sentiments are easily connected with Jansen
ism : 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
< Plowden's Historical Letter, p. 278. Dublin, 1812. e Ibid.

316 JANSENISM. [p. 1. CH, XI.
appears in his observations, precludes all possibility of doubt as
to the sincerity of his belief in the fact : while his means of in
formation leave nothing to be desired.
" When," he says, " a tenacious uniformity in strong error per
vades individuals through a course of two centuries, it is evident,
that the common tie of such erroneous opinion is systematic ; and
unless, therefore, the whole system be rooted up, the refutation,
condemnation, or even punishment of the single error , , , . will
only increase the contumacy, sharpen the zeal, and multiply the
artifices of the leading members of the system  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 mani
festation of this symptom proves the prevalence of the disorder at
this hour.^ Would to God, the remedy were as obvious, as the dis
ease is evident ! . No man professes himself a Jansenist. We can
discern them only by their fruits, as the Baptist did the Pharisees
and Sadducees : ' 0 generation of vipers, who hath warned you
to flee from the wrath to come 1 Bring forth therefore fruits meet
for repentance' (Matt. iii. 7). I tremble and shudder at the rava
ges, which I see that terrible disorder making amongst some of the
catholic flocks within the dominions of his majesty. But as insen
sibility of infection and danger, is one general symptom of the dis
order, I yield to more even than my historical duty, in sounding the
alarm, in manifesting the progress and mischief of the disease, and
in warninff evety p?istor of a catholic flock throughout the British
Empire, that there is infinitely less danger of destruction to their
flock from the overt errors.-of .^rians, Socinians, Calvinists, Luther-

h He cites O'Conor's assertion (Columbanus v. 125.) that the Council of
Trent has never been received either as to doctrine or discipline, in Ireland
or France ; and the doctrine of Walsh, another papist, that the council of
Trent was neither oecumenical, nor occidental, nor free. — Appendix, 28, &c.

APPEND, I,] RAVAGES OF JANSENISM, 317
ans, or any avowed separatists, than from the disguised poison of
the Jansenists, who with unrelenting perseverance lurk among the
catholics, concealing their infection under an ostentatious display of
external purity, with a view to indulge their lust for seduction, in
the true spirit pf their insidious founder,' . , , . I openly and loudly
profess my wishes and intentions, but lament that I cannot strength
en 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 in
voke every individual who tenders the purity of catholic faith and
church government — "''
X, I pause here. It is clear that these gentlemen who vaunt
so exceedingly the perfect unity, the irrefragable authority, the
unalterable orthodoxy of their churches, and who build on these
assumptions the conclusion, that they alone constitute 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 infected, that perhaps no part of
the church is equally troubled. Jansenism still exists in the Ro
mish 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 com
munity. 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.' It removes im
ages from their churches in various places, and, in all, continues
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

' Ibid Appendix, p. 28, 29.' V _ ' t p. 37.
' For abundant and most interesting information on the reforming party
in the Roman churches, see an article-on the state of the Roman catholic
church in SUesia, in the Foreign Quarterly Review for 1827, p. 515, &c.
This article is attributed to the eminent author of " the State of Protes
tantism in Germany," [The late Rev. Hugh James Rose.]

318 JANSENISM, [p. I, CH, XI.
Leander Von Ess, Weissemburg, and other liberal Roraish priests,
who form connections with the Bible Society, contrary to the rules
of their church, or introduce various reforms and new systems of
theology. -But there are even worse doctrines than those of Jan
senism lurking in the Roman church.

APPENDIX II.
ON INFIDELITY AND INDIFFERENCE IN THB ROMAN CHURCH,
In tracing the existence of infidel principles in the Roman
churches I undertake a truly painful task ; but while I most deeply
lament their existing condition, and with fervent sincerity pray
that the spirit of irreligion may no longer continue to devastate
them, I am obliged to state these facts in consequence of the
rash and arrogant vauntings of Romish theologians, who pretend
that their churches are united in the true faith and in holy practice,
to a degree unparalleled by any other Christian community. The
British and the Oriental churches are represented as devoid of
fixed and settled faith. We alone are supposed to be troubled by
the presence of heretics and 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 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 in
the Roman Church ! Yes : — he, whose unceasing cry as applied
to our Divine and ever-blessed God and Saviour was : Ecrasez
Vinfame! was, horrible to relate, a communicant of the Roman
church. In 1754, he received the eucharist at Colmar.* He again
received it in 1761, "precisely at the time'when his correspond
ence and his writings had the most marked taint of irreligion."''
He again communicated in 1768, and preached in the church on
theft." At the same time he wrote to D'Alembert with reference
° Memoires pour serv. k I'hist. Eccl. pendant le xviii' siecle, tom. iL
535. b 536, -= 537.

320 INFIDELS IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. [p, I, CH. XI,
to his communion at Easter, " that he had already done it often,
a.ni,.please God, would do it again,"'' In 1769, being ill, he re
ceived the Viaticum 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 practice 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,"" In 1778,
he sent for the Abbe Gauthier, and signed a writing, in which he
declared that " he had confessed" to this ecclesiastic, " and wished
to die in the catholic religion," &c. In fine, he was buried in the
Abbey of Scelli^res in Champagne. '^ 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 commu
nion of the Roman church !
His example was not lost on his followers. Amongst the infidel
association of the " lUuminati " we learn that there were cures,
priests, and one who was raised to high dignities in the German
church.s Cardinal de Brienne was connected with d'Alembert
and the infidel philosophers, and was supposed to share their sen
timents.'' And who, I would ask, were those 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, Cha-
bot, Massieu, Marolles, Tome, Pelletier, Thibault, Minfie, Herau-
din, Huguet, Lefessier, Panisset, and the other constitutional
bishops, who renounced their functions, 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 commu
nion the principles of infidelity, and though they were partizans
of an institution which was under papal censure, (the constitu
tional church,) they were not excommunicated up to the period of
" 540. ' 541, f 638, e 618, 619.
'' 503. ' III. 242—253.

APPEND. II.] INFIDELS IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. 321
their open apostacy.'' A multitude of priests followed the example
of these bishops. Infidels and Jacobin priests were also found in
Italy.' The infidel priest Geddes. was of their communion in
England, and if we place any reliance on the universal opinion of
those who have travelled in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and
Germany, there are numbers of infidels not only amongst the laity,
but the clergy of the Roman communion in those countries. Facts
of this kind repeatedly state'd and never denied, convince us that
there are large numbers of unbelievers in the communion of those
Churches ; and it is well known that especially among the higher
orders of Romanists, in England and Ireland, infidelity is but too
common. Jacobinism and infidelity have been so closely con
nected from their birth, that Romanism itself may well tremble for
its faith in Ireland and England : the principles so closely united
in every other part of the Roman Obedience, cannot be separated
in these countries. That they are not, in fact, we have the most
serious reasons to apprehend, from the reckless manner in which
even priests of that'society have employed in controversy, all the
arguments of infidels and Socinians against the holy Scripture, the
Divinity of Christ, &c. And their pertinacity in upholding false
and ridiculous miracles, shows a carelessness for the genijine
miracles, on which Christianity is founded.
But the irreligion of members of the Roman churches sinks
deeper even than direct infidelity. There is a still lower depth in
which they are plunged ; and I shall here avail myself of the testi
mony of the Abbe La Mennais, in a work written many years ago,
while he was yet of the highest reputation in the Roman church.
In the eighth edition of his 'Essai sur I'lndifference' he says:
" What do you perceive 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 here
sies, and in efifect, indifference which marches in its train, is not a

' 200. I 368—9.
VOL. I. — 41

322 DREADFUL PREVALENCE OF INDIFFERENCE, [p. I, CH, XI.
doctrine, for genuine Indifferents deny nothing, affirm nothing ; it
is not even doubt, for doubt being suspense between contrary proba
bilities, supposes a previous examination : it is a systematic igno
rance, a voluntary sleep of the soul  Such is the hideous and
sterile monster which they call indifference. All philosophic theo
ries, 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. He observes that "the state to which we are
approaching is one of the signs by which will be recognized that
last war announced by Jesus Christ : ' Nevertheless, when the Son
of man cometh, he shall find faith on the earth.' "" Such is the
awful picture of irreligion in the Roman church, for it is plain that
he speaks of that church, and that it must be included under the
terms he employs. Nor is this merely the statement ol 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 indifference :
" 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.' 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 ?"" This evil
therefore afflicts the Roman church herself. It is not m-erely found
among her adversaries : it is within her own bosom. And in fine, it
is so great, that even the Head of the Roman 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 remarkable passage occurs : " We come now
to another most abundant 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

' Essai sur I'lndifference, tom. i. Introduction, p. 21. 24, 25.
. Ibid, 25. ° Ibid. 28, 29.

APPEND, II,] PREVALENCE OF INDIFFERENCE. 323
profession of faith, provided the morals be correct and honest. But
in a case so clear and evident, you will easily expel from the peo
ple committed to your care this most destructive error,"!" &c.
Whatever may be the evils affecting our branch of the catholic
church, we cannot but feel grateful to Divine Providence, that infi
delity and indifference scarcely exist amongst us ; and that as soon
as they are planted by some rash and impious men, they dry up
and wither away. There is, at this moment, more of evident reli
gious zeal in the British empire, than in any other part of Europe;
and this arises entirely from the vigour of a healthy faith in our
branch of the catholic church, which triuraphs amidst a thousand
difficulties.

f See Appendix IV.

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 extraordi
nary 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, without any recourse to the eccle
siastical power, changes or reforms all the old dioceses, erects new
ones, diminishes some, increases others, &c.; (2.) forbids any Gal
lican church or citizen to acknowledge the authority of any foreign
bishop, &c. ; (3.) institutes 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 im
posing on them a certain council, without whose judgment they
could do nothing,"^ &c. &c. The great body of the Gallican bish
ops naturally protested against this constitution, which suppressed
one hundred and thirty-five bishoprics, and erected eighty-three in
their stead, under different titles.'' The convention insisted that
they should take the oath of adhesion to the civil constitution 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 Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, assist
ed by Gobel, bishop of Lydda, and Miroudet of Babylon,"
M. Bouvier pro-ves, from the principles of his church, that this
constitution was schismatical ; that all the bishops, rectors, curates.

• De Vera Ecclesia, p. 411,
>> Memoires pour serv. a I'hist. Eccl. xviii' siecle, tom. iu. p. 149.
¦•17L

APPEND. III.] SCHISMATICS IN THE ROMAN COMMUNION, 325
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. Certainly on all the prin
ciples of Romanists at least, the adherents of the civil constitution
were in schism and heresy.
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 oi these constitutional bishops should be ap
pointed to sees under the new arrangements. He succeeded. "He
caused to be named to sees, twelve of those same constitutionals
who had attached themselves with such obstinate perseverance, for
ten years, to the propagation of schism in France. . . . One of
the partizans of the new concordate, who had been charged to re
ceive 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 !"'' The government forbad the bishops to exact recantations
from the constitutional priests, and commanded them to choose one
of their vicars-general from among that party. They were pro
tected and supported by the minister of police, and by Portalis,
the minister of worship." 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
d 421. See also Mem. Eccl. de France, tom. i. ch. 5 and 7. Lecoz,
one of them, is there said to have been " extrenjiely attached to Jansen
ism.'' He was named Archbishop of Bensangon, and was surrounded by
aU the old constitutional bishops, who formed a sort of synod. — Ibid. p. 101.
' 422. It appears that the instructions of the government required, that
one-third of the clergy should be taken from the constitutionals. — Mem.
Eccl, de France, tom. i. p. 65.

326 DEGRADATION OF THE [p. I. CH, XI.
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 declaration, approving generally of the judg
ments of the holy see, on the ecclesiastical affairs of France ; but
this vague and general formulary, which Bouvier and other Ro
manists pretend to represent as a recantation, was not so understood
by these bishops,? and thus the Gallican church continued, and
probably still continues, to number schismatical bishops and priests
in her communion. Such is the boasted and most inviolkble unity
of the Roman church !
I am now to speak of the Concordate of 1801, between Buona
parte, first consul of the French republic, and Pope Pius VII.
The first consul designing to restore Christianity in France, enga
ged 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 number ; those of the con
quered districts (Savoy, Germany, &c.) were 24; making a total
of 159.'' The constitutional bishops resigned their sees ;' those,
also, who still remained in the conquered 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, an
nihilated 150 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.' To this sweeping concordate the French govern-
f 433. i 453, 454.
h 404. 419. Bouvier, de Vera Ecclesia, p. 420,
. Memoires, 405, 406, Mem: Eccl. de France, tom. i. c. 3.
' 410. Bouvier, 420. Memoires Eccl. de France, tom. i. c. 2.
1 Mem. xviii. siecle, 418,419. Mem. Eecl. de France, tom. i. c. 4. One
of the principal reasons adduced to justify these unheard-of proceedings,
¦was fear lest the government, disappointed in its ajnrangements -with Rome,
should establish the Constitutionals, or even the Lutherans. So great was
the evU deemed of losing the patronage of the state, that in order to obtain
it, all the canons were broken through !

APPEND. III.] FRENCH CLERGY. 327
ment took care to annex, by the authority of their " corps legisla-
tif," certain " Organic Articles," 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 example, were prohibited from
conferring orders without its consent: the vicars-general of the
bishop were to continue, even after his death, to govern the dio
cese, without regard to the rights of chapters ; a rgultitude of
things which ought to have been left to the decision of the eccle
siastical authority, were minutely regulated," &c. The intention
was, " to place the priests, even in the exercise of their spiritual
functions, in an entire dependence on the government agents !"""
The pope reinonstrated against these articles — in vain : they con
tinued, were adopted by the Bourbons, and, with some modifica-
"" 420, The reply of the government to the papal remonstrance was,
that " the French sovereigns regarded themselves as les eveques du dehors ;
that they had always exercised a real power in matters of discipline, public
worship, and on the conduct of the clergy !" Mem. Eccl. de France, tom.
i. p. 71. It was afterwards said bythe government, that "the ConseU
d'Etat succeeded the parliaments in ecclesiastical matters." — Ibid. p. 276.
Every one knows the powers assumed by the parliaments ; they were pro-
verbiaUy excessive. The minister of state, Portalis, directed the bishops
as to the administration of the sacraments, and forbade the use of tickets of
confession. — Ibid. c. 15. In fact, the correspondence betw^n him and the
clergy, resembles that of a pope or a metropolitan with his subjects. One of
the most degrading obligations of the clergy was, to read aloud the " Sul-
letins of the Grand Army of France " in their churches ! ! ! — Ibid. tom. ii.
p. 41. Degradation could not fall lower than this. Buonaparte and his
ministers also judged it expedient to publish the catechism of Bossuet, with
numerous alterations and improvements, even in point of doctrine, for the
use of the whole GaUican church. It was not submitted to the examina
tion of the prelates ,\ and the report was, that it had been drawn up by the
emperor and his generals ; but it was, in fact, prepared in common by the
papal legate and some theologians, under the supreme control and theolo
gical dictation of Napoleon himself ! — Ibid. tom. U. c. 17. During all these
proceedings, the Roman bishops of France were issuing charges, letters,
&c, in which Napoleon was described as " a man sent by God;" and in
which all the terms of a most fiUsome adulation were lavished on the
emperor.

328 ARBITRARY PROCEEDINGS OF NAPOLEON, [p, I CH. XI,
tions, are in force to this day ; and the government of the Galh
can church is vested more in the Conseil d'Etat, than in the bish
ops. Buonaparte assumed the language of piety, while he pro
ceeded 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."" He apparently found a very ac-
commoda^ng episcopacy. A royal commission, including two
cardinals, five archbishops and bishops, and some other high eccle
siastics, in 1810 and 1811, justified many of the "Organic Arti
cles" which the pope had objected to, acknowledged that a
national council could order that bishops should be instituted by the
metropolitan or senior bishop instead of the pope, in case of ur
gent circumstances ; and declared the papal bull of excommunica
tion, against those who had unjustly deprived him of his states,
was null and void."
These proceedings were by no means pleasing tp the exiled
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 Roman pontiff in vain.P His conduct in
derogating from their consent, suppressing so many sees, and ap
pointing new bishops, was certainly unprecedented. It was
clearly contrary to all the canons of the church universal, as every
one admits-^ The adherents of the ancient bishops infused to com
municate with those whom they regarded as intruders. They
dwelt on the odious slavery under which they were placed by the
" Organic Articles ;"i 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."^ Hence a schism in the Roman churches, which

¦' 504. Mem. Eccl. de France, U. p. 317.
= Mem'. 523— .530. Mem. Eccl. de France, u. 327, &c. 350, &c. 399, &c.
p 411. Mem. Eccl. de France, i. 310.
1 423. Mem, France, i. 312.
' Mem, 506, &c. Mem. France, iu. 220.

APPEND, in.] SCHISM IN THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 329
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."" The truly extraordinary origin of the pres
ent Gallican church, sufficiently accounts for the reported preva
lence of Ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, con
trary to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the inces
sant efforts of Napoleon' 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.
= Bouvier, de Vera Ecclesia, Compendium Histor. u. par. ii. p, 424, &c,
Mem. Eccl. de France, tom. i. ch. 17. 1 may here add, that on the return
of the Bourbons, the GaUican church, which had formerly boasted of 135
sees, found herself reduced to 50. Louis XVIII. and the pope made a
new Concordate (1817), by which the latter actually erected forty-two new
bishoprics, and the king nominated a , number of bishops accordingly ; but
the French " chambers " proved refractory, and in obedience to their wUl,
the pope cut down the number to thirty new sees.
' The Organic Articles contain an express provision, that the four Gal
lican Articles should be acknowledged by all heads of seminaries. The
same condition was made m establishing the University of France, 1808. —
Mem. Eccl. de France, t. U. p. 268. An edict (25 Feb. 1810) declared
these articles the law of the empire, and ordered them to be observed by
aU archbishops and bishops, universities, directors of seminaries, and
schools of theology. — Ibid, p, 363,

Vol. I, — 42

APPENDIX IV,
THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GREGORY XVI.
This letter presents so remarkable a view of the present condi
tion of the Roman 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 Papae XVI., Epistola
Encyclica ad omnes patriarchas, primates, archiepiscopos, et epis-
copos," 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 dixeri-
mus, horam nunc esse potestatis tenebrarum, ad cribrandum, sicut
triticum, filios electionis. Vere ' luxit, et defluxit terra 
infecta ab habitatoribus suis, qui transgress! sunt leges, mutaverunt
jus, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum.'
" Loquimur, venerabiles fratres, quae vestris ipsi oculis conspici-
tis, quffi coiMminibus idcirco lacrymis ingemiscimus. Alacris ex-
ultat improbitas, scientia impudens, dissoluta licentia, Despicitur
sanctitas sacrorum, et quas magnam vim, magnamque necessitatem
possidet, divini cultus majestas ab hominibus nequam improbatur,
polluitur, habetui kiijibrio. Sana hinc pervertitur doctrina, error-
esque omnis generis disseminantur audacter. Non leges sacrorum,
non jirfa, non iristituta, non sanctiores quselibet disciplinae tutae sunt
ab audacia loquentium iniqua. Vexatur acerrime Romana hsec nos
tra beatissimi Petri sedes,. in qua posuit Christus ecclesise firma
mentum ; et vincula unitatis in dies magis labefactantur, abrumpun-
tur. Divina ecclesise auctoritas oppugnatur, ipsiusque juribus con-
vulsis, substernitur ipsa terrenis rationibus, ac per summam injuri-
am, odio populorum stibjicitur, in turpem redacta serVitutem. De-
bita episcopis obedientia infringitur, eorumque jura conculcantur.
Personam horrendum in modum academise ac gymnasia novisopin-

APPEND, IV.] ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GREGORY XVI. 331
ionum monstris, quibus non occulte araplius et cuniculis petitur
catholica fides, sed horrificum ac nefarium ei bellum aperte jam et
propalam infertur. Institutis enim exemploque praBceptorum, cor-
ruptis adoleseentium animis, ingens religionis clades, morumque
perversitas teterrima perorebuit.
" Ad eorum itaque retundendam audaciam, qui vel jura sanctse
hujus sedis infringere conantur, vel dirimere ecclesiarum cum ipsa
conjunetionem, qua una esedem nituntur et vigent, maximum fidei
in eam ac venerationis sinceras studium inculcate inclamantes cum
S. Cypriano 'false confidere se esse in ecclesia, qui cathedrara
Petri deserat,' &c.
" Nefas porro esset, atque ab eo venerationis studio prorsvis
alienum, qua ecclesicB leges sunt exeipiendae, sancitam, ab ipsa dis-
ciplinam, qua et sacrorum procuratio, et morura norma, et juriura
ecclesise ministrorumque ejus ratio continetur, vesana opinandi libi-
dine improbari ; vel ut certis juris naturse principiis infestam no-
tari, vel mancam dici atque imperfectam, civilique auctoritati sub-
jectam. Cum autem, ut Tridentinorum Patrum verbis utamur, con-
stet, ecclesiam ' eruditam fuisse a Christo Jesu,' &c. . . . absur-
dum plane est, ac maxime in eam injuriosum, restaurationem ac
regenerationem, quamdam obtrudi, quasi necessariam, ut ejus inco-
lumitati et incremento consulatur, perinde ac si censeri ipsa possit
vel defectui, vel obscuration!, vel aliis hujuscemodi incommodis
obnoxia ; quo quidem molimine eo spectant novatores, ut, recentis
humanm institutionis jaciantur fundamenfa, illudque ipsum e veniat,
quod detestatur Cyprianus, ut, quse divina TeS, efet, 'humana fiat
ecclesia.' Perpendant vero, qui consilia id geniis machinantur : uni
Romano pontifici, ex S. Leonis testimonio, canonurn[dispensationem
esse creditara .... ' '
. ' .1 .
" Hie autem vestram volumus excrtatara pro. religione constan-
tiam adversus foedissimam in clericalem coelibatum conjurationem,
quam nostis effervescere in dies latins, connitentibus cum' perditis-
simis sevi philosophis nonnullis etiam ex ipso ecclesiastico ordine,
qui personse obliti munerisque sui, ac blanditiis abrepti voluptatum,
€0 licentiae proruperunt, ut publicas etiam atque iteraius aliquibus

332 ROMAN CHURCHES. [p, I. CH, XI,
in locis aus! sint adhibere principibus postulationes, ad discipli-
nam illam sanctissimam p ;rli ngendam,
" Alteram nunc persequimur causam malorum uberrimam, quibus
afflictari in prsesens comploramus ecclesiam, indifferentismum sci
licet, seu pravam illam opinionem, quse improborum fraude ex omni
parte percrebuit, qualibet fidei professione seternam posse animae
salutem comparari, si mores ad recti honestique normam exigantur.
At facili sane negotio in re perspicua, planeque evidenti, errorem
exitiosissimum a populis vestrae curae concreditis propelletis.
" Neque laetiora et religioni et principatui ominari possemus, ex
eorun votis, qui ecclesiam a regno separari, mutuamque imperii cum
sacerdotio concordiam abrumpi discupiunt. Constat quippe perti-
mesci ab impudentissimae libertatis amatoribus concordiam illam,
quae semper rei et sacrae et civili fausta extitit ac salutaris."

CHAPTER XII.
THE LUTHERANS, ZUINGLIANS, AND CALVINISTS.
The societies of which I am about to treat in this chapter,
are only those which were originally separated from the Ro
man Obedience, I leave out of the question those communi
ties which have separated from them, and which are too insig
nificant to merit attention. It is needless to say, that the
Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists, are accused of schism
and heresy by Romanists, in separating themselves from the
church, denying her authority, rejecting tradition, and allowing
private judgment to an unlimited extent. I propose to examine
whether these communities did v(i untarily separate from the
church ; whether they maintained principles subversive of
unity in faith and discipline ; whether they constituted churches
of Christ ; and whether it was allowable to hold any religious
intercourse with them, SECTION I, ¦ •.-
.¦,'¦¦ •' •'».
WHETHER THE LUTHERANS SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCp.
This is a question which can only be determined by refejferice
to the facts of history, and these prove conclti'^vety that Luther
and the Lutherans did not, either in intention; or- by act, sepa
rate from the Roman church ; that they 'vyerOialways 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
notion of separating from the church or rejecting its authority.
It is well known that he was roused by the abuses of Tetzel,
in the preaching and sale of indulgences, abuses which are ad-

334

LUTHERANS AND REFORMED, [p, I. CH, XII,

mitted by Romanists themselves. In 1517, Luther wrote to
the archbishop of Mayence, and the bishops of Brandenburg
and Merseburg, urging them to repress the evil conduct of
Tetzel." In 1518, he transmitted his theses on indulgences to
the bishop of Brandenburg, his diocesan, protesting at the.
same time, that he did not mean to determine them dogmati
cally, but that they were merely for discussion and disputa
tion, as was customary in the schools, and that he submitted
himself to the judgment of the bishop,'' Nor was this all. In
the same year he wrote to pope Leo X,, with the greatest
humility and respect, relating the excesses of the preachers of
indulgences, his having informed the bishops, and his disputa
tion 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 submit
ted himself entirely to the pontiff,"
Nothing could be farther from any appearance of schismati
cal conduct than this. It is obvious that Luther paid the high
est respect and submission to the ordinary and existing autho
rities in the church, and that his principles and conduct con
tradict 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 excommuni
cated by Leo X., all his discourses were full of similar protes
tations,'' Writers of another sort are too often disposed to pass
over these circumstances, as if they were in some way discre
ditable 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 Roman church,
Leo X. having appointed cardinal Cajetan to be judge in
« Gerdesii Historia Evangelii renovati, tom. i. p. 90.
" Ibid. p. 221, " Ibid, p. 221, 222.
i Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 125. s. 73.

SECT. 1,] LUTHER NOT A SEPARATIST, 335
Luther's case, who was now accused of heresy, a conference
ensued at Augsburg, in which Cajetan insisted that Luthter,
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 Roman 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 treated
Cajetan with the greatest respect, and even offered to be silent
on the subject in future, if his adversaries Eckius, Cochlaeus,
De Priero, Hochstrat, &c,, were also required to be silent,"
In conclusion, finding that cardinal Cajetan had orders to arrest
him and bring him to Rome, if he did not renounce his doc
trines unconditionally, he withdrew from Augsburg, but ad
dressed a letter to Cajetan, offering again to be silent if his
adversaries were, and expressing his readiness to retract if his
errors should be proved.^ At the same time he appealed (as
the university and parliament of Paris did almost contempora-
neouslys) from the expected sentence against him, to the pope
better informed.^ In all this Luther's desire of peace is evi
dent, 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 acade
mical 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 do
minions ; but the elector most justly replied, that Luther
ought not to be treated merely by the way of authority, and be
. Fleury, liv. 125. s. 79—84. ' § 84,
« § 54, See also Gerdes, tom. i. Appendix, p. 60. ¦¦ Fleury, s. 85.

336 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [P. I. CH, XII,
compelled to retract before his cause was examined and judged,
but ought first to be lawfully convicted of error.' 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,''
Leo X, presently issued a bull approving of indulgences,
and condemning all who disputed the doctrine relating to them
which he there laid down,' This decree obliged Luther to take
the farther step of appealing formally from the pope to a gene
ral council (a mode of proceeding perfectiy legitimate, and
practised perpetually in the Roman 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."™ In farther testimony of his wishes, he
again wrote, in March, I5I9, to Leo X,, (though the pontiff had
already written to the elector of Saxony against him as a heretic,
urging his banishment,") declaring in the most submissive terms
that he had never designed to injure the authority of the Roman
church, that he would not trouble the church for trifling mat
ters, 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 discvfssion 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 th be attached.^ In 1520, he 'wrote to the arch
bishop of Mayence and the bishop of Merseburg, to excuse
himself, and to request them not to believe him a heretic with
out hearing him.* • ¦ Nor was this the last testimony afforded by
Luther of his desire to remalll in communion with the church.
He had actually engaged Seckihgen to procure him an honour
able reconciliation with Rome, as cardinal Pallavicini acknow-

Ib. s. 86, 87. ' § 88. ' § 89. » § 90.
' Liv. 126. s. 9. o Ib. 12. p Ib.'25. " lb. 51.

SECT, I,] LUTHER NOT A SEPARATIST, 337
ledges,' when, in 1520, Leo X, issued a bull against Luther,
in which it is declared that unless he shall revoke the errors
therein attributed to him within sixty days, he and all his adhe
rents shall be deemed to have incurred all the penalties de
nounced against heresy, that no Christian shall hold communion
with them, and commands that their persons be seized, &c,^
Finally, in January, 1521, another bull formally excommuni
cated 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 company the faithful are
commanded to avoid. All places where they reside are laid
under an interdict, all bishops, &c., commanded 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 Ro
man 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 German church.
But this by no means closed their connexion with the Western
church generally, either in their own opinion, or in that of
others. It has been abeady said, thsfLuther appealed from the Ro
man pontiff to a general council. This was still to acknowledge
the authority of the church, and to allow' that the Western was
a true church. To this appeal Luther and hilfe friends steadily
adhered. They renewed it in the diet of Spires (1529)," and in
the diet of Augsburg (1530) they again appealed ; they de
clared that they had not estabhshed 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
r Pallavicini Hist. Cone, Trid. 1. 1. c. 21. Fleury, s. 63,
« Gerdes, tom. i. Appendix, p. 131, &c,
' Gerdes, tom, ii. Appendix, p, 15, &c,
" Fleury, liv, 132, s. 65, 66,
VOL, I. — 43

338 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I. CH. XII,
introduced ; that the bishops ought to, continue," &c. In 1531,
the king of France understood them honestly to call for a gene
ral council, and held communications;,, with them. They con
tinued their appeal in the following year.'" In 1535, Francis I.
was desirous of inviting several of their theologians to France,
in order to make some accommodation about religion ; he actu
ally did invite Melancthon, but was induced to desist by the car
dinal de Tournon.^ Yet Melancthon writes to cardinal de Bel-
lay, bishop of Paris, as a Christian prelate, and expresses his
wish that th^ power of bishops should be preserved.^ The
' Fleury, liv. 133. s. 24. 26, 27. 30. The Confession of Augsburg (pars
i. art. 22) says, there is nothing in this doctrine " which differs from the
Scriptures,, or the, catholic church, or the Roman church" (pars ii. prolog.).
They " differ concerning no ai:ticle of faith from the cathoUc church, but
only Omit some abuses,^'' &c. It says of bishops (pars u. art. vU.) : " Ac
cording to the Gospel, or jure divino, bishops, as such, i. e. those who have
the ministry of the word and sacraments, have no other jurisdiction than to
remit sins, to take cognizance of doctrine, and to reject doctrine different
from the Gospel, and to exclude sinners of known impiety from the com
munion of the church without fiuinan force. Hence the churches ought
necessarily, and jure divino, to obey them," &c  " The bishops
mig^t easily retain their legitimate obecjience, if they would not urge us to
observe traditions which cannot be kept with a good conscience. . . There
is rio design to deprive the bishops of their authority, but this only is sought,
that the Gospel be. permitted to be purely taught, and a few observances be
relaxed," &c. The Apology of the Confession says (art. vu.) : " Moreover,
we here again wish to testify, that we wiU wUlingly preserve the ecclesias
tical and canonical polity, if the bishops -wiU only cease from persecuting our
churches. This our wish wUl excuse us both in the presence of God, and
of all nations to all posterity ; so that it may not be imputed to us, that the
authority of bishops is overthrown, when men shall read and hear that
we, deprecating the unjust cruelty of the bishops, could obtain no relief."
" Fleury, lir. 134. s. 5. 30.
^ Ib. 1. 135. s. 73, &o. .
y Gerdes, tom, iv, p, 118, &c. Fleury, 1, 135. s. 76. See also 1. 136.
s. 44, &c. The Articles sent into France by the Lutherans on this occa
sion, acknowledged that " ecclesiastical government is holy and useful, so
that it is necessary that there should be bishops superior to other ministers."
Melancthon wished for bishops, " not to confirm their domination, but to re-

SECT, I.] THE LUTHERANS NOT SEPARATISTS, 339
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 Lutherans did not consider them
selves to be really separated 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 tiiem and
the church. Thus, in 1535, a correspondence took place be
tween them and Francis I,, and they sent twelve articles con
taining 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." They acknowledged that there
ought to be bishops, and some went so far as to approve the
authority of the Roman see.* The assembly of Smalcald, in
1 537, did not allow the papal authority, but it approved of that of
bishops.'' 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 pa
pal emissaries ; who, however, finally succeeded in putting an
end to them." Another conference with the protestants was
solicited at Haguenau, but objected to by Cochlaeus, a Romish
theologian, because the very act of agreeing with the Luther
ans, in seeking some middle course, was, in his opinion, schis
matical.'' Notwithstanding this, the conferences between the
two parties were actually renewed at Ratisbon in 1541, when

establish their administration ; for 1 see what a church We. shall have, if we
overthrow the ecclesiactical polity" (lib. iv. ep. 104). The articles of
Smalcald, drawn up by Luther (pars ii. art. iv..),".say, " The church can
never be better governed and preserved, than when we all live under one
head, Jesus Christ, and all bishops, equal in office, though unequal in gifts,
are most perfectly united in dfligenpe, concord of doctrine, &c  The
apostles were equal, and afterwards the bishops' ih all Christendom, until the
pope raised his head above aU."
' Fleury, 136. s. 45, • Ibid.
!> Articuli Smalcald, pars ii. art, iv. ut supra,
~ Fleury, 139. s. 53—56. i Ibid. s. 91,

340 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p, I. CH. XII.
several theologians on each side debated amicably, and agreed
on many of the disputed points," The bishops of Germany,
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 oi Germany, if a general synod could not
be obtained,^ 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.e
All these circumstances prove that the Lutherans did not, by
any means, desire to remain separate from the church ; that they
acknowledged all its ordinary authority, regarded themselves as
merely separated from the Roman see by an abuse of authority^
and were ready to make many 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 the
protestants by force of arms, together with the decrees of the
Council of Trent, which without admitting or hearing their the
ologians, decided several matters in controversy, rendered ac
commodation more difi&cult. But still they were willing to treat,
provided the decrees made in their absence were not held bind
ing ; and, in 1548, Melancthon and many others submitted 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 revised to hear them. All these things prove that
the Lutherans did not voluntarily separate from the church ;
and that, at all events, for a long time, they desired to be reunit
ed to its full communion. No small number of protestants, in
succeeding ages, considered them as having gone to very un
justifiable lengths, and made much too large concessions for the
sake of peace ; but the truth is, they were deeply and duly im
pressed with the evils of separation, and its contradiction to the
' Fleury, 139, s, 98—102, ' Ibid, 103. e Ibid. 105.

SECT. I.] THE LUTHERANS NOT SEPARATISTS. 341
divine will ; and felt that no obstacles, except those which arose
from certain, clear, and irrefragable necessity ought to prevent
union. I do not mean to say, that there was not sometimes unjustifi
able violence in the language of the Lutherans. Luther some
times permitted himself to be transported beyond reasonable
bounds, by his indignation at the tyranny and cruelty with which
they were persecuted, and to inveigh, in 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 him
self 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 a useless ebul
lition of indignation,' in return for the burning of his own writings
by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, and at Mentz and
Treves,'' But, allowing for faults on both sides, it is clear that
the Lutherans did not wish to separate from the church, and
that they were ready to make concessions to regain its commu
nion. It would be, also, a great mistake to suppose that Luther,
or his party, designed to effect a reformation of the church ; they
were driven entirely by the force of circumstances to adopt
the course they did. It was not premeditated nor desired by
them. They would have widely altered the Lutheran system,
which was a merely temporary arrangement, if by so doing they
could have recovered the communion of the church.. But the
opposition of the Roman see thwarted these designs ; the Coun-
!¦ See Melancthon, Epist. Ub. iv. Ep. 28. '
' [Its form is hardly to be commended : but as the solemn protest of a
member of the church in Germany, against the usurped authority of a for
eign bishop, it was far from " useless." Luther had claimed to be tried by
his own ecclesiastical superiors ; and the false decretals, which he burned,
were the foundations of the usurpations by wliich they were deprived of
their due authority, and he of his just rights.]
'' Gerdesii Hist. Evang, Renov. torn, ii, p, 14, 15, Fleury, Hist, Eccl.
liv, 126, g, 81.

342 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I, CH, XII,
cil of Trent rendered them still more difficult ; and, in time,
the Lutherans forgot that their system was merely provi
sional, pretended to justify it as ordinary and sufficient, and
lost their desire for accommodation with the Roman and Ger
man churches. SECTION II,
WHETHER THE ZUINGLIANS AND CALVINISTS SEPARATED FROM
THE CHURCH.
Zuinglius 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 authorities
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 1-519, 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,"" He also began to preach other
doctrines opposed to the common errors. But, notwithstanding
this, he did not attempt innovation in the usual rites. For five
years ' Zuingle celebrated mass in the Roman manner, and
perse'vered in all 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 in consequence between Zuingle and Faber,
the 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 Zuinghan
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
1 Gerdes, i. 105. Hospinian, ii. 22. ¦» Gerdes. i, 262.
n Ibid. 267—270.

SECT, II,] THE REFORMED NOT SEPARATISTS, 343
there was nothing of schism certainly ; and the senate of Zu
rich, though favourable to Zuinghus, manifested its respect for
constituted authority, by decreeing that no one, without serious
cause, should break the fasts of the church, until the affair was
more fully expounded and cleared by the bishop." 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,
fecf Zuingle denied the imputation of seeking to withdraw
the people from the communion of their bishops,'' 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 Zuingle 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 ab
stained from.''
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 many others of the reformed com
munities the case was similar. In France and Belgium those
who embraced the doctrine of Luther or Calvin, were not only
considered heretics, and expelled from the church, but were
also severely and 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.'
" Ibid. P Ibid, 272, ~. Ibid. 275. ' Ibid. 286.
' [Admitting the correctness of the author's inference from the very

344 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p, I. CH, XII.
It is true, indeed, that we cannot adduce in their case such
manifestations of a desire for reunion with the church, as in
that of the Lutherans. They did not, in the same manner,
continually appeal to a general council, nor did they hbld con
ferences with the Roman 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 condi
tions which were required from the Lutherans at the pacifica
tion of Nuremburg, that they should not unite with the Zuin
glians or Sacramentarians. The Lutherans themselves did
not communicate with the Sacramentarians, and the latter were
thus cut off by all parties, and had no hope of accommodation
with Rome. SECTION IIL
WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FOREIGN REFORMATION WERE
SUBVERSIVE OP UNITY.
It is argued by Romanists, and too often ignorantiy or art
fully admitted by others, that the principles of the Reformation,
in general, were subversive of all church authority, and all
unity of faith and communion. 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 exclusion
,  '1  * . .  1—  , 
general statements .'cbllected in the text, it may be doubted whether most
of the prominent leaders in the French and Swiss reformations did not, as
individuals, cut themselves off from the communion of the church, by
schismatic acts, before their formal and final exclusion as a body ; whether
they did not wantonly disregard and violate the unity of the church, by
unnecessary insuDordinatiqn and intrusion ; and whether, in many instances,
they did not add heretical unsoundness to schismatical irregularity. 'With
few exceptions, the history of the new doctrines in what the Lutherans
caU the "Reformed" and our author the "Zuinglian" communion, is a
sorrowful tale of reckless prosecution of justifiable ends by the most un
justifiable means.]

SECT. HI.] OPPOSED TO LICENSE OF OPINION. 345
of Creeds, Articles, cathohc tradition, and the authority of the
church ; and to maintain, with unlimited freedom, whatever
doctrines appear, to his own private judgment, most consistent
with Scripture, This pretended principle of the Reformation
is entirely overthrown by the public declarations and acts of all
the Lutherans and Reformed, to which it is diametrically op
posed. This I shall show, by adducing proofs of their acknow
ledgment of the authority of the catholic church, their use of, and
reverence for tradition, and their condemnation of all heresies.
(1.) I shall first prove their admission of church authority
in matters of faith, and of cathohc tradition. The continual
appeal of the Lutherans to the decision of a general council,
in the controversies of doctrine and discipline between them
and their opponents, proves that they acknowledged the right
and authority of the church to judge in religious controversies.
If they did not really believe that the church had such an au
thority, they must ha-ve been mere hypocrites in appealing to her
judgment ; but it would be inconsistent with charity, to impute
such conduct to them without any proof. The same respect
for the authority of the church was shown by the Lutherans
in the Confession of Augsburg, where they declare that they
differ in no article of faith from the catholic, or even the Roman
church ;' thus tacitly admitting, that it would, in their opinion,
be wrong to dissent from the faith of the church. They de
clared, " that they had taken most diligent heed that no novel
and impious doctrines should creep into their cTitirches."" And
as they rejected all new heresies; so did they reject all the old
heresies contrary to the catholic doctrine, and' condemned by
the church formerly. The Saxon Confession says : " We
condemn all the madnesses (furores) which are opposed to the
creeid ; such as, the portentous errors of Heathens, Jews, Ma-
hommedans, Marcion, the Manichees, Samosatenians, Arians,
Macedonians, and others condemned by true judgments of the
' Conf August, pars I. art. 22. " Conf. Aug.Epilomis.
VOL, I. — 44

346 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [P. I. CH. XII.
church."^ The Formula Concordiae 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,'" The Confession of the French
Calvinists concurs in the same principle of reverence for catho
lic tradition. " We approve in this mystery (the Trinity) what
ever 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, Ambrose, and others, we
detest."^ The Belgic Confession speaks of the " Pseudo-
Christians and heretics, Marcion, Manes, Praxeas, Sabellius,
Samosatenus, Arius, and others who were rightly and deserv
edly condemned by the orthodox fathers."^ The Polish Con
fession says : " We receive as a sure and undoubted interpre
tation of Scripture, the Nicene or Constantinopolitan 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 Eutychians,
whatever the Synods of Milevis and Orange taught against
tlie Pelagians from the Scriptures, whatever the primitive
church, from the apostolic age, believed and taught with a
unanimous notorious consent, as a necessary article of faith,
the same we also profess to beheve and to teach from the
Scriptures."* Hence it' appears that the Reformation had a reverence for
the doctrine of tjjie primitive church ; and accordingly we find
the confessions of faith, and the writings of the reformed doctors,
full of citations from the fathers and councils. The Confession
of Augsburg quotes. Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome,
«. s' .
T " Damnamus etiam constantissihie omnes furores qui pugnant cum
symbolis ; ut sunt Ethnicorum, &c  portentosae opiniones, et alise
condemnatae veris Ecclesiae judiciis." — Conf. Saxon. 1 De Doctrina.
" Formula Concordiae, pars II. De Antithesi, &c,
I Confessio GaUicana, c, vL ' Conf, Belgica, c, ix,
' Declaratio Thoruniensis, 1.

SECT, III,] RESPECTED CATHOLIC TRADITION. 347
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."'^ The Helvetic and most other Confessions of the
Zuinglians and Calvinists, are full of references to the authority
of the fathers. Melancthon and GEcolampadius composed books
on the doctrine of the fathers concerning the eucharist. Calvin
himself, in his Institutes, quotes largely from Augustine,
Ambrose, Chrysostom, Bernard, <fcc. in proof of his doctrine ;
he employs their authority against others ; he examines and
refutes the interpretations of their sentiments advanced by Val-
entinus Gentilis and Michael Servetus, obviously admitting their
authority,'' Melancthon says : "May the earth open under my
feet, sooner than it should ever happen that I separate 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,'"* " We leave our reply to the judgment of the
other churches,"" ''
* Apologia Confessionis, III, De DUectione (268).
a Calvin. ExpUcatio perfidias Valent, GentUis, inter Tractat. Theolog.
p. 779, &c. See also his Refutatio error, Mich, Serveti, in the same
volume, b Melancth, Epist. Ub. ui. ep. 44 ; i. 67.
c Epist, i. 105.
a [The foUowing is worth adding on account pf its strength, and the im
portance of the document where it appears.
" Praecipuae — cura sit hujus CoUegii, docere et fueri. puram Evangelii
doctrinam, traditam in libris Propheticis et Apostolicis cufk quibus congruunt
symbola, Apostolicum, Nicanum, et' Athanasianum. Hoc unum genus
doctnncB verum et immotum, quod quidem est perpetuus Catholica Ecclesia
Dei consensus, doceri et defendi volumus. — Severissime prohibemus spargi
et defendi uUas opiniones pugnantes cum illo consensu, et confessione nos
trarum Ecclesiarum, &c." Statutae CoUegii Facultatis Theologieae in Uni
versitati 'Wittemburgica Pezelu Cone. Theol. Melancth. p. 187. — The

34S LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I. CH. XII.
The respect of the Lutherans and Reformed for catholic tradi
tion was evidenced on so many occasions, that even Bossuet is
obliged to acknowledge, " que nos reformes sont souvent con-
traints par la force de la verite a respecter le sentiment des
peres plus qu'il ne semble que leur doctrine et leur esprit ne le
porte,"' And Blackburn, who pretends that the principle of the
Reformation was to regard catholic tradition as of no authority,
cannot help admitting that " in those days nothing was thought
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."*^ 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 whole Reformation
was diametrically opposed to the notion of the unbounded liberty
of .private judgment, or the right of individuals to hold what
ever religious tenets they judged most conformable to Scripture.
It'has been justly observed by a dissenter, that "there is a cer
tain-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, tlove to what is holy cannot exist apart from love to
what is true. ; and this spurious charity is in reahty nothing else
than an angel of-daikness and a minister of evil,"^ From so
same rule is laid down for the interpretation of Scripture, in chap, iv, of the
same document. Ibid, p. 191.
Equally strong eipress'ons of adherence to the same principle are used
by Melancthonj in his Defensio contra Flacium (in 1549, fourteen years
after the date of the Statutes above quoted) citante Seckendorf. Lib. III.
p. 109. a, ; and in his Greek Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantmople,
Anno 1553 ; citante Hettinger, Hist. Eccles, Sacc, XVI, Pars. 5. p. 52.]
« Bossuet, Variations, liv. ix. s. 84. f Confessional, p. 20.
6 Essays on Church Polity, Present State of Religion, &c, p, 13,

SECT. Ill,] REFORMATION OPPOSED TO HERESY, 349
evil a principle the Lutherans, Zuinghans, and Calvinists were
entirely free. The public confessions and actions of these socie
ties evince their devoted attachment to the doctrines they
believed really supported by Scripture and catholic tradition,
their condemnation of those who held contrafy heresies, and their
determination not to tolerate such heresies in their own com
munities, I have already cited some passages which show the aversion
of the Protestants generally from heresy. The truth is, that
their public confessions and acts are full of similar passages,
and I must be content to mention only a few other instances in
which this feeling (or rather principle) is displayed. The lan
guage of the Reformation was as follows : " We execrate all the
heresies of Artemon, the Manichees,'' &c." " We condemn
all heresies and heretics who teach that the Son and the Holy
Ghost are only in appellation God," such as the " Noetians,
Praxeas, Patripassians, SabeUius, Arius,' &c." " We abomi
nate the infamous doctrine 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 dispeisedr
through the world." " We abominate the Nestorian doctrine j"
and the " Eutychian insanity, removing the proper human "nature
of Christ, we utterly execrate,"'' " All those heresies which
have formerly disturbed the church, and are contrary to that
truth, we detest ; and especially the diabolical imaginations of
Servetus, who attributed to our Lord an imaginary deity,'" "We
condemn the damnable and pestilent heresies of. Arius, "^ &c,"
" We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who aie "not contented
with one baptism,"" &c. The Confessioia. of Augsburg " con
demns" all the heresies of Valentinians, Arians, Mahommedans,
Pelagians, Anabaptists, &c. Speaking pf evil doctrines, the
1 Confessio Helvetica, c, i.
' Ibid, c, iii. t Ibid. c. xi. i Confessio GaUic. c. 14.
¦ Conf. Scotica, art. vi. • " Conf, Belgica, art, xxxiv.

350 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. fp. 1. CH. XII.
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."" The
" Formula Concordiae " is full of condemnations of heresies.
The Pohsh 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 " whosoever 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.i'
Such were the sentiments of the Reformation with regard to
heresy. The reformers exhaust every term of reprobation in
their condemnation of heretics : they reckon them with heathens,
Mahommedans, and Jews-; and those who would blame, the
severity of their censure, would do well to remember the words
of God himself : " So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine
of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." Accordingly, they
acted on this principle. The Lu,therans rejected the Zuinglians
from all communion, because they were heretical in the doctrine
of the eucharist. The Calvinists in the Synod of Dort con
demned and excommunicated the Armenians as heretics. The
Swedish Lutherans excommunicated as heretics the Sacramenta
rians and the Papists.i 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 they were so far influenced by
their dread and hatred of heresy, and by the false principle of
the lawfulness of inflicting capital punishment on those who
¦> Articuli Smalcald. pars ui. 1. de Peccato.
p Thorun. Synodi Canon vu.
q Baazu Inventarium Eccl. Sueo-Gothorum, lib. iv. c. xi,
' " Coerceat (magistratus) et haereticos (qui vere haeretici sunt) incorri-
gibiles, Dei majestatem blasphemare et ecclesiam Dei conturbare adeoque
perdere non desinentes," — Conf. Helvet, cap; xxx.

sect. Ill,] OPPOSED TO LATITUDINARIANISM. 351
were guilty of that crime, that 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
unhappily but too well known ; not to speak of the imprison
ment and banishment of a great number of others.
The truth is, that although some 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
conclusion was not drawn,^ The whole body of the Reformed
held the directly contrary view. They were zealous for the
Christian truth, and they exhibited that righteous and holy in
tolerance of falsehood and heresy which is one of the essential
characteristics of Christianity,' and which alone subjected it to
the persecutions of heathenism in the first ages, as it may per
haps to those of infidelity in the last. They had at least " a
zeal for God," even if it was not always " according to know
ledge ;" and their conduct could never have exposed them to
the divine rebuke, " I would thou wert cold or hot. So then
because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will cast
thee out of my mouth." Had the Reformation maintained the
prificiple of an unbounded liberty of private judgment, so
falsely and impudently attributed to it, there could be no occa
sion to inquire further into its merits. Such a system would
s I am happy to be enabled to confirm this position by the unsuspected
and highly important testimony of Mr. Hallam, "It is often said, that
the essential principle of Protestantism, and that for which the struggle
was made, was something different from aUwe have mentioned, a perpetual
freedom from aU authority in religious belief, or what goes by the name of
the right of private judgment. But to look more nearly at what occurred,
this permanent independence was not much asserted and stiU less acted
upon," &c. — Literature of Europe, vol, i, p, 521.
t " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. As I
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. 8, 9. See
Chapter V. sections L ii.

352 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p, I, CH, XII.
bear so evidently the brand of infidelity upon it, that every
Christian would turn from it with horror and detestation.

SECTION IV,
WHETHER THE LUTHERANS, ZUINGLIANS, AND CALVINISTS WERE
CHURCHES OF CHRIST,
I have already shown that the reformed did not voluntarily
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 re
store them to union with the rest of the church. They were to
be regarded as brethren separated indeed from the external
communion of a large portion of the catholic church without
their own fault, but not internally cut off from it, and conse
quently still in the way of salvation.
But while this is maintained, it by no means follows that
these separated brethren constituted of themselves churches of
Christ, properly speaking. Their position was extraordinary,
temporary, and was only justifiable on the plea of necessity.
The system of the church, as it related to them, was disar
ranged and shattered, and they had to construct from the frag
ments a temporary and provisional system adapted to the exi
gencies of their case. They were harshly driven from the
bosom of the Christian family, where they had been within the
reach of all the means of grace, and were obliged to establish
themselves -elsewhere as best they could. Hence it is by no
means necessary to the justification of these communities, to
suppose that they really constituted churches, in the ordinary
sense of the term, and were invested with all the graces and
institutions of the cathohc church. That the Lutheran and
Calvinistic societies were not properly churches of Christ, I
argue thus.

SECT. IV. 1 OF THE LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. 353
First, these societies were deficient in the point of visible
duration. Every church of Christ, as I have already observed,
must be able to prove that it has perpetually existed as a Chris
tian society from the apostolic times, or that, when founded, it
was derived peaceably from the apostolical churches, or was
received and acknowledged as a church by such. Now this does
not apply to the Lutheran and reformed societies, because they
had no existence as societies prior to their separation from the
ancient churches in communion with Roirie. They were not
the original Christian communities of their localities, but were
unhappily cut off and separated from them. Nor does it ap
pear that they were afterwards recognized as Christian churches,
in the full sense of the term, by any apostolically-derived
churches. Therefore there is a very great difficulty in suppos
ing that they were really churches of Christ.
Secondly; it does not seem that they could offer any effectual
opposition to schism. They acknowledged for some time that
the Roman churches were true churches, while they them
selves, cut off by the ordinary authority of those churches,
were unable to invoke its aid for the suppression of irregular
and schismatical proceedings, and had properly no other mode
of treating them but by discussion. It does not seem that their
societies could claim any of that ordinary authority which
would have imposed an obligation on individuals to acquiesce
in their regulations, and hence we cannot wonder that divisions
multiphed exceedingly among them. This was deeply to be
lamented, but it was the almost inevitable consequence of the
unhappy situation in which they were placed. Had they been
invested with the ordinary authority of the chureh, they could
not have been troubled to such a degree with schisms and con
tentions. Thirdly, whether these societies maintained sufficientiy the
necessity of sanctification, is not very clear. Certain it is, that
Luther went so far in his opposition to the error of justification
by our own merits, that he fell into a contrary error. His most
ardent admirers are obliged to acknowledge that " he carried
VOL. I, — 4^.

354 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I. CH, XII.
the doctrine of justification by faith to such an excessive length,
as seemed, though perhaps contrary to his intention, to dero
gate not only from the riecessity of good works, but even from
their ,obligation and importance ;"'» and that " he not only re
moves the necessity of sacerdotal absolution, and satisfaction
by external works, in order to the remission of sins, but relieves
sinners in some measure from the necessity even of contri
tion."^ However, the reformers generally, after a time, main
tained the obligation of good works,"" and condemned Agricola,
the founder of the Antinomian heresy. It were to be desired,
however, that there had been no leaven of this error among the
Lutherans and Calvinists,
Fourthly. These societies were deficient in the point of
apostolical succession in their ministry. ' They could not prove
their succession from the aposties, by exhibiting the catalogues
of their bishops descending from them. Far, very far be it
from us, to blame them for any deficiency which arose from
necessity ; or to assert that there was any sinful intrusion on
the sacred office of the ministry, when under such absolute ne
cessity, they resorted to unusual methods to supply their wants,''
" Maclaine's Translation of Mosheim, vol, iv, p, 308, Luther's notions
of justification can therefore be of very little weight.
V Gerdesu Histor. Evang. tom. i. p. 220.
w " Prseterea decent nostri, quod necesse sit bona opera facere," — Conf.
August, pars, i. c. xx, " Sunt enim facienda opera propter mandatum Dei,
&c, propter has causas necessario debent bona opera fieri." — Apol. Conf,
iu, de dUect, et impl, legis. The Formula Concordiae, pars u. art. iv. de"
bonis operibus, also aifirms that good works are necessary, and quotes Lu
ther, affirming that " it is impossible to separate good works from true
faith." The obligation of performing good works, and the reward await
ing them, are also urged by the Helvetic Confession, c. 16.
^ [Such " necessity " could only have been absolute inabUity to procure
orders from regularly ordained bishops. It wUI not be denied that Luther
was virtuaUy in possession of episcopal jurisdiction, at Wittemberg, after
1526 ; and Calvin, at Geneva, after 1541. They needed but to obtain the
order, to secure the apostolical succession, at least. How far their treatment
by the prevaiUng faction would have justified such an estabhshment of a

SECT. IV.] DEFICIENT IN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 355
If they were placed in an extraordinary position, and deprived
of the assistance of those to whom the power of calling and or
daining ministers of Christ was entrusted by the will of God,
we could not blame them for having recourse to the best expe
dients within their reach. Under such circumstances, .even
popular election of ministers, or mere appointment by individu
als of considerable authority, without any ordination, could not
have been condemned; nor, of course, could there be any
greater objection to ordinations performed by mere presbyters.
new branch of the church in the West, is a distinct question, but compara
tively easy of solution, on the grounds taken in the preceding sections, and
in ch. xi. sec. iv.
Could they have obtained the order ?
I. As to Luther.
Several bishops are known to have been favourable to " the new learn
ing" and to its founder personally : e.g. George Polentius, bishop of Sam-
bia, in 1524 ; his successor, Paul Speratus, in 1530 ; (Wernsdorf. Program,
de Anhaltinorum in Ref. meritis. p. 1. s.) Matthew, bishop of Dantzig,
who -wrote to Luther in terms of strong affection, and sent him a present,
in 1529 ; (Luther's Briefe. Ep. 1110. ed. De Wette. HI. 462 ;) Matthew
Jagovius, bishop of Brandenburg ; (the diocesan of Wittemberg ;) the arch
bishop of Salzburg, who preceded Ernest ; (accessit, 1540 ;) and HSrman,
the famous reforming archbishop of Cologne, of whose liturgical labours so
much use has been made in some of the offices of the English church. — It
fs'^hard to beUeve that if due anxiety had been felt, and proper measures
taken, the episcopal succession might not have been obtained for the Lu
theran communion firom some one or more of these prelates.
II. As to Calvin.
Peter Paul Vergerio, bishop of Capo d'Istria, and more than once papal
nuncio, went over to the reformed about 1546. His brother, also a bishop,
foUowed him. Spifame, bishop of Nevers, became a Protestant in 1557.
He was employed in important negotiations, and was in Geneva about that
time. He was called to be "ministre" at Lyons in 1561. (Bayle, Art.
Spifame.) Jo, Anth, CaraccioU, bishop of. Troyes, publicly embraced
Protestantism in 1561. He offered to resign to the people, but was re
elected and re-ordained. (Bayle, Art. CaraccioU.)
These instances (and there were others) show that the succession was
within the reach of the reformer of Geneva, had he thought it desirable to
secure it. He had not, therefore, the plea of necessity for its neglect.]

356 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED, [p, I, CH, XIT.
Certainly not : absolute necessity would excuse and justify 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 ex
treme difficulty on this point, because the whole practice and
principle of the catholic church, and even of the ancient here
sies, 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 misinterpreted passages in the Fathers,
which they supposed to countenance merely presbyterian ordi
nations ; but the weight on the other side is so great, that
there must at all events be more serious doubts of their validity.
Even conceding, however, that presbyterian ordinations are
valid, there would still be considerable uncertainty whether
they were preserved in the Lutheran and reformed societies ;
for it appears that several of their ministers at the beginning
acted, and probably ordained others, without having been or
dained presbyters themselves, Calvin was not even a deacon.
Beza was never ordained ; Bullinger, Brentius, and many
others, seem to have been in the same case,^ Luther and Zuin
glius appear to have claimed extraordinary mission sometimes,*
and Beza, in the Colloquy of Poissy, to the discredit of his
party, denied the necessity of any imposition of hands, and ac^-
mitted that many of them did not receive it.'' It was after
wards 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," &c.,
J.  J [WiU " absolute necessity excuse and justify " a man in assuming te
be that which he is not, and to give that which he has not 1 Surely, the
true excuse which necessity affords, is for the wanting that which cannot
be obtained : not for the pretending to have that which is wanting, or to
supply it without the power.]
% See Gerdesii Hist, tom. ii, p, 79 — 83,
• Fleury, liv. 126. s, 80,
i' Fleury, liv, 157. s, 13, 15,
' Confess, GaUicana, Art, XXXI.

SECT, IV.] DEFICIENT IN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 857
and their Synod of Gap decided that the vocation of their min
isters 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 a good many
of the first ministers of the Reformation were not themselves
presbyters, and therefore that there is considerable uncertainty
as to the continuance even of presbyterian ordinations in those
communities. That the reformed were sensible that the mission of their
preachers was not ordinary, and that it was only justified by
necessity, we may fairly conclude from their relinquishing the
ancient and scriptural appellations of the ecclesiastical minis
try, 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," " ab
bot," " prsepositus," &c. The ancient orders of bishop and
presbyter were appropriated by the church. The Lutherans
and Calvinists ordained to other offices, and thus evinced their
secret persuasion that the church alone retained the ordinary
and apostolic vocation of ministers. It would seem, indeed, as
if the Lutheran 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 of the church, but to co-operate with
them where they could, Luther himself declared that he pre
ferred that Lutherans 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 re
ligiously observed, that an evangelical ought not to preach in

li [Calvin distinctly claims such an extraordinary mission for the refor
mers, " Apostolos — vel saltem eorum loco evangelistas interdum excita
nt Deus, ut' nostro tempore factum est. TaUbus enim qui ecclesiam ab
Antichristi defectione reducerent, opus fuit. Munus tamen ipsum — extra-
ordinarius appeUo," — Institut, IV. iii. 4.]

358 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED, [p. I, CH, XII-
the parish of a papist or a heretic, without the participation of
the pastor, because no truly pious man ought to attempt any
thing without vocation,* &c.
I conclude from all this, that the societies of Lutherans and
Calvinists could not have been considered as churches of Christ,
properly speaking ; though they might have been called so in
a general and popular way, as being internally united to the
church. It is to be lamented, that in process of time the socie
ties of the foreign reformation forgot the principles on which
their founders had set out, and deemed it necessary to assume
the office and character of churches of Christ in the ordinary
sense ; for this not only placed them in a false position in their
controversies with Rome, but interposed a new obstacle to any
accommodation between them and the church, while it led them
to reject that catholic tradition which did not support their novel
system, and thus to open the door for the intrusion of heresy
and infidelity.
I have spoken throughout of the foreign reformation as of a
thing that has passed away. Lutheranism and Calvinism are
indeed now little more than matters of history ; for the feeble
and lifeless relics which they have left behind, and which still
bear their name, are but painful memorials of systems whose
imperfections and faults, whatever they might be, were digni
fied by a holy ardour and zeal for God and for God's revelation.
Now, when the confessions of faith for which Luther, and Zuin
glius, and Calvin would have laid down their lives, are thrown
aside as obsolete, or subscribed with salvos and declarations
which render the act of subscription a mere mockery ; how can
we recognize the existence of their faith ? Overrun by the auda-

e In ps. Ixxxii. de Magistral, tom. ui. foi. 488, 489, a.d. 1534. In speak
ing of the Lutheran ordinations, and generaUy of the state and position of
the foreign reformation, I do not include the Swedish Lutheran church, be
cause it forms a peculiar case, and I have not yet examined completely the
question of their orders and reformation.

SECT v.] RELIGIOUS INTERCOURSE. 359
cious impiety of neologism, an infidelity which cloaks itself
under the name of Christianity in order to inflict a more griev
ous wound on faith, or sunk into the deadly slumber of Soci
nian and Arian apostacy, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, as reli
gious systems, seem to have nearly perished in the countries
where they arose. ^

SECTION V.
WHETHER IT WAS LAWFUL TO HOLD ANY RELIGIOUS INTERCOURSE
WITH THESE SOCIETIES.
If there were probable reasons for considering the Lutherans,
&c, as not guilty of schism or heresy, then it was lawful on the
principles of Christian charity, .to hold intercourse and com
munion with them, (I,) Now, it has been shown that they did
not voluntarily separate, in general, from the church, but were
excommunicated bythe Roman pontiff; and this excommunica
tion was not that of the whole catholic church, for it was only
received and acted on by some of the Western bishops, who
were apparently under the influence of the pontiff and the em
peror. It has also been shown, that they did not wish to remain
separate from the church, that they acknowledged its authority,
and were willing to communicate with and obey their bishops,
if they had abstained from persecuting them in obedience to the
papal commands. Hence, more especially when they testified
a desire to communicate with the Gallican, the British, and other ,
parts of the church, it seemed that they might be considered
very probably as not formally schismatical.^ Doubtless the
f See the Abbe Gregoire's Histoire des Sectes, &c. Reports of the
Continental Society ; but above aU, Mr, Rose's State of Protestantism in
Germany, g Melancthon thus states the case of his party : " We are not deserters
from the church, we are not separated from the body of Christ ; for those
who retain the true doctrine of the Gospel, and are obedient to it, remain

360 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I, CH, XlX.
¦writings of some of them were too violent, and they were not
free from the imputation of tumult and disorder, but the more
wise and moderate among them discouraged all such proceed
ings, and their violence of language was rivalled by that of theh
opponents, (2,) It was also very probable that they were not
heretics. For, whatever their doctrines might be, it did not
seem that they generally defended them with obstinacy against
the evident truth. They received all the creeds of the church,
professed to be guided by Scripture and tradition, and to intro
duce no heresies or novelties. Their opinions were not con
demned by any clear judgment of the universal church, for the
Synod of Trent, as I shall prove in Part IV,, was not of binding
authority. They varied in their doctrines, and some things
which had been incautiously said by Luther and Zuinglius,
were modified and corrected by their adherents. The error of
Zuinglius, GEcolampadius, and Carlostadt on the Eucharist had
been apparently given up by Calvin, who obtained a great influ
ence in the Zuinglian and reformed communities. His language
was strongly in favour of the real presence, though at the hot-
members of Cirist though the pontiffs should expel them from their com
munion. . . . This difference arose at the beginning from the reproof of a
most scandalous sale of indulgences, Then the pontiff and his adherents
met together, and the excommunication was fulminated. Are we said to be
cut off from the church on account of those unjust decrees V — See his Epis
tles, lib. i. ep. 67. which well merits a perusal. In another place he puts
the argument very strongly from their Appeal to a General CouncU. " Those
who ex animo, and not feignedly, appeal to the judgment of the church, are
by no means enemies of the church, or seditious, or schismatics, or heretics:
for it is written. If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a
heathen or a publican. Therefore, so long as he does not refuse to accept
the judgment of the church, he cannot be caUed an enemy or a schismatic."
— Melanc. Enarr. in Evang. Joh. tom. iii. Oper. p. 797. [It ought to be
taken into account, also, that their excommunication was, in most instances,
entirely irregular and uncanonical. The usurped power of the bishop cf
Rome, in part brought to bear upon them directly, in part operating on the
authorities to whom alone they were truly amenable, prejudged their cause,
and deprived them of aU the advantages of regular trial and appeal.]

SECT, v.] RELIGIOUS INTERCOURSE WITH LUTHERANS, &C, 361
torn, his doctrine was inconsistent with it ; and the differences
between the Lutherans and Sacramentarians, on this point, were
not for a long time discovered to be insurmountable,'' Many
conferences had taken place between the Lutherans and -the
Roman party, and concessions had been made, which inferrtd
that there was not any obstinate adherence to preconceived opin
ions ; and the Lutheran divines had offered to retract if in error,
and continually appealed to the judgment of a general council.
All these circumstances combine to prove that there was great
probability that the Lutherans and Calvinists were not heretics ;
and when particular persons or churches were convinced, from
an examination of the several questions in debate, that the truth
lay more with the Lutherans, &c. than with their opponents ;
or even, that it was equal on both sides ; they were justified, in
not excluding the members of 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 some
members of our churches formerly held with the Lutherans and
Calvinists. There was a great probability that they were not
schismatics nor heretics ; and as they did not exhibit an un
friendly feeling to our churches, there were good and sufficient
reasons to view them with kindness and charity. The suffer
ings which we experienced, in common with them, from the
persecution and ambition of the Roman pontiff, added sympathy
to this general good- will ; and the agreement on certain points
of doctrine and discipline against Rome, may have perhaps in
duced us to give a better construction to some things than they
deserved, and to overlook some faults which an unfriendly, or
even a strict criticism would have condemned. It is possible
that some of our writers, and particular members of our
'^ Even in 1560 Jewell could say of the Zuinglians and Lutherans : " tan
tum de una, nee ea ita gravi aut magni quaestione, inter se dissentiunt. Nee
desperamus, vel potius non dubitamus, brevi fore concordiam," &c. — Apol.
p. 63, 64, ed. 1606.
VOL. I. — 46

362 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p, I, CH, XII.
churches, may have been deceived in the question of fact, and
esteemed the Lutherans and Calvinists more free from fault
than they really were ; but if so, it was a mistake as to fact
only: there was no wish to countenance heresy or schism,
which the churches of Britain have always abhorred and con
demned. Even churches are not free from the possibility of be
ing deceived as to the real character of those with whom they
communicate, and still less are individuals, "however orthodox
and pious they may be in themselves.

OBJECTIONS.
I, Even if Luther and his adherents had been unjustly ex
communicated by Leo X. still they were guilty of schism in es-
tabhshing private conventicles, and altering the rites of rehgion.
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,"' Therefore the Lutherans ought to have remained pa
tiently 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, which deprived them of the external communion of the
faithful, should induce them in addition to deprive themselves
of the means of grace, and especially the blessed sacrament of
the eucharist, which is " generally necessary to salvation."
Many of them were clergy empowered duly by ordination to
administer the means of grace. Surely it would be most un-
' Augustinus de vera Religione, cap, vi. tom. i. p. 752.

OBJECT.] LUTHERAN ALTERATIONS EXCUSED,

363

reasonable to expect, that men who felt themselves not to have
been condemned by a legitimate judgment of the church, should
abstain at once from all the most sacred duties of rehgion.
Good conscience would never have permitted such a proceed
ing. It must be remembered that they were appellants to a
general council, and were authorized in not considering them
selves as definitely 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 testi
mony 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 sepa
rated them from their communion. The question then arises,
whether they were strictiy 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 reli
gion. Under the extraordinary circumstances in which they
were placed, it does not seem that there was any thing schis
matical in abstaining from such rites provisionally, until the
church should decide the questions in controversy, and receive
them into communion again. And this was what the Lutherans
did ; for they were ready to make alterations in order to regain
communion with the church ; and the Zuinglians would doubt
less have done the same, only that their doctrine on the eucha
rist excluded them from all accommodation.''
II. The Reformation was effected in most places by the au
thority of the civil magistrate, who had no right to interfere in
t [It wiU be observed that the author's answer tends to the exculpation
of the Lutherans, &c., for continuing to minister in orders already received,
and for reforming the rites by which they ministered ; but does not touch the
very serious charge of schismatic usurpation in professing to convey au
thority to minister to others, as their successors.]

364 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I. CH. XII.
questions of doctrine and discipline ; therefore the Reformation,-
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 Zu
rich, the magistrates were obhged to examine the question, in
consequence of the applications of the Romish party to put
down by force the doctrines of the Reformation. In many
cases simple protection was afforded by the civil magistrate, as
in Friesland, Goslar, Holstcin, 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.'
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 Lutherans
and Calvinists, 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 magis
trates, 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
to be understood without that consent,) make laws concerning
those externals, which are either to be observed or neglected."""
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 Em-
¦ ' K ~~ '
' Gerdes. tom. ii. p. 120. 208.
¦" Gerdes, tom. i. supplement, ad p, 286 and 287.

OBJECT.] INTERFERENCE OF THE MAGISTRATES.

365

peror Charies V. in 1548, pubhshed, by his own authority, the
Interim," which contains numerous regulations concerning doc
trine and discipline, and which he forced on his subjects. The
Diet of Ratisbon, in 1540, took cognizance of rehgious ques
tions ; and even Erasmus gave it as his opinion to the magis
trates of Basle, that the diet of the empire might permit the
clergy to marry, and the religious to leave their convents."
Therefore the Lutherans, &c. were not the only persons who
allowed the authority of the civil magistrates.
III. The Arians, ApoUinarians, 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 inquired
into, there can be no use in them, for controversy will be per
petual. 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. The Arians and'
other ancient heretics were condemned by clear and undoubted
decisions of the universal church, and their only resource was
to deny its authority and assert that it was apostate.
IV. Many theologians of the reformed communities confess
that they separated themselves from the Roman church. Lu
ther 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 departure 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 ignorantiy zealous, is neither to be
doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it."? When Luther
said that he stood alone, he meant that he was almost the only
 1  '  —
¦' Fleury, liv. 145. s. 19. " Gerdes. tom. ii. p. 296.
p Laud, Conference with Fisher, § 21. No. 3.

366 LUTHERANS AND REFORMED. [p. I, CH, XII,
person who conspicuously, and in the face of the world, main
tained his doctrines ; but he knew that many- others, though
less conspicuously, approved and defended them,
V. It is inconsistent with Christian charity to deny the Lu
theran and reformed communities to be churches of Christ, be
cause, according to the principles here laid down, salvation is
only offered in the church, so that the Protestants must be ex
cluded from salvation. And besides this, it is pronounced
unlawful to separate from the Roman church, and thus men are
encouraged to remain in the profession of superstition and error.
On such principles, the Reformation could never have taken
place. Answer. (1.) I have shown that the adherents of the Refor
mation were not in schism or heresy, therefore they were only
separated from the external communion of the church, and were
not out of the way of salvation, (2.) While it is maintained that
it would have been unlawful to separate from the existing church,
it is also affirmed that the truth should always be supported and
*¦ advocated, without violence and uncharitable zeal ; and if, in
consequence, the rulers of the church, misled by a false autho
rity, should excommunicate one who holds the truth, he is free
from offence, and is not bound to retract, nor to cease his exer
tions to be of use to the brethren. Therefore the Reformation
would not have been impeded by the principles here maintained,
which in fact were those of the reformers themselves. And if
they had been able to remain in the church, the Reformation
would probably have been far more extensive, and would have
better merited its name, for it would have been accomplished in
a more orderly manner,
VI, Several theologians, even of the British churches, have
acknowledged the Lutherans and reformed to be churches of
Christ, Answer. I admit that this opinion has been held by some
writers, but they seem t^piave been influenced by the notion,
that it was necessary for the justificaticta of both the Protestants
and the British churches. However, scarcely any theologian

OBJECT,] SEVERAL DIFFICULTIES, 367
affirmed that these foreign communities were perfect in all
respects, according to the institution of Christ ; and most of
those who give them the title of churches do so in a general
sense, not meaning that they are churches in the strict sense of
the term.

CHAPTER XHI,
ON THE SEPARATISTS FROM THE BRITISH CHURCHES.
I AM now to speak of the societies which are separated from
the communion of the British churches. As I consider else
where the character of the Roman and the Scottish Presbyterian
communities,^ it only remains here to treat of the various sects
of dissent. Of these communities, whether collectively 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 httle need be said on the
subject. SECTION L
ON THE ORIGIN OF DISSENT.
The dissenting societies cannot be supposed to constitute the
true church of Christ, to the exclusion of the more ancient and
infinitely greater churches of the East and West, the Lutherans
and Calvinists ; for it has been proved, that the church of Christ
must always be morally universal,'' Now, dissenting commu
nities only exist in Britain, in the United States, and in a few of
the English colonies. They are unknown 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 a hill which cannot be hid." Even
if we were to add the Lutherans and Calvinists to their number,
their church would be still unknown in the greatest part of the
world.

Pajrt II. Chapter H, IX, " Chapter VIL

SECT, I.] ON DISSENT. 369
There is another proof that they cannot alone constitute the
church of Christ. Whatever be their present state, it is certain
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 Independency, lived in 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, Presbyterians, Sweden
borgians, Socinians, Moravians, Huntingdonians, 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 anti-christian church. This
would not be any answer to the question where the visible church
of Christ existed. It would be equally vain to attempt to trace
this visible church in the various sects of the Albigenses, Wal-
denses, Wicldiffites, Hussites, Anabaptists, &c.: for, indepen
dently of the fact that none of these societies possessed the
antiquity and universality of the church of Christ, the dissent
ing 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 so
cieties : and, what has been observed of them collectively,
applies of course still more strongly to each of them in par
ticular, .»-
It must be admitted then, that the dissenters can only form
a small portion of the church of Christ, if they belong to it at
VOL. I. — 47

370 ON DISSENT. [p. I. CH. XIII.
all. We must look elsewhere for the great majority of that
church ; and since, even the Lutheran and Calvinistic societies,
in addition to the dissenters, would not take up a church such
as the Scripture points out ; the more ancient societies 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 Lutheran and Calvinistic societies are parts of the catholic
visible church, it is impossible to exclude the British churches
from the same privilege ; for there is nothing objected to them
by dissenters, which might not be equally objected to all the
other ancient churches of the East and West, and to the Lu
therans and Calvinists. All are more or less established, 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 suffrage 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 the Lutherans,
Greeks, &c, 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
Christ, even to the present time ; they must have been so when
these various communities separated from them, and consti
tuted a rival worship. But I have already proved that separa
tion from a Christian church is incapable of excuse, that no
reason can possibly justify it, and that the society so formed _
by such an act of separation is entirely cut off from Christian
unity and from the true church of Christ."
This fixes ineffaceably the mark of schism on the origin of
all those communities, which separated themselves from the
British churches. For they not only separated themselves
from this branch of the visible catholic church, but did so on
principles which involved separation from every o)lier part of
the church equally ; and accordingly they held communion
" Chapter IV, sect, u.

SECT, I,] FOUNDED IN SCHISM AND HERESY, 371
with no church which existed previously to their separation,
nor were they acknowledged afterwards by any ancient church
as a portion of the church of Christ,
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,'' The conclusion followed of course from
their principle ; but that principle condemned as Antichristian,
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 and
Antichristian, They denied her to be a true church because her commmu-
nion comprises sinners, and maintained the duty of separating
from her on this account." 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 ch'urch, was an act
of rebellion against the sole authority of Christ, as king and
¦• StUlingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Works, vol. ii. p. 481
— 483. 549. Brown, in his book on the Life and Manners of the Chris
tians, (1582), asserts that the English church government is "Antichris
tian," that the clergy " enchant " the bread and wine by graces and prayers,
make an idol of it, &c. The Apology of the Brownists (1604) maintained
that the church's government and worship were Antichristian (art. 39, 30),
that the English is not a part of the Christian church (art. 31), that "all
who will be saved are bound to come forth of this Antichristian church "
(32), that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress and root out
the ministry of the church and apply its property to civU uses, and to es
tablish and maintain by law the true religion (39). See also Neal's Puri
tans, vol. i. c. 4, 5, 6.
' Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church.

372 ON DISSENT, [P, I, CH. XIII.
legislator in his church,^ This had been notoriously practised
by all Christian churches from the earhest ages, consequentiy
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 of Christ,
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,
separations, and heresies among dissenters, because every sys
tem is occasionally abused, and such evils may not be its proper
result, but may arise from the violation of its principles. Yet
it must be confessed, that the religious disorganization of dis
sent is something extraordinary and unprecedented. One of
themselves admits that " the most remarkable and flagrant cir
cumstance that fixes the attention of the Christian philosopher,
is the inveterate and incurable sectarism that distinguishes our
British Christianity. No people of any age or chmate have
carried, the evil of religious faction and endless division to a
more extraordinary height. No religious evil (in the present
day) more resolutely defies correction than the evil of schism."^
These remarks are perfectly 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 ? "'' I say, it can be clearly shown. The dis-
f Towgood on Dissent,
s Eclectic Review for 1831, p. 192.
¦¦ Library of Ecol. Knowledge, vol, ii. On Ch. Polity, p. 171.

SECT, I,] DISSENTING PRINCIPLES FOSTER SCHISM, 373
senting system, the principle of dissent, is exactly the cause of
all their divisions ; it leads necessarily to tumult, division, sepa
ration, 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 essential 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
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 de
cides everything, every measure is proposed and discussed,
and the majority determines the matter,' Such is the system
and principle of dissent : whence it is clear that frequent dis
cussion, debate, voting, are essential to it, *nd therefore there
must be a perpetual excitement to anger, jealousy, party-spirit,
ambition, and to all the elements of division. And these con
tending elements are pent up in each little community and com
pelled 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.''
Therefore the minority in any question in their churches cannot
feel it their duty to yield to the majority, because the judgment
of that majority is merely human ; and hence it follows that dis
cussions among them are interminable except by a total separa
tion. Voluntary separation or dissolution of their societies is-
in short their only remedy against violent explosions ; and in
jurious as it is to their interests and character, they are com
pelled 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
perfectiy one ; and that St, Paul exhorted Christians to be per-

Binney's Life of MorreU, p, 134, 135.
¦ Towgood on Dissent. Library of Eccl, Knowledge, vol, ii, p, 314,

374 ON DISSENT. [p. I, CH, XIII,
fectly united, and that there shouldlje no divisions among them,'
" The system of congregational 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 pro
voking any resentment, , . . Peaceable and Christian separa
tion, when separation 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 disturbances conducive to the extension of Christianity.""
Thus we see the principle of schism and separation enshrin
ed as a maxim of dissent ; and accordingly we need not
wonder to find Owen and Towgood, and other dissenters, ridi
culing those who deliver solemn lectures on the sin of schism,
and joking about s(ihism as a mere " ecclesiastical scarecrow,""
According 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."" It is clear then, that
the principle of division is a principle of dissent ; and there
fore their community cannot form any portion of the church of
Christ, It is their principle to reject all human authority in matters
of religion ; and they profess to separate from the church, be
cause she imposes creeds and articles of faith : therefore if a
dissenter embraces some heresy, he cannot yield to the con-

1 See Chapter IV,
¦= Library of Eccl, Knowledge, vol, ii, p. 167,
" Owen sneers at " the old opinion of the unlawfuUiess of separation
from a church," as a " scarecrow to frighten men with."— Gospel Church,
p, 27, Towgood also represents it as " an ecclesiastical scarecrow to keep
the simple in awe."— On Dissent, p. 115. It is awful to remember whose
injunctions are here sneered at.
." Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii. 118.

SECT, 11,] HAS NO REMEDY AGAINST HERESY. 375
trary judgment of his own community, or of all Christians in
the world, now and in all former ages : nor can a congrega
tional society admonish him to turn from his error on pain of
expulsion, because this would be precisely that very assump
tion of authority in matters of religion, which dissent exclaims
against in the church. There is therefore no provision for the
maintenance of the Christian truth amongst them.
According to their principle, a church is a mere voluntary
association. The motive for entering it, is the opinion of the
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 ex
pedient," From the voluntary principle of their associations,
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 com
munities. They are human societies. The will of man makes
them, regulates them, unmakes them. They 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.

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

P Owen, p. 47,

376 ON DISSENT, [p, I. CH. XIII,
visible church of Christ consists of saints only. As they say :
" The very basis of our church union is regeneration and holi
ness, evinced by the proper evidences in those persons who are
admitted into (church) membership."'' " Religious communi
ties 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,"' " It is a pro
minent feature of congregational churches, that they aim at
comprehending none but persons of real piety. Every mem
ber of them is to be supposed, therefore, to possess that adap
tation to right judgment, of which we have been speaking.
Superior to the blindness of a carnal man, and delivered from
the influence of worldly passions, his opinions may reasonably
be regarded as enhghtened and wise,"*
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 ;"' thus intimating that believers
shouM, by baptism, be fully and perfectly made his disciples,
and enter on the way of salvation in his church. The evange
list 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,"" 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
I Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol, ii. p. 399.
¦¦ Ibid, p. 146, 147, ¦ Ibid. p. 163.
' Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16, " Acts ii, 41, 47.

SECT, III,] DISSENT ALTERS THE DISCIPLINE OF CHRIST, 377
Christ, have put on Christ  ye are all one in Christ
Jesus ;"" intimating that in baptism they were engrafted into
Christ's body, the church. They were thus by lawful baptism
made members of the whole Christian fraternity, and conse
quently 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 consola,tion
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 bap
tized, 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 re
pentance 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 n«al
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 contemplate 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

" Gal, iii, 27, 28,
VOL, I. — 48

378 ON DISSENT. [p, I. CH, XIII-
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 chil
dren of church-members, giving them thereby an admission into
the visible cathohc church."'' Baptism then admitted into the
visible catholic church, but baptism did not admit into the dis
senting 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 baptism, denies
and tramples under foot the pri'vileges which, by the divine ap
pointment, are connected with it; and as he cannot be introduced
again into the church by the vain and impious ceremony by which
men dare to supersede the effects of baptism, he falls headlong
from the church of Christ.
But let us consider the operation of this principle on Christian
sanctity.'' It is the manifest aim and intention of the dissenting
w Owen's Gospel Church, p, 50,
" [This argument seems liable to objection, as a non sequitur. It only
proves the societies in question not to constitute the whole of the catholic
church, inasmuch as they may, and profess to be constituted within the
limits of the church, by an addition of other requisites.
It may be thus amended. The cathoUc church is made up of individual
churches, into which men are admitted by baptism. The societies which
do not admit to membership by baptism, are not such churches, therefore
they are not parts of the catholic chureh.
On the contrary, their very constitution is an abnegation of the catholic
church, by an impracticable, if not profane, attempt to give visibiUty to the
invisible body of the elect.]
y [Such an attempt at convey al of church-membership should be carefuUy
distinguished from the recognition of church-membership on renewal of the
baptismal profession, which takes place in confirmation.]
^ [i. e. the orar^c of the Christian man. See note e on p. 138.]

SECT, ill.] DISSENTING PRINCIPLES ENGENDER PRIDE. 379
community to admit none but " real saints," persons regenerate,
sanctified, of a peculiar and exalted religious character. Such
is their intention, and therefore they inquire by every possible
means, including personal examination of the candidate's " ex
perience," whether he be really possessed of these distinguished
qualifications. Therefore no person can enter a dissenting com
munity without hypocrisy, unless he believes and professes him
self to be a saint ! He must beheve himself to be a regenerate,
really pious, sanctified man, superior to the blindness of the
flesh, free from the influence of earthly passion ; in short, a
genuine saint ! Surely modesty and humility were not to be
altogether strangers to Christianity, yet they are utterly ban
ished by the dissenting principle of 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 re
generation, sanctity, real piety, &c,, such a man, I say, must
have a most perfect and singular assurance and self-satisfaction, i
he must " think more highly of himself than he ought to think."
His feeling 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 publican," The Church is more humble, and
instructs each of her children to say from the bottom of his
heart, " God be merciful 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 se
parated 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 Christian
ity, This was on all accounts a perilous undertaking, and one
¦of its peculiar dangers is well pointed out by a dissenting writer.

380 ON DISSENT, [p, I. CH, XIII.
" By the fact of our select association," 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 pro
fess to be so materially diverse from others, that for the purpose
of religious association we are constrained to separate from them,
we are yet so much like them, that little or no difference is per
ceptible ; we do mischief rather than good ; we falsify the les
son which our profession is adapted to inculcate, and turn our
profession itself into inconsistency and ridicule,"* 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. Dissent
ing communities are just like the rest of the world, troubled
with immoralities, 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,"'' Yet, strange to say, though experience
has verified the Scriptural doctrine on this subject, which the
church has always maintained," the opposite doctrine of a per
fect 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.

- Library of Eccl. Knowledge, vol. ii, p, 189.
" Ibid. '^ Chapter VI.

SECT. IV.] NOT APOSTOLICAL. 381

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,^ In addition to this, it is easy to see that their
ministry is not apostolical. They themselves ridicule the no
tion 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 commission. But after aU, 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 laymen who usurped the power of the ministry,
and pretended to ordain others to an office which they had not
themselves received by any imposition . of hands from the
ministers of Christ. The Quakers have no ministry. The
Wesleyans 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 election. It is, indeed, one of their
principles that the ministers of religion derive their vocation
and mission entirely from popular election. The right of the
-people to elect, pay, control, 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
¦" See Chapter VI, sect, i. Chapter VIIL

382 ON DISSENT. [p, I, CH, XIII.
a voluntary association or club, derives his commission entirely
from those who create him, so the dissenting minister is com
missioned to preach the Gospel not by God, but by man. He
is the minister of man only, and therefore the dissenting com
munities being destitute of a true ministry which is essential
to the church,^ are not churches of Christ, I shall add nothing
*more in a case so easy and clear,^

OBJECTIONS,
I, The church of England cannpt 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 :^ 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 church of Britain had
existed in communion with the universal church for fifteen
hundred 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
e Chapter VIII. sect. i.
' The argument against dissent has been treated by StUlingfleet in his
Unreasonableness of Separation. See also Articles on Dissent in the Bri
tish Magazine for May, June, July, 1832 ; on the Church, June, 1833 ;
and on the Congregational Union, September, 1833 ; Mr. Gathercole's
Letters to a Dissenting Minister ; Dr. Whitaker's Letters to Mr. Eccles ;
Mr. Maitland on the Voluntary System.
8 See Part. II. Chapter II.

OBJECT.] CONTRAST WITH THE CHURCH. 383
only revived her ancient privileges and liberties which had been
usurped by the Roman pontiff, or allowed by her to devolve
to him ; and she had for this purpose the ordinary spiritual au
thority 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 separa
tion, as would prove it apostate and Antichristian. The dis
senters can only justify their own existence by maintaining 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 law of Christ, in acknowledging the king's supre
macy, imposing creeds and articles of faith, establishing super
stitious rites, &c, Consequentiy it was necessary to forsake
her communion.
Answer. I have shown above'' that separation from the church
is inexcusable, and have answered these various objections of
dissenters.' Ill, There may be separation without schism, because
Christians may be united in heart and spirit, though the offices
of rehgion 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-
' [Pages 75 and 79,] ^ [Page 245, &c.]

384 ON DISSENT. [p. I. CH. XIII.
tides 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 ?

CHAPTER XIV.
ON THE NESTORIANS 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,"- The arguments 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,''
" Of the Church, book Ui. chapter i.
b [The author has dealt over-hastily -with an opinion held by such divines
as Jewel, Field, and Laud. A more thorough examination of the question
would possibly have raised doubts whether Nestorius and the churches now
named from him, (but steadily refusing the appeUation,) are to be regarded
as justly condemned heretics.
1. The Nestorians, and those even among the Romish divines who have
most accurately examined the question, agree that the difference between
their tenets and the definitions of the CouncU of Ephesus, is " rather ver
bal than real." It might, therefore, have been tolerated, and may exist
without heresy, our author being judge. (Part i. ch. ix. sect. 2. No. 7.)
2. Nestorius, to his latest breath, and the churches that have held his
memory in honour ever since, have steadfastly maintained that he did not
hold the tenets condemned by the Council of Ephesus. The churches
now caUed Nestorian confessedly do not hold them. Therefore, there is
strong reason to doubt, whether, in the question of doctrine, he or they
VOL, I. — 49

386 NESTORIANS AND MONOPHYSITES. fpART I.
I, Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, in declaiming
against theold and pious term ©eoroxo; 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 wprld,
nor did he suffer for us, nor redeem us witii his blood ; that
Christ was not God, but only the temple of God ; that the Vir
gin 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 Nesto
rian errors, or to point out their inconsistency with Scripture,
Their consequences were so dreadful that the holy cecumenical
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 world ; for though John, patriarch of
Antioch, and the Oriental bishops, for a short time disputed the
lawfulness of the proceedings at Ephesus, they afterwards
have been condemned by the church universal. The investigations of
modern historians are decidedly favourable to their plea.
• 3. If, as is probable, Nestorius was condemned on unfair statements of
his doctrine, and partial selection of proofs from his writings, the decision
of the personal question must be held to have been unjust, and as such,
" invalid and unratified in heaven." (Supra. Part. I. ch. iv, sect. 2. p. 66.)
' 4. The preponderance of evidence ever yet discoverable, in favour of
Nestorius, shows that the churches of the East had probable reasons for
refusing to acquiesce in the decision of the personal question by the Coun
cil of Ephesus, even had they admitted its oecumenicity. The facts of
Nestorius' case were only the motivum arresti of that couneU. It may
have erred concerning the sense he put on the terms iyatrK and nyAcftiit,
&c. whUe its statement of that which was de fide, the true doctrine of the
church concerning the natures and person of Christ, being not disputed,
even by the dissentient churches, was sanctioned by universal consent.]

CHAP. XIV.] NESTORlANISM CONDEMNED, 387
united themselves to St. Cyril of Alexandria and the rest of
the church, in pronouncing anathema against Nestorianism."
The partizans of the condemned doctrine only found support in
Persia, where they disseminated their errors and obtained a
permanent settlement,'' The chief founders of the sect there
were Ibas, Barsumas, Manes, and others who had been expell
ed 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 doc
trine and churches are derived from the aposties,' They how
ever reckon Nestorius, 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,*' they anathematize the cecumenical sy
nods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, because they denied that
Christ was two different persons, §'
Since therefore the Nestorian doctrine was condemned by
the whole church throughout the world ; since those who
maintained it were ejected from the Christian society and
always accounted heretics ; since the Nestorians have never
yet been restored to the communion of the catholic church,
never forsaken their errors, never acknowledged the errors pf
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
c [The discussion of the facts of the case of the Nestorians is out of
the question, in notes to a work like this. The writer can only protest
against the very partial statements in the text, and refer the reader who
may desire to be fully convinced of their unfairness, to the dUigent and
accurate researches of " the German Tillemont," (as Mr. Dowling has
caUed him,) C. W. F. Walch, in his History of Heresies, Vol. V. p. 289—
936. So much as may serve to bear out the argument in the foregoing
note, may be found even in the condensed narrative of Gieseler, Text-book
of Ecc. Hist. (Cunningham's trans.) Vol. I. § 86. pp. 328—237.]
'' Assemani Biblioth. Orientalis, tom. iv. p. 69. • Ibid. 76.
f Ibid. 220. g Ibid, 230,

388 NESTORIANS AND MONOPHYSITES, [PART I.
church of Christ, even though some of them may be desirous
bf representing their doctrine as orthodox and consonant to
that of the church.''
2. The doctrine attributed to Eutyches, of the conversion 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 lead
ers of the Monophysite faction, who opposed themselves to the
decree of the holy oecumenical synod of Chalcedon, (451,)
which was received and approved by the church in aU parts of
the world. They and their descendants, entitled Monophysites
or Jacobites, acknowledged only one nature in Christ, com
pounded of the divinity and humanity, yet without conversion,
confusion, or mixture.' This doctrine, like the Nestorian,
shook the main pillars of the Christian's hope ; for in attribu
ting to our blessed Saviour a sort of third nature, compounded
t [Since there is reason for doubt whether the "! doctrine" condemned
by the CouncU of Ephesus, and in consequence " by the whole church
throughout the world " was held by Nestorius ; and since it is certain that
it is not now held by the churches knovra as Nestorian ; since those who
hive refused to recognize the decision of the CouncU of Ephesus in the
personal question, have not been without probable grounds for such refusal,
and therefore are not to be regarded as in a state of exclusion from the
church, nor as heretics ', since restoration to church communion is not to be
required where the excommunication is uncertain, or at least of doubtful
validity ; since the churches caUed Nestorian have constantly denied that
they held the error they have been caUed on to forsake ; since the actual
errors of their founders appear to have been errors of judgment on matters
of opinion, and not of the faith ; since they anathematize the synods of
Ephesus and Chalcedon, not as exponents of the faith, but as judges charged
with UlegaUty and injustice ; since they are of apostolic origin and have
maintained, for the most part, the primitive discipline ; and since they pro
fess theb faith in the catholic creeds, conformably with that of the cathoUc
church ; they are not lightly to be rejected from the number of the churches
of Christ, but rather to be regarded as brethren, long alienated not -without
some fault on both sides.]
' See Assemani's Dissertatio de Monophysitis, in the second volume of
liis Biliotheca OrientaUs, sect. V.

CHAP. XIV,] ORIGIN OF THE MONOPHYSITES. 389
of the human and divine, it threatened to render his suffering
for us imperfect and incapable of obtaining salvation 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 accomplishment of so
great a work,
Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, who was deposed by the
oscumenical synod of Chalcedon for his outrageous proceed
ings against the opponents of the Eutychian heresy, and who
refused to believe the orthodox doctrine defined by the synod and
approved by the whole Christian world, was legitimately suc
ceeded by Proterius in the see of Alexandria ; but the Mono
physite, Timothy iElurus, intruded into that see, having ob
tained 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 ab
sent 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 excitett
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 Monophy
sites, 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" approved by the whole Christian world, reckoning
its adherents among the heretics, and including among the
saints Dioscorus, Barsumus, Timothy, Severus, Jacobus, Theo
dosius, and others who were notoriously opposed to the catho
lic doctrine, and guilty of offences against the law of unity.
Hence, although some of the Monophysites in latter times have
'' Ibid. s. iv.

390 NESTORIANS AND MONOPHYSITES, fPART I,
expressed tehmselves in terms that seem to render the differ
ence in doctrine but inconsiderable,' there seems tp be no rea
son 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, ° the assumption that they hold what are
called fundamental doctrines, and are therefore free from here
sy, is founded on an uncertain and arbitrary distinction. We

I Assemani Bibl, Orient, t. u. p. 277. 97.
m See Buchanan's Christian Researches, p. 123, where the Creed of
the Syrian Christians of St, Thomas in India, is stated to include a con
demnation of the errors of " Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Manes, Marci-
anus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the Chalcedonians."
¦¦¦[The case of the Monophysites is much less clear than that of the
Nestorians. Still there are reasons for hesitating to regard them as con
demned heretics. The lamentable commotions which attended the process
of their severance from the communion of the other Eastern churches,
render it extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to decide how far jus
tice and the established laws of church discipline were observed in the
¦ various condemnations of the Monophysite churches, and how far their at
titude of opposition to the rest of the Christian body may be resolved into
the maintenance of a consistent and not groundless plea against oppression,
' Their present state of dispersion and great ignorance make it hard to
speak with assurance of their doctrine, and its pretensions to substantial
catholicity. There can be no doubt that the doctrines of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and
those who obstinately hold them, are under the ban of the church ; but in
our uncertainty whether the Monophysite churches do hold, or have ever
held those doctrines, and whether their state of external separation may
not be accounted for on other grounds, it is surely the part of charity to
" believe all things," and " hope all things," rather than pronounce theSr
condemnation.] o Chapter V. Appendix on Fundamentals.

CHAP. XIV.] ORIGIN OF THE MONOPHYSITES. 391
need not however pronounce them heretics in such a sense as
imports a grievous sin on their parts, and the loss of salvation :
" Them that are without, God judgeth ; " but we cannot
consider them as the people of God, invested with those privi
leges which revelation gives to God's children, to those ijcho
are within his kingdom. p

p [The writer, at least, would prefer to say with Field, — " These, holdmg
the rule of faith, and believing all those things that are on the perU of eter
nal damnation to be particularly and expressly known and believed, and
their separation not growing (for ought we know) out of Pharisaical and
damnable pride — but out of error, not directly contrary to the rule of faith,
or some other human infirmity or defect ; and it no way appearing that their
obstinacy is such, that though they knew they did amiss, they would stUl
continue so to do ; .we account them in the number of the churches of
God, and doubt not but that innumerable, living and dying in them, not-
-withstanding their sundry defects, imperfections, and wants, are, and have
been saved." Of the Church, Book III. chap. v. p. 71. ed. 1606.]

A TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

PART II.

GN THE BRITISH REFORMATION.

Vol. I.— -.50

A TREATISE

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

PART IL— 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 in
consistency, 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 contrpversies which merits from members of the cathohc
churches of these nations a more attentive study. It is perpetu
ally and confidently asserted by our opponents, 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 au
thority of the church of England as a part of the church of
Christ, and the necessity of adhering to her communion, with
out at the same moment condemning the reformation (or foun
dation as they call it) of the church of England, The use made
¦oi this principle by the Romanist is, to argue that a church

396 THE BRITISH REFORMATION, fpART II,
which by her fundamenfal principle is deprived of all spiritual
authority, and which merely relies on the civil power for pro
tection against anarchy, cannot be a true church of Christ, On
the other side, the dissenter justifies his separation and resist
ance 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 rejec
tion. We need not wonder then that a view of the Reformation
so useful to all the enemies of the church of England, is assidu
ously and confidently maintained by them.
If indeed, as is alleged, the church of England was founded
at the Reformation by separation from the catholic church, if
its faith was then invented or changed by Henry VIIL, or by
any other sovereign on any motives whatever, good or evil ; if
the Reformation was the introduction of a new Gospel, the
revelation of a doctrine hitherto unknown to the catholic church,
or condemned by it ; and if the church of England was respon
sible for all the views, motives, acts, of Henry, Edward, Eliza
beth, and their courtiers ; in this case we need not pretend to
form any part of the church : our adversaries might triumph.
But we altogether deny these positions. The church of Eng
land was not founded at the reformation, nor separated from
the catholic church, nor was its faith changed by Henry VIIL,
&c, ; nor was the doctrine of the Reformation a new and un
known 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 supported its re
formation. This then, in general, is what I proceed to show,
considering successively the character and conduct of secular
rulers as affecting 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 VIIL,
Edward VL, Mary, and Elizabeth ; the_ principles of the Re
formation in England ; the variations of the church in religion ;

GHAP. I,] EVIL PRINCES MADE INSTRUMENTS OF GOOD. 397
the character of archbishop Cranmer ; and the reformations and
schisms in Ireland and Scotland,
¦ I shall first consider the character of the temporal rulers as
affecting the reformation of the church of England, That men
of unsanctified characters have frequently been made instru
mental in performing works beneficial to the church, must
be admitted by Romanists themselves. The character of
Constantine the Great was stained by serious offences, yet he
estabhshed 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 wis
dom, which can induce good from the very evils he permits ;
and it may be designed to lead his people rather to contemplate
the truth itself, than the personal characters of its promoters,
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.'' The evil char
acter then of Henry VIIL, of Somerset, or of any other tem
poral or spiritual promoters of reformation in the church, affords
(even if it were not exaggerated) no proof that the Reforma
tion was in itself wrong. The objection only applies in a case
-supposed by Bossuet: when " God desires to reveal to men

a Bossuet, Variations des Eglises Protestantes, Uv. vii. 49.

398 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
some truth, important, and unknown for many ages, or entirely
unheard of:'"" in such a case he deems it impossible that God
should have employed such agents as Henry VIII, or Cranmer.
We win go further than this. If such a truth as had been en-
; tirely 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."" But we deny that
any new important truth unknown for ages to the catholic
church, or never heard of before, was promulgated at this time
in the church of England. We by no means admit that the
royal supremacy then acknowledged by the church of England
was novel. We suppose that some superstitious opinions,
commonly received by abuse in some churches, e, g. the papal
infallibility and universal jurisdiction, purgatory, transubstantia
tion, were suppressed ; some doctrines were defined more accu
rately, which had been vaguely and imperfectly held ; the Scrip
tures were more freely circulated, several superfluous and abus
ed 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 Re
formation, or to separate from the existing church. But I re
ply 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 mistaken opinions
which their opponents erroneously asserted to be matters of
! faith ; and therefore the fact of their suffering, does not prove
that there was in reality a total contradiction in matters of faith
between them and their persecutors. The Lutherans always,

Ibid. ' Galat. i. 8, 9.

CHAP. I,] EXTENT OF REFORMATION EXAGGERATED. 399,
as we know, asserted that they did not differ in any article of
faith from the cathohc, or even the Roman church, but only as
to certain abuses and erroneous opinions,"* 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 justiy ac
cused 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 exami
nation 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 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 unchari
table judgment of private motives. It must be remembered,
that although Henry and the protector Somerset may have been
secretly influenced by avarice, revenge, or other evil passions,
they never made them pubhc. 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 there
fore the church could not refuse to take into consideration the
specific objects of Reformation proposed by them to her exami
nation or sanction.
Nor does the justification of the church of England in any
degree depend on the question of the lawfulness of Henry's
marriage with Catharine of Arragon, or with Anna Boleyn ;
such matters, as Bossuet observes, " are often regulated by
mere probabilities,"* and there were at least abundant proba-
'' Confess, August, pars-1. sect. 23 ; pars ii, Prologus ; and Epilogus.
" Variations, liv. vii. 50,

400 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [p ART II.
bilities that the marriage with Catharine was null ah initio /
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 sup
pression of monasteries. That suppression may perhaps show
that the 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 mo
tives. 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 England, as
well as in other countries, the clergy viewed without any ex
treme regret the extinction of the various orders of monks and
friars, who (though in some things commendable) had degene
rated from the purity of the ancient rule, interfered with the
unity and discipline of the church, and Sustained the most ex
travagant pretensions of the Roman pontiffs, subversive of the
liberties of churches.

f It is not denied by any one, that the marriage with Catharine was with
in the limits prohibited by the book of Leviticus ; and though God hunself
enjoined such a marriage in case of a brother's death without issue, we must
remember that his express command is sufficient to authorize proceedings
which would be otherwise contrary to his law ; e. g. the destruction of the
Canaanites. The bishops and convocations of England, the universities of
Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Orleans, Anglers, Bourges, Tholouse, Bologna,
Padua, &c., and a multitude of theolc^ians, judged that any human dispen
sation in this case was null.

CHAPTER II.
ON THE ABOLITION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION, AND
THE SCHISM.
The objections advanced against the abohtion 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 foun
dation 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.
I. Now, as I have already 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 aboli
tion of the papal jurisdiction on its own merits ; and if she was
convinced that abolition was right and advisable, she was justi
fied in acquiescing in the various laws of the civil powers, made
for that purpose. Let us examine those laws.
The various acts of parliament made in England, against cer
tain parts of the papal power, all relate to those peculiar
branches of ordinary jurisdiction, which had been acquired in
process of time over the church of England, and which in no
degree concerned the precedence of the Roman see in the
cathohc church. The learned primate Bramhall has observed,
that these acts were not intended to deprive the Roman pon
tiff of any really spiritual power;" they only cast out some
" BramhaU, Works, p. 340.
VOL, I, — 51

402 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
branches of his exterior jurisdiction which were not instituted
by Christ, nor by the catholic church,'' They did not deny
the precedency of the bishop of Rome in the universal church,
nor his right (in conjunction with Christian princes) of sum
moning and presiding in general councils, nor his power of de
fining questions of faith in conjunctiori with the catholic church,
nor his right to exhort all bishops to observe the carious, nor
his being the centre of catholic unity when he is in communion
with all the catholic church. None of these things (the chief
privileges of the Roman primacy according to Romanists) were
affected by the acts of parliament for abolishing the usurped
jurisdiction of the Roman bishop in England ; and therefore it
is vain to impute schism or heresy to the church of England
on this account, even on the supposition that the primacy of the
Roman see is of divine institution.
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 ;" 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, Peter's-
pence, or other impositions, to the use of the bishop of Rome.'*
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 law
fully levied without the consent of the civil magistrate. They
were generally, too, of comparatively recent imposition, Tho
massin, presbyter of the Oratory, proves that annates began to
>> BramhaU, 'Works, p, 382,
I ¦= Act 23 Hen. VIII, for the repression of Annates, &c.
i Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 20.

CHAP. II.J SUPPRESSION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION, 403
be exacted by Boniface IX., about 1392,^ and they were enforced
by a refusal of the bulls of nomination to benefices or sees. They
had been suppressed by the edict of Charles VL, king of France,
in 1406, 1417, and 1418.^ They had been again suppressed
by Louis XI, in 1463 and 1464 ;« and what is more, they had
been already prohibited, in England, by act of parliament, in
the reign of Henry IV.^ Even now in Austria, annates are
not allowed to be paid, except in the case of newly-created
bishops,' 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 ¦,^ and Peter's-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 obliga
tion on them to continue. Therefore 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 bish
oprics ; 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,""
The necessity of papal bulls, even for archbishoprics, was
only founded on the laws of the Roman pontiffs, collected by

e Thomassinus, Vetus et Nova Ecclesise Disciplina, t. iii. p. 447.
f Thomassin. ibid. p. 449, e Ibid. 453.
i BramhaU, Works, p. 336.
' Rechberger, Enchiridon Jur. Eccl. Austriaci. See Report of Select
Committee on Regulation of Roman Catholics, a.d. 1816.
' Thomassin. iu. p. 355, 356.
' Ibid. p. 109. In the time of Edward III. Peter's-pence were not
aUowed to be coUected in England. — Soames' Hist. Refer, i. p. 431.
"> Act 23 Hen. VIII. for repression of annates, and 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20.
for the non-payment of first-fruits to the bishop of Rome.

404 THE BRITISH REFORMATION, [PART II.
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 permis
sion of the catholic church here," The English bishops, as
Thomassin proves, were, so late as 1373, confirmed and ordained
by their metropolitans, and not by papal bulls,' 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 ;'' 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, 1785,
which declared, that if the pope refused to confirm the bishops,
they would find resources in the ancient discipline.' The com
mission of cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, instituted by the
Emperor Napoleon, 1811, acknowledged that a National Coun
cil 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 Portu-

° Thomassin. tom. iu. p. 430.
° De Marca, De Concord. Sacerd. et Imperii, lib. iv. c. 4. Thomassin.
tom. ii. p. 426, &c.
P The canon law was only partiaUy received in England. — BramhaU,
Works, p. 72, 328. Even the laws of general synods in matters of disci
pline, are not obligatory in particular churches untU they are received there ;
e. g. the discipline of the Council of Trent has never been universally re
ceived. It was one of the liberties of the GaUican church, that the pontiff
could not derogate from the laws or customs of provinces, or the lawfiil
privUeges of particular churches. — BaiUy, Tract, de Eccl, Christi. torn. ii.
p. 209.q Thomassin. tom. ii. p. 430. ' Thomassin. iii. p. 393r.
" Memoires pour servir a I'histoire Eccl. xviii. siecle, tom. iii. p. 60 — 65,
' Ibid. 523—530.

CHAP. II.] SUPPRESSION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION, 405
guese apphed to the Gallican church to intercede with the pon
tiff on their behalf, and in case of failure to consecrate their
bishops. And accordingly the Galhcan bishops intimated to
the Roman bishop, that in case of his continued refusal, they
would supply his defect, and consecrate the Portuguese bish
ops," Therefore it is plain that bulls from the Roman see may
be dispensed with by particular churches, when there is a suf
ficient reason, e, g. the desire and injunction of the supreme
temporal power, and the long continuance of abuses and exac
tions connected with them.
The necessity of obtaining a pall from Rome for the exer
cise of metropolitan jurisdiction, was founded on the spurious
decretals, to which Gregory VIL, and the succeeding bishops
of Rome appealed, in justification of their claims on this point."
Innocent III, interdicted all metropohtans from exercising any
functions till they had received the pall;'" but this regulation
could not have been obligatory on the church of England at any
time, except by her own consent and permission, and therefore
she was perfectiy at liberty to withdraw that permission whenever
she judged it expedient so to do. For the pall itself was merely
an external ensign of honour, which the archbishop of Canter
bury had originally received as a comphment from the Roman
see, and which was understood to give those who possessed it
a portion of the authority of that apostolical see.^ But it was
so many ages before the use of the pall became common among
metropolitans,'' that it is plain there could be no absolute neces
sity for obtaining it.
Appeals, — In 1532 it was enacted that all causes concerning
wills, matrimony, and divorce, the rights of tithes, oblations.

" Bramhall's Works, p. 111. ' Thomassinus, tom. i. p. 379.
w Ibid. " Ibid. p. 369.
7 PaUs were first given to the metropolitans of France in the time of Bo
niface (the eighth century). — Thomassin. tom. i. p. 370. They were only
gradually given to other metropolitans afterwards, and the popes declared
that they were essential to the exercise of the metropolitan jurisdiction.

406 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
and obventions, should be determined within the realm of Eng
land by the proper ecclesiastical tribunals;^ 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 ter
minated in England." According to Fleury, Du Pin, and Van
Espen, the custom of direct and indiscriminate appeals to Rome
was introduced by the false decretals.'' Various Roman theo
logians hold that all appeals to Rome, even in the causes of
bishops, are of human institution."" Du Pin shows that many
churches terminated their ecclesiastical causes themselves.'^
The African church prohibited expressly all appeals to Rome,*
and the English had just as much power. Even in the last
century (1788) Leopold, grand-duke of Tuscany, abolished all
appeals to Rome, and determined the tribunals in which aU
ecclesiastical causes should be decided,' and the king of Naples
also prohibited appeals,^ Even in Austria, France, Spain, and
other countries, no appeal is allowed to the Roman pontiff, ex
cept for the purpose of procuring a re-hearing of the cause in
those countries,'^ 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 ob-
» Act 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. ¦ Act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19.
^ Fleury, Discours IV. sur I'hist. Eccl. et Institution au Droit Eccl. tom.
u. c. 23. p. 206 ; Du Pin de Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 132, &c. ; Van Espen,
Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum, pars iu. tit. x. c. i.
" De la Hogue, Tractatus de Ecclesia, p. 382 ; Bouvier de Vera Eccle
sia, p. 323. The fabrication of false decretals to sustain this pretension, is
developed by M. de Hontheun in his Febronius, chapter iv. sect. vui.
'' Du Pin de Antiq. Eccl. Disciplina, p. 130, 131.
» Fleury, Inst, au Droit Eccl. tom. U. p. 206 ; Van Espen, Tractatus
Historico-canonicus in canones, &c. tom. v. oper. 62, &c. ; Thomassm, Vet,
et Nov, Eccl. Discipl. tom. ii. p. 47,
f Mem. Eccl. xviU. siecle, tom. iu. p. 107. s Ibid. p. 120, 131,
i> Fleury, Discours XII, sur les Libertes de I'Eglise GaU,
' Da Pin de Antiqua Ecfelesiae DiscipUna, p, 113, The Second Disser-

CHAP, 11,] SUPPRESSION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION. 407
ligatory on the church of England by her own choice and con
sent, which she might withdraw at any time on a sufficient rea
son being assigned.
Dispensations, — It was enacted in 1533 that no one shall
hereafter sue to the bishop of Rome for licenses, dispensations,
compositions (for annates), faculties, grants, rescripts (all relat
ing to the institution to benefices), delegacies (in ecclesiastical
causes), or any other instruments or writings,'' I have already
spoken of all the points here mentioned, except dispensations
and licenses. According to Thomassin, they were originally
granted by all bishops,' but gradually in the tenth and following
centuries, they were allowed to devolve to, or were usurped by
the Roman pontiffs,"^ The facihty 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," 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 ;" the synod of Ems, in
1785, declared that all bishops should dispense even in cases
reserved to the pope;" and in Austria all papal absolutions in

tation of Du Pin, p. 93 — 116, &c. treats of the whole subject of appeals to
the Roman see most exceUently weU.
t Act 25 Hen. VIII. u. 21, concerning Peter-pence and dispensations,
' Vet, et Nov, Eccl. Discipl. tom. ii. p. 606.
" Ibid. 607—610,
° The power of granting dispensations is reserved to the Prunate of
England, o Mem. Eccl. xvui. siecle, tom. iu. p. 20, 21.
f See the account of this synod in Mem. Eccl. xviii. siecle, tom. iii. p.

408 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART 11,
reserved cases are disallowed, and all hcenses granted by the
pope to bishops are held null by the Austrian laws.i
In the suppression of these various branches of ordinary
jurisdiction there was nothing which the church of England
was in any degree bound to oppose ; her own rights were not
infringed by these acts of parliament, they were, on the con
trary, rather restored and confirmed ; and no privilege which
belonged to the Roman see, either by primitive custom or by
the grant of oecumenical synods, was interfered with. There
fore 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 pro
posed to the bishops and clergy of England in the provincial
synods of Canterbury and York, " Whether the bishop of Rome
has, in the word of God, 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,'
The various chapters, and the convents of regulars, mendicants,
&c, throughout the kingdom, also declared their assent,* 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.
II. Bossuet attempts to prove that they argued on false prin
ciples in suppressing the papal jurisdiction in England, It was
argued from Gregory the Great's rejection of the title of uni
versal bishop, that at the time when our ancestors received the
60 — 65 ; and aU its acts in the Report of Committee on Roman catholics
(1816), p. 146, &c.
q Rechberger, Enchir, Jur, Eccl. Austriaci, 1809,
' Burnet, Hist. Reform, vol. iu.p. 158, 159 (Oxford ed, 1816), Records,
no, 26.
» Ibid. p. 159, Rec. n. 27.
' See Rymer. Pcedera, tom, xiv, p, 487 — 527, where the documents are
preserved, Burnet, vol, iu. Rec. n, 28,

CHAP, II,] SUPPRESSION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION, 409
faith, the authority of the Roman see was in a laudable modera
tion, which Bossuet endeavours to refute by adducing passages
from Gregory's writings, claiming an extensive jurisdiction,'^
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," 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 unreasonable and unjust.
III. It is further argued, that the papal jurisdiction had existed
in England ever since Christianity had been introduced by its
means, and that it was an act of ingratitude for this benefit, and
even of a schismatical character, to disturb so ancient a privilege.
But as it has been already observed, the various branches of
jurisdiction now suppressed, had all arisen many ages after the
foundation of the church of England, by the permission of our
churches, and of our Christian kings, or by mere usurpation.
There could be no obligation on us to continue these privileges
to the Roman see any longer than we judged it expedient.
Besides this, whatever acts of authority had been performed by
Gregory the Great, and his immediate successors, in relation to
the churches founded by St, Augustine, were to be considered
as extraordinary acts, justified by the necessities of those
churches, and by the power inherent in every catholic bishop in
all cases of absolute necessity ; but not as flowing from any
ordinary authority or jurisdiction over the Christian churches of
Britain,'' And in fine, we were not exclusively or originally
u Bossuet, Variations, liv. vu. s. 62.
' Burnet, vol. i. p. 251—261.
w The principle of the canon law itself was : Quod pro necessitate tem-
VOL. I. — 52

410 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pAlilT II,
indebted to Rome for our Christianity, the church having existed
here several centuries 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 Roman jurisdiction
in England was, ipso facto, a separation from the centre of
catholic unity constituted by Jesus Christ. But even admitting
(what we deny) that the Roman see is the centre of unity by
Divine ^pointnient, 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 com
munion 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 thaftjie Roman see had no right to com
plain of the suppression of its jurisdiction in England ;* and
if the bishops of that church, and their adherents and subjects;
throughout Europe, viewed us as schismatic and excommuni
cated, under an exaggerated and.. erroneous opinion that it was-
necessary for every chijrch to be obedient to the successor of
Peter at Rome ; this was tobedamented, 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 tbe ritual offices of the. church, was an act
of schism, implying separation from the rest of the church.
But I answer that this removal was not for the purpose of in
sulting the Roman bishop, or rejecting his communion ; but it
followed as a necessary consequence from the suppression of
poris statutum est, cessante necessitate debet cessare pariter. I qu. 1. quod
de necessitate. According to the same canon law, long custom does not
create a privUege. Dist. c. contra morem ; 64 di. quia ; 9 qu. 3 coa-
questus. X See the letter of bishop Tunstall, which will be presently cited.

¦CHAP, n.] SUPPRESSION OF THE PAPAL JURISDICTION. 411
his jurisdiction ; for had especial prayer been continued for him
•exclusive of the other bishops of the cathohc church, and under
the designation of " pope," which had for some time been con
nected with the notion of his supreme jurisdiction over all
Christians ; it could not have failed to be construed into a tacit
admission of that authority which had been removed ; and
would have tended to foster in the minds of the ignorant, a no
tion so subversive of the character apd due authority Of the
church of England,
VI, But further, I deny absolutely that the church of Eng
land did, either in fact or in intention, separate herself from the
communion of the rest of the catholic church. She excom
municated no other Western churches, none of their clergy or
people were ever refused Christian intercourse or communion
^y her. She did not fail to recognize them as churches of
Christ, and to acknowledge that it was the duty oif Christians
to remain united to them. Even Henry VIII, never dreamed
of separating from the church. These are facts which 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 belie-^^e 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 authority over the other Churches of
Christ which be in England, France, Spain, or in any other
realm, . . . And I beheve 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
or church body. "J This bears the. signatures, among others, of

•/ " The Institution of a Christian Man," p. 55. Formularies of Faith,
•Oxford, 1825.

412 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART If.
Cranmer, Latimer, Shaxton, Bradford, May, and Cox, who were
all warm supporters of a reformation in the church.
The "Necessary Doctrine and Erudition,"^ approved by
the bishops of England, 1543, acknowledges the particular
churches of England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Rome,
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, ceremo
nies, and ordinances, or estimation of the same, as one church
peradventure doth esteem their rites, traditions, laws, ordinan
ces, and ceremonies to be of more force and efficacy than
another church doth esteem the same." It is added that these
particular churches are " members of the whole catholic church,
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 cre
dence, and follow the particular church of that region so
ordered (as afore) wherein he is born or inhabiteth."'' It is
incredible, nay impossible, that a church which acknowledged
all those other Western churches as parts of the one catholic
church, and held the faithful in every country bound to obey
and follow them, should design or practice any separation from,
their communion. It is obvious 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 catho
lic 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 aU the articles of the faith in his kingdom.'' And it is
further confirmed by the learned and excellent letter written by
" Ibid. p. 247. " Ibid, p, 248,
* Burnet's Hist, Ref. vol. i. p. 400. See Collier, vol. u. Rec. 38,

CHAP. II.] CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID NOT SEPARATE. 413
Tunstall, bishop of Durham, by the king's desire, to cardinal
Pole, dated 13th July, 1536, where he speaks thus :
" In all your book, your purpose is to bring the king's grace
hy penance home unto the church again, as a man clearly sepa
rate 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 Eng
land from the unity of the whole body of Christendom ; taking
upon him the office belonging unto spiritual men, grounded in
the Scripture of immediate cure of souls, and attribute to him
self 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 sin
cerely preached and taught, and Christ's faith without blot kept
and observed in his realm ; and not to separate himself or his
realm any wise from the unity of Chrisfs catholic church, hut
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, in
creased 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 Rome pro-

414 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
fesseth to observe. Wherefore neither the bishop of Rome
himself nor other prince ought of reason to be miscontent here
with."" This proves sufficiently that neither the church of England,
nor king Henry VIIL, had any notion of separating themselves
from the communion of the rest of Christendom when they
removed the papal jurisdiction, which they justly held to be in
most respects an usurpation and innovation, and altogether
unsupported by Scripture or universal tradition. They did
not uncharitably declaim against other churches which were
unable or unwilling to remove the Roman jurisdiction, or cor
rect abuses ;'^ but they held themselveis justified in resuming
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 consistent with
the unity and due authority of the catholic church ; but it was
considered by the Roman see, and its adherents, an act of
schism— a revolt — because they were imbued with the modern
opinion, that it was necessary to salvation to be obedient to the
bishop of Rome, Their error, however, was 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 the 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,
' Burnet, vol. ui. Records, 52. p. 160—163,
i Even the act of parliament 1 Edw. VI. c. 1, estabUshing the adminis
tration of the Eucharist in both kinds, on the ground of Christ's institution
and primitive practice, adds the foUowing words : " Not condemning hereby
the usage of any church out of the king's majesty's dominions ;" so care
ful even were the parliaments not to violate the unity of the church. It
should be added, that this act is attributed to the pen of Cranmer, Arch
bishop of Canterbury. — Le Bas' Cranmer, i, 293.

CHAP, II.] CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID NOT SEPARATE, 415
VII, It may be objected that this church was schismatical, in
refusing to send bishops to attend the general council of Trent,
where the other churches of Europe were assembled by repre
sentation. In reply, I ask whether the GaUican church was
schismatical in refusing, till the year 1562, to send bishops to
Trent ?° Was the German church schismatic from 1545 to
1563, in not receiving during that time the decrees of the
synod, or acknowledging it as oecumenical V ' Were the Galli
can, and German, and English churches schismatical, in send
ing no bishops to the council of Florence 1^
I maintain that national churches are not under any absolute
obhgation to send representatives to general synods summoned
by the papal authority, as the invariable practice of the West-
em churches sufficiently proves ; and certainly not if the tem
poral prince withholds his permission. It was at this time
unlawful to depart from the kingdom without royal license ;
and the temporal rulers, offended justly by the decree of ex
communication and deposal passed by the Roman pontiffs
against Henry VIIL'' and threatened against Elizabeth,' could
not reasonably be expected to give any permission to obey the
papal summons. Besides this, it was evident that the council
consisted chiefly of creatures of the Roman pontiff, and that
e Henry II. king of France, in 1553, informed the bishops assembled at
Trent, that no French prelate should be permitted to assist there ; and his
ambassador formaUy protested in his name against its authority. — Fleury,
liv, 146, sect, 120, 121. See BramhaU's Works, p. 110.
' In 1547, the decrees of the synod of Trent were not yet received by
the German nation. — Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Uv. 144, sect. 87. The Interim,
published in 1548, by Charles V. is another proof to the same effect.—
Ibid. liv. 145, sect. 18, &c. The legates, at the opening of the synod of
Trent, 1562, were afraid to declare it a continuation of the former synod
there, lest it should offend the Germans and French, — Fleury, liv. 157,,
sect. 105.
6 Fleury, liv, 107, sect. 54. These churches acknowledged the rival
synod of Basle. — Fleury, 1. 107, sect. 71 ; 108, sect. 50.
b Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol, i, p, 446—9.
' Ibid, vol. ii. p. 673.

416 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
its oecumenicity and authority was doubted or rejected in
France, Germany, Sweden, and other parts of Europe.
However, had this council reallj'' appeared ultimately to be
truly oecumenical and catholic, in any of its sessions, and to
have proceeded legitimately and synodically, the church of
England still had the power of accepting its decrees ; therefore
there is no evidence of schism in our not attending that synod.
And if the church of England, not acknowledging any of the
sessions before 1562, and having no confidence in the proceed
ings there, made reformations in doctrine and discipline inde
pendently, the same had been recently done in the diet of
Augsburg,'' and by the provincial synods of Augsburg 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 ;""' and, accord
ingly, the prelates of France there assembled, made regulations
concerning discipline, and published a confession of faith. ^
VIII. It is objected by Bossuet, that the principle on which
the whole Reformation of the church of England was con
ducted, is schismatical ; viz. that every national church was a
complete body in itself, and might with the authority and con
currence of its head and king, examine and reform errors and
corruptions in doctrine and worship. This, it is said, is a
' The Interim, a formulary of doctrine as weU as discipline, was decreed
by Emperor Charles V. and the diet of Augsburg, 1548. — Fleury, liv,
145, sect, 20,
' The provincial synod of Augsburg, under Cardinal Otho, received
the Interim, a.d. 1548. — Fleury, 1. 145, sect. 37, &c. The synod of May
ence, in the same year, under the Archbishop of Mayence, made forty-
seven articles or decrees concerning doctrine, and fifty-seven concerning
reform of discipline. — ^Ibid. sect. 89, &c.
^ Bossuet, Variations, liv. ix. sect. 90,
¦¦ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. 157, sect. 35, 36. Many of the prelates assem
bled at Poissy were of opinion, that communion in both kinds might be
restored by a royal edict. — Ibid. 37.

CHAP. 11.] NOT SCHISMATICAL, 417
schismatical principle, because it constitutes a principle of
unity under a temporal head, which the Gospel has not estab
lished ; and a national church, in regulating its doctrines pri
vately, 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," .
In reply, I observe, first, that this principle introduces no
new species of unity in connecting the reformation of doctrine
and discipline with the sanction of the temporal ruler, because
this sanction was necessary to give them temporal and legal
force, p In no other respect did the church of England ever
deem their sanction necessary.
Secondly, I observe that it is admitted by our opponents,
that provincial and national synods have, by immemorial prac
tice of the catholic church, the right of condemning heresies
and errors,'' and of correcting abuses of all kinds in particular
churches, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Sabellius, . Arius,
Eustathius, Apollinaris, the Donatists, Pelagians, &c, were all
condemned in particular councils, in the first instance. The
particular councils of Aries, Orange, Carthage, Toledo, Gan
gra, &c, made judgments in controversies of faith ; not to speak
of more recent decisions of the same kind. But, it is alleged,
these synods never acted without regarding the church's faith ;
they sent their decrees to other churches for confirmation.' We
reply, that the church of England cannot be proved to have des
pised the faith of the church at large, nor to have made reforma
tions in doctrine without properly considering it. It was the

" Bossuet, Variations, vii, s. 68.
p Thus the prelates of France, assembled at Poissy (a.d. 1561), peti
tioned the king to approve the regulations in discipline, and the confession
of faith which they had agreed on, Fleury, Hist, I, 157, s. 37,
fl Bossuet, Variations, vii, s. 69 ; and Defensio Declar. Cler. GaUican.
lib, iu. c. 2. This point is weU treated by Laud, Conference, sect. 24, n.
4, 5.
' Bossuet, ibid.
VOL, I. — 53

418 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [fART 11.
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 the papal
jurisdiction, declared, " that they did not hereby intend to vary
from Christ's church, about the articles of the catholic faith of
Christendom."" 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,"'
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." And in 1562, the
church of England declared, that " the church has authority in
controversies of faith."" 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 ail things to obey""" . . . 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."''
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 ne
cessary to wait ior the reformation of errors and abuses, until
the judgment of the existing universal church was made
known by means of an oecumenical council. And if the church
of England did not send her decrees of doctrine lo other
churches for their approbation, the reason was, because this

» Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 265.
• CoUier, Eccl, Hist, vol. ii, Rec. 38.
< Formularies of Faith, p, 246. » Article XX.
" Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. iv. p, 121. » Ibid. 126, 127.

XHAP.. II,] SCHISM RETORTED ON OUR ADVERSARIES. 419
discipline was obsolete in the church ; and, besides, several of
these churches ¦viewed us as schismatics, and would have re
fused any act of communion.
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
cathohc church.^ Now, my reply to this is, that the 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 un
known.'' Besides this, the bishop of Rome had separated him
self from our churches, and being out of our communion, we
could not invite his co-operation,
X. But we are now to examine the question in another point
of 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 reasoned not merely on false principles in
maintaining it, but made use of forgeries, acknowledged to be
such by the most enhghtened of their own communion,* andof
temporal force, exciting insurrections against the sovereigns
who resisted it, depriving them of their dominions, 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
y Bossuet, Variations, vii, s. 70.
» This notion seems to have been developed only in the Jansenistic con
troversy. It was most certainly not generally agreed on even at that time
in the Roman obedience, •
" See Fleury, Discours IV, sur I'Hist, Ecclesiastique ; Hist, Eccl, 1, 44,
n, 22; Du Pin, Bibliotheque.; and especially Van Espen, Tractatus Histo-
Tico-Canonicus in Canones, &c. Pars iv, e. I, Oper, tom. v, p, 123, &e.

420 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [P ART II.
test of cathohc unity, was a principle tending to schism. It
was never taught by the Gospel, and it was injurious to the
catholic communion of churches ; because it interrupted that
communion, whenever any church refused to submit to the un
just pretensions of the Roman see. This principle divided the
Western from the Eastern churches, as it separated several of
the Western churches from the Enghsh church.
The principle of papal infallibility, maintained by the pontiffs
and their partizans, established a new tribunal, injurious to the
authority of the cathohc church itself, by binding that church to
receive implicitly the decrees of a single bishop, instead of judg
ing them by the catholic doctrine ; and it tended to schism, by
obliging those who received it, to believe as matters of faith,
whatever the pontiffs decreed ; and therefore to reject, as hereti
cal, those churches which did not receive them.
The conduct of the Roman bishop was altogether inconsist
ent with fraternal unity, in condemning the churches of England
as schismatical and heretical, for their suppression of his juris
diction in England, which had been either usurped illegally, 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 re
lation 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 al
ways of formal schism, rests on all those who took a part in ex-

CHAP. II,] THE ROMISH SECT SCHISMATICAL. 421
citing divisions and separations from the cathohc churches of
these realms.
XI, Finally, the Romish party in these countries committed
schism in separating from the communion of the church, and
the obedience of their legitimate pastors, in the reign of Ehza
beth, It is certain, that during the reigns of Henry VIII. and
successors, until the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth's reign,
there were not two separate communions and worships in Eng
land, All the people were subject to the same pastors, attend
ed the same churches, and received the same sacraments. It
was only about 1570 that the Romish party, at the instigation
of foreign emissaries, separated itself and fell from the catholic
church of England. This is proved in many ways. 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 established. 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, Corn-
wallis, 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,'"' Sir E, Coke had already 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 ac
cursed who should yield any obedience to her . , , there were
no recusants in England ; all came to church (howsoever po-
pishly 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 excommunicated
'' Coke, speech and charge at Norwich Assizes, 1607,

422 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [p ART II.
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 ' cathohcs ' did in
deed go to church before." He pretended that it had been
declared unlawful to attend our churches, by certain theologians
at the synpd of Trent ;* 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,' 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 other besides
these, throughout the realm, though otherwise ' catholics ' in
heart, (as most then were,) did at that time and after, as also
now, either upon fear, or lack of better instruction, or both, re
pair to ' protestant' churches,"^
But the fact is rendered, if possible, more certain by the
queen's instructions to Walsingham, her resident at the French
court (11th August, 1570,) in which it is said of the heads of
the popish party, that " they did ordinarily resort, from the be
ginning of her reign, in all OQpn 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 declaration,
published in the Star-chamber, informs us, that although some
persons had been lately questioned by the council on matters of

c State Trials, vol. i. p. 242. (Trial of Henry Garnet, Jesuit.) See
also Coke's reports, fifth part, p. 34, 35. BramhaU shows the treasonable
principles and conduct of the papists during the remainder of Elizabeth's
reign.— Works, p. 183—185.
i Ibid. p. 249. • Ibid. p. 252.
f Parson's Answer to the fifth part of Sir E. Coke's Reports, p. 371.
(1606.) i Heylin, History of the Presbyterians, p. 260.

CHAP, II.] THE ROMISH SECT SCHISMATICAL. 423
religion, it had been occasioned by their own misbehaviour :
" It was because they broke the laws, because they declined
coming to church, to common prayer and divine service, as they
had usually done for nine or ten years together,'"' After this
it is needless to cite the concurrent testimony of Bishop Lance
lot Andrewes,' Dr, Heylin,'' Archbishop Bramhall,' &c.
The separation, in fact, was caused by the exhortations of
the seminary priests, whom Dr. Allen began to send into Eng
land, from his college at Rheims, in 1568 ;"" and it was increas
ed by the Jesuits, who came under Parsons and Campion in
1580. There is no reason to suppose, that those papists who
refused the oath of regal supremacy in 1559, and remained in
England, separated themselves from the public service of the
church, or celebrated any other worship contrary to the laws of
the land. The separation in 1570 is uniformly spoken of by
the queen herself, and by all our writers, as a thing novel and
unprecedented. A society formed in this manner, by voluntary
separation from a church of Christ, was totally cut off from the
unity of the catholic church ; nor is it to be alleged in reply,
that the new community was recognized by the Rt>man bishops
and some of the Western churches ; for this only proves that
the Roman bishops encouraged schism, and the other churches
were misled by their excessive veneration for the Roman see,
and by the misrepresentations of the enemies of the church of
England ; therefore their sanction to the new community, being
given on erroneous information, could not afford any justifica
tion of it.

!¦ Collier, Eccl. History, -u. p. 524.
' Andrewes, Tortura Torti, p. 130.
t Heylin, ut supra. For several of the preceding proofs I am indebted
to the kindness of a venerable man, whose learning and piety shed lustre
on this University.
' Works, p. 241, where he cites a contemporary tract, and also Cam
den's History, to prove the fact.
m Dodd, Church History, u. p, 403,

424 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [ PART II,
It is evident then, that the whole separation or schism was
originated and effected by the Roman pontiffs and their adhe
rents, not by 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 ;" thus bearing what is, as Bossuet well observes, the inva
riable mark of schism and heresy in every age :" " Non enim
nos ab iUis, sed illi a nobis recesserunt,"?
Hence it follows that the Romish communities in England
are not churches of Christ ; and we have an additional proof of
this in the fact, that they are unable to show any succession of
the episcopacy in their conventicles. The pope indeed sent a
titular bishop to them in 1 625, whose successor went to France
in 1629, and returned no more ;i and 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 epis
copal character, this character is by no means essential to their
office i' their successors may be priests or monks, = and they
have no ordinary power over the English Romanists, being
merely dej^uties of the Roman pontiff, who may revoke their
commissions, without any trial, at his own will and pleasure.'

- 1 John ii. 19.
o First Pastoral Instruction on the promises to the church,
p Cyprianus de Unitate,
1 See Dodd's Church History,
r Benedict XIV, de Synodo Diocesana, lib, u, c, 10, where he says they
are "interdum quidem sine Episcopali charactere interdum autem hujus
modi charactere insigniti, cum titulo tamen alicujus Ecclesiae in partibus
infideUnm sitae, ut spirituale regimen gerant aUcujus regionis, cujus episco
pus et pastor proprius non existat,"
• The Vicar Apostolic (so caUed) in Sweden is a priest, — ParUamentaiy
Report on Roman CathoUc Subjects, 1816, p. 452.
' In 1817 the papists of the London district petitioned the Roman pon
tiff most earnestly not to remove Dr, Poynter from the situation of Vicar
Apostolic ; to which he was pleased to reply, that he had no intention of
doing so, — See Roman Cath. Magazine for 1817, p, 243.

CHAP, 11,] ROMAN SECT NOT A CHURCH, 425
Consequently as vicars apostolic they have no episcopal juris
diction in England ; and as titular bishops, ' in partibus infide-
lium,' they have no jurisdiction any where. Therefore they are
not, properly speaking, bishops ; and the Romanists of Eng
land are devoid of any apostolical succession of bishops, not to
speak of some serious difficulties which affect the validity of
their orders in these countries, and which will be considered
elsewhere."

° See Part VI. chapter on Romish Ordinations.

VOL, I, — 54

CHAPTER HI.
ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY AND ACTS OF THE CIVIL
POWER DURING THE REIGNS OP 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 the king, from any exaggerated and unsound meaning which
may have been affixed to it by courtiers or lawyers : for the for
mer only is the church of England responsible ; the latter she
is not concerned with.
I. When it was proposed to the clergy of the Convocation of
Canterbury, to acknowledge the king supreme head of the
church and clergir of England, they absolutely refused to pass
this title simply and unconditionally ; and, after much discus
sion, the king was at last obUged to accept it with a proviso,
introduced by the clergy, to the following effect : " Ecclesiae et
cleri Anglicani singularem protectorem et unicum et supremum
dominum, et {quantum per Christi legem licet) etiam supre
mum caput, ipsius majestatem recognoscimus."*
To recognize the king as supreme head of the English
church, " as far as it is aflowable by the law of Christ," cer
tainly was not to admit his right to interfere with the spiritual
jurisdiction of bishops, or with any of the laws, liberties, doc
trines, or rites of the church, established either directly or indi
rectly by the law of Christ, The clergy of England were
entitled to believe that they had saved all the spiritual rights of
» Burnet, Hist, Refer, vol. iii, p. 90 — 92, and vol. i. p. 205; CoUier, vol.
ii. p. 62. This account is drawn up from the authentic records of the pro
ceedings of convocation. The author of the Antiquitates Britanniae (attri
buted to Parker) mcorrectly states that the proposed qualification, " quantum
per Christi legem licet," was left out finaUy.

CHAP. III.] THE REGAL SUPREMACY. 427
the church by this proviso ; 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 matters.'"' I shall not here enter on the
general question of the authority of the king in ecclesiastical
affairs, which will be discussed elsewhere ;° 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

b Burnet, iu. 92. Archbishop Bramhall terms our kings "political heads"
of the English church. — ^Works, p. 25.
c See Part V,
^ Stapleton, Princip. Doctr, lib. v. c. 17 ; Champney, De Vocat, Ministr.
o, 16 ; Thomassin. Eccl, Discipl. tom. ii. lib. 3. c. 92, sect, 12, &c, ; Rech
berger (chancellor of the diocese of Lintz) maintains the regal power of
superintendence and vigUance over the transactions and decrees of the
church, of enacting laws on disciplinary matters for the church, of cor
recting abuses, limiting religious rites, enjoining sUence in controversies of
faith, establishing uniformity in divine service, abolishing festivals, &c, —
See Report of Committee on Rom. Cath. subjects (1816), pp. 80 — 114,
De Marca, archbishop of Paris, informs us that Molinaeus, Fauchetius,
Pithoeus, Hotmannus, Servinus, &c.; who were aU eminent writers of the
Roman communion, teach " that the R. pontiff exercised no authority in
Gaul before the sixth century ; that in all that interval, of almost 600 years,
the king alone presided over the GaUican chuich as head." — Proleg. ad lib.
de Concord. Sacerd. et Imp. p. 71. The Answer of the Prince de Kaunitz,
chanceUor 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 supremacy over the church. It asserts that " the reform of
abuses which do not concern dogmatical or merely spiritual points . . .
belongs exclusively to the sovereign, who alone commands, and alone has
the right to command in the state. That to this authority belongs, without
any exception, whatever relates to the external discipline of the clergy ;"
and that the power of the state " comprises without any exception, whatever
is of human institution in the Christian church." — See the Report above
referred to, p, 144, 145, The government of Napoleon, it wUl be recoUected,
declared that the French sovereigns regarded themselves as " les eveques
du dehors," and always exercised power over the clergy in matters of dis-

428 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
that the kings of England always were the supreme political
governors or heads of our national church, ° The most learned
lawyers, Fitzherbert and Coke, affirm, that the law confirming
the royal supremacy was only declaratory of the ancient laws
of England ;' and Bossuet himself only condemns this supre
macy on the erroneous supposition that it was admitted to affect
fundamentally the validity of all ecclesiastical acts, not if it were
understood to relate to a merely external direction and execution.^
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 dis
cussing the royal commissions for bishoprics. Indeed, king
Henry himself, in a letter to Tunstall, bishop of Durham, who
thought the title of " Head" 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 con
vocations and confirming their laws,'' the appointment of bishops
cipline, worship, &c. — Mem. Eccl. de France, tom. i. p. 71. [Above, p.
327, note " ; this '' external Episcopate," claimed, and used with such effect,
by Lewis XIV. was based, both name and thing on that of Constantine and
his successors.]
= Archbishop BramhaU, Works, p. 25. 69, &c.
f Ibid, p, 77.
e Bossuet, Variations, I, x, n, 14.
¦¦ Thomassin observes that the GaUican convocations or assemblies of
the clergy, were summoned by the king, that they exercised no acts of juris
diction, deUberated and concluded on nothing without the king's permission ;
that the bishops sought in vain permission to hold synods, &c, — De Eccl,
Discipl. 1. u. c. 56, 57. In fact, during the whole of last century the French
bishops were petitioning the king ineffectually to be permitted to hold pro
vincial synods. See also Fleury, Droit Eccl, u, c. 2, and 25 ; Van Espen
says a royal minister was always present in the synods of Belgium, which

CKXT. Ill,] THE REGAL SUPREMACY, 429
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,'"' apparently desiring that the
recognition should be interpreted in no offensive or unorthodox
sense. Tunstall was so far satisfied that its meaning was
sound and good, that he consented, in 1535, to swear to the
royal supremacy, and in 1 536 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 recog
nition was only to admit a general power of external control and
direction in ecclesiastical affairs to the king, without relinquish
ing 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
denominations, that the papal power was transferred to the
king. The royal supremacy was of a perfectly distinct nature
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 rnarriage, 1533, retained the title of "legate of the
apostohc see"). It was then suppressed, not transferred to
the king. The kings of England did not at any time pretend
to succeed to the authority of the popes, but to that bf their own
royal predecessors.
were summoned with the royal license ; and their decrees were of no force
tiU confirmed by the king. — Jus. Canon, p. i. tit. 20. c. 4. s. 3. 5, See also
Bramhall, Works, 103. 112. 318. 319,
' The antiquity of this right, extending to the Norman conquest, is shown
by Thomassm. Eccl. Discipl. t. u. 1, u, c, 34, See also Bramhall, 75, 107.
314. 316.
" The letter of the king is found in the collection styled Cabala.

430 the BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
Ill, In 1533, the king was given by act of parhament the
power of appointing delegates to hear appeals from the metro
politan courts of England in case of " lack of justice there "
(Act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19). But this was merely the principle
of the appel comme dabus so long practised in France, Ger
many, 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."" IV. The act of parliament 1534, confirming the royal su-

1 See Van Espen's Tractatus de Recursu ad Principem, where it is
shovm that the appeal to the temporal power from the unjust decrees, depo
sitions, excommunications, &c. of the ecclesiastical authorities, is practised
in every country of the Roman obedience. See also Fleury, Droit Eccl.
tom. ii. c. xxiv. The appel comme d'ahts has existed since the fourteenth
century, and the appeals were heard by the French parliaments. It is es
tablished in Austria. — Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. The king of
SicUy from the foundation of that monarchy, has judged finally in aU eccle
siastical causes in his " Tribunal of the Monarchy," and cardinal Baronius
observes, that " under the name of monarchy, besides that one monarch
which all the faithful have ever acknowledged as the oidy visible head in
the church, another head iagisen up, and brought into the kingdom of SicUy,
for a monster and a prodigy." — See BramhaU, Works, p. 114. Yet
notwithstanding, the SicUian church is not accounted heretical by Ro
manists. "¦ Gibson, Codex, vol. i. p. xxi. Bossuet therefore in vain accuses the
church of England of giving the king the power of excommunication, Va-
riat. vii. n. 47, 48. The king never excommunicates with us, but only the
royal court, which comprises ecclesiastics. The king of SicUy excommu
nicates in the " tribunal of the monarchy." In Austria no one can be ex
communicated without the emperor's consent, and the motives of excom
munication must be previously discussed by an equal number of ecclesias
tical and civU commissioners.— rRechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. s.
259. BramhaU understands this act only to give the king the power of
appointing bishops to rehear causes. — ^Works, p. 63.

CHAP. III.] SUBMISSION OF CLERGY. 431
premacy, gave the king power to " visit and reform all heresies,
errors, and other abuses, which in the spiritual jurisdiction
ought to be reformed,"" This, it is alleged, was an impious
attempt to invest the king with real internal spiritual jurisdic
tion. But the church must have undoubtedly understood this
act only 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 of England, not in opposition to it. The bishops under
stood it in some such sense, for they not only offered no opposi
tion to the passing of this bill, but immediately after swore to
the king's supremacy,"
V. Their acknowledgment that all convocations had been
and ought to be assembled by the king's writ,' apparently relat
ed only to convocations or assemblies of the clergy convened
by the king, as one of the three estates of the realm to parha
ment ; it does not seem that synods are here spoken of : but at
aU events, as I have observed before, synods cannot be assem
bled in any country of the Roman obedience without the royal
license ; and the promise which our clergy made at the same
time,' to enact no new canons in future without the king's per
mission, 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 discipline (even those made
in general councils,)'^ appear to them unadvisable.
» Act 25 Henry VIII, c, 1, - Burnet, Hist, Ref, i. 330.
p Burnet, i. 270, 271.
q Burnet, ibid. It appears that the clergy only intended to refrain from
enacting canons during the lifetime of king Henry, as a matter of special
compliment, and that they made a salvo for the immunities and privUeges
of the church of England, and all existing provincial constitutions accord
ant vrith the law of God and the holy church. — Burnet, vol. Ui, p, 133, 134.
Records, n. 20.
¦¦ The kings of France have always rejected the discipline of the synod
of Trent. It has been only imperfectly received in most countries of the

432 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
VI. The first act of the king was to appoint Cromwell, in
1535, his Vicar-General and Visitor of Monasteries. The
former title was certainly novel, and sounded ill, but there being
no evidence that it was intended in a heterodox sense, the
church was not bound to resist the title or office. Louis XVI.
king of France, also instituted a commission for examining the
monastic orders,^ and many of them were suppressed by this
royal commission. The emperors and kings of the Carlovin-
gian race had established permanent visitors of all orders of the
clergy under the title of " Missi Dominici ;'" therefore there
was nothing iiltolerable in these acts of king Henry, nor did
they imply (as Bossuet pretends) the assumption of papal
power." VII. The archbishop of Canterbury in the same year ob
tained the king's license to make a provincial visitation," but
the reason of this was, because there was a reluctance in seve
ral of the bishops to allow such a visitation,"' and therefore it
was necessary to support the canmiical power of the metropoli
tan by royal authority, not that any real spiritual jurisdiction
was supposed to emanate from the crown.^
Roman obedience. See Mosheim, Cent, xvi, sect, Ui, p. 1. n, xxiu. See
also the learned treatise of Van Espen de Promulgatione Legum Eccl., in
which he maintains the right of Christian princes to approve of ecclesias
tical laws. S^
= Mem. pour ser. a I'Hist. Eccl. xvui. siecle, tom. ii. p. 513, &c,
t See a most curious account of them in Thomassin, Eccl. Discipl, t, u,
I. iu. c, 92. According to him they " Exercised an episcopal function,"
were quasi-coUeagues of the bishops, visited churches and monasteries, ex
amined the lives and conduct of the clergy, the zeal of the bishops, their
obedience to the canons made by imperial authority with the advice of the
clergy, &c. They were commonly counts and other laymen. Such ap-
pomtments could only be justified under extraordinary circumstances, and
by the tacit sanction of the church.
" Bossuet, Variations, I. vu. n, 17. 76.
° Burnet, vol. i. p. 334.
" Le Bas, Life of Cranmer, vol. i. chap, v,
=¦ Bossuet, Variations, 1. vu. n, 18.

CHAP, III.] ROYAL INJUNCTIONS — ARTICLES OF 1537. 433
VIII. In 1536 the king issued injunctions or edicts in several
matters of discipline to be executed in all the churches, and
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."^ Yet in fact
such injunctions, though apparently novel, were not really un
precedented. The laws of the Roman emperors, Theodosius,
Honorius, Justinian, &c,, the capitulars of Charlemagne, Ca-
rolus Calvus, and of other emperors and kings of France, the
ecclesiastical laws of the Saxon and Norman kings of Eng
land,^ were all exactly of the same nature as these injunctions ;
that is, they were confirmatory of regulations already made by
the church. Of the injunctions, some are for the enforcement
of things recentiy 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.
IX, Bossuet affirms that the articles of Doctrine of 1537
were decided and ordained only by the king, though he had
previously heard the bishops, as judges hear experienced per
sons ;^ thereby insinuating that the king claimed, or was
allowed, to have the power of dictating the religion of his sub
jects. But Henry VIII. himself, in the preface to these articles,
declares that he had assembled the bishops and clergy in con
vocation "for the full debatement and quiet determination" of
these questions of faith and discipline ; and that he approves
their " determination, debatement, and agreement," which ac-
y Burnet, vol. i. p, 412,
z See BramhaU's Works, p, 88 ; 105, 106. 110 ; 73. &c. The ecclesi
astical laws of the emperor Joseph IL, of Leopold, grand duke of Tuscany,
of the duke of Parma, and the " Organic Articles " enacted by Napoleon,
are aU proofs that the same or greater power than that exercised by Henry
VIIL, is acknowledged to belong to princes of the Roman obedience,
• Bossuet, Var, 1, vii, n, 29,
VOL, I. — 55

434 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
cordingly he commands all his subjects to receive.'' This is
only a royal confirmation of the church's decisions, such as is
necessary even in every part of the Roman Obedience.
X. But the fact most relied on to demonstrate the exagge
rated claims of the temporal power, and the improper subser
viency of the church of ..•England, is the issuing of commissions
to the bishops.
In 1539, on the nomination of Boner to the see of London,
he applied for and obtained a royal commission, dated Nov.
12th, probably in order to ingratiate himself with the king.
There is no evidence that the other bishops during the reign
of Hen?y'VIII. required or obtained such commissions; but
I contend that the commission itself is capable of an orthodox
sense, and that it must be understood in that sense. It declares
.that " all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical and secular, emanates from
;the king, that it was fitting that those who had hitherto exer
cised it only precariously, should acknowledge that it was
conferred by the king's hberality, and should be ready to relin
quish it whe»»he fudges right"  that therefore, " since the
• king's vicegerent was occupied by arduous business," the king
declared the bishop to be in his stead, and licensed him to per
form all which concerned the episcopal authority and jurisdic
tion, " besides and beyond those things which are discerned
from the holy Scriptures to be committed to thee by God ;" and
declares that this license is only to last during the king's plea
sure,"" Now, however wide and high sounding the terms of
this commission may appear, I contend that it does not neces
sarily convey a 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.
b Formularies of Faith, Oxford, p, 4.
« Burnet, Hist, Ref, vol, i, p, 484, 485, Records, n, 14. Bossuet,
Variations, 1, vii, n. 45. I am ashamed to put in such close connexion with
him Micaiah Towgood on Dissent, p, 22, 23 ; but both unite in assaUing
us on this point.

CHAP. Ill,] COMMISSIONS TAKEN OUT BY BISHOPS. 435
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 jurisdic
tion might in this sense be most truly said to emanate from the
king, to be conferred by his bounty, and liable to be withdrawn
when he pleased ; and the king might authorize his bishops to
ordain, institute, nominate to benefices, prove wifls, grant
administration, judge causes, and exercise all other parts of
the episcopal jurisdiction, always understanding that this license
conferred no proper spiritual power, but one which was in its
nature entirely temporal. Thus may these expressions be un-.
derstood, according to the doctrine of our theologians Bramliall,'*
Leslie, ° Gibson,^ &c. But 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, only two years before this commission
was issued to Boner, maintained that " Gods law " committed
to bishops or priests the powers of jurisdiction,^ in excommu
nicating and absolving offenders, (but " not .'^^h violence or
corporeal restraint,") in ordaining and nominating ministers, and
in making canons concerning discipline, rites, -&cc.,^ 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 cafl 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
license, consent, sufferance, and authority of the said kings
and princes, and not by the authprity of God and his gospel."'
This document, exhibiting the doctrine publicly maintained by
¦1 BramhaU, Works, p. 77. ' Leslie, Regale and Pontificate, s, 9.
f Gibson, Codex, vol, i, p, xvu, xviii. See also Mason, Burnet, Brett,
and others cited by Courayer in his Defence of English Ordinations,
chapter xi,
g Formularies of Faith, p. 107 — 110.
I- Ibid, p, 113. ' Ibid, p, 114,

436 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
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
suppose 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 immediately affixed by the partizans of
Rome, it was right, in order to avoid scandal, that the practice
should be discontinued ; accordingly it was discontinued, for
none of the new bishops were required to take out similar
commissions. '^
XI, On the same principle we explain the act of parliament
in 1547, declaring that as all jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal,
emanates from the king, all proceedings in the episcopal courts
shall be in the king's name, and sealed with his arms,' 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 ecclesiastical 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, dispensations, collations, presentations, gifts, institu
tions, inductions, letters of orders, or dimissories."' So that
there was no intention of interfering with the real spiritual ju
risdiction of bishops. This act was subsequently repealed,"
XII, The royal visitations of England in 1536, 1547, and in
the reign of Elizabeth, were not unprecedented in the church,
Charlemagne and his successors had appointed visitors of the
German and French churches, when many abuses were to be
reformed." The object was then, as it was in England, to en-
t Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 10. ' Act I Edw. ^^l. c. 2.
¦" Ibid. ¦" Gibson, Codex, p. 967,
See above, note t, p. 432,

CHAP, in,] ROYAL VISITATIONS. 437
force regulations approved by the church and confirmatory of
the canons ; and though it is true that such visitations might
form precedents for future invasions of ecclesiastical liberties,
still their objects were laudable, and it does not appear that the
church was strictly bound to offer any opposition to them,
XIII, The council of Edward VI, in 1547 issued a procla
mation, equivalent then in law to an act of parliament, which,
it is said, suspended the jurisdiction of bishops and archbishops
during the royal visitation, and required the clergy to preach
only in their own churches, unless they obtained special license
from the king. The mere recital of such acts, according to
Bossuet, shows their iniquity," I will' not maintain that this
proceeding was altogether free from fault, but the proclamation
did not pretend to suspend the jurisdiction of the bishops ; it
only required them not to exercise it "to the prejudice of the
royal visitation," under pain of contempt. And it did not pre
tend to silence the clergy, but directed the bishops to inhibit
them ;'' thus recognizing the episcopal authority. As to the
royal pretence to license preachers, it was an irregularity which
the church was not called to pronounce upon,'
XIV, The royal injunctions issued at this time, enjoined the
clergy to pray publicly for the king as supreme head of the

p Bossuet, Variations, 1, vii, n, 77.
"• Burnet, vol. ii. b. i. Rec. 7.
' The emperor Joseph II. took on him to silence preachers. — Mem.
Eccl. xviU. siecle, tom. iu. p. 22, Charles V, in 1553 also sUenced the
preachers of both parties, as we learn from Melancthon, epist, lib. iv. 99.
The pretence to license preachers was not more irregular than this : and
the various restraints put on preaching during the time of violent controver
sies by king Edward VI., which Bossuet alludes to, (Var. vii. 79.) were
merely in accordance with the right ofChristian kings to preserve the peace
of their dominions. Rechberger, a Roman canonist, asserts their right to en
join sUence in controversies of faith, and this right was exercised by the
emperor Joseph IL in his decrees of 1781 and 1782, which prohibited aU
discussion on the buU Unigenitus, and which are stUl in force, Enchir.
Jur, Eccl, Austriac.

438 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. f PART II.
church of England, and the violation of this rule was to be pun
ished by suspension, deprivation, and excommunication, " Be
hold," 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 ,"^
The answer is simply, that these penalties were not to be in
flicted by the king but by the bishops. They were enjoined to
see this regulation executed, i. e. to suspend, depose, or excom
municate the clergy who disobeyed it.' 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.
XV. The lower house of convocation in 1547 addressed the
bishops, desiring, among other things, that, according to the
ancient custom, the inferior clergy might be again admitted to
sit in the house of commons, " or else, that all such statutes
and ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of reU
gion and causes ecclesiastical, may not pass without the sight
and assent of the said clergy,"" Bossuet misrepresents this as
follows : " They asked as a favour of parhament, 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 advisers, 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."^
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
1 Bossuet, Var, 1. vii. n, 77, t Burnet, vol, ii, p, 53,
" Burnet, Hist, Ref. vol. u. p,87. Rec. n. 16.
» Bossuet, Var, 1, vu, n, 78,

CHAP. Ill,] VARIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS. 439
alluded to did not mean that this request failed of success, but
that the proposed alternative of sitting in parliament did so.
XVI, 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.' "^ This promise, which one would suppose was re
quired from several bishops, was only sought by the council
from one (Gardiner,) who was extremely refractory and turbu
lent ; and he answered that he would conform himself as the
other bishops did,^ It will be remembered that the conduct
here attributed to the civil power was actually realized after
wards in the Roman church by the emperor Joseph IL, who
issued a decree " which compelled all the bishops of his here
ditary states to promise obedience to all the orders which had
already emanated from the emperor, or which he might publish
hereafter,"^' XVII. It is alleged, that in the time of Edward VI, all 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.^
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 confirmed by eccle
siastical authority.
Thus, in 1547, an act passed for communion in both kinds,
and against private masses, on the ground of Scripture and pri
mitive 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

" Bossuet, ibid. == Burnet, u, 103.
y Memoires sur Pie VI. et son Pontif. t, i. p, 236,
2 Bossuet, Var. I. vU. n. 76,
« Burnet, ii, 92 ; Le Bas, Life of Cranmer, i, 291.

440 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
preceding year, and they now confirmed it again.'' 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." 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, '^
The alterations in the Ritual confirmed by parliament, a,d, 1552,
had been made by bishops in the preceding year," 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 discipline,
XVIII, It only remains to notice the deprivations of bishops
by the civil power, and it may be at once conceded that the
principle of such deprivations cannot be approved of; but
irregularities 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 conduct 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.'' The
church is sometimes obliged to submit to such irregularities in
order to avoid greater evils, and even to ordain bishops in the

" Ibid, and p. 172,
= Ibid. U. 87. 113. Le Bas, Cranmer, i. 315, 316.
" Ibid. p. 262.
' "Wheatley on the Common Prayer.
f Bramhall, Works, p. 89. De Marca, Concord. Sacer. et Imperu. Ub.
iv, u. 18. See also the treatise of Nicephorus, edited by Dr- Hody, at Ox
ford, 1691, and of Methodius, pubUshed by Cardinal Maio, in the third vo
lume of the Ancient Remains, p. 247, &c.
e Of Beauvais, See GaUia Christiana, tom. ix,
^ Memoires Eccl. xviii. siecle, tom. ii. p, 22 ; iii, 504,

CHAP, III,] DEPRIVATIONS OF BISHOPS. 441
place of those who have been deprived ;' and thus whatever
may have been the justice of the deprivations of two alien
bishops, or of two others accused of crimes against the state,
the church of England was the proper judge whether these de
privations were tolerable, and she had the jDower of sanctioning
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 apparentiy
unjust as well as irregular. Boner, bishop of London, Gardi
ner 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.

i See Hody, Case of sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical depriva
tion. " Burnet, ii. 234. 280. 305. 375. 398. Le Bas, Cranmer, i. 329.

VOL. I. — 56

. CHAPTER IV.
ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REIGN OF MARY.
The deprivations of bishops alluded to above, were acts de
serving of censure ; and we therefore cannot view as an irregu
larity or an injustice the restoration of bishops Boner, Gardiner,
Heath, Day, and Tunstall to their sees by the royal commis
sions of queen Mary,=' though the result was the expulsion of
bishops Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, who had occupied those
sees with at least the tacit sanction of the church. But other
proceedings foflowed, which were too obviously dictated by a
spirit of vengeance and hatred. The removal of bishop Hoop
er by the queen, from his see of Gloucester, which he held by
regular and canonial institution,'' was altogether unjustifiable.
Voysey was irregularly restored to the see of Exeter, by an or
der under the great seal, expelling without any trial or formali
ty whatever, bishop Coverdale, who had succeeded on his vol
untary 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
VIIL, was intruded into that see by royal authority,* But in
March, 1554, an unprecedented violation of justice and of ec
clesiastical liberties took place. Royal commissions were ap
pointed 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 Ed
ward VI, (which was a mere nullity) "quamdiu se bene gesse-
. Burnet, ii. 443. i> lb. ii. 282. ' Ib. 306. " Burnet, ii. 585.

CHAP, IV,] SCHISMATICAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER MARY. 443
rint."" Thus nine bishops were almost at once driven from
their sees by the royal power. The bishop of Bath was com
pelled to resign by threats and intimidation.^ This is exclusive
of Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, who were at once harshly ex
pelled, and of archbishop Cranmer, afterwards degraded by two
papal delegates, who besides being incompetent to judge ac
cording to the canons,^ acted by a power which was irregular
and null, the papal jurisdiction having been suppressed in Eng
land and never regularly revived again.
It is in vain that Bossuet would cloak the scandal of such
proceedings by pretending that " until the ecclesiastical order
was re-established they acted against the Protestants on their
own maxims,'"' If these maxims were wrong in themselves, it
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 arbitra
rily and irregularly expelled, which could justify such pro
ceedings. Acts of such violence were without parallel in history. The
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 aware of the incompetency of
the temporal power for such acts, as to refuse the title of Head
of the church of England, decline accepting the oath of su
premacy, and repeal all the laws establishing the ecclesiastical
power of the crown ; this expulsion, I say, is too obviously at-

• Burnet, u, 494, 495. f Ibid, p, 497,
s According to the canons of the synod of Antioch (can, 4. 12,), and the
African code (can, 12,), a bishop couli only be deprived regularly by a
provincial synod or by twelve bishops. Besides this the pope had no right,
even by the canon of Sardiea, to judge bishops in the first instance. He
could only have appointed delegates in case of an appeal.
J" Variat, 1, vu, n, 99,

444 THE BRITISH REI'ORMATION, [PART II.
tributable to a spirit of hatred towards those bishops who pro
moted the reformation of the church of England and its indepen
dence 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 persecute their op
ponents. 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 Eng
land. They were reinforced by a few weak or time-serving
prelates, and by fourteen new bishops selected for their im
plicit devotion to the Roman pontiff, and chiefly intruders into
the sees of the expelled bishops.
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 ima
gined to be essential to catholic unity.- This imagined ne
cessity caused them to violate the rules of the church, and to
subvert our liberties, contrary to the spirit and express injunc
tions of the canons. The usurped and novel jurisdiction of the
Roman see had been removed twenty years before, in accord
ance with the canon of the oecumenical synod of Ephesus,
wliich decreed that the liberties of churches should be pre
served, and that every province should retain those rights
which it had possessed from the beginning.' The ancient lib
erty of the church of England had, after due inquiry, been re
vived, and had continued in force for such a time ; and it was
a sacrifice of the interests of religion, of the freedom, and the
proper discipline of the church of England, and of the princi-

i Canon VIII. See Barnes, Catholico-Romanus pacific, sect. ui. where
the liberties of the British church are defended. See also Bingham, Orig.
Eccl. book ix. c. 1 ; BramhaU, Works, p. 77 — 85 ; Stillingfleet, Origines
Britannicae ; Basire, Diatriba de Antiq. Eccl. Brit. Libert.

CHAP. IV,] SCHISMATICAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER MARY. 445
pies of the sacred canons, to introduce again the absolute au
thority of the Roman pontiff.
It may be most reasonably denied that the church of England
could even by a synodical judgment have revived this power,
cbntrary to the decree of an cecumenical synod in a case of
general discipline, where a great principle of universal applica
tion was laid down ; but there was no synodical examination or
judgment on the question ; the papal party in the church, having
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 sub
mission, without any formal examination and enactment, could
not erect the papal authority in England ; and consequently all
the acts subsequently performed by that authority in England
were irregularities, usurpations, nullities. It was only fit that
what had begun without order, reason, and ecclesiastical au
thority, should be sustained by violence. Accordingly upwards
of three thousand clergy were expelled from their churches,' and
those who were most resolute in refusing to wear the papal
yoke, 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 papal faction, as the Ori
ental churches in the time of Constantius were by usurping Ari
an bishops. We cannot recognize in the changes which they
effected, any regular or valid ecclesiastical authority. The rule
which they followed, was not the judgment of the catholic and
primitive church, but the decrees of the modern bishops of
Rome. They were men who had usurped irregularly the epis
copal 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
" Burnet, ii, 528 ; Ui, 412, ' Burnet, ibid.

446 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART 11^
sees by his nominations, which conferred no title whatever.
The church of England, oppressed by these schismatics, be
held her liberties sacrificed, her institutions altered for the worse
in many respects, and the abuses which she 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 regula
tions 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 au
thority, I fully admit that they are indefensible on papal prin
ciples, because they had the radical fault of being in disobedi
ence to the bishop of Rome ; but I contend that they were
in no respect contradictory to the principles of the catholic
church. There are three points in which these reformations are chiefly
assailed. First, the enacting of ecclesiastical regulations in par
liament, without the consent of the bishops, or of the convoca
tion of the clergy ; 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 incompe
tent and schismatical authority, that the church of England
was involved in schism," &c. I shall notice these objections
successively, I. It is admitted that the parliament passed acts for abolish
ing the papal jurisdiction, and establishing the regal supremacy,
» Trevern, Micaiah Towgood on Dissent, 10, 108. ^26,

448 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
with an oath to that effect ; and also for establishing the English
ritual,'' 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 VL, which had been indeed
disobeyed by the papal party 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 con
currence of the church of England ; and 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 legitimate
bishops, as will be presently shown. Therefore it was need
less to solicit their sanction of these acts, or to regard their
opposition. The lower house of convocation, too, consisted
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.
II. Those bishops who were expelled from the English sees,
by royal commissions, in consequence of their refusal to ac
knowledge 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." 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,
? Burnet, ii. 692. = Burnet, iii. 455. Rymer Foedera, tom, xv.

CHAP, v.] BISHOPS LAWFULLY ELECTED AND ORDAINED. 449
White of Winchester, Turberville of Exeter, Scott of Chester,''
Bourne of Bath had intruded into the place of Bishop Barlow,
who had been forced by intimidation to resign. Thus ten
bishops of those expelled by Elizabeth, had been schismatically
and invalidly appointed to the sees they occupied ; and, of the
remaining four, Boner and Thirlby had been guilty of serious
offences, as well in attempting to introduce the papal jurisdic
tion, and in violating the laws and institutions of the church of
England, as in presiding in the character of papal delegates at
the unjust degradation and murder of their own metropolitan
and primate ; and in many other acts of cruelty. If one or
two were removed from their sees apparently without sufficient
canonical reason, so comparatively small an irregularity cannot
affect the character of the proceedings in general, and Tunstall
died before his see was filled up by a new consecration.
Ill, We are to consider the appointments of the new bishops
at this time. The metropohtan chair of Canterbury, and twelve
other bishoprics were vacant by death, before any of them were
filled by fresh ordinations ;" eleven other sees were vacant by
the legitimate expulsion of those who had usurped them.^
Therefore the new appointments of bishops took place in the
ordinary and regular manner.
According to the canons all bishops should be consecrated
by their metropolitan, and the synod of com-provincial bishops,
or at least by three of them ;^ but at this time, in consequence
of the usurpations and intrusions of the papal faction, there
was not a sufficient number of bishops in England actually and
legitimately in possession of sees, to perform the ordination.
¦" Ibid,
« Canterbury, Durham, Salisbury, Norwich, Hereford, Chichester,
Rochester, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, Bangor, St. David's, Man.
f Yorli, Bath, Lichfield, Winchester, Lmcoln, Carlisle, Exeter, Peter
borough, Chester, Worcester, St. Asaph.
s Nicene Synod, can. 4 ; Antioch. can. 19. 23 ; African code, can. 13.
49 ; ii. Orleans, can. 7; iv. Toledo,'c. 18; Bingham's Antiq. b. ii .c. 16,
s. 15 ; De Marca. Concord, Sacerd, et Imp, Ub, iv, c. 4,
VOL, I. — 57

450 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
It was a time of great difficulty (the church of England having
been deprived of so many of her legitimate bishops), and there
fore the consecration of Archbishop Parker was performed by
four of the bishops who had been expelled and driven into exile
by the papal faction in the last reign, and who had not yet
been restored to the actual possession of their sees and bene
fices, but two of whom, at least (viz. Barlow and Coverdale),
were still legitimately bishops of the province of Canterbury ;''
while Scory, lately bishop of Chichester, ejected by the tem
poral authority of Queen Mary, as having been invested with
that see duhio jure, and Hodgkins, suffragan bishop of Bedford,
were both at least canonically vacant, and competent to afford
their aid in the necessity of the church of England,' Thus
there was no essential informality in the case, because two of
the ordaining bishops were still, de jure, bishops possessing
jurisdiction in the province of Canterbury, and tiiis entitled
them, under the circumstances, to call in the assistance of the
other bishops to fill up the canonical number. Pelagius, bishop
of Rome, was, under circumstances of less difficulty, ordained
by two bishops of his province,''
It appears then, that the reformation in Ehzabeth's reign was
not effected by mere temporal authority, in opposition to the
laws, ordinances, and authority of the spiritual power. The
h Barlow having been forced to relinquish his see of Bath, by threats
and intimidation, and Coverdale expeUed from the see of Exeter by the
civU power, livhich restored Voysey, who had freely resigned it.
' Bishops who are without actual jurisdiction over any see, in conse
quence of any cause which does not arise from their own nusconduct,
may exercise episcopal functions when permitted by other bishops. This
is the rule of the synod of Antioch, can. 18. Apost. can. 36. See also
Balsamon and Zonaras on the 18th canon of Antioch. Thomassin, Eccl.
Disoip, p. i. 1. i. c, 27, 28, detaUs the origin and office of titular bishops,
who, without any real see, officiate in the Roman churches,- under the direc
tion of others, and even assist in consecrating bishops. See also Benedict
XIV, de Synodo Dioecesana, I, ii. c. 7
k Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 33, n. 55.

CHAP. V,] REGAL SUPREMACY EXAGGERATED. 451
acts of parhament, the expulsion of some bishops, the ordina
tion of others, were all justifiable and even laudable on cathohc
principles. The Queen's Injunctions at the beginning of her
reign, were like the edicts of Justinian, Charlemagne, and their
successors, only confirmatory of the rights, customs, and can
ons of the church, previously made or confirmed by spiritual
authority, IV. Bossuet in vain endeavours to prove that notwithstanding
the denial in the Article that " we give to our prince the minis
tering of God's word or of the sacraments," which seems to
reduce the royal authority to a mere exterior direction and exe
cution, the contrary appeared in practice.' " The queen," he
says, " gave license 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,"' 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
to consecrate them emanated from the royal power," (The
kings of France formerly issued similar injunctions to their
bishops.") "Excommunications were decreed by the same
authority." (The queen herself never issued excommunications,
but the court of delegates, or the high commission court, which
consisted of bishops. Besides, the king of Sicily, in his " Tri
bunal 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 parlia
ment, whose acts derived their authority from her." (These
edicts were only like those of other Christian princes, confir-
' Bossuet, Vaiiat, 1. x. n. 14, 15.
m Thomassin. Eccl, Discip. p, i, 1, ii, c, 19 ; p, ii, I. ii. c. 34.
'¦ Thomassin. p. ii, 1, ii, c. 34, s, 8.

^^2 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
matory of the faith and discipline approved by spiritual au
thority,) 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 pariiament 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
IL It was only fit that parliament should exercise some con
trol over the application of so terrible a punishment, and see
that the clergy should not exceed the hmits of their jurisdiction
in defining new heresies. In Austria no one can even be
excommunicated without the previous judgment of the civil
powers,)" 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 license 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.'' V. If it be said that the Articles themselves declare, that " if
any man, through his private judgment, openly breaks the cere
monies of the church which be ordained by common authority,
he shall be openly rebuked as one that offendeth against the
common order of the church, and hurteth the authority of the
magistrate,"'^ and therefore that the civil magistrate is acknow
ledged to have authority in such matters, and may alter the
worship of the church as he pleases'^ — I reply that the common
o Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. s, 259,
p See Part I, Chapter X, Append. I. IL III, " Article XXXIV.
t Towgood on Dissent, p, 10,

CHAP. V,] REFORMATION UNDER ELIZABETH. 453
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 contrary to
the will of the church, so as to have any obhgation 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 1571, and 1603,
they enacted canons in their convocations, which were con
firmed 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 subsequent
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 misrepre
sented by the opponents of our cathoUc apostolic churches, that
it becomes a matter of necessity to clear them from the impu
tation of schism, heresy, and anarchy, by the weight of facts.
It has-been abeady shown that one leading principle of that
reformation, namely the authority of provincial or national
churches to correct doctrine and discipline without the necessity
of waiting for the formal judgment of the Roman pontiff, or of
the universal church, is free from all imputation of schism or
heresy,'' But we are assured that the main, essential principle of the
Reformation was the liberty of interpreting Scripture according
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 Reforma
tion 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 testi
mony of a universal consent of Christians, was generally re
spected by those who were favourable to reformation.
In England the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture
was most rightly maintained, not against a catholic tradition
teaching the same doctrines as Scripture itself, and therefore
" See Chapter IL

CHAP. VI,] UNWRITTEN TRADITION. 455
Strictly confirmatory of Scripture ; but against a tradition ima
gined to convey articles of faith in addition to those which
Scripture contained. The title of Dr, Smythe's book " De
veritatibus non scriptis," intimates the principle of the papal
party. The Romish controversialists of that age 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 modern
abuses, and to the license of an unbridled private judgment,
were the principles of the English Reformation.
The abolition of the papal jurisdiction, it will be allowed, was
a considerable act of reformation : but we find from history that
those who supported that measure, argued not only from Scrip
ture, but from the doctrine and practice of the primitive church,
the' cecumenical 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,'' Of these
arguments we find a good specimen in bishop Tunstall's letter
to cardinal Pole,"
The recognition of the royal supremacy was no inconsiderable
proceeding of 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 formerly, and
the customs and laws of the realm of England,* Communion

" BuHiet,i.250— 257. -Ibid. iii. Records, 52.^ Ubid. i. 257— 261

456 PRINCIPLES QF THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
in both kinds was received, not only as being more agreeable to
Christ's first institution, but to " the practice 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.*' 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, s
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 a whole univer
sal 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,"'^ It declares
that all Christians must take the articles of the creed, " and
interpretate all the same things, according to the self-same sen
tence and interpretation which the words of Scripture 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,"' Cranmer evidently acknowledged the authority of catholic
tradition. On what other ground could he have made those
voluminous collections of extracts from the fathers, the councils,
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.'"^ We see another example of his
= Ibid. U. 76, 77. f Ibid. ii. 104—108, e Ibid, u. 198—204,
b Formularies of Faith, p. 221. . Ibid. p. 227.
' Cranmer's Works, vol. u. p. 14, by Jenkins,

CHAP. VI,] AUTHORITY OP UNIVERSAL TRADITION. 457
veneration for the tradition of the church, in his papers on jus
tification, where are many passages from the fathers and school
men down to the time of Aquinas and Bonaventure.' His
epistie to Joachim Vadianus says, with reference to certain
writings of Zuinglius and (Ecolampadius : " so far as they
have endeavoured to point out and correct papistical and sophis
tical 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 earhest
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," 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 under
stood). 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," Even in his epistle to queen Mary
(September, 1555), stating the reasons by which he had main
tained 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,"? 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, catholic and apos-
1. Cranmer's Works, vol, ii. p. 121, &c, Soames, Hist, Ref. vol. ii.
p. 526.
m Cranmer's Works, v^l. i. p. 195.
n Le Bas, Life of Cranmer, vol. i. p. 315.
. " Cranmer's Works, vol. ii. p, 113,
P Ibid. vol. i. p. 380.
VOL. I. — 58

458 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
tohc church, or the authority thereof, the which authority I
have in great reverence, and to whom my mind is in all things
to obey."* " 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 sacrament ; and
because I consent not to words not accustomed in Scripture,
and unknown to the ancient fathers.""^
Bishop Ridley reverenced equally the testimony of catholic
tradition. He protested that he did not dispute the doctrine of
the " real presence founded in the word of God, and illustrated
by the commentaries of the orthodox fathers,"^ Bishop Poynet
in his treatise on the eucharist appeals to the tradition of the
church universal.* Mr. Philpot, when imprisoned by the Ro
mish faction in the reign of queen Mary, wrote thus to a fellow-
prisoner : " Let us all that be obedient children of God, sub
mit 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 follow
ing 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 tnie testimony of Christ's
church, will I not forsake,"'' &c. Bishop Jewel says : " We
t Ibid. vol. iv, p, 121,
r Ibid. p. 127. The Treatise on unwritten Verities which has been at
tributed to Cranmer, and which speaks less respectfiiUy of the doctrine of
the fathers, was not written by him, — See Jenkyns's Cranmer, vol, i. p. It,
s Ridlaei Protestatio, Enchirid, Theolog. p, 53,
t Poynet, Diallacticon,
u See the letter cited in the British Magazine for 1836, p, 50.
" JMartyrs' Letters, p. 265. 270, cited by Mr, Churto;i,

CHAP. VI,] AUTHORITY OP UNIVERSAL TRADITION. 459
are come as near as we possibly could to the church of the
aposties, 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."'' In accordance with these principles the preface of the re
formed 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."^ 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' time there have been
those three orders of ministers in Christ's church," The homi
lies, composed in 1547 and 1562, continually refer to the
authority of the fathers in confirmation of the true doctrine :^
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, e^fcept 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 testimonies
of Taylor, Nowell, Hooker, Bancroft, Bilson, Overall, Morton,
Field, White, Hall, Laud, Montague, Jackson, Mode, Usher,
Bramhall, Sanderson, Cosin, Hammond, Thorndike, Jeremy
Taylor, Heylin, Pearson, Barrow, Bull, Stillingfleet, Ken,
" Jewel, Apologia, p. 156. ed. 1606.
» Preface to Book of C. P.
y See Sermon concerning Prayer, part ii. Place and time of Prayer, ad
fin. ; Hom. on Com. Prayer and Sacraments ; Serm, on Alms-deeds, &c.

460 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
Beveridge, Patrick, Sharp, LesHe, Potter, and others innu
merable of our primates, bishops, doctors, and theologians, who
have all maintained the authority of cathohc traditition.'^ So
great is the reverence which we have always paid to that tra
dition, that it has been remarked and judged excessive by some
of the Lutheran and Calvinistic societies. The Lutheran
Walchius says : " To those who attribute too much to the
fathers of the church, the episcopalians or hierarchicals as they
are called, in England, have united themselves ; amongst whom
the authority of the fathers is very great, since they persuade
themselves that they find in their writings a great support for
their notion concerning the divine origin of the episcopate, and
concerning the retention of the rites and discipline of the ancient
church. For this reason amongst others, they abhor the work
of Daille on the use of the fathers, because they believe that
he has too much detracted from their authority. Beveridge
avows this.""
It is evident then that the authority of catholic tradition and
of the universal church, as opposed to the unlimited freedom
of private inventions, was continually recognized in the church
of England during the whole reformation, and always after
wards. Indeed so little was thought of the right of individuals
to hold their own inventions and dogmas in those days, that
we find even corporal severities exercised by those who pro
moted the reformation, against those who held heretical doc
trines. Thus in 1549 Cranmer and Ridley were on the com
mission which condemned Joan of Kent for heresy, and the
archbishop himself obtained the signature of king Igdward VI.
to the warrant for her burning, at which bishop Scory preach-
^ See the Appendix to bishop Jebb's Sermons; the Rev, E. Churton's
valuable Sermon, " The Church of England a witness and keeper of the
Catholic tradition," Appendix A. ; Rev. J. F. RussePs Judgment of the
Anglican Church ; and the publication entitled " Tracts for the Times," No.
78 ; for the sentiments of aU the theologians mentioned above.
" Walehu Bibliotheca Patristica, cap. xv. s. 9.

CHAP, VI.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL TRADITION. 461
ed the sermon,'' Van Pare, a Dutch heretic, was condemned
in hke manner, a,d, 1551 ; and in the time of queen Ehzabeth,
bishop Jewell in his Apology declares that "we not only con
demn the old heretics, as Arians, Eutychians, Marcionites, &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 law
ful and civil punishments,"" In fact the 'writ " de Hasretico
comburendo " was in force till the twenty-ninth year of Charles
IL, and not unfrequently acted upon. Of course I do not ap
prove 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 Scrip
ture confirmed by cathohc 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
purposely 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 re
buked openly," &c. ;* the church herself, of course, being the
judge of this repugnance." Even the parliaments which estab
lished the Reformation, acknowledged the authority of tradi
tion, and of the catholic church. The act (1547) appointing
communion in both kinds, and the people to receive it with the

^ Le Bas, Cranmer, vol. i. p. 334, Burnet, vol. ii.
c JueUi Apolog. p. 5. ^ Article XXXIV.
0 Towgood the dissenter says : " Of this repugnance and contrariety,
the church alone, you will observe, and not every private person, is allow
ed to be the proper judge, for otherwise the Article is absurd : it actuaUy
overthrows itself, and takes away with one hand what it gives with the
other," — On Dissent, p, 6, 7.

462 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II,
priest, went on the ground of " the practice of the church for
five hundred years after Christ," and " the primitive practice."'
The Act for the Royal Supremacy-(I559) 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 de
clared to be heresies by the express and plain words of Scrip
ture, All other points, not so decided, were to be judged by
the parliament, with the assent of the clergy in their convoca-
tion.s It is strange that in opposition to the weight of such facts,
the principle of the Reformation should be assumed to be that
j of the right of individuals to oppose their own judgments to the
' true doctrine of Scripture, taught by the tradition of the univer-
I sal 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 indefensible on any other :
but we are satisfied with the principle of the English Reforma
tion 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 maintain
ed by the church of England, was a principle calculated not
merely for the maintenance of Christian truths always received,
: but it was essentially a corrective and reforming principle ; for
it taught the church to look beyond the limits of existing prac-
\ tices 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
f Act 1, Edw, VI, c, 1. e Act I, Eliz, c. 1.

CHAP, VI.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL TRADITION. 463
rule by which she might be enabled to give due importance to
matters essential, and to correct abuses and innovations incon
sistent with the apostolic truth. And it was a principle fraught
with practical wisdom, because it placed before her the expe
rience and examples of fifteen hundred years, to guide and ad
monish her in her proceedings.
There may be one other' answer made to this : — that the
church of England herself did not understand the true princi
ples of the Reformation ; that we must look for those principles
amongst the Lutherans or Calvinists. But I have already
shown that they also were abundant in their acknowledgments
of the authority of the catholic church, and of general and na
tional synods in matters of faith ; that they shrank from the
imputation of setting up their private opinions against the autho
rity of the catholic church ; that they never designed or wished
to separate themselves from the existing Roman churches ;
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 the Roman church would
have made some concessions and re-admitted them to her com
munion,'' There are facts enough to prove all this, and to
show that our churches do not stand alone in recognizing the
authority of catholic tradition. Therefore there is error in both
the assertions on which Blackburn founds his attack upon the
Articles of the church of England ; viz, that " the protestants
withdrew from the communion of the church of Rome," and
that the principle on which they did so, was the right of an un
bounded liberty (so called) of private judgment, and the rejec
tion of all church authority.' Indeed Blackburn himself is
compelled, by the force of truth, to acknowledge that the re
formers themselves afterwards "took their interpretations of
Scripture," and "formed their rule of faith and doctrine" on
" the sense of the orthodox fathers ; '"^ that " in those days no-
'¦ Part I. Chapter XII, i Blackburn's Confessional, p. 1, 2,
" Ibid. p. 3.

464 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
thing was thought to be sufficiently confirmed by Scripture
testimonies, without additional vouchers from the ancient wor
thies of the church ; "' that " in process of time some particu
lar 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 regarded " as so much
blasphemy ; " that when Erasmus Johannes, a schoolmaster at
Antwerp, a few years afterwards assailed the fathers and coun
cils, " the times were not ripe for the toleration of these senti
ments," and he was "obliged to fly his country!""^ These
facts, admitted as they are by a despiser and an enemy of ca
tholic 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 afterwards in adopting
the principla of obedience to the doctrine of the catholic
church? .J,.,M. *<- ...
' P. 20. " P. 21, 22.

CHAPTER VH.
ON THE VARIATIONS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.
The regulations made by our catholic apostohcal churches
concerning doctrine and 4iscipline during the sixteenth cen
tury, have been mahciously traduced by our opponents, as af
fording evidence of heretical variations and inconsistencies. The
mere circumstance of a church's altering her doctrine or disci
pline in some point affords no presumption of heresy. The Afri
can 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 communion in both
kinds till the thirteenth century : the Synod of Constance con- '
firmed the opposite practice. The Western churches, in the
ninth century condenmed the worship of imageg i jet afterwards
many of them permitted the custom. For a long time they
acknowledged the Roman pontiffs to have temporal authority
over princes ; yet this doctrine was afterwards rejected by the
Gallican 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 con
trary doctrine. In France the superiority of a general synod to
a pope was held defide, yet it is «o 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 sftithori-
ty ; but to the fluctuation, contradictions, and uncertainty of
sects who separate from the church. Variation in this sense,
or as implying inconsistency, or <?anction of what is admitted to
be heresy or dangerous error, affords a legitimate presumption
of unsoundness. VOL. I. — ^59

466 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
But of such variations there is no evidence in the Reforma
tion of the church of England, which proceeded gradually, con
sistently, and lawfully, in the correction of modern, though pre
valent errors and abuses.
I. The Reformation of the church of England, during the
reign of Henry VIIL is represented uniformly by Bossuet, and
our other opponents of all " denominations," as Hmited entirely
to the rejection of the Papal supremacy," With this single ex
ception, 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,'' the doctrine of purgatory was dis
claimed by authority of the church in 1537" and 1543'' (shehe-
ing well aware that the council of Florence, on which it rests,
is of no binding force"). Indulgences were rejected by the
same authority,' together with all kneeling, bowing, and offer
ing to images ;8^ and all worship before them was to be directed
not to the image itself, not even to the saint represented, but to
God only,'' The principle and practice was estabhshed by the
royal Injunctions received by the church, of removing all images
abused by pilgrimages and other special honours.' The prac-

' Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. sect. 24 — 28. 37.
^ Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. and iii.
c Institut. of a Christian Man, Formularies of Faith, p. 211. Oxford ed,
i Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, ibid, p, 376,
' Ibid, p. 285.
•¦ Formularies of Faith, p, 211. 376.
s Articles about Religion, 1536. Fqrmul. of Faith, p. xxvUi. Institu
tion of a Christ. Man, p. 134, 135. 137. Injunctions of Archbishop Lee,
Burnet, in. Records, 57. Injunct. Bp. Sarum, ibid. Rec. 59.
>> Articles, 1536, p. xxviu. Necessary Doctrine, p. 300.
' Injunctions of the King's Vicegerent. Burnet, Hist. Ref. yol.i. Re
cords, p. 276. Injunctions of Archbishop Lee, Bur. iu. Rec. 57. AU such

CHAP. VII.] VARIATIONS. 467
tice of praying to saints for any gifts was prohibited by the
church,'' and though their invocation was still permitted under
certain limitations intended to divest it of its most injurious ten
dency, it was discouraged in the public service.' The super
stitious use of relics was also discouraged,"' and the church pro
hibited 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 customs were retained
special honours are prohibited by the Institution of a Christian Man, p, 137.
Milner, a noted papist, thus involuntarUy justifies us for removing images :
" The learned Petavius says, ' We must lay it down as a principle, that im
ages axe to be reckoned among the adiaphora, which do not belong to the
substance 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 idola
try er superstition from pictures, they ought to be removed by the pastor,
as St. Epiphanius destroyed a certain pious picture, and as Ezechias de
stroyed the brazen serpent." — End of Controv. Let. 34. Now, 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 faUing into idolatry by using images : " 'What
might be feared for the ignorant is, that they should believe the divine na
ture capable of being represented, or rendered present in the images ; or
regard them as iUled with some virtue, for which they are honoured : these
are the three characters of idolatry. It is not aUowable to attribute more
virtue to one image than to another ; nor, consequently, to frequent one
more than another, except in memory of some miracle or pious history,
which may excite devotion." — Boss. Variat. 1. xv. sect. 156. The Synod
of Trent, as Bossuet says, endeavoured to guard against these idolatries
and superstitions ; but it is weU known that the same practices stUl remain,
and they wiU continue untU the example of our catholic churches is foUowed,
The Emperor Joseph II. issued a decree for the removal of images. See
above, p. 308.
^ Institution, p. 141.
' Injunctions of the Vicegerent, Burnet, ibid. p. 279,
"Injunc. of Vicegerent, Bur. i, Rec, p. 249. 276. Injunctions Bp. Sa
rum, Burnet, Ui, Rec. p. 195.
" Institution of a Christ. Man, p, 133, Necessary Doctrine, p. 298.

468 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PAKT II.
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 misrepresenta
tion to affirm that the papal supremacy alone, was rejected
and suppressed bythe church of England in the reign of Henry
VIII, II. It is asserted that our churches having steadfastly adhered
to the whole Romish doctrine in the reign of Henry VIII, re
linquished it immediately after the accession of Edward VL
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.
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 un
justifiably published them as so approved, for which Archbishop
Cranmer remonstrated with them in vain :" 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 1553, and only subscribed by a few clergy in Canter
bury, Norwich, and London, and in the University of Cam
bridge, who were solicited, but not compelled to subscribe by
the bishops Cranmer and Ridley.' From this time we hear no
more of them as of any 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,
o Burnet, p. 362, 363.
p Cranmer's Works, by Jenkyns, iv. p. 64, 65. Burnet, ibid.
1 Burnet, iii. 365—367.

CHAP. Vll,] VARIATIONS, 469
since the old doctrine had still the legal authority on its
side ;'^ yet these articles, as we have seen, were never actually
in force.
It seems plain indeed, that during the whole reign of Edward
VI, the doctrine of the church of England was most authenti
cally represented by the formulary of instruction formally
approved by the convocation in the reign of Henry VIII. a. d.
1543," entitied " The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition," abook
which was, most assuredly, quite opposed to the Zuinglian doc
trines. This book was of authority in the church of England
during the remainder of King Henry's reign. In 1546, Arch
bishop 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 1 547 (the first year
of Edward VL), chiefly relates to Christian morals, but it terms
matrimony a sacrament ;" (indeed the second book of Homilies
speaks of ordination and " other sacraments,""' 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."^ Again, in 1551, in arguing against the opinions
' Burnet, in, 361,
" WUkins' ConcUia MagUE Britanniae, tom, iii, p, 868,
t Cranmer's Works, i, p, 322.
» " By like holy promise, the sacrament of matrimony knitteth man and
wife in perpetual love." — Sermon on Swearing, part i,
y " Though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign or promise, yet
it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the
two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else,
be such sacraments as baptism and the communion fire," — On Common
Prayer and Sacraments, part i,
Burnet, u. p. 67. Le Bas, Cranmer, i, 285.

470 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
of Cranmer on the Eucharist, he appealed to the doctrine con
fessed 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."" 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,'' but none 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 disobedience to the royal council, or for
treason. 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 discussions and
controversies concerning the mode of the presence, between
Cranmer, Ridley, Poynet, &c, on the one side, and Gardiner,
Tunstall, and Smjrthe 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
^ Cranmer''s Works, by Jenkyns, vol, i. p, xlvui ; vol, iii. p. 363.
y Cranmer's Works, vol. iii. p. 36. Le Bas' Cranmer, vol, ii, p. 40, 41.
s [" The broken bread and blessed wynebe institute purposely to resolve
and ascertayn our senses that we as materially and iniZy though not grossely
or sensyblie but ghostly receave and eate Christes body and drinke his bloud
as we do the foresayd," — " Albeit the consecrate bread is named Christ's
body, yet is it not the sayde body ne chaunged into the same, but so called
in consyderacion therwyih the sayd body is both sygnifyed, presented, and
•exhibited,'.' — " Notwythstandinge Christes body be presented in the bred {as
questionles it is) not placely, as ther placed, spaced, and mesured, but
ghostly, as ther unplaced, unspaced, and not measured ; howbeit, it is not
enbreaded [impanated] no more then the deytie isrecompted enfleshed,/or
that it is substancially in us." A Treatise againste the Prevee Masse, &c.
by Edmund Gest. [a principal agent in the compUation of the Liturgy, as
the deputy of Archbishop Parker; afterward bishop of Rochester, and
successor of Jewel in the see of Sarum ;] MnxLviii. (Life and Character
of Edmund Geste, &c,, Svo, London, 1840. Appendix L) p. 81. 84. 86.

CHAP, yil.] VARIATIONS. 471
the term Transubstantiation in the Necessary Doctrine, and
while a change of substance was there strongly asserted, this
might be understood in several senses," though I admit that
transubstantiation is the more natural meaning. The real pre
sence, 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 transubstantiation, he held " that there
is a certain, and an ineffable presence of Christ's body there,
which I can neither comprehend nor express," &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,"" Bishop Poynet main
tained the doctrine of the real presence in his book on the
Eucharist, in a very decided manner,'^ Bucer and Melancthon,
whom Cranmer invited to England, had always maintained the
real presence, as even Gardiner admits."
I shall not attempt to defend all the doctrine of Cranmer, in
his Treatise on the Sacrament, a, d. 1550, and his Answer to
Gardiner next year, which in fact (though he seems not to have
been aware of it) amounted to a denial of the real presence, and
is very different from that of Ridley and Poynet, from the

" E.g.not a physical, but a spiritual or sacramental change, or a change
by union with the Divinity, or with the humanity of Christ. Various ex
planations might be given, which would not infer transubstantiation, or the
total cessation of the substance of bread,
b Burnet, vol, ii, Rec. p. 290.
« Ridlaei Protestatio, Enchirid. Theologicum, p 53.
^ See Pojmet's DiaUacticon.
' Cranmer's Works, vol. iu. p. 54, 55. 167.

472 THE BRITISH REFORMATION, [pART II.
Necessary Doctrine, the Homihes, and the Prayer-book com
posed in 1548, His belief in the corporal presence had been
unsettied 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.^ 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 confidence in his own private opinion in
opposition to the cathohc 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 tra
dition. That he did not obstinately adhere to it we may reasona
bly trust from his appeal to a general council, in which he pro
tests 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,"s
The church of England, however, was not in the shghtest de
gree 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
I contend that we have fully as much right to say that the opin
ions 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 doctrines 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
' Ibid. vol. i. p. Ixxix. Ixxx.
s Cranmer's Works, vol. iv, p, 121. 126.

CHAP. VII,] VARIATIONS. 473
the ritual of 1552, and which is said to convey the doctrine of
Zuinghus on the eucharist,'' cannot be considered as a defini
tion of doctrine made by the church of England ; for indepen
dently of the uncertainty as to who really put forth that decla
ration, 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 eucha
rist, which would be decidedly idolatrous : and to reject such a
real presence of Christ's 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 universally confessed, and
maintained by the Homilies, Necessary Doctrine, and Prayer-
book. But it is alleged that the church of England must have been
at this time imbued with Zuinglian and heretical 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 England
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, (imposed too by
merely temporal authority,) and were obliged to escape from
the emperor's vengeance. The fugitives took refuge in Eng
land as the safest country, and archbishop Cranmer, with great
humanity, wrote 'to others, such as Alasco, Melancthon, and
Bucer, offering them, an asylum,'' At the same time he began
' Bossuet, Variat, Uv. vii, s. 82, . ' Bossuet, Ibid. -s. 81.
' Cranmer's Works, vol. i, p, 334—337.
VOL. I.— 60

474 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
to urge a favourite plan of his, the composition of a general
formulary of doctrine for all who favoured the Reformation, in
which the true doctrine might be explained without any am
biguity, and thus go down to posterity. With this object he
repeatedly in 1548, 1549, and again in 1552, entreated Melanc
thon, Alasco, Hardenburg, and finally BulHnger and Calvin, to
meet and consult on this formulary, and offered them a secure
place for deliberation in England.'
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 reli
gion, 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 respon
sible for the heresies or errors of a professor at one of the uni
versities. It is often difficult to censure or convict delinquents
of this kind, even though the sense of the church may be mani
festly against them.
' Cranmer's Works, vol, i, p, civ,, cv, ; 329—349, Le Bas' Crajuner,
vol. ii. p. 78—82.

CHAP. VII,] VARIATIONS. 475
If it be alleged that under the influence of Martyr and Bucer,
some expressions in the ritual of Edward VL, 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 senti
ments to those who were in authority,™ And the immediate
reason of the omissions referred to was, that Gardiner, bishop
of Winchester, and the other maintainors of the Roman doc
trine of transubstantiation and the corporal presence, had em
ployed these passages to persuade the people that their doctrine
was authoritatively taught by the church." These changes
by no means impHed the adoption of the Zuinglian doctrine of
the merely figurative presence or real absence of Christ's
body ; and we find no assertion of that doctrine in the ritual
thus altered.
It appears then, that during the reign of Edward VI, the
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 1548, was grounded on the tumults
and disorders which there were at that time about them ;"
and the church in acquiescing in this regulation, did so under
the conviction that they were unnecessary to true piety, and
liable to the grossest abuses. The administration of the eucha-
¦" See Ridley's Life, p, 334. Le fias' Cranmer, vol. u. p. 73, 74.
n Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. iu, p. 93, 99, 114, 145, 153.
155. 494.
o Burnet, vol. ii. p. Ill, 112,

476 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II,
rist in both kinds, (approved by the convocation of the church)
was not inconsistent with the doctrine of the real presencer or
even of concomitance maintained by the Necessary Doctrine,i
(and never, that I am aware, absolutely condemned by the
church of England since, though not expressly taught in our
present formidaries) ; but was founded on " primitive practice."
Cranmer himself justified it, even admitting the doctrine of
concomitance,' The permission of the marriage of the clergy
was a mere change of discipline, and perfectly lawful as I shall
prove elsewhere :^ and the publication of the ritual in the lan
guage of the country, 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, and the abuses could not be removed
without removing their objects ; or because they were too nu
merous.* 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
md actually much abused, that the church sanctioned the re-
[noval of prayer ^r the departed faithful from the public ser-
V\ce, which had been abused into a proof of the doctrine of
p Bossuet, Variat. liv, vii, s. 93.
q Necessary Doctrine, p. 265. The Lutheran Confession of Wirtem-
burg, drawn up by Brentius, acknowledges the doctrine of concomitance,
though it insists on communion in both kinds. (Cap. de Ccen4.) The
Articles of Smalcald say it may be true, and yet hold that communion in
one kind is unlawful, as inconsistent with the divine institution. Pars, iii.
art, vi,
' Letter to Queen Mary, Works, vol, i, p. 377.
¦ Part VI. Chapter on the celibacy of the clergy.
' Preface to the Book of Common Prayer.

CHAP. VII,] VARIATIONS. 477
Purgatory, which she rejected.'' In the same manner, she
removed Invocation of Saints, as leading too frequently to ;
superstition, and even to idolatry.'' 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 :'' but strictly
speaking, this license related not so much to the practice of
confession in general, as to the particular custom of confessing
'before receiving the eucharist.^ That the church did not mean
to abolish confession and absolution (which she even regards
as a sort of sacrament)^ in general, appears from the office of
the eucharist, and for the visitation of the sick, then drawn up ;
and from the powers conferred on priests in the ordination ser
vices. The Homilies, drawn up in 1562, only declared this
confession and absolution not essential generally to the pardon
of sin,"' but this does not militate against its desirableness and
u Bossuet most unjustly attributes this to mere hostUity to the Roman
church. — Variat. fiv. vii. s. 88.
y It is taught by Roman theologians that there is no positive precept of
the church to invoke the saints, the CouncU of Trent having only pro
nounced it salutary, not necessary. — See MUner, End of Controversy,
Letter 33, where he refers in proof to Petavius, Suare^ Wallemburg, Mu-
ratori, and Natalis Alexander. Bossuet admits that this custom may be
abused. " Ce qu'U y avoit a craindre pour les ignorans, c'etoit qu'Us ne
fissent I'invocation des saints trop semblable a celle de Jesus Christ." The
CouncU of Trent, he says, endeavoured to guard against this danger by
their doctrine (Variat. xv. 155) ; but our churches acted more piously and
charitably, in removing a practice which we knew by experience could
not be generally purified from idolatry, though the better informed might
use it without committing that dreadful sin.
V Burnet, vol. u. p. 120, 123. ^ Ibid. p. 119.
y " Absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are
, , , but in a general acceptation the name of a sacrament may be attributed
to any thing, whereby a holy thing is signified," &c, — Sermon on Common
Prayer and Sacraments, part i,
^ Sermon of Repentance, part n.

478 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
benefit, which the church never denied.^- We only disused the
canon " omnis utriusques exus " made by the synod of Lateran
in 1215, and for good reasons restored the practice of confes
sion 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.
It is needless to dwell on the interruption to the reformation
of the 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 influence
of the queen, and Gardiner lord chancellor. But as I have
before observed on the schism and nullity of all these proceed
ings, I shall pass without further comment to the next reign.
The accession of Elizabeth was succeeded by the legal
restoration of the 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 opponents, however, that the church of England having
been Zuinglian in the time of Edward, now veered towards
the Roman doctrine, in proof of which they allege the altera
tion of the Article of 1552, which had declared the corporal
presence impossible, the omission of the declaration concerning
kneeling at the sacrament, the uniting of the forms of delivering
the eucharist in the first and second books of Edward VL, and
the omission of the petition against the bishop of Rome on the
Litany, all which alterations are said to have been made with
the intention of conciliating the professors of that very doctrine
> Ibid. — See Exhortation in the Communion Office, and the Visitation
of the Sick. The National Synod of Ireland, a.d. 1634, in their 64th
canon charged all ministers not to reveal offences entrusted to them in pri
vate confession, under pain of irregularity. Private confession was also
approved by the Lutherans. — See the Confession of Augsburg, pars i. art.
xi. De Confessione ; pars ii. art, iv. ; Apologia Confessionis, vi. ; Articuli
Smalcald. pars iii. art. viii. ; and Luther's Catechismus Minor, where the
form of confession and absolution is prescribed.

CHAP, VII,] VARIATIONS, 479
of the corporal presence and transubstantiation, the denial of
which had cost Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer their lives.''
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 altera
tions in 1558 really were. Burnet says indeed : " It was pro
posed 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,"" What the proof of this is, I have yet to
learn ; and Burnet himself, thirty-three years afterwards, 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. " Thetnost material (difference) is the leaving
out of that express declaration that was made against the cor
poral presence of Christ in the sacrament, which I 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 like
wise 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 Bur
net 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.""
'' Bossuet, Variat. liv. x. s. 5 — 10.
<^ Burnet, vol. ii. p. 704. '' Burnet, vol. iu. p. 518,
" Confessional, p. 134, &c. Bossuet, assuming that the Articles of the
church of England were conceived in vague and general terms in order to

480 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II,
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 rea
sonings, 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 opin
ions 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 VL, when the Prayer-book was
unaltered : 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. If the queen had exercised any
influence over them, we have reason to beheve that it would
have arisen from real principle, and not from mere policy ; for
she was well known to be even obstinately attached to opinions
admit different doctrines, remarks that such a proceeding amounted to a
betraying of the truth, Variat. x. s, vi ; but he hunself says elsewhere in
defence of the synod of Trent, to which simUar vagueness of expression
is attributed, " qu'U faut souvent dans les decisions de I'Eglise, s'en tenir
S. des expressions generales, pour demeurer dans cette mesure de sagesse
tant louee par S. Paul, et n'etre pas centre son precepte plus savant qu'U
ne faut." — ^Variat. xv. s. 58. This is really the rule followed by oui ca
tholic apostolic churches, and not any political ajjd latitudinarian principle of
comprehending different doctrines concerning matters of faith. [The stu
dent should carefiiUy note the difference between ambiguous and general
expressions. The former, as a source of error, on the one hand, or a tem
porizing subterfuge, on the other, are either the seed or growth of heresy.
The latter are its preventive and check, when employed with a prudent
and cathoUc desire to entrench a defmite truth, not carrying it out, but
leaving room for difference as to the modus, or the consequences.]

CHAP. VII.] VARIATIONS, 481
and practices, which some of the clergy, who had imbibed a
partiality for the discipline of Geneva or of Zurich, viewed
with much annoyance, 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 latitudinarian
principles. It may be further observed that Cranmer and others suffered
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 be
lieved the corporal presence, there would not have been any
evident inconsistency with the faith of Cranmer and his com
panions in suffering.
In 1562 the Convocation authorized the Thirty-nine Arti
cles of Religion, the only formulary of doctrine established by
competent authority in England, since the publication of the
Necessary Doctrine in 1543, It may be well to remark the
points of doctrine in which the two formularies agreed and dif
fered. Baptism and the eucharist alone are in the Articles ac
counted " sacraments of the gospel,"" but matrimony, ordina
tion, and other rites are termed sacraments in our homilies,*
approved by the Articles ; so that there is no very marked dif
ference as to the nujftiber of sacraments between the two for
mularies ; for the Necessary Doctrine does not pronounce the
lesser sacraments 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," and left
', c Art. XXV.
d Homil)' on Swearing, part i. On Common Prayer and Sacraments,
part' i.
The Catechism affirms that there are only two sacraments generally
necessary to salvation ; the Article, that there are two sacraments ordained
VOL. I, — 61

482 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
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,^ but the particular change

of Christ our Lord in the gospel. The object of the church is to secure
these two great sacraments in their supremacy of dignity and necessity
beyond all other rites. <
f " It is a remarkable fact," says Mr. Jenkyns, in his valuable edition of
Cranmer's works, " that the several formularies of faith to which he (Cran
mer) was a party under Henry VIIL, whUe they maintain most unequivo
caUy the corporal presence, yet all fall short of any explicit assertion of
transubstantiation. Even the Necessary Doctrine, which is justly consid
ered to be the most favourable to the church of Rome, though it teaches
that the bread and wine ' do not remain in their own substance, but by vir
tue of Christ's word in the consecration, be changed and turned to the very
substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ ;' yet does not
go the fuU length of pronouncing that ' after the consecration there reniaia-
eth no substance of bread and^ wine, nor any other substance but the sub
stance of Christ.' And yet these are the terms by which it hsa been
thought necessary to guard the Romish tenet from misinterpretation, and
in which it had been expressed four years before in the noted Act of the
six Articles." This omission may not unreasonably be attributed to Cran
mer's opposition. Works of Cranmer, vol, i, p. Ixxv. Ixxvi. It must be
' admitted, however, that the more apparent meaning of the Necessary Doc
trine implies a change of substance in the Romish sense.
I s E. g. if we do not take the term substance in the scholastic sense, as
I distinguished from the ftcjj#ents. and if the change is not corporal, or in
} any sense carnal, but mystical, or spiritual, or moral. Some change of the
f . bread and wine aU orthodox Christians allow. Bishop Pearson says truly,
* that " the /jtirAirrotxaanrtc of the Sacramental elements maketh them not to
• c^ase to be of the same nature which before they were." — On the Creed,
• article iii. note on Eutychian heresy. The term substantial is used by
bis"feop Poynet in his DiaUacticonf and by bishop Taylor (Real Presence,
.&c. Oxford Ed. 1S36, p. 521.) to express the true presence.* The Con
fession of Augsburg is said, both by the Apologia (art. iv. de Ecclesia,)
* [So by bishop Geste ; Againste tlie Prevee M»sse, (Life, App. 1, 1840.) p. 86.]

CHAP, VII,] VARIATIONS. 483
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 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,'^ and therefore does not differ from the Ne
cessary Doctrine, which merely acknowledges a sacrifice.
There is no difference between the two formularies as to the
canon of Scripture, the Creed, the rule of faith, the fallibihty of
the church of Rome, or of general councils, the papal supre
macy, and Purgatory. They both admit justification by faith,
which worketh by charity.' The Article in declaring that con
cupiscence in the regenerate hath the nature of sin,'' 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 Ne
cessary 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 command
ed them to be done,""" in order to exclude entirely the merit
of such works ; is not essentially contradictory to the " Doc
trine," which declares that they " be not meritorious nor availa
ble 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,""
and by the papal confutation of it, (num. x.^htoiiave taught the real and
" substantial " presence, which is also affirmed in the Lutheran Formula
Concordiae, pars i. art, vii,
^ Archbishop Cranmer himself aUows the eucharist to be a spiritual sa-*
crifice. See his works by Jenkyns, vol. Ui. p. 5. 161. 539. 551.
' Article XI. XII. Necessary Doctrine, p. 221. 223. 368. ?
k Article IX. The synod of Trent fSess. v, de Peccato OriginaU,)' ac
knowledges that concupiscence is sometimes caUed sin by. the apostle, be
cause it is " ex peccato, et ad peccatum inclinat," ,
1 Necessary Doctrine, p, 254, 350,
¦" Art, XIII. • . ' V » Necessary Doctrine, p. 370.

484 THE BRITISH REFORMATION, [pART II.
It is true that the Necessary Doctrine approves the invoc a
tion of saints to pray for us," and the Article censures it as " a
fond thing," and " repugnant to the word of God;" and per
haps a similar discrepancy may be found in the opinion of tran
substantiation ; 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 that com
posed the other ; but their formularies are not so worded as to
evince any great or irreconcilable opposition between the pub
lic and authorized faith of the church of England in the reign
of Henry VIIL, and in that of Elizabeth,
The church of England is said to have varied again, when,
in the time of Charles IL, she readmitted the declaration on
kneeling at the sacrament, which not only maintains the exis
tence of the substance of bread and wine after consecration,
but denies the corporal presence. But there is no inconsis
tency ; for the -former assertion only amounts to a denial of
transubstantiation already rejected by the Articles, and the lat
ter is not opposed to the real, spiritual, and heavenly presence
of Christ's body.
This catholic and apostolic church has always avoided any
attempt to determine too minutely the mode of the true pre
sence in the holy eucharist. Guided by Scripture, she estab
lishes only those trutji^ which Scripture Jeveals, and leaves the
subject in that mystery, with which God^for his wise purposes
Jias invested it. Her doctrine concerning the true presence ap
pears to be limited to the following points : —
Taking as her immoveable foundation the words of Jesus
Cnrist : " This is my body .... This is my blood, of the new

Necessary Doctrine, p. 237. 305.

CHAP. VII.] THE EUCHARIST. 485
covenant;"" and " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life ; "i she believes that the body or ';
flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Re
deemer of the world, both God and man, united indivisibly in
one person,'' are verily and indeed given to, taken, eaten, and
received by the faithful in the Lord's supper,^ under the out
ward sign or form of bread (and wine,*) which is, on this ac
count, the " partaking or communion of the body and blood of
Christ."'' She believes that the eucharist is not the sign of an

p Matt. xxvi. 26. 28,
¦^ John vi. 54. The church of England believes these expressions to re
late to the eucharist. " Then we spirituaUy eat the flesh of Christ and
drink his blood," &c. Exhort, in Communion Office. " Grant us there
fore gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son," &c. — Prayer be
fore Consecration. The term " flesh," is only used in this chapter of St,
John. ' "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 per
son." — ^Athan. Creed.
' " 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 verUy and indeed taken and received by the
faithful in the Lord's supper." — Catechism. " The holy communion of the
body and blood of our Saviour Christ." — Exhort, in Communion Office.
" We spirituaUy eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood." — Ibid. " Grant
us, therefore, 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 befjre Consecration. " Grant that we receiving
these thy creatures of bredH and wine . . . may he partakers of his most
blessed body and blood.''!^Consecration. " Most heartUy 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 Com
munion, '>
' "The outward sign or form." — Catechism, ''Hereafter shall foUrfw
sermons , . , of the due receiving of his blessed body and blood under the
form oi bread and wine." — Advertisement at the end of the fiist.iook of
HomUies. « ICor. x.16. Art,XXVin.

486 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
absent body,' and that those who partake of it receive not
merely the figure or shadow, or sign of Christ's body, but the
reality itself.'' And as Christ's divine and human natures are
inseparably united, so she believes that we receive in the eucha
rist, not only the flesh and blood of Christ, bat Christ himself,
; both God and man,^
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 consecra-
' tion,y and therefore rejects transubstantiation, or " the change
j of the substance,"^ 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 quicken-
eth, the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto
V " 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."
— Hom. xxvu. p. i.
y The faithful " receive not only the outward sacrament, but the spiritual
thing also ; not the figure, but the truth ; not the shadow only, but the
body." — Ib. Bishop Poynet says, " Corpus Christi et Veritas et figura est ;
Veritas dum Corpus Christi et sanguis virtute Spiritus Sancti in virtute ip
sius ex panis et vini substantia efficitur : figura vero est id quod exterius
sentitur." — DiaUacticon, p. 6.
X " 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 sacrament."
— Exhortation in Communion Office. " In no wise are they partakers of
Christ." Art. XXIX.
J " The sacramental bread and wine remain stiU in their very natural
substances." — Declaration at end of Communion Office. " If the conse
crated bread or wine be aU spent." — See Rubric in same. " The terrene
and earthly creatures which remain." — Hom. xxvu. p. i. " The bread
which we break," &c.— Art. XXVIIL
• " Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and -wine)
in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ ; but is repugnant
to the plain words of Scripture," &c.— Art. XXVIII.

CHAP. VII.] THE EUCHARIST. 487
you they are spirit and they are life ; " she holds that the pre
sence (and therefore the eating) of Christ's body and blood,
though true, is altogether " heavenly and ^iritual,"" of a kind
which is inexplicable by any carnal or earthly experience or
imagination : 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 ;'' she rejects for this reason, as well as
the last, any such real presence of Christ's body and blood as ^
is " corporal "" or oiganical, that is, according to the known and!
earthly mode of 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 to
tally devoid of true andTiving faith, do not partake of the holy
flesh of Christ in the eucharist,* God withdrawing from them so i
" divine "a gift," and not permitting his enemies tb partake of it.
And hence she holds, that such a faith is " the means by which |
the body of Christ is received and eaten," " a necessary instru
ment in all these holy ceremonies ;" because it is the essen-

a " The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the supper, only after
an heavenly and spiritual manner." — Art. XXVIII.
I" "He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; fVom
whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." — ^Athan. Creed.
= " No adoration is intended or ought to be done .... unto any corporal
presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." — Declar. after Commun.
Office. ¦^ " The yncked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do
carnally and visibly press with their teeth .... the sacrament of the body
and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ." — ^Article
XXIX.
e " Which, being so divine and comfortable a thing to them who receive it
worthily." — Exhort, in Comm. Office.

488 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
tial qualification on our parts, without which that body is not
received.*' Following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the
aposties, and supported by their authority, she believes that
" the blessing,"^^ 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,' 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,'' which is truly present in that sacrament. Hence
it is that the church, believing firmly in the real presence of the

' Hom. xxvii. p. i. Art. XXVIII. Bossuet says that this assertion of
the Article is certainly true, provided the reception be understood of a useful
reception in the sense of St. John speaking of Jesus Christ ; " His own
received him not," though he was in the midst of them ; i. e. they did not
receive his doctrine nor his grace. — ^^''ariat, x. sect. vi.
6 " Beginning at our Saviour Christ, &c. for the blessing of the bread,
and at ' likewise after supper,' &c. for the blessing of the cup." — Rubric in
Com. Office.
t " The priest . . . shaU say the prayer of consecration." — Rubric Comm.
Off. " If the coresecraieti bread and wine be all spent . , . , the priest is to
consecrate more." — Rubric Ibid. " If any remain of that which was con
secrated .... the priest and such other, &c  shaU immediately after
the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same." — Rubric Ibid.
' " Which being .... so dangerous to them that wUI presume to receive
it unworthily." — Exhort, in Comm. Office. " St. Paul exhorteth all persons
dUigently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that
bread and drink of that cup." — Ibid. " We do not presume to come to this
thy table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy mani
fold and great mercies." — Prayer before Consecration.
'' " So is the danger great if we receive the same unworthUy. For then
we are guilty of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour ; we eat and drink
our own damnation, not considering the Lord's body; we kindle God's
wrath against us ; we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases and
sundry kinds of death." — Exhort, in Comm, Office,

CHAP, VII.] ANGLO-CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 489
" precious and blessed body and blood of our Saviour, Jesus
Christ,"! speaks of the eucharist as "high and holy myste
ries,'"" exhorts us to consider the " dignity of that holy mys
tery,"" that " heavenly feast," that " holy table," " the ban
quet of that most heavenly food,"" even "the King of kings'
table,"P Such is the simple, the subhme, 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 compelled
sometimes by the force of truth to clear the church of England
from the imputation of disbelieving the sublime mysteries of this
holy sacrament,'' and reducing it to a common spiritual exercise.

' Prayer before Consecration. Post CommunionPrayer.
" Exhort. Comm. Office. Hom, xxvu. p. i.
- Ibid. " Ibid.
f Hom. xxvii. p. i.
1 MUner is obliged to confess that the genuine doctrine of the church
of England is that of the real presence. He refers in proof to the Cate
chism, Articles, Ritual and HomUies, and to Ridley, NoweU, BUson, An
drewes, Morton, Laud, Bramhall, &c. and to Cleaver, bishop of Chester,
who says : " The great object of our reformers was, whilst they acknowl
edge the doctrine of the Real Presence, to refute that of Transubstantia
tion ; as it was afterwards to refute the notion of impanation or consubstan
tiation, Sermon, Nov. 25, 1787."— See MUner's Letters to a Prebendary,
let. viii. Hornyhold, another of their titular bishops, admits that " the doc
trine of the church of England " in the Catechism, " expresses the real and
substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament as fidly
as any catholic can do ; for if verUy and indeed be not the same as re
ally and truly, and of as full force to exclude a mere figurative presence,
I confess I am yet whoUy ignorant of the signification, even of the most
common words, and it will be impossible to know what men mean, even
when they deliver -themselves in the plainest terms." — Real Principles of
Catholics, p. 243. ed. 1749. Bossuet affirms that even the Declaration
against transubstantiation leaves the English at liberty to "believe that
the body and blood of Jesus Christ are really and substantially present
VOL. I. — 62

490 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
in which the mind of the individual derives edification, and per
haps grace, from the contemplation and remembrance of an ab
sent 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 op
posed to the plain language of Scripture ; and if those state
ments are to be explained away, and reduced to merely figura
tive expressions, according to the doctrine of Paschasius Rad-
bertus and his school ; ' the Berengarians, Zuinghans, and So
cinians, may 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 Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is entirely founded
on human reasoning from the nature of bodies, and the supposed
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 philoso
phical reasonings of the school of Zurich and Geneva against

m the bread and in the wine immediately after consecration," — Variat,
xiv. 122.
' The Roman doctors are grievously perplexed by the language of Scrip
ture in caUing the eucharist bread after consecration. Bellarmine (De
Euchar. I. i. c. 12.) mentions four solutions of the difficulty. (1.) It is
caUed bread by a trope, as having been bread, as in Exod. vii. the rods
turned into serpents are stiU caUed rods ; Matt. ii. the blind are said to see,
&c. (2.) Scripture ordinarUy names things according to their appearance,
e. g. angels appearing in the human shape are called men ; oxen, pome
granates, &c. made of brass, are caUed simply oxen, &c. (3.) "Optime"
— bread is a Hebrew phrase for any sort of food. (4.) It is so called be
cause it is a solid, principal, substantial food. Of course it is easy to explain
away any terms of Scripture, however clear ; but those who arbitrarily
give a figurative meaning to these terms of Scripture, cannot oppose the
Zuinglians and Socinians.

CHAP, VII.] .4.NGL0-CATH0LIC DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 491
the real presence, "que les recevoir en matiere de religion,
c'est detruire non seulement, le mystere de I'eucharistie, mais
tout d'un coup tous les mysteres du Christianisme," is per
fectly applicable to those of Romanists for their transubstan
tiation.

CHAPTER VHI.
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 paint
ed 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 un
known to the church. Now, we are by no means concerned to
establish the immaculate sanctity of Cranmer, because we do
not imagine that any doctrine which he was instrumental in es
tablishing 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 correcting abuses, errors,
and superstitions, by the exercise of his ordinary vocation. But
as these writers I'epreseilt Cranmer as a monster of perjury,
dissimulation, ingratitude, &c.in order to excite prejudice against
the reformation of the church of England, which he most lauda
bly promoted, it may be advisable briefly to notice and refute
some of the more prominent charges against him.
I. It is alleged that Cranmer promised obedience to the 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."

" Bossuet, Variations, liv. vn. sect. xi. The oath itself ran as follows :
" in Dei nomine amen. (I.) Ego Thomas, electus Cantuarien', ab hac hora
inantea, fideUs et obediens ero beato Petro, sanctsque apostolicae Romanae

CHAP, VIII.] CRANMER. 493
Now first, it is certain that this oath was taken by every
bishop in Europe with certain exceptions, not simply and abso
lutely. Every English bishop on receiving his temporalities
from the crown, renounced by oath " all such clauses, words,
and sentences" which he had of the pope, " that in any wise
hath been, is, or hereafter may be hurtful or prejudicial to the
king or his royal dignity or privileges.'"' The learned canonist
Van Espen (of the Roman communion) observes, on the articles

ecclesiae, ac domino nostro domino Clementi Papae septimo, suisque succes-
soribus canoniceintrantibus. (2.) Non ero in consUio aut consensu vel facto.
Tit vitam perdant aut membrum, seu capiantur, aut in eos manus violenter
quomodolibet ingerantur, vel injuriae aliquae inferantur quovis qusesito colore.
(3.) ConsUium vero, quod mihi credituri sunt per se aut nuncios seu literas,
ad eorum damnum (me sciente) nemini pandam. (4.) Papatum Romanum
et regalia sancti Petri, adjutor eis ero ad retinendum et defendendum contra
omnem hominem. (5.) Legatum Apostolicee sedis in eundo et reundo ho-
norifice tractabo, et in suis necessitatibus adjuvabo. (6.) Jura, honores,
privUegia, et auctoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae, domini nostri Papae et succes-
sorum suorum praedictorum, conservare et defendere, augere et promovere
curabo. Nee ero in consUio vel tractatu, in quibus contra ipsum dominum
nostrum, vel eandem Romanam ecclesiam, aliqua sinistra vel prejudicialia
personarum, juris, honoris, status, et potestatis eorum machinentur, et si
taUa a quibuscunque procurari novero vel tractari, impediam hoc pro posse,
et quantocius potero commode significabo eidem domino nostro, vel alteri
per quem ad ipsius notitiam pervenire possit, (7.) Regulas sanctorum pa
trum, decreta, ordinationes, sententias, dispositiones, reservationes, provi-
siones, et mandata apostolica,* totis viribus observabo, et faciam ab" aliis
observari, Haereticos, schismaticos, et rebeUes domino nostro et succes-
soribus praedictis, pro posse persequar et impugnabo, (8.) Vocatus ad Syno-
dum veniam, nisi prEepeditusfuero canonica praepeditione, (9.) Apostolorum
limina, Romana curia existente citra, singulis annis, ultra vero montes, sin
gulis bienniis visitabo, aut per me aut per meum nuncium, nisi apostolica
absolvar licentia. (10.) • Possessiones vero ad mensam meam pertinentes
non vendam, neque donabo, nee impignorabo, neque de novo infeudabo, vel
aliquo modo alienabo, etiam cum consensu capitalis Ecclesise meae, incon-
sulto Romano Pontifice. Sic me Deus," &c. — Cranmer's Works by Jen
kyns, vol. iv. p. 249.
t Burnet, vol. i. p, 226,

494 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
of the oath of bishops, that the three first are plainly conforma
ble 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 " regali
ties 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 Bel
gium ; and therefore they must be taken only conditionally.
Some of the articles, he says, are so expressed, that, 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," On another article (7) he cites
Florens, who says, " this clause is of the widest extent, nor does
our custom allow it in many respects ;" and the same, he adds,
may be without doubt afiSrmed 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 exceptions ; 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 IL, emperor of Germany, that in the Austrian
states it should only be taken, on condition that it be understood
to relate simply to canonical obedience. The Austrian bishops

Van Espen, Jus. Eccl. Univ. pars i, tit. xv. c 2.

CHAP, VIII,] CRANMER, 495
also riiust previously take a particular oath of allegiance and
fidelity to the emperor ;* and in Spain the oath to the pontiff is
always taken with certain conditions." In fact, every other
bishop of the Roman communion must make some mental ex
ceptions, unless he means to bind himself to absolute obedience
to the pontiff in temporals as well as spirituals ; and therefore
Archbishop Cranmer, so far from deserving blame for taking it
with certain qualifications, merits approbation for making an
open protest of the sense in which he took it, while others con
tented themselves with merely mental reservations. His pro
test was to this effect, that he did not mean to oblige himself
by it, " 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 con
senting to all things concerning the reformation of the Christian
religion, government of the church of England, or prerogatives
of the crown or commodity of the state ; and from reforming
what seemed to him ought to be reformed in the church of
England. f It is impossible to discover in this any fraud cr
hypocrisy. " 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 and
believe the spiritual power of the pope, but only as depending
on the grace and favour of the king and church of England : not
otherwise. He bound himself, according to Van Espen's inter
pretation, to obey the pope as far as the rights and customs of
our churches permitted, that is, until they should legitimately
revive their ancient rights and customs, and suppress the papal
i Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. Ecol. Austriac.
= Report from Select Committee on Roman Catholic subjects (1816), p,
313. f Cranmer's Works, vol. iv. p. 248.

496 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
jurisdiction. The oath would from that time be null, because
the condition supposed in it had come to an end.
II. Bossuet endeavours to fix on Cranmer a charge of the
most odious dissimulation in the following points.^ His opinions
being Lutheran, and therefore opposed to the mass 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 concealed his mar
riage 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 conscience. He per
formed mass, which he regarded as an abomination, during the
whole reign of Henry VIIL, and in ordaining 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 accord
ing to the Roman 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 prac
tised during so long a time that which he believed to be the
height of abomination and sacrilege." And further : the Arti
cles 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 sacra
ments, 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 regulations published by Cromwell for their enforce
ment, 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 suflice to blacken his cha
racter most effectually, were they not evidently founded on a

6 Bossuet, Variations, liv. vu. sect, 9, 10, 11. 30. 32. 37, 38, 39.

CHAP. VIII.] CRANMER. 497
misrepresentation of his real 'sentiments. I shall notice them
in order.
Admitting then, as not impossible, that in 1529 or 1530, he
was inclined in some points to Lutheran opinions, it remains to
be considered what these opinions were. Certainly Luther
himself approved of penance,'' therefore if Cranmer's opinions
agreed with his, he could not have held it wrong to accept the
ofiice of papal penitentiary, especially while the pontiff was
still in communion 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 law
ful, and that there was no obligation to reveal it.' 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
probably not obligatory from any vow.^
That Cranmer really maintained doctrines in matters of faith
different from the pontiff himself, when his bulls were for
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,! and the offering of sacrifice for the living and
'¦ See the forms of Confession and Absolution in his Catechismus Minor
(pars iv.)
' Part VI. Chapter on the celibacy of the Clergy.
k A. M. De Ligorio, Theologia MoraUs, lib. vi. tract v. art. 808.
1 The Lutheran Confession of Augsburg says : " Our churches are false
ly accused of abolishing the mass, for the mass is retained among us and
celebrated with the greatest reverence ; and almost all the accustomed
ceremonies are preserved, except that in some parts German hymns are
intermingled with the Latin for the instruction of the people." — Pars. U. art.
iu. The Apology of the Confession says : "It must be premised that we do
not aboUsh the mass, but religiously retain and defend it. Masses are cele
brated among us on all Sundays and other feasts in which the sacrament is
VOL. I.— 63

498 the BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
dead,"" in a certain sense, need not have been inconsistent with a
Lutheran's conscience, Melancthon and the ministers of Wit
temburg, and the Lutheran Universities of Leipsic and Wittem
burg submitted ifi 1 549 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 "adiapho
ra," indifferent matters. Further, it is plain that Cranmer did
not hold the office of the eucharist as then administered in
England, to be an -aliominatioi} ; because, after king Henry's
death, when he was at liberty to proceed in the- Refprmation, he
agreed with the other bjshops an4, divines in very nearly trans
lating that office into English j 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 ^ven Gar
diner expressed his approbation oi it in his subsequent contro
versy with Cranmer." The fact is, that Cranmer was, in the
irery last years of his life, induced to verge too much towards
sacramentarian errors, by the conversation of Alasco and Peter
Martyr : but his opinions during the whole reign of Henry
VIII. were widely different. In 1 533 he held Frith to be a
heretic for doubting the corporal presence in the sacrament of
the altar," In 1537 he held the commonly received notions on
distributed to those who*desire it,.after they have been examined and re
ceived absolution. And the customary public ceremonies are preserved,
the order of lessons, prayers, vestments," &c. — Art. xi. de Missa.
... The Apology of the Cqnfession of Augsburg admits .that the fathers
caU the Eucharist a sacrifice, which it explains to be a eucharistic sacri
fice ; and observes that the term " oblation," if understood of the whole
service, the prayers, and thanksgivings, gives them no offence. — ^Art. xii.
de Missa. " We know the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which
we do not prohibit, but the application of the Lord's Supper for the dead ex
opere operate we reject." — Ibid. In the same place the opinion of Aerius
that such prayers are useless, is given up.
¦¦ Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. iu. p. 99. 114. 155.
" Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 32.

chap, viii.] cranmer, 499
the real presence, and in his epistie tcf Vadianus testified his
displeasure at the errors of Zuinglius and CEcolampadius.i'
In 1538 he maintained, in a public disputation against Lambert,
a Sacramentary, the possibility of Christ's body being in several
places,' 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 presence,
taught the truth:'' yet his notes in a manuscript ' coflection,
prove that in 1543 he was a believer in the corporal presence
at least, if not in transubstantiation,^ It was not till 1546 that
ho" ever doubted the corporal* presence, when Ridley's conver
sation first unsettled his .opiniMi.* In 1548 he published Jus
tus Jonas's' Catechism, containing apparently Lutheran views
of the eucharist, though he afterwards explained them away ;
and in 1-651, in replying to Dr, Smythe, he said, " I confess
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 pilgrima
ges, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitious errors,
p Ibid. p. 194, 195. — As to Luther's ovra opinions on the eucharist, we
know that whUe he vehemently maintained the substantial and corporal
presence, he regarded transubstantiation as a matter, which it was of little
importance to admit or deny, " Permitto itaque qui volet utramque opinio
nem retinere," — De Captiv, Babyl. t. ii, fbl, 66. Melancthon said, in 1543,
that Luther conceded "the doctrine of transubstantiation to some churches
of Italy. — Hospinian, Hist. Sacr. p. 3. foi. 184. Luther continued the
elevation of the sacrament tUl 1542 or 1543, when he discontinued it in
consequence of the offence it gave to some persons (Gasp. Peucer, Hist.
PhU. Melancth. ed. 1596, p. 24) ; but in 1544 he declared it was la-wful as
a testimony of the real and corporal presence (Parva Conf. 1544, Hosp. foi.
13) ; and in 1545 l)e declared the sacrament to be adorable. — Cont, xxxii.
Art, Lov. Theolog. t. ii. foi. 503, He taught that the body of Christ ought
to be adored and honoured in the bread, on two other occasions. See Hos
pinian, foi. 14.
q Ibid. p. Ixxiu. r Ibid, p. 257, ' Ibid, Ixxiv. ¦ Ibid, bcxvu.

600 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
. . . 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 littie and littie,
I put away my former ignorance."'^ Thus Cranmer evidently
believed the corporal presence during the whole reign of Henry
VIIL, and we have seen that even in Edward the Sixth's time
he admitted an oblation or sacrifice in the eucharist, and there
fore 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.'' This most acceptable spiri
tual sacrifice he did not deny z and therefore he might without
violating his conscience, both perform the liturgy and give to
the priests whom he ordained, the power of offering sacrifice.
With reference to the several formularies of faith signed by
him, we have not a shadow of proof that he subscribed to any
thing which he really deemed unlawful. The corporal presence
I have already spoken of. Transubstantiation, as a word, is not
contained in those formularies, and their doctrine is susceptible
of another interpretation. Confession, penance, and absolution
are maintained by the Lutherans themselves,^ and the use of
images, and communion in one kind, were sometimes held by
Luther to be matters indifferent, or even approved ;" as the
ceremonies of the church generally (including, of course, creep
ing 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
" Ibid. vol. iii. p. 13. ' Ibid. p. 5. 161. 539. 551.
w Confessio August, pars i. art. xii. De Pcenitentia ; Apologia Confes
sionis vii. de nu. et usu Sacramentorum.
» Gerdesu Hist. EvangeUi Renovati, vol. ii. p. 66. He approved fre
quently of communion in one kind, though he varied on the question. —
Hospin. pars U. foi. 12., 13.

CHAP, VIII,] CRANMER. 501
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
condemned, are the eucharist, and the powers of the civil
magistrate in connexion with the ministry and ordinances of
the church. Of the first I have already spoken above, and in
chapter VI : with reference to the latter it is not to be disputed,
that Cranmer did at one time enteitwn privately, opinions which
merit censure. It appears from his answer to queries concern
ing the sacraments, and the appointment and power of bishops
and priests, (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 elec
tion or appointment by the civil magistrate confers 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, J' These doctrines, as maintained 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 government. Secondly, he
did not hold them firmly, for he added, " this is mine opinion
and sentence at this present, which nevertheless I do not teme-
rariously define," and besides, it is fairly to be presumed that
he afterwards corrected his error; for in 1543 he allowed, in the
Necessary Doctrine, that "order is a gift or grace of ministra-
" Cranmer's Works, vol, u, p, 101—103,

502 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
tion in Christ's church, given by God to Christian men by the
consecration and imposition of the bishop's hands upon them."^
His catechism (1548), in the article on the keys, insists on the
Divine commission, apostolical succession, and sacred character
of the priesthood.^ 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, therefore, no one shall be accounted
lawfully ordained in this church, unless he be episcopally or
dained. 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,'' 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 Cloves.
He is also accused of unjustly signing the death warrant of
Lord Seymour, and of cowardice as regarded his recantations."
Now first, there is not a shadow of evidence that Cranmer did
not act sincerely, according to his judgment of probabilities,
in dissolving the marriage with Catherine.'^ It had been judged
« Necessary Doctrine, p. 277,
" Cranmer's Catechism, (Instruction of the Keys, p. 193, &c.) Oxford ed,
i" Burnet, vol. iii. p. 347.
¦^ Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. sect. 21, 22. 36. 98. 103.
'' The dishonesty imputed to Cranmer by Bossuet in assuming the title
of Legate of the Apostolic See in the sentence of divorce, is a mere ca
lumny. The papal power was at this moment legally established in Eng
land ; and the sentence might have been objected to as irregular and Ulegal,
if the usual and legal style of the archbishop of Canterbury had been
omitted.

CHAP. VIII,] CRANMER. 503
null by many universities abroad and at home, and by the
bishops and convocation of England, Secondly, the annulhng
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," on which the
archbishop was obliged to give sentence against the marriage.
It is true that those impediments have not in fact been discov
ered, 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,^ The inconsistency remarked between the
archbishop's pronouncing the marriage null and void, and the
peers condemning her to death as an unfaithful wife to Hemy,^
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 marriage. Cranmer is blamed for
not interceding more vigorously for Anna Boleyn's 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 which he judged most persuasive 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 pretends.' 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 inno
cent, and that there was not certain and unquestionable evidence
against him, which has not been done ; the substantial injustice
imputed to Cranmer cannot be proved. His recantations, said
to have been made more than once, with a hope of preserving
Burnet, vol, i. p. 370. '' Soames, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 137.
Burnet, p. 371. >¦ Ibid. p. 364, &c. ' Ibid. p. 508, 509.

504 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
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 adversaries :
and as we do not view him or any other prelates or theologians
of our church at that time, as its founders, though we ac
knowledge with gratitude the beneficial reforms which their
learning and piety aided in effecting ; we do not hold ourselves
responsible for every private opinion which some of them have
entertained, or for any 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,"
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.
The abolition of the papal power in England by the united
action of the temporal and spiritual powers, was speedily , though
imperfectiy, imitated in Ireland. In 1537, the Irish parhament
declared the king supreme head of the church of Ireland, pro
hibited appeals to Rome, suppressed the papal jurisdiction in
Ireland, and prohibited all pecuniary payments to the Roman
see.'' The primate Cromer opposed ineffectually these regu
lations ;" they were sustained by Brown, archbishop of Dub
lin, and other prelates, and it seems that the clergy took the
oath of regal supremacy, and rejection of the papal jurisdic
tion, 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,'^ In 1538
images abused by pilgrimages and superstitions were remov
ed," yet during the rest of the reign of king Henry, it appears
a It was only in 1152 that the Roman pontiff acquired ordinary jurisdic
tion over the Irish churches, when at the Synod of KeUs, the four arch
bishops for the first time received palls from Rome,
>> Cox, History of Ireland, p, 247.
c Ibid. p. 256. Ware's Bishops of Ireland, edited by Harris.
" Cox, p. 253. 273, 274. • Ibid, p, 255.
VOL. I. — 64

506 the BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
that not much was accomplished ; partly through the intrigues
of the Roman pontiff and his adherents, and partiy on account
of the disturbed state of Ireland. Even in the reign of Edward
VL, A.D, 1550, the adoption of the Enghsh Ritual, recommend
ed by a royal proclamation, was opposed in the assembly of the
clergy by the primate Dowdal, who, with most of his suffra
gans, refused to accept it,' Brown, archbishop of Dublin, and
other prelates, however, approved the Ritual, and introduced
it into their dioceses, s^ It appears, in fact, that notwitiistand-
ing the events which took place in 1537, the papal power con
tinued to prevail partially in Ireland during the whole reign of
Henry VIII. and Edward VL, 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,'' In the reign of Mary, the chief prelate Dowdal, under royal
commission in 1554, deprived and expelled from their sees the
archbishop of Dublin and three or four other prelates favoura
ble to reformation,' 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.

f Ibid, p, 256, Ware's Bishops of Ireland, e Ibid. p. 289.
i" Thus, in 1541, Owen Magenis ordained bishop of Down and Conor by
Paul III., was, on his oath of allegiance to the king, restored to the tempo
ralities of that see ; and in like manner Roland de Burgo, bishop ofClon-
fert. In 1542 Hugh Ocervalan, made bishop of Clogher by the Roman
patriarch, was confirmed by royal letters patent on his going to England
with Oneal, prince of Tyrone, who submitted to the royal power. In 1550
Arthur Magenise, made bishop of Dromore by the Roman patriarch, was
confirmed by the king. There are other simUar instances. — See Ware's
History of the Irish Bishops, and Annals.
' Cox, History of Ireland, p. 299, Ware's Bishops. Staples of Meath,
Brown of Dublin, Lancaster of KUdare, Travers of Leighlin, were depriv
ed. Bale of Ossory and Casy of Limerick fled, and.others were put in
their place irregularly.

CHAP. IX.] REFORMATION IN IREL.4.ND. 507
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 re
hgion was changed at that time by merely secular and parlia
mentary power ; that the catholic bishops and clergv were ex
pelled 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.'' . I have elsewhere
proved (see Chapters II. and IIL, and Origines Liturgicae, vol.
ii. p. 1, &c.) that these regulations were in themselves legitimate,
and consistent with catholic principles ; we are then only to con
sider whether they were now made by a competent authority.
The earl of Sussex was sent by the queen in 1560, to pro
mote the adoption of these measures in the Irish parliament,
and also to convene a general assembly of the clergy and se
cure their sanction.^ In the parliament which met and enacted
these regulations, nineteen prelates were present, of whom only
two were opposed to their adoption.'" At this time we know

t The church of Ireland does not seem to have enacted any new formu
lary of doctrine during the whole of the sixteenth century. It was not tiU
1615 that the Synod of Ireland authorized 101 Articles, which in most points
foUowed closely the doctrine of St. Augustine. The XXXIX. Articles of
the Synod of London, 1562, though always esteemed orthodox in Ireland,
were not formally accepted by the catholic church there tUl the year 1634 ;
since which time they have been used as the standard of doctrine, in pre
ference to the Articles of 1615.
1 Ware's Annals of Ireland, anno 1560.
m Leland's Ireland, book iv. chapter i.

508 The British reformation, [part ii.
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 par
liament, and the assembly of the clergy offered no opposition.
So that it is evident that the reformation of the church of Ire
land was not effected merely by secular authority, in contradic
tion to that of the church itself.
With regard to the deprivation and expulsion of the bishops
at the Reformation, so assiduously and impudentiy asserted,
we have merely to state these facts. Five bishops favourable
to reformation had been expelled irregularly by royal commis
sions 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 legiti
mate pastors being still alive, and deprived not by a synod, but
by a single bishop, which was altogether contrary to the ca
nons," 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 possession of their sees
and jurisdictions. The inferior clergy also generally concurred,
and the laity everywhere continued subject to their pastors,
and did not cease to attend the sacred offices,? It is true, how
ever, that this unity was more apparent than real or firm, be
cause among the clergy were some who conformed, in the hope
that some favourable circumstances might arise for the restora
tion of the papal authority. And besides this, the want of in-
n According to Sir James Ware there were twenty-nine bishoprics in
Ireland at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Two of these, Clonfert and
Elphin, were held in commendam by Rowland de Burgo. Armagh was
vacant, and Skiddy, bishop elect of Cork, was not yet consecrated. Of
some sees we know not whether they were then fiUed or not,
» See above, Chapter IV. p. 441.
p Carte's Life of Ormond, vol. i. p. 33. Phelan's Remains, vol. U. p. 166.

CHAP, IX. 1 REFORMATION IN IRELAND, 509
formation 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
augmentation of its power, could not perrhit the church of Ire
land to pass from under its dominion and resume its ancient
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 abohtion of the papal jurisdiction in
Ireland :i but it seems that they were mere creatures of the
pope, on whom he had conferred the titles of those sees very
recently .'^ One at least of these men went afterwards to Ire
land, and was in schism with the rest of the church, endeavour
ing vainly to introduce the regulations of the Synod of Trent,
which the church of Ireland never received.
I have already spoken of the superstition and ignorance of
the people, which 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 re
maining 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

1 Roth, titular bishop of Ossory, in speaking of Thomas Hierlacius,
bishop of Ross, says : " Quia in Synodo Tridentina cum aliis duobus Hiber-
niae episcopis Donaldo MagonaU Ep. Rapoten. et Eugenio Ohairt Ep,
Agaden. ipse tertius nee infimus eorum interesset, praecipuo quodam studio
et solicitudine conabatur decreta ejus et disciplinam observare et per totum
districtum suae jurisdictionis propagare." — Analecta, pars iii. p. 72. See
also OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 92,
' Ohairt was named bishop of Achonry by the Roman bishop during the
time of the Council of Trent. — See Ware's Bishops of Ireland, edited by
Harris,

510 the BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II,
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 contemn
ed the English preachers by Divine inspiration ; and rejected
their errors by a sort of hidden and secret light of faith."° This
is to be understood as a description of the feelings 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.
To a people thus ignorant and predisposed to superstition, the
Romish missionaries who came from abroad to pervert them
from the church, addressed themselves. They declaimed against
the church of Ireland as infected with heresy and schism, vehe-
mentiy exhorted the people to forsake its communion, and as
their hearers could not comprehend other arguments, worked on
their fears and superstitions by innumerable lying miracles,
wonders, and visions. Of the species of arguments used to
deceive this hapless people, we find abundant examples in the
pages of OsuUevan, and Roth, pseudo-bishop of Ossory, which
are loaded with fabulous miracles. For example, St, Columb-
kill takes the form of a wolf, and carries a torch into the maga
zine 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 con
sumed 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 imme
diately an explosion is heard, and he is found frightfully dis
torted and dies raging mad.

' OsuUevan, Hist. Catholic, Iberniae, p, 109.

chap, IX.] ROMISH SCHISM IN IRELAND. 511
As an instance of the course pursued by the Romish emis
saries in their labours to create a schism, and establish their
new church in Ireland, I shall relate a portion of the history of
Richard Creagh, who is styled by Roth " the renowned cham
pion of the catholic faith, and the principal propagator or
RESTORER of the Same in his native land."' He was the son of
a merchant at Limerick, whence he went to the university of
Louvain, and obtained the degree of Master of Arts, and ulti
mately that of Bachelor in Theology, " Having received 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
every where disseminated in that kingdom, especially in his
native city (Limerick), which he earnestly desired to reform, and
also to sow better seed. He laboured strenuously by private
exhortation, public preaching, and performing the sacred offices
of the priesthood, (for he had returned 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 schis
matical (i, e. church) service ; and he withdrew many from their
nefarious use and conneocion.""- 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."^
Thus it appears that the people were induced to forsake the

t " Magnus hie et clarus ecclesiae Hiberniae hierarcha praeclarus erat fidei
Catholicae pugU et prlmarius ejusdem vel propagator vel restauratOr in suo
natali solo." — Roth, Analecta, iu, p. 1.
u " De impia nuncupatione juramenti primatus ecclesiastici a regina arro-
gati, de Ulicita frequentatione et communicatione in officio schismatico pres-
sius agebat, et plurimos avocabat a nefario utriusque usu et nexu." — Ibid. p. 7.
' Ibid. p. 9.

512 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
communion of their legitimate pastors, by those foreign emissa
ries, 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 filled 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 erect rival altars and a rival priest
hood. 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,"'' Thus furnished
with authority and money by the pope, he endeavoured to per
vert the people and excite a schism, in which he was not alto
gether unsuccessful, Shortiy afterwards the Roman pontiff
ordained Maurice Gibbon to the see of Cashel, who had the
audacity to demand from the legitimate metropolitan Maccagh-
well, a surrender of his office ; and on his refusal to do so,
wounded, and attempted to assassinate him with a spear, for
which he was obliged to escape to Spain.^
These proceedings, however, did not sufficiently advance the
schism in Ireland, The people still too generally continued
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.y Miler
Magrath, made bishop of Down by the pope, also repented, and

w " Roma itaque missus venit non sine Uberalissima Pii Pont. Max. mu-
nificentia, ut et oves suas in Hybernia e tmculentissimorum luporum ac
leaenae faucibus everteret, atque eis officiose ac pie prseesset." p. 22.
' Ware's Abps. of Cashel, ^ Roth, Analecta, ui. p, 36.

CHAP, IX,] CONDUCT OF IRISH SCHISMATICS. 513
having embraced catholic unity, was elevated to the see of
Clogher by the royal favour.^ Peter Poer, pseudo-bishop of
Ferns, followed his example, but whether from want of prefer
ment or from natural instability relapsed again." The civil go
vernment 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. Herice it was necessary to employ new
methods of withdrawing the people from their legitimate pastors.
The Irish princes and lords, who exercised. i great power
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 maintaining
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 them
selves 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 sanctity and
piety, and who styled their opponents wolves, heretics, and anti
christs, 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.

a Ware's Bishops of Clogher, ^ ° Roth, Analecta, ui, p. 61.
VOL. I. — 65

514 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
Queen Elizabeth had been excommunicated and declared an
heretic by pope Pius V. in 1569, who absolved her subjects
from 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.'' Gregory XIIL, in 1570, relaxed the obli
gation of this bull, /or the present to his own adherents, until a
fitting time for its execution should arrive. About 1575, Jaimus
Geraldine of Desmond plotting an insurrection, went (as we are
informed by the Romish author OsuUevan) to Spain, " related
to Philip II. the, catholic king, the state of affairs in Ireland, and
sought aid from him for the ' catholics.' " He then proceeded
to Rome, " where at that time was Cornelius Omelrian, a Fran
ciscan, an Irishman, and bishop of Killaloe, and Thomas Stukely,
who sought aid from the pope against the English in the name
of the Irish,"" There also was Dr. Sanders, that calumnious
Jesuit, '^ (the glory of the English nation as OsuUevan calls him).
Jaimus sohcited the pope, Gregory XIIL, to aid the catholic
church, then nearly falling in Ireland ; and the result was,
that " his holiness " granted a pardon to all the bands of robbers
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 San
ders, placed themselves at the head of these bands of robbers,
by whose aid they expected to establish their sect in Ireland."
b According to the Romish historian OsuUevan, Elizabeth was justly
declared a heretic by Pius V. on V. Kal. Mar. 1569, and others were em
powered to take away her kingdom. " Hinc," he proceeds, " a multis Ibernis
saepe capiuntur armapro religionis jure: omnia ferro et flamma devastantur
et corrumpuntur,". — Hist. Cath. p. 70,
" OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 94.
^ See the falsehoods of his history detected by Burnet, History of the
Reformation, 8 " Eo tempore nonnuUi latronum manipuli Italiam non parum infestabant,
dum ex sylvis et montibus, in quibus latebant, erumpentes, nocturnis rapinis,
et incursionibus pages diripiebant, et itinera obsidentes viatores spoUabant.

CHAP, IX,] CONDUCT OF IRISH SCHISMATICS, 515
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 Gre
gory XIIL, in which all who should join themselves to Jaimus,
and rebel against queen Elizabeth, were granted a plenary indul^
gence 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 heretics, for the rights
and liberty of the catholic church ; and, therefore, that he bore
the keys depicted on his standards, because they were fighting
for him who had the keys of Heaven."^ Such was the method
by which the Roman sect was propagated. We find the same
'bishop' Omelrian, again in 1583, arriving from Spain, where
he had been an ermssary of the rebel earl of Desmond with a
supply of men, money, and arms:^.
It is lamentable to find that persons assuming the sacred titie
of bishop, could be guilty of conduct so inconsistent with
Christian sanctity and piety, Edinund 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 "pro
ceeding to Macguier, who was then at war {i. e. in insurrection
against the queen), and was a man desirous of warfare, easily
Jaimus Gregorium decimumtertium pontificem exorat, ut ecclesiae "catholicae
in Ibernia jam pene oorruenti ferat opem : a quo demum impetravit impuni-
tatem lis latronibus ea conditione, ut secum in Iberniam proficisoerentur,
. . . Quibus summus pontifex duces praefecit Herculem Pisanum , . .
aliosque Romanes milites." — OsuUevan, p. 94, 95.
' OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 101.
g " Id quod erat, se fuisse a pontifice maxuno Ibernis auxUio missum in
haereticos pro ecclesiae catholicae jure et libertate ; ob id in mUitaribus signis
claves gerere depictas, quod iUi mUitabant qui regni coelorum claves habe-
bat."— OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 95.
'' Carte's Life of Ormond, Introduct. p. 57.

516 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II,
confirmed hy him by the words of the catholic king and by the
hope of aid."' This warlike pontiff fell shortly afterwards in
battle with the queen's troops.
Not long after, Odonel, chief of Tirconnel, being engaged
in plotting an insurrection against the queen, employed a Ro
mish bishop as his agent. " Odonel observing and thinking
within himself that it would be difficult to free Ireland and the
catholic religion from the heresy and tyranny of the English,
without the aid of foreign princes ; sends as his ambassador
Jaimus Ohely, ' archbishop of Tuam,' a man of known lea,rn-
ing 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
Ireland' (Macgabhrana) ; and to promise the assistance and
obedience of Odonel and the other Irish chiefs.'"' 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 OsuUevan ; 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.i i Sub hoc tempus Edmundus Macgabhranus Iberniae primas archiepis-
copus Ardmachae ex Hispania a Jaimo Flamingo Pontanensi mercatore
vehitur, habens ad Ibernos regis Hispaniae mandata ut protestantibus pro
fide catholica bellum indicent, et ab ipso quam celerrime auxilium mitten-
dum esse, intelligant ; et ad Macguierum, qui jam bellum gerebat, profectus,
cupidum beUandi virum cathoUci regis verbis et auxiUi spe, in incepto
fa,cUe confirmavit." — OsuUevan, p. 127.
^ " Jaimum Ohelium Tuemiae archiepiscopum, virum doctrina et inno-
cente vita probatum, legatum mittit, qui PhUippo II. Hispaniarum monarchae
Ibernarum rerum statuiu pandat ; ab eo declinata pome catholica fidei
opem petal quam per Iberniae primatem promiserat, et Uli Odonelli et alio-
rum magnatum, Ibernorum operam etobedientiampoUiceatur." — OsuUevan,
Hist. Cath. p. 130.
» Ibid, 130, 131,

CHAP. IX,] SCHISMATICAL PRIESTS IN IRELAND, 417
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 helhsh
state of England, in which he had reigned for a short time on
his marriage with queen Mary, having prepared an excellently
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
^radle, if it had been safely landed. But {our sins preventing
it) in the year 1588, partly by the art of the heretics, but chiefly
by a great tempest, the fleet was dispersed,""" &cc.
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 de
serted from the royal army, to the 'catholic.'"'' About the
same time (1600) " came into Ulster friar Matthew de Oviedo,
a Spaniard, ' archbishop of Dublin,' 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," This 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 accomplish-
in " Miseratus calamitatem atque Tartareum statum Angliae , , . csterum
peccatis nostris obstantibus, anno redemtionis 1588 partim haereticorum
arte," &o.— OsuUevan, p, 120, 121,
" Ibid, p. 144.
" Deferentes a summo pontifice omnibus qui pro fide in Anglos arma
caperent, indulgentias et peccatorum omnium," &c, — Ibid. p. 167. Cox^
Hist, Ireland, p, 422.

518 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [PART II.
ing anything.? In 1602, 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,''
In this manner the schism arose in Ireland. Originating in
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
massacre, stimulated by the unholy ministers of the new com
munion. Alternately deluded, terrified, encouraged, and excited
to schism and insurrection, by their chieftains and their priests,
it is not to be wondered at that too many of these unhappy
people fell from the right way, and from obedience to the ori
ginal and catholic hierarchy of Ireland, It is needless to pro
ceed 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 OsuUevan, " 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 reli
gion, yet in the time of this war were much worse than Turks
or heretics in faction, dissension, ambition, and perfidy."'
p OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 175. 177,
<j Leland, vol. u. p. 405.
r Leland, Hist, Ireland, vol. ii. jj. 406. Cox, Hist. Ireland, p. 453.
» " Certe Iberni mei quamvis catholicae fidei religionisque divinae cultu-
et observantia plerisque gentibus praestent, hujus tamen beUi tempore, fac-

,CHAP, IX,] IRISH SCHISM INEXCUSABLE, 519
" There are not wanting some who kill the minister-clergy —
though seldom. Many cause them such fear that they cannot
exercise their heretical office,"* &c.
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
plenary 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 her 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 division, and
ordered all to unite their forces against the queen," It is even
acknowledged that " when just and honourable conditions 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." We cannot wonder, then,
that the government treated the Romish bishops and priests as

tione, dissidio, ambitione, perfidia, Turcis et hareticis plurimi deterius fue
runt." — OsuUevan, 119.
t " Non desunt qui ministro-clericos etsi rare oecidant. Multi iUis me
tum incutiunt ut nee ipsi munus haereticum exercere, nee catholicos sacer
dotes divinis officiis prohibere audeant." — Ibid. 227.
>¦ Ibid. 117. ' Ibid. 142. 144.

520 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
its enemies ; and we are fully entitled to disbelieve the accounts
of tortures alleged to have been inflicted on some of them, be
cause 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
siderably by the unsuccessful issue of the various rebelhons in
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, OsuUevan describes
the Romish hierarchy thus : " There are four archbishoprics
and many bishoprics, and all are at present possessed by ' here-
siarchs : ' 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
hy the Roman pontiff, constitute in their suffragan dioceses,
vicars general, by the authority of the pope, who are eithei*
priests, or inferior clergy, or religious : these again appoint the
parochial clergy. Eugenius Macmagaun, archbishop of Dub
lin, 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 ac
count of the English, have delegated their provinces to vicars."^
On the other hand, the church maintained a continual succes
sion of bishops in all the sees of Ireland. We have seen that
the prelates consented almost unanimously to remove the papal
jurisdiction in Ireland in 1560, In the Irish parliament under
sir John Perrott's administration, a,d, 1585, four archbishops
and twenty bishops were actually present,'' and as we know that
at this time three of the twenty-nine sees existing at the acces-

' Phelan, Remains, vol, U. p. 294. ' OsuUevan, Hist. Cath. p. 229,
Cox, History of Ireland, p. 383,

CHAP. IX.] StrCCESSION OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 521
sion of Ehzabeth, were held in commendam with others, and
one at least was vacant," we see that at this time all the dio
ceses 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," as
we find Magrath made bishop of Clogher (one of them) in 1570,''
but at all events the bishops of those dioceses must have been
in communion with the church of Ireland in 1585." Thus the re
gular and ancient succession of bishops from St. Patrick through
a long line of venerable prelates, 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 communion,
is a separation from Jesus Christ, and altogether inexcusable.*
The only defence which can be offered, is that the church of
Ireland had herself become heretical and apostate. Were this
manifestly true, there would indeed have been a positive obliga
tion to forsake her communion : but I contend that there is no

' Emly was united to Cashel, Ross to Cloyne, Clonmacnois to Meath,
before this time (see Ware). KUlala or Mayo was vacant, as we learn
fi-om OsuUevan, who says it was in vain offered to Gelasius OcuUenan, on
condition of his forsaking the cause of the Roman pontiff. — Hist. Cath. p.
105. Sir John Perrott wrote to England in 1584, that no more bishoprics
ought to be put in commendam. — Cox, p. 382.
« Viz. Clogher, Raphoe, and Derry. See his " Causes why Ireland," &c.
" Sir J. Ware's Bishops of Ireland.
-; Leland says the bishops of Clogher and Raphoe sat in the parliament
that year.— Hist. Ireland, vol. u. p. 295.
¦i See Part L Chapter IV.
VOL, I. — 66

522 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II,
evidence of her heresy in any point whatever. The removal of
the papal jurisdiction in Ireland was merely a restoration of asi
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 undisciphned people,
that the cathohc faith and disciphne 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 incompetent to decide themselves ; but they
permitted themselves 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 Chris
tian 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. And as
its first ministers were mere usurpers, so in latter times it has
become questionable whether any of their ordinations are valid,"
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.
' See Part VI. Chapter on Romish Ordinations.

CHAPTER X,
ON THE REFORMATION AND SCHISMS IN SCOTLAND,
Those who contemplate without prejudice the conduct of re
ligious parties in Scotland during the sixteenth century, will
find none of them exempt from serious faults, which gave rise
to evils almost unprecedented. The gross corruptions and
abuses of all sorts long prevalent in the Scottish church, were
maintained against the spirit of reformation with a severity
which was at last fajial to those who exercised it. The burn
ing of Hamilton, Forrest, Gourlay, Straiten, Russell, Kennedy,
Wishart, Wallace, Mill, &c, for supposed heresy, together with
innumerable imprisonments and banishments for the same of
fence,^ 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, togeth
er with their immoral lives, is fully admitted by Lesley, bishop
of Ross,'' threw almost the whole nation at once into the cause
of the Reformation, In 1560, the reforming party having pe
titioned for relief from persecution until a lawful general coun
cil might determine the pending controversies," were powerful
enough to obtain from a convention of estates a sanction of their
confession of faith, the suppression of the spiritual courts which

" Archbishop Spottiswood, History of the Church of Scotland, p. 63 — ^96.
It appears to me th.it this work is, in point of judgment, preferable to other
histories of the Scottish church. John Knox's history cannot be relied on
as genuine. According to Spottiswood, p. 267, it quotes "Fox's Martyrs,''
which did not appear tUI ten years after the death of Knox,
^ Leslaeus, De Reb, Gest, Scotorum, lib, x, p. 583, Romae, 1578.
* Spottiswood, p. 119.

524 THE BRITISH REFORMATION, [PART II.
aggrieved them for thirty years, and a proscription of the office
of the mass,* The " congregation " or reforming party had
been treated as heretics by their opponents, and separated from
their communion ; but this division did not last very long, for the
whole nation soon became unanimous. Four of the bishops
united themselves with the promoters of the Reformation," a
larger number were either actively or passively opposed to it :
but the latter either forsook their sees and went abroad, or died
before long, and were succeeded by others more favourable to
the Reformation, The papal party dwindled to nothing:^ 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, ^
From about 1572 it seems that all the Scots were united in
the national church. The ancient churches of St, Andrew's,
Glasgow, &c, still continued,^ and were presided over by bish
ops and archbishops, some of whom had been constituted before
the Reformation,' and others with consent of the Convention

i Ibid, p, 150, The office of the mass was proscribed in Scotland at this
time as " idolatrous.'' It is very probable that in Scotland the people may
have generaUy practised idolatry in this office ; and a new form of adminis
tering that rite under a different name, may have been necessary on account
of their evU habits. But it could not have been the intention to affirm, that
aU the Western church had been involved in formal idolatry for a thousand
years. ' Bothwell, bishop of Orkney, Gordon of Galloway, Stewart of Caithness,
HamUton of Argyle. — See Keith's Scottish Bishops.
'' Skinner's Ecclesiast. History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 165.
s Spottiswood, p. 308. Russell, History of the Church in Scotland, vol.
ii. p. 26. The Romish party had no bishops untU the reign of James IL,
when the pope sent them a titular bishop. — See Dodd's Church History.
•i See Keith's Historical Catalogue of the Scottish bishops, by Dr. Rus
sell, bishop of Glasgow.
' Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, consecrated 1551, died in possession
of his see in 1603, though for a time it had been occupied by others. — Keith,
p. 2,59. 262. BothweU, made bishop of Orkney by queen Mary in 1562,
died 1593.— Keith, p. 226. Gordon, bishop of GaUoway in 1558, died

CHAP. X.] REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND. 525
of the Church in 1571, which agreed that the sees then vacant
should be filled, that the bishops should exercise spiritual juris
diction in their dioceses, should be elected by the chapters,'' &c.
Thenceforward the dioceses of Scotiand were filled by bishops
who were consecrated by other prelates and sat in parliament,^
The episcopate indeed had not been abolished even by the con
ventions or parliaments which established the reformed confes
sion of faith. On the contrary, the reformed consented at that
time that the existing bishops should continue, and receive a
large portion of their revenues,'" The Convention of 1571 did
not revive or introduce the episcopate, but merely approved its
continuance. The superintendants which had been constituted
in 1560 by the reformed, under their peculiar circumstances, to
watch over their societies," were permitted to retain a certain
jurisdiction during their lives, and then the order was discon--
tinned. Such being in general the position of the church of Scotland
up to the accession of James VI. to the throne of England, there
seemed no reason to dispute its character as a church of Christ.
The succession of bishops was apparently preserved, and the
archbishop of Glasgow, who had been consecrated before the
Reformation, died in possession of his see, a.d. 1603. Nor had
the church then existing separated itself from any more ancient
society in Scotland, for almost the whole church there had adopt
ed the Reformation ; and in fine they did not profess to differ
in doctrine from the English churches ; therefore the English
Convocation of 1603 were justified in recognizing the church

1576._Ib. p. 279, Stewart, bishop of Caithness, 1542, died 1586.— Ib, p.
215. HamUton, bishop of Argyle, 1558, living in 1575,— Ib, p. 290.
k Spottiswood, p. 260. Kjiox himself highly approved of this, — See Rus-
seU, vol, i. p. 332.
' [See the Note of the author at the end of the chapter.]
m Skinner, Eccl. Hist, vol. u. p, 122, RusseU, vol, i, p, 267.
" Sjottiswood, p. 158.

526 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [p.VRT II.
of Scotiand as a portion of the Christian church," though it is
certain, that if they had been fully aware of the extreme disor
ders then prevalent in Scotland, they would have given the title
of " Church" in a modified sense, not as implying a society
perfectly organized according to the Divine institution.
Scotland was for a long period in a state of anarchy. Its
feeble government was set at defiance by powerful and lawless
barons ; and the evils which resulted to the church in conse
quence 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 laymen," or to clergy
of the most scandalous character. He observes that for eighty
years there had been no archbishop in France, no synods," &c.
Such in fact was too often the fate of the Scottish sees, and
even those bishops who were consecrated do not seem to
have been validly ordained by other bishops .1 The church of
England however, could scarcely have known this, for the very
little intercourse between the two nations at that time is a mat
ter of notoriety ;' and as we knew that bishops had embraced
the Reformation in Scotland, and that others had been con
secrated since by bishops, we could only infer that their conse
cration had been validly performed. Besides these irregulari
ties, it appears, in fact, that several of the ministers were not
ordained by imposition of hands, from the introduction of false
maxims, and that the inferior clergy usurped an authority which
was inconsistent with the proper office of their bishops, and
even dared to depose bishops, and to censure the episcopal

o Canon LV, a,d. 1603, where in the form of prayer before sermons, it is
eaid : " Ye shaU pray for Christ's holy catholic church, that is, for the whole
•congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and
especiaUy for the churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland."
p Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Ecclesia Disciplina, tom. ii. p. 329.
q Keith, Scottish Bishops, p. 216.
' Robertson's History of Scotland, book viii. voL iii. p, 200,

CHAP, X.] SCHISM IN SCOTLAND. — PRESEYTERIANISM, 527
office," under the influence of a misguided man named Mel
ville, However, these calamities were terminated by the wise
conduct of king James, and in 1612 the Scottish bishops elect
received from the English that apostolical commission which
was necessary to the completion of their church. From that
time the church of Scotland has always continued to be guided
by a regular succession of bishops even to the present day,
though afflicted by many grievous losses and persecutions,
especially since the Revolution of 1688.
I am now to speak of the Presbyterian societies in Scotland,
and examine their claim to be considered a part of the Chris
tian church. The novel principle of the unlawfulness of epis
copacy was first introduced into Scotland by Melville, about
1575, who had just returned from Geneva, and was desirous
of _ introducing the discipline established there,' He succeeded
in exciting great disturbances in the church, and in 1580, an
assembly of clergy at Dundee even declared the office of bishop
unlawful.'' However, as I have said, episcopacy continued
till the time of Charles the First, when the nobility, irritated
by the king's revocation of the grants of church lands, and
jealous of the bishops, united themselves with the presbyterian
party, which broke into insurrection against the king, abolished
episcopacy by act of parliament, and instituted the " solemn
league and covenant," one of whose articles consisted of an
engagement to " endeavour the extirpation of prelacy, that is,
church government by archbishops, bishops," &c." These
proceedings being annulled on the restoration of Charles IL,
the church of Scotland continued till 1690 to be subject to its
bishops like all other churches, though many adherents of the
covenant formed conventicles and separated themselves from
the church."" In 1690, this party of dissenters obtained the

B Ibid. p. 311. Spottiswood, p. 819, 311.
t Spottiswood, p, 275, '¦ Russell, vol. i. p. 377.
' Skumer, Eccl. Hist. vol. u. p. 368. " Ibid. p. 470.

528 THE BRITISH REFORMATION. [pART II.
support of the civil power (in consequence of the refusal of the
bishops to acknowledge king William IIL), and under their
influence the Scottish parliament consummated a most woful
schism, abolishing episcopacy and establishing the presbyterian
separatists as the church of Scotland. Thus the bishops and
clergy were deprived of their estates and 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 con
verts by the severe persecution which it directed against the
church.^ 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. Their
opinion was erroneous, but had it merely extended to a prefer
ence for the presbyterian form, it might have been in some de
gree tolerated : it would not have cut them off from the church
I The Cameronians (dissenters) forcibly drove out two hundred of the
clergy, before any alteration of religion was made by law. — Russell, ii. 348,
&c. It appears that the majority of the people were in 1690 stiU attached
to their church. — Russell, 3.59, &c. ; and almost the whole body of the
clergy remained stedfast. — Ib. 362. The clergy were in 1695 prohibited
by act of parliament from baptizing or solemnizing marriage on pain of
banishment. — Ib. 380. In 1707 aU their chapels were closed by order of
government (Ib. 392), and those who officiated were imprisoned. — Ib. 394,
In 1746, after the battle of CuUoden, the magistrates directed the soldiers
and the mob against them, burned their chapels, plundered their vestments
and plate, burned their books, and compelled them to seek safety in flight or
concealment. — Ib. 401. Every clergyman ordained by a Scottish bishop
was by act of parliament made liable to transportation for celebrating
divine worship, and their people were subjected to fine or imprisonment. —
Ib. 402, 403. Under this dreadful persecution they remained for forty-two
years.

CHAP. X.] PRESBYTERIANISM. 529
of Christ ; but it was the exaggeration of their opinion : their
separation for the sake of this opinion, their actual rejection of
the authority and communion of the existing successors of the
apostles in Scotiand, and therefore of the universal church in all
ages, that marks them out as schismatics ; and all the temporal
enactments and powers of the whole world could not cure this
fault, nor render them a portion of the church of Christ. If a
party of schismatics should now separate themselves from the
communion of the church of England, and should by a fortu
nate combination of events be able to effect the temporal over
throw of the church, and their own establishment by the civil
power ; this would surely not deprive the church of her claim
to the adherence of Christians, nor cover the sins of those who
had assailed and despoiled her. This appears really to have
been the case of the Scottish church and the presbyterians ; and
therefore while we must ever deplore the condition of Scotiand,
and most earnestly desire that her people may be reunited in
religious harmony, it is impossible for us to close our eyes on
the origin of the Presbyterian Establishment in that country.
With regard to all the other sects in Scotland, which have
seceded from the Presbyterian community, such as Glassites,
Sandemanians, Seceders, Burghers, Anti-burghers, Constitu
tional Associate Presbytery, Rehef Kirk, Scottish Baptists,
Bereans, Independents, &c. ; the same observations apply to
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 churchi Consequently they
form no part of the church of Christ.
Note. — A learned friend has suggested that the statements, p. 524, as
to the continuance of episcopacy, are disputable — that the irregularities at
that time were so great, that the real episcopacy can only be dated from
1613. It is very probable indeed that the episcopate previously existing
was not a genuine episcopate, as I have intimated p. 526, 527. I only
meant to argue, that the church of England may have supposed the epis
copate of Scotland not extmct. For further remarks on Presbyterianism,
see the Supplement. END or VOL. I.

'¦ 1? 'Sc

3 9002 00571 1271

w

il!i..i^

.'H'-V'ij'

M

:i!!l

.^H!C^!'f't,