THE U^ITV OF THE CHORCH tihrary of t:he Cheolocjical ^tmimry PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY BX 8 .»L32x Lacey, T. A. 1853-1931. The unity of the church as treated by English ^be Cburcb Ibistorical Societ\>. President: — The Right Reverend M. Creighton, U.D., Lord Bishop of London. Chairman: — The Reverend W. E. Collins, Prof, of Eccl. Hist. AT King's College, London. XXXV. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. REV. T. A. LACEY, M.A. vicar of madinglev. PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE. LONDON : SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C. ; 4^, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, B.C. BRIGHTON: 129, North Street. New York : E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO. .1898. Digitized by the Internet i Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/unityofchurchastOOIace PKEFACE. The first part of this brief dissertation appeared in the Revue a nglo-romaine of June 20, 1896. Written at Rome under great pres- sure of time to meet an instant emergency, it might easily have been improved and brought into a form more suitable for English readers. It has, however, been thought wiser to republish it in English exactly as it originally appeared in French, omitting only an allusion to a personal incident which is already forgotten. The second part was to have followed immediately, but in the interval the Encyclical, Satis cognitum, on the Unity of the Church, wag issued, and it was thought unseemly to continue the treat- ment of the subject in a sense necessarily opposed to that of the papal document. The scope of the dissertation was shown to be • A 2 4 PREFACE. purely historical, the statement only of what had actually been taught in the Church of England ; but in spite of this it was held in very high quarters that the second part ought not to appear in the Review. It was accord- ingly withdrawn. In greater leisure it has been carefully revised and considerably enlarged. To those who lack opportunity for study, this little book may perhaps be useful as summarizing the teaching of the Church upon a subject which is continually in debate; with others, it will entirely fail of its object if it does not lead them to study at first hand the great masters of theology whose conclusions are here recorded. CONTENTS. PART I. VAGK § I. Introductory ....... 7 j 2. The Particularity of the English Ctiurch . . 8 I 3. T}i() Principle of Dissidence . . .10 54. The Theory of Sacramental Unity . . • '7 § 5. The Branch Theory 20 PART II. § 1. Tlie Church and the Churches .... 27 is. Tlie earlier definitions pf tlie Churcli . . 30 The Controversy of the Great Schism . 32 § 3. The question raised by the Reformation . . 34 § 4. Tlie public teaching of the English Church . 37 The Necessary Doctrine, &c. • • • 37 The Thirty-nine Artichs . . . .41 § 5. Contemporary definitions by Curialist theo- logians 43 § 6. The Reconciliation with Rome ... 47 § 7. The public teaching of the English Church 50 The Canons of 1604 ..... 50 Orrrall's I (iiiroralion Book .... 52 § 8. Th(' problem for theologians • • ■ • 55 § 9. Pole and Tunstull on the JItad of the Church . 56 Jewell's Ajxitoyia .... .60 § icx The teaching of Hooker ..... 61 §11. The teaching of the Laudinn School: Ham- mond, &('. ...... 68 Its j)ractic!il failure • • • • 73 6 CONTENTS. PAGE § 12. Tlie English Divines iinder the Calvinist oppression ...... 75 Branihall, liis Just Vindication ... 76 ,, on internal and external com- munion .... 77 ,, on essential unity ... 83 Thorndike 85 § 13. The teaching of Pearson ..... 87 The six modes of unity .... 94 § 14. Pearson on the essential unity and holiness of the Church . ' . . . -91 § 15. The practical teaching of the Restoration period ....... 99 The union of National Churches . . 104 § 16. The teaching of Barrow ..... 105 § 17. The internal unity of particular Churches . 113 Say^vell . . . . . . .114 Barrow . . . . . . .116 Beveridge . . . . . .118 § 18. Weak points in the foregoing teaching . . 122 Compulsory Uniformity .... 122 Toleration ...... 123 Occasional Conformity .... 123 The Else of Dissent .... 124 Exaggerated Nationalism . . . 126 Latitudinarianism ..... 128 § 19. Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ . . 130 § 20. Modifications of the geographical system . 142 § 21. Later developments ...... 146 Manning 146 Forbes 146 Pusey 148 § 22. Summaiy and conclusion . . . .151 THE UNITY or THE CHUECH AS TREATED BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. PART I. §1- As we say our Creed we profess our belief in one only Church. What do we mean by this unity 1 What is this one Church ? Clearl}^ we suppose ourselves to be members of it ; unless, indeed, we are using words without any present meaning, a relic of a former state of tilings, or a pious aspiration after a future development. 13ut what is this one Church of which we claim to be members ? We of the English Church are regarded by the greater part of Christendom as a separate body, com- pletely isolated. How do we regard ourselves ? (i) Do we shut ourselves up in our own com- munion, declaring that this alone is the true 8 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Church of Christ ? (2) Do we console our- selves with the fiction of an invisible Church which is one thi-oughout the world, of which the true members are known only to God ? (3) Do we picture to ourselves a number of separate societies, united only by the fact that all receive the same grace and share in the same spiritual life of the sacraments ? (4) Do we think of the one Church as com- posed of several societies or communions, loosely associated in a sort of federal union ? Here are four questions which habitually occur to those who study the Church of Eng- land from without. They may perhaps have seen or heard remarks of individuals among us which appear to suggest an affirmative answer to one or the other of these questions. I shall endeavour in the first place to show that such an affirmative answer would en- tirely misrepresent the conception of unity which prevails among Englisli theologians, and I will then try to set out this con- ception in a more positive fashion. §2. It should hardly be necessary to answer the first question. But if it be needful to show that the Church of England is regarded BY ENGLI^<H THEOLOGIANS. 9 as a part only, and a purely local part, of one whole Church, I can do this best by quoting her own most official lanjjuawe. The Preface of the Prayer Book, written at the time of the last revision in 1662, speaks of certain alterations then proposed, but i-ejected, as " secretly striking at some established doc- trine or laudable practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the ivhole Catholick Church of Christ."' And further, this particu- larity of the English Church is to be regarded as purely local or geographical. The short treatise Of ceremonies, prefixed to the Prayer Book, says expressly, '• In these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own people only : for we think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glor}-, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, with- out error or superstition." You may, if you will, call this an expres- sion of an exaggerated particularity, or of a dangerous nationalism ; but you will find no room left for the idea that the Encrlish Church claims to bo herself alone the true Church of Christ. lO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED The second question brings us face to face with the fundamental principle of the Dissidence of Dissent. According to this principle, the one true Church of Christ is not visible here on earth. It is a mystic invisible body, the members of which are known to God alone. Believers are free to band themselves together in different con- gregations ; and every such congregation forms a Visible Cliurch, which may, or may not, in- clude some members of that one Church which is the mystical Body of Christ. The external organization is purely local, accidental and temporary ; membership in it is voluntary and has no necessary relation to the spiritual life. A Christian may join himself to any such organization or may leave it as he wills. Any number of these societies may exist side by side, in friendly or hostile rivalry. It is well that they should live at peace among themselves, with mutual offices of good-will and charity, for that is a Christian duty ; but the invisible unity of the one true Church is neither injured by their quarrels nor promoted by their alliance. There is no need for them to have any formal relations with each other ; BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. II still less is it necessary or even desirable that they should submit to any common rule, adopt even approximately any common form of worship, or make any common profession of faith Some great and fundamental truths indeed they must hold in common, but even these need not be defined by all in the same terms, or should be expressed only in the terms of Scripture. I have sketched a theory of the Church which is widely held in England, still more widely in America and the English colonies, and which is not unknown among the Pro- testants of Europe. I might trace its genesis to the confusion of the Reformation, its gradual development among the English separatists, its enormous growth during the present century. It is more to the point to observe it as now in full vigour. It is the theory of the Eixingelical Alliance. It is clear that one who holds to this theory may profess his belief in One Church. He will mean the Invisible Church of which he dreams. Does the English Church leave her members free to make their profession of faith in this sense ? The Thirty-nine Articles do not directly condemn this theory. At the time of their 12 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED composition it was not yet sufficiently developed ; nor do I find that our rulers have ever taken the trouble to pronounce an ex- press judgement upon it. But at the same time the definition of the Church which is found in the Thirty-nine Articles will exclude any such idea. "Ecclesia Christi visibilis "The visible Chiircli of est coetus fidelium, in quo Christ is a congregation of verbum Dei purum praedi- faitliful men, in the which the catur, et sacramenta, quoad pure word of God is preached, ea quae necessario exiguiitur, and the sacraments be duly inxta Christi institutuin recte ministered according to a(hninistrantur.'' Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same'." This definition as read in the Latin might indeed stand for the particular and local visible Church of the theory which we are considering. But the English version, which has equal authority with the Latin, uses the ' Article xix. Compare the definition of Bellarmine, Controvers. 1. iii. de Eccltsia, c. 2 : "Nostra .sententia est ecclesiam iinam tantum esse, non duas, et illani unam et veram esse coetum hominiim eiusdem Christianae fidei profes- sione et eorundem .sacramentorura communione colligatuui sub regiiiiine legiuiitoriim pastorum ac praecipue unius Chri<ti in terris Vicarii lio iiani pontifiois." With this again compare that of Lyiidwood, the English canonist of tlie fifteenth cen- tury : " Ecclesia Christiana cum suis sacranientis et legibu-i, <liiae aliter ap[)ellatur Catholica seu Universalis, dicitur Fidelium niukitudi) fide ut caritate unita." Prov. lib. i. tit. i. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 13 definite article in a way to exclude any such interpretation. Any doubt which may remain will be set at rest by a citation from one of the authorized homilies: "The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head corner- stone. And it hath always these notes or marks whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline ^" The Church is here defined as universal and also as visible, having marks by which it may be recognized. Moreover, the Church of England has forbidden her own faithful, under pain of excommunication, to maintain the legitimacy of such freely formed congregations as are contemplated by the theory in question. The eleventh of the canons promulgated in the Synod of London in the year 1604 runs as follows : — "QuicuiKiuo ill posterum " Whoever shall hereafter affirniabit aut tuebitur ullos affinn or maintain, that tliere oonventus, <oetii8, aut con- aro within thlH rejilin other {{regationes 8iil)'litoriiui indi- meetings, assemblies, or con- genarum infra hoe rcgnum gregations of the King's born ' Homily for Whitsunilay, part ii. 14 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED existere (jiraeter eos qui ex huius regni legibus tenentur et api)robantur) qui veraruin et legitimariim ecclesiarum nomen possint sibi iure ven- dicare : excommunicetur, non nisi per Ai-chiepiscopum re- stituendus, idque postquam resipuerit, et iinpium hunc errorem puLlice revocarit." subjects, than such as by the laws of this land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to them- selves the name of true and lawful Churches ; let him be excommunicated, and not restored, but by the Arch- bishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors." In the face of this declaration it is im- possible for any one seriously to maintain that the opinion of dissidence is free to the mem- bers of the English Church. In professing their belief in One Church they cannot fall back upon the theory of an Invisible Church, consisting of members hidden in divers visible organizations. But does the teaching which is actually in force follow these lines ? We hear from time to time of priests of the Church taking part with ministers of the Protestant sects in proceed- ings of a compromising character ; we hear of them in conferences at Grindelwald and else- where, which appear to be conducted on the principle of dissidence. We find some of them engaged with the Evangelical Alliance itself. What shall we say to this ? We may admit in the first place that there BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 15 is in certain quarters a dangerous tendency to abandon the ground of principle in this respect. We may allow also that there is very widely diffused a sort of timidity, which hinders alike the plain declaration of the teaching of the Church, and the reprobation of those who offend against it. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that this timidity is due to an imperfect grasp of the truth. It is due to entirely different causes. In England we are face to face with an organized sectarianism, always aggressive, and not so very long since powerful both socially and politically. To denounce this, or even to teach definitely the truth which it opposes, is to invite virulent attacks, and a ridicule which it needs no little courage to face. But I will point out in the next place that much of our fraternization with the ministers of Protestant sects docs not in the least imply an acceptance of the principle of dissidence. It is on the contrary adopted as a means of spreading the truth. The Archbishop of York, whom no one will suspect of any unfaithful- ness to the principle of unity, invites the Protestant ministers of his diocese to his palace. It is precisely what the great Bossuet loved to do. Even those who assist at tlie l6 THE L-MTi OP THE CmTBCH AS TEKATED conferences at Grindelwald and elsewhere, find there an opportunity for driving home some truths to the a^embled sectaries. Indeed, it was at Lucerne that Mr. Hammond, Canon of TrurO; read h'ls paper on what he calk, by a painfully barbarous term, "Polychurchism." the most vigorous attack on the principle of dissidence which recent times have seen. At the Norwich Church Congress there was a long discussion on the hindrances to the reconcilia^ tion of Dissenters, when Mr. Hammond was again the protagonist, and I do not remember that a single word was said which suggested any paltering with the truth. The best witness however to the actual teaching of the Church is afforded by the Dissenters themselves. They denounce the exclusiveness of the Chtirch, the arrogance of the priesthood- They band themselves together, in spite of their mutual antagonisms, in a tinion of hatred against this one body which refuses to consort with them, and which will not so much as allow them the name of Churches. They have been working for years to drive the clergy from the schools on the express ground that they teach the children the iniquity of dissidence. If in spite of all our carefulness, our moderation our BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 17 timidity indeed, we bring these attacks upon ourselves, it is clear that "we cannot be altogether neglecting the duty of insisting on the visible unity of the Church. §4. The conception of unity implied in the third question is one, we must admit, which has great attractions for many amongst us. For them the Church throughout the world is actually and visibly one, by virtue of the one spiritual life which all its members share in common by the visible means of the sacra- ments. They may be entirely without inter- course, they may be separated from one another in sympathy, they may disagree even in matters of faith ; but being baptized into one Body, and partaking of the one Bread of Life, they are inseparably one. This unity of the Church is a natural fact, comparable to that of a family where the brothers, being born of one father, remain necessarily and indestructibly united by origin and kinship, however widely they may bo sundered by accidents of travel, by diti'erence of tastes and pursuits, or even by bitter enmities. It is unnecessary to point out the incon- veniences and inconsistences which flow from B 1 8 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED this theory if it be taken for a complete statement of the unity of the Church. My object is rather to show that, whatever partial truth it enshrines, it cannot lawfully be taken as expressing the whole meaning of our belief in One Church. My citation from the Homilies may be sufficient for this, where the right use of ecclesiastical discipline is set down as one of the notes or marks of the true Church. A community of Christians, then, who lack this, even if they enjoy the fullest possession of the sacraments, cannot be regarded as forming a part of the one Church in which we profess our belief. We shall not of course interpret the phrase rigorously, so as to conclude that a weak or faulty administration of discipline would involve a defection fi'ora the Church, but we shall be compelled to allow that the general maintenance of the constitution of the Catholic Church on its broad hnes must be required of any local organization which shall claim to be a part of the whole. The precise nature indeed of the discipline here proposed as necessary is matter for further question. The demand is mentioned here only as evi- dence that we do not make the unity of the Church rest merely on participation in the sacraments. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 19 But again, in the Visible Church, as defined in the Thirty-nine Articles, the imre word of God must be preached. As the late Bishop of Winchester pointed out in his Commentary on the Articles, the expression is not "the •word of God is purely preached," but •' the pure word of God is preached." In other words, the definition does not point to a sub- jective purity of teaching, but to the possession of an objective body of doctrine, the main truths of the Gospel, the fundamentals of Christianity, the Faith of the Church. As there is one sacramental life, so also there must be one faith, and those who do not hold this faith cannot be reckoned as within the unity of the Visible Church. The practice of the English Church in this respect can be precisely determined. At the request of the Nestorians of Persia and Kurdistan the Arch- bishop of Canterbury maintains a mission amonof them. The missionaries are forbidden to proselytize from the Nestorians, or in any way to break up or disturb their ecclesiastical order; but, on the other hand, they are not allowed to communicate with them until such time as they shall renounce their heresy and acknowledge the faith of the Church as de- fined at Ephesus. B 2 20 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED It is clear that neither the authoritative teaching nor the practice of the Church of England -will tolerate the theory which makes the essential unity of the Church consist solely in the unity of the sacramental life. §5- There is a fourth theory which is often attributed to us — an imputation founded, per- haps, on a rigorous interpretation of certain careless statements of individuals. It is com- monly known as the Branch Theory, and as such it is made the object of attack by many disputants, who expend considerable ingenuity in assailing a position which no one defends. The term Branch is indeed used in connexion with the Church by many of our best writers. They will speak of the English Branch of the Chuix-h, of the Roman or the Greek Branch. They will speak also of the French or Spanish, or of the American Branch. The distinguished Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Words- worth, was a well-known exponent of the idea set forth by this expression. But he made it perfectly plain in what sense he used it. In his Theophilus Anglicainis, discoursing On the A rt(jlican Branch of the Catholic Church, he quotes from Hooker: — "As the main BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 21 body of the sea being one, yet within divers precincts hath divei"S names, so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct societies, every one of which is termed a Church within itself ^" Thus when our writers speak of the Branches of the Church, they have in view the local divisions or branches of a homogeneous body such as the sea. The term, however, is ambiguous, and very naturally suggests the branches of a tree — a suggestion which is perhaps aided by an inaccurate association with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparing individual (Christians to the branches of the vine, or with those of St. Paul describing them as engrafted into the olive tree. Hence there results a not unfrequent extension of the figure, which represents far less accurately the constitution of the Church. For the branches of a tree, though they spring from a common stem, and derive sap from the same root, have no sort of actual communication or intercourse with each other, none of that free circulation which estabUshes a real unity between the various divisions of the sea. It is this comparison with the branches of ' Eccl. I'ol. bk. iii. uh. i. § 14. 22 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED a^tiee, and all the consequences which may be rigorously deduced from it, which some of our critics are eager to fasten upon us. We are supposed to hold that the various parts of the Church, like the branches of a tree, do indeed spring from a common stem, but are separate from each other, enjoying an entirely individual existence. We are asked ironically, if all the parts of the Church are branches, where is the stem ? We are invited to show how an individual passes from one branch to another when he changes his domicile. We reply that these questions demand of us the explication and defence of an hypothesis which we do not in the least accept. This Branch Theory is not our invention ; it is the invention of our adversaries who gra- tuitously attribute it to us. It is not for us to develop its absurdities. They are not perhaps very open-minded critics who treat us in this fashion, but, partly as a consequence of persistent misrepresenta- tion, we are in some quarters seriously sup- posed to regard the Catholic Church as con- sisting essentially of a number of separate and independent communions — the Roman, the Russo-Greek, and the Anglican, at least, even if we exclude, as heretical, the Copts and the BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 23 Armenians, and other separated Churches of the East. Our theory of the Church, on this supposition, regards each of these various communions or Churches as enjoying a cor- porate existence, as possessing a body of doctrine peculiar to itself, as endowed with a separate life and capacity of development. From this it would follow that, so far as the whole Church is one, its unity is found only in the agglomeration of these parts, essentially independent, but bound together by a loose federal tie. So loose indeed is the tie, that it does not as a matter of fact involve so much as diplomatic intercourse between the members of the union. Indeed they might rather be re- garded as so many separate kingdoms reigned over by one Divine and invisible Monarch. Now it is quite true that we do sometimes speak of the various Communions into which Christians are divided. In doing so we are merely noting an obvious fact. We in no way imply that they ought to be so divided, still less that such divisions are a necessary or essential feature of the Church's consti- tution. On the contrary we regard the fact as a deplorable one. I do not believe that a passage could be adduced from any of our writers treating this kind of division as a thing 24 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED good or even tolerable in itself. We recognize it only as a matter of fact. It is a state of things which has to be reckoned ynth for the present, and as soon as possible amended. Christians have not that perfect intercourse of charity and that perfect community of worship which they ought to have. Moreover, by reason of these differences they do actually fall into certain well-defined groups, and these groups are commonly called different Communions. The term may not be well chosen ; it might be wiser to adopt one, if possible, which should lend itself less readily to misunderstanding ; but we are not singular in the use of such inaccurate terms, nor are we conscious of giving any direct cause for misunderstanding. We use the term, then, to express a certain unhappy fact ; and we are careful not to extend its meaning beyond the precise limits of the fact. It is not these divers Com- munions that we regard as members or branches of the Catholic Church, but the local, provincial, or national Churches which are attached to one or other of them. The Church of France, the Church of Spain, are branches of the Universal Church. In one of the constitutions promulged in 1604, the BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 25 Church of England, speaking of our unhappy divisions, uses language of the most careful precision. " Tantuiii aberat ut Eccle- uia Anglicana ab Italiae, Galliae, Hispaniae, Germa- iiiae, aliisve siiiiilibus Eccle- siis voluerit per oinnia re- cedere, qiiicquid eas sciret tenere aut observare, ut . . . ceremonias illas cum reverentia susciperet, quas citra Ecclesiae incommodum ac hominum sobriorum ofifensioiiem retineri posse senserat." " So far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and re- ject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, that . . . it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which doth neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men '." It will be seen that we do not here read of the " Roman Communion " as an entity apart, but of the local Churches, within certain geo- graphical limits, which in fact hold to the communion of the Roman See. We and they are unhappily separated from each otlier in a certain manner, but when wo confess the one Church we Ijelieve that these Churches and the English Church arc equally integrating parts of the one Catholic Church. The Branch Theory, in short, does not regard tlie Catholic Church as consisting of a con- federation of several Counnunious ; it merely ' Canuu XXX. 26 THE UNITT OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED recognizes the fact that the Church is organized in provinces and groups of provinces geo- graphically circumscribed. Again, when we work or pray for the reunion of Christendom, we do not regard our object as the development of a somewhat closer federal bond between three or more independent Churches ; we desire the realiza- tion in practice of a true unity which already exists. We do not think of unity as pro- ceeding from multiplicity; we recognize the profound truth that the Church is funda- mentally and essentially one, and that from this unity proceeds the multiplicity of the local divisions. To return to the figure of speech which gives rise to this discussion, the branches of the Church are not like the branches of a tree, which have no real inter- course with each other, but like branches of the sea through which the same waters freely circulate. The divisions of Christendom we may compare to the floating boom with which the entrance to a harbour or bay is defended. It prevents the passage of ships, it hinders free communication upon the surface, but the waters flow freely beneath, and the continuity of the sea is unbi-oken. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 27 PABT II. § I- I HAVE examined and set aside four in- adequate theories of unity. I am not here concerned with their proper falsity, but only with their inadequacy as representing the sense in which we actually profess our belief in the one Church. They spring from a simple misundeistanding of terms, or they are inconsistent with certain principles of belief and practice to which the English Church firmly adheres. It remains to show in what sense we really are bound to use the words of the Creed. We believe in one Church. That is to say, there is, in the region of fact, but one Church, (,'atholic and Apostolic, to which we our- selves belong as members. We do not ex- press an opinion that something ought to be which is not ; nor yet a hope or aspiration for the future. We speak of that wliich exists, a part of the divine order. But oui- belief is in apparent contradiction to facts ; the language of the Creed conflicts with the 28 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED language of ordinary life. We habitually speak of several Churches, some of them sharply antagonistic. How, then, do we believe in one Church ? It may be as well to remove out of the way at once a mere verbal quibble. No one Hnds any difficulty in reconciling the Scriptural language about the Churches of Asia or of Judaea with the truth of the unity of the Church. They are clearly but parts of a whole, each one sharing the common name, or else contributing to the whole in a collective sense the title which is proper to each. Neither is any doubt raised when we speak at the present day of the (churches of France or Spain. The}' are known to be held straitly together in a highly centralized system. In popular but very inaccurate language they would be called parts of the Roman Church. The difficulty begins when we find several Churches holding no intercourse with each other, or exchanging only frigid salutations, more or less completely denying one another communion. I do not speak of quarrels and controversies. When Rome and Carthage, Constantinople and Alexandria, were ex- changing fierce denunciations over diver- gences of belief or practice, we may see in BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 29 the very vehemence of the dispute, in the ardour of mutual interference, a proof of un- derlying unity. But when, as now, great Churches treat each other with cool and even polite indifference, the note of unity is less easily found. Separation seems to be accepted as normal. And if there would be a difficulty even in the case of Churches geographically separated, a still greater confusion arises where the professed adherents of several Churches are locally intermingled. The difficulty is simplified for those who persuade themselves that one only of these severed parts of Christendom is the true Church, and that all the rest are fallen away from unity. It is simplified, but not solved, for there remain questions about the nature of member.ship in the Church and the con- dition of the separated, which varieties of practice have rendered singularly embarrass- ing. With these, however, I have little or nothing to do. We have not attempted such a simplification of the problem. Neither the public teaching of the English Church nor the individual teaching of English theolo- gians looks that way. We recognize the severed parts of Christendom as being truly parts of the one Church. Where, then, is the 30 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED unity ? What is the one Church in which we believe ? I have distinguished the public teaching of the Church and the individual teaching of theologians, and to this distinction it will be convenient to adhere. The theologians speak with authority only as interpreting the teaching of the Church, and, conversely, if the public teaching of the Church be obscure, it is to the common interpretation of recog- nized theologians that we must turn. §2. Controversy regarding the unity of the Church can hardly be said to have existed before the fourteenth century. There were disputes whether certain persons or certain dioceses were or were not severed from the unity of the Church, but the dispute turned upon the validity of some excommunication, or upon details which could not be regarded as belonging to the essential constitution of the Church. Of the latter kind was the con- troversy that raged in the early years of the English Church about the Celtic usages. Men fought for uniformity in details.not for essential unity. But this trivial dispute was animated by a growing idea that Rome was in some sense BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 31 the centre of unity, and that unity was to be secured only by conformity to the practice of the Roman Church. St. Wilfrid Avas indeed a precursor of St. Boniface, that English missionary who was the true leader of the centralizing movement which laid the founda- tions of the later Papacy. The idea can hardly be said to have prevailed in the time of Wilfrid, but it grew in strength from his time onward. It was not however formulated : it did not appear in the recognized definitions of the Church. The definitions of earlier times, of St. Cyprian, of Theodoret, of St. Gregory the Great, were still considered adequate. The Church was merely the AHsenihly of the faithful. So it was defined by the Pope Nicholas I ; so St. Thomas Aquinas defined it ^ On the eve of the great schism, the ' St. Cypri.an, Ep. Ixvi. 8 : " lUi sunt ecclesia plebs sacer- doti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens." Ixix. 5 ; " Gregem nostrum significat conimixtione adim<atae multitu- dinia copulatum." Theodoret in Ep. ad Eplies. i. 23; fKKXrjaiav icaKii rov avWoyov TUIV maruiv. St. Greg. Mag. E.rp. mor. in Job, lib. xix. cap. 22: " Sancta ipiippe Ecclesia sic consistit u&itate Fidcliuin sicut corpus nostrum nnitutn est couipage meuibrorum." Nic. I. in Deer, de L'oiisecratiune, dist. i. cap. \'iii : " Kcclt'sia, id est, catliolicorum cougregatio." The only place in the genuine writings of St. Thomas 32 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Franciscan Nicholas de Lyra loosely described the Church as consisting of those in whom is the knowledge and genuine confession of the faith and the truth, without regard to eccle- siastical power and dignity K It was coming to be thought, however, that communion with the Roman See was the test of unity. The bull Unam Sanctam gave coherence to the idea. When therefore the Great Schism broke out on the election of Urban VI in 1378, when for forty years there were two men, and at times three, each claiming to be the true occupant of the Holy See, the nature of the unity of the Church necessarily became matter of controversy. But where I can find anything answering to a formal definition of the Church is S- T. iii. qu. 8. art. 4, where he seems to treat the phrase Congregatiojidelium as a sufficient definition. The following, however, from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, has considerable interest : " Cum Ecclesia Dei sit sicut civitas, est aliquod unum et distinctum. ... In qualibet autem civitate ad hoc ut sit unum quattuor debent esse comniunia ; scilicet uiius giibernator, una lex, eadem insignia, et idem finis." On this he builds the unity of the Church, "quae est una; primo, quia liabet diicem unum, scilicet, Christum," &c. Comment, in EpJus. c. iv. lect. ii. ' De Lyra, in Matt. xvi. i8: "Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae vel saeculari.s, quia multi Principes et Summi Pontifices et alii inferiores invent! sunt apogtatasse .a fide, propter quod eccU'sia consistit in illis persouis in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei et veritatis." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 33 the controversy was smothered. The fiercer partisans of each Pope might claim that with them alone was the one true Church. Moderate men sought a practical solution. The Western Church was reunited in the Council of Constance by a practical expedient. Under the direction of the Council, the cardinals nomi- nated by three rival popes combined to elect Martin V; visible unity was for a time restored, but the question remained undetermined, wherein the true unity of the Church consisted. During all this period the English Church was disturbed by the same difficulties, and calmed by the same practical solution as the rest of Western Christendom. It may be as well, however, to note what was done in England at the time when the difficulties of the Schism reached their height. In 1416 there were three claimants to the Papacy. The English Church recognized none of them. Three sees were vacant, which in the ordinary practice of the age could not be filled without Bulls from Rome ; in this emergency the Archbishop of C/anterbury, fortified by royal support, filled the sees by his metropolitic authority It is plain that Chichele recog- nized the lawfulness, under proper circum- ' See the king's wriU in Kymer, ix. 337, 338. 0 34 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED stances, of independent provincial action, without the authority of the Roman See. On the election of Martin V, the English Church returned without question to its former rela- tions with the Papacy. Thus the controversy of the Great Schism was without result. The definitions of the Church put forward even by Curialist theo- logians were as wide and indeterminate as before. The Cardinals de Cusa and de Turre- cremata, the English Lyndwood, and others, were content to define it as the Congregation of the Faithfid, sometimes with a vague attempt to identify the members, sometimes with the significant addition that Christ is the Head ^ §3- Such was the state of theological opinion when the storm of the Reformation broke ' Jo. de Turreciemata, Summa de Ecclesia, lib. i. cap. i, thus defines the Church fecniidum rem: "Est enim catho- liconim sive fidelium coUeclio." Just below, however, he adds : " Sive Ecclesia est universitas fidelium qui uniug veri Dei cultu, unius fidei professione oonveniunt." Nic. Cusanus, de Concordantia Calholica, lib. i. cap. I : " Ut per harinoniam quandaiu virtutura ac ministeriorum corpus unum, ex omnibus rationatilis naturae spiritibus, adhaereat capiti siio Christo." For Ljndwood, see p. 12, note ; and compare the defini- tions given below, pp. 43-46. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 35 upon the Western Church. Within a very few years the partisans of Luther were called upon to formulate a theory of the constitution of the Church and its essential unity. They took a new departure, and they had to justify it. A little later the Swiss and the Genevese were subject to the same necessity'. I have no immediate concern with their theories ; they affected the opinions of certain English- men, but only as any treatment of an eagerly debated subject was bound to do so. The question which the English Church had to face was different from that which pressed upon the Protestants and the Swiss Reformers. The English Church as a body put aside the jurisdiction of the Roman See, as then usually exercised. Here the question was not whether individual Christians were cuttinij themselves off from the unity of the Church, but whether unity was destroyedby a rupture of the existing relations between certain parts of the Church. The question was not to be evaded. When the English Church, at the instance of Henry VI n, began to act independently of the Papacy, the cry of broken unity was at once raised. Reginald Pole wrote his Defence of the Unify of the Church, an epistle to Henry, which he soon afterwards published. Roundly 36 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED accusing the king of schism, he made his meaning the clearer by founding his accu- sation mainly on the title of Supreme Head. The one head of the Church on earth, he said, was the Roman Pontiff, and the unity of the Church consisted in subordination to him ; to set up another head was to make another Church. Pole's language was rhetorical and exaggerated as usual ; his later action at the time of the reconciliation shows that it must be read with some qualification ; he did not clearly distinguish, as indeed theologians had not yet learnt to distinguish between the external oneness of the Church and its internal unity ; but he raised a question, the practical meaning of which was clear. He was answered as clearly. Starkey and Tun- stall replied that England was in no sense departing from the unity of the Church. The issue was definitely joined. From this time forward the position of the English Church was formally taken up, to be abandoned only for a few years under pressure of circumstances. But so far the position is only a negative one. To remain in the unity of the Church it is not necessary to submit to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontift'. What of the positive teaching ? BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 37 §4. I shall consider first the public teachiag of the English Church. The pressure of con- troversy and the turmoil of the reformation movement made it necessary, in England as elsewhere, to put out some definitions of the truths that were most called in question. The English Church did this, rather hurriedly perhaps, in 1537, by publishing the book entitled The Inditution of a Chridian Man. Carefully revised, it was put forth again in J 543 under the title of A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, and, though popularly known as The Kings Book, it was issued with the full synodical authority of the Church. In the exposition of the ninth article of the Creed, the Church is defined as — " An assembly of people called out from other, as from infidels and heathens, to one faith and confession of the name of Christ." Of this Church Christ is the only Head, and therefore it is Holy, by reason of His holiness. It is also Catholic, " that is to say, not limited to any one place or region of the world." There are therefore several Churches in divers parts of the world having distinct ministers, and divers heads in earth." The unity of the 38 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Churcli is nevertheless intact. " Yet be all these holy Churches but one holy Church Catholic, invited and called by one God the Father to enjoy the benefit of redemp- tion wrought by one only Lord and Saviour Jesu Christ, and governed by one Holy Spirit, whicli teacheth to this foresaid holy Church one truth of God's holy word in one faith and baptism." It is then argued that the recog- nition of one supreme governor in earth is not necessary for preserving unity, and there follows a passage on the true nature of unity, which I must transcribe at length : — " The unity therefore of the Church is not conserved by the Bishop of Rome's authority or doctrine : but the unity of the Catholic Church which all Christian men in this article do profess, is conserved and kept by the help and assistance of the Holy Spirit of God, in ]-etaining and maintaining of such doctrine and profession of Christian faith, and true observance of the same, as is taught by the Scripture and the doctrine apostolic. And particular Churches ought not in the said doctrine so accepted and allowed, to vary one from another for any lucre, arrogance, or any other worldly affection, but inviolably to observe the same, so that by reason of that BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 39 doctrine each Church that teacheth the same may be worthily called (as it is indeed) an apostolic Church, that is to say, following such teaching as the Apostles preached, with minis- tration of such sacraments as be approved b}' the same. " And this unity of the holy Church of Christ is not divided by distance of place nor by diversity of traditions and ceremonies, diversely observed in divers Churches, for good order of the same. For the Churches of Corinth and of Ephese were one Church in God, though the one were far distant in place from the other : and though also in traditions, opinions, and policies there was some diversity among them, likewise as the Church of England, Spain, Italy, and Poole ^ be not separate from the unity, but be one Church in God, notwith- standing that among them there is great dis- tance of place, divei'sity of traditions, not in all things unity of opinions, alteration in rites, ceremonies, and ordinances, or estimation of the same, as one Church peradventure doth esteem their rites, traditions, laws, ordinances, and ceremonies to be of more vix'tue and efficacy than another Church doth esteem the same. As the Church of Rome doth affirm certain ' i.e. Polaud. 40 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED of their laws and ordinances to be of such estimation that they be of equal force with the word of God, and that whosoever disobeyeth or transgresseth the same committeth de<adly sin ; yet we, perceiving the same to be dis- crepant from the truth of Scripture, must needs therein dissent from them. But such diversity in opinions, and other outward manners and customs of policy, doth not dis- solve and break the unity which is in one God. one faith, one doctrine of Christ and His sacraments, preserved and kept in these several Churches without any superiority or pre-eminence, that one Church by God s law may or ought to challenge over another This teaching on the Unity of the Church became ingrained in English theology ; the very words of the passage here cited find a continual echo in later utterances. The formal definition of the Church, however, given above, was clearly inadequate, and was soon improved. In 1552, at the time when the influence of the Swiss Reformers was working most disastrously in England, a new definition was adopted, which, so far from bearing the marks of that influence, difters ' The King^s Book. Reprint by Rrowniiig, 1S95. pp. 24-27. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 41 from the older one only in being more precise. Forty-two Articles of Religion were then put forth, under the pretended authority of Con- vocation. The twentieth of these was iden- tical with the nineteenth of the Thirtj'-nine Articles finally adopted by the Synods of 1562. I have already quoted this, but I repeat the text here for the sake of convenience : — " Ecclesia Chiisti visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei puruui praefli- catur, et sacranienta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte adniinistrantur." "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which tlie pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly fliinistered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." In this definition there are seven points to be noticed, (i) The Church here spoken of, as I have shown above, is that one universal Church which is rightly called Catholic. (2) This universal Church, spread throughout the world, is visible, and therefore, since it is exhibited to sense or to the understanding as one, it follows that the unity itself also miist be visible. (3) It is a congregation, that is to say, it consists of a number of individuals, who are bound together in some special way. (4) It is a congregation of faitliful men, that 42 THE UNITY OF THE CHUBCH AS TREATED is of men who profess a cei-tain faith, and are known thereby. (5) In this Church the pure xvord of God is preached, or the sum of revealed truth. (6) The sacraments also are ministered in this Church ; and the sacra- ments — to quote another of the Thirty-nine Articles — are " not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace ^" ; and among them Baptism is " a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church ^ " ; whence it follows that the Church consists only of the baptized. (7) Lastly, the sacraments must be duly ministered, with all that is necessary for carrying out the ordinance of Christ ; and therefore any professing themselves Christians who fall short of this requirement are so far alien from the one Church. But, further, the notion of ministering includes the idea of a certain control, and therefore the ministers of the sacraments must exercise some discipline ; ^ Art. XXV : " Sacramenta a Christo instituta non tantuni sunt notae professionis Christianoruin, sed cei'ta quaedaiu potius testimonia et efficacia sigua gratiae." * Al t. xxvii : " Baptismua . . . est signuni regenerationis, per quod, tanquam per instrumentum, recte Baptieiuum sua- cipientes Ecclesiae iuseruntur." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 43 and since, according to these same Articles, it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of ministering the sacraments, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same ^, it follows that the true Church must be established under the rule of lawful pastors. §5- I have thought it well to analyze the whole of this definition, though it contains no actual reference to the note of unity, because upon the essential constitution of the Church depends the nature of its unity. But in the definition itself there is nothing peculiar, nothing to mark the standpoint of English theology. It corresponds closely to those that Avere current in the fifteenth century and earlier ; con- temporary theologians, even among those who strenuously supported the claims of the Roman Pontiff, were content with a similar form. Fisher, indeed, in controversy with Oecolam- padius, fell back upon the simplest definition^. ' Art. xxiii : " Non licet cuiquam sumere eibi muinis publice praedicandi, aut iidiniiiistraiuli Bacrameuta in Eccle- eia, nisi prius fiierit ad haec ubeunda legitime vountus et misBua." ^ Fisher, Contra Oecolampadiuin, Praef. ad lib. iv. ail Jiiiem : '• Quid est Ecclesia Catliolica, niai corpus unum ex plebe patribusque coUectutn, ubicumque fuerint per orbeiii aparsi ? " 44 THE UNITY OF THE C'HURCH AS TREATED Albertus Pighius, face to face with the divisions that were racking the Church, distinguished the true part from the false merely as that which kept the true faith and worshipped the true God with true religion^. Michael Bucchinger proposed three alternative defini- tions of the Church, the longest and fullest being as follows : "A congregation of faithful men agreeing in one and the same doctrine of the Gospel according to the consent of the holy fathers, and in the same catholic and lawful administration of the sacraments Stapleton was among the most vigorous con- ' nierarchiae Eccledasticae Assertio, lib. i. cap. I : " Ut evidens faciamus quaenam sit Christi Ecclesia, ab ipsa nominis notione exordiendum est. Ecclesia itaque Latine multitudinem, coetuni, aut conventuin significat. . . . Seil quoniam et vera est et falsa de Deo fides, vera falsaque religio, veri Dei falsornmque deorum cultus, hie statim in duo e dianietro se secat Ecclesia, videlicet in Ecclesiani sanctam, quae rectam de Deo fidem servat, vera religione verum Deum colit et adorat, et ab eo salutem suam ex- spectat; et in earn quae dicta omnia non habet sincera ac recta, sed vel in omtiibiis vel in aliquo eorum aberrat." ^ Bucchinger, Hist. Eccl., Moguntiae, 1560, p. i. His definitions are as follows : — 1. " Ecclesia Catholica niilitans est sanctorum communio, sen congregatio, couiplectens tam bonos quam males. 2. Ecclesia est multitude vel coll«ctio fidelium fide et caritate unita. 3. Ecclesia est congregatio fidelium consentientium in unam ac eandem evangelii doctrinam, secundum conso- BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 45 troversialists on the papal side, yet his defini- tion goes no further. "The word Ecdesia," he saj s, " means nothing else but the whole multitude of the faithful scattered throughout the world." Coming to close quarters with the Calvinist opinion that the elect belong to the Church even before Baptism, he requires something more precise, and produces the fol- lowing definition: "The Church is a society of those that profess the name of Christ, gathered and lawfully ordered in the unity of the faith and sacraments." Elsewhere he makes one of several modes of unity consist in submission to the Roman see ^. Estius, when nantiam sanctorum patruin et in eundein Catholicum ac legitiinum sacrainentorum ritura." It is noteworthy that Bncchinger, while qualifying the universal Church as Jtomanu, formally treats the source of its unity {Ecclesiae Vnitaa mule, p. 4) without any mention of the Pope. He attributes it exclusively to the immediate action of the Holy Ghost. " Sed unde Ecclesiae ea unitas, et sibi per omnia secula consentiens ? Ex Spiritu unicae veri- tatis uiiico. Spirituiii ilium Christus (imago Dei inconspicui) suae Ecclesiae, non solum consolatorem, sed et rectorem, et omnigenae veritatis doctorem promigit." Compare above, p. 38. * Stapleton, 7?e?ec<io t>cholastica,kc. Controv. I. <le Eec-le- sia in xe. Qu. i, " Vox Ecclesiae nihil aliud quam universam fidelium multitudinem toto orbe di.sper.sam significat." Qu. ii. art. 3, " Ecclesia est iirmissime una per connexionein oumium membrorum tam superiorum et pastorum ipsorum immediate, 46 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED expressly distinguishing between Calvinist and Catholic definitions of the Church, states the latter as follows : " The society of those who are held together by a right faith and the sacraments At length the mention of the Roman Pontiff began to creep into the definitions of the Church. The Dominican Banes propounded two definitions — one by which all the baptized, orthodox and heretical alike, were included in the Church ; another by which it was "A visible congregation of faithful men baptized under one head Christ in heaven, and His Vicar on earth From the time of Bellarmine the definition has always taken this form in Curialist writers. It was however a novelty, and was strongly opposed by many quam alioruni onmiuin mediate, sub uno primario capite Petri succe?sore et Cbristi Vicario." Qu. v. art. i, "Ecclesia est societas Christi nomen profitentium in unitate fidei et sacramentorum collecta atque legitime ordinata." ' Estius in Matt, xviii : " Controversia est inter Catholicos et haereticos, quid nomine Ecclesiae intelligcndum sit. .Joannes Hiis et eum secuti haeretici nostri teni ports de- finiunt Eccles\Rm,Praedestin(iiorutn universitatem. Catholici definiunt Societatem eorum qui per rectam Jidem et sacra- menla sibi midtto cohaereiit." Banes, Comment, in Sec. Sec. qu. i.art. 10: "Congregatio honiinum fidelium baptizatorum visibilis sub uno capite Christo in caelis, et Vicario eius 'tn terris." Ed. 1615, toni. iii. p. 45. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 47 of the Gallican school. It is a very significant fact that the definition adopted by the English Church is practically identical with those put forward by many supporters of the Papacy, and employed by them for the express purpose of combating Calvinism. §6. After some nineteen years of independence, the Church of England submitted once more to the Roman see. The reconciliation was certainly carried out under pressure from the Crown, but none the less it seems to have been the genuine act of the Church. The very men, such as Tunstall, Gardiner, and Bonner, who had been foremost in advocating the rupture of relations, were foremost also in restoring them. They had seen the Church, during the later years of Edward VI, rushing headlong, as it seemed, into Zwinglianism and other heresies. In a sort of despair they turned to the Roman obedience as the only sure defence of unity and orthodoxy. They did not shrink from saying precisely what they had formerly denied, that the English Church had fallen from unity. In 1554 the clergy of the Province of Canterbury in Con- vocation addressed a petition to the bishops, 48 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED referring to their " godly forwardness ... in the restitution of this noble Church of England to her pristine state and unity of Christ's Church, which now of late years hath been grievously infected with heresies, perverse and schismatical doctrine sown abroad in this realm by evil preachers ^" The language is guarded, and very different from that of Pole in his Defence of Unity. While acknowledging a certain lapse from unity, the clergy claimed to be still members of the nohle Church of England. It was not the essential unity of the Church that was broken, otherwise they could make no such claim ; it was some ex- ternal, accidental unity. We can trace what was in their mind. In the course of their petition they call the English Prayer Book a schisviatical book ^. In this they anticipate the language used by Cole in the discussion of 1 559, when he declared that the substitution of an English for the Latin service »would involve a breach of unity, a horrible schism and division. His argument shows that he meant nothing more than a serious divergence in practice fi-om the rest of the Church ^ ; his ' Canlwell, Synodalia, p. 433. - Ibid. p. 434. ' Cardwell, Cciiferences, p. 66. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 49 opponents answered him by asserting the right of every particular Church to vary ceremonies, arguing, with quotations from Irenaeus and Augustine, that such variation does not involve any breach of peace and unity ^ The schism complained of in 1554 was of this nature. It meant a needless and therefore a mischievous variation from the general practice of Christen- dom. In 1555, when the reconciliation with Rome was effected, and the English Church was fairly in the grip of the Legate, we find a closer approximation to Curialist language. Bonner, in his declaration to the people of London concerning the reconciliation, spoke of " this noble realm of England dividinsr itself from the unity of the Catholic Church, and from the agreement in religion with all other Christian realms 2." Pole, in the first decree of his Legatine Council, used similar but even more emphatic words''. The English Church, during the Marian j-eaction, un- doubtedly looked to the Roman see as the centre of unity; but this was probably in regard not so much to the essential unity of ' Cardwell, Conferences', pp. 79-82. ' Cardwell, 'Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 170. ' Ibid. p. 176: " Hoc regnum, quod a corpore catholicae Ecclesiae Beparatum erat, iam Dei misericordia ad eins uni- tateiu rediit." •D 50 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the Cliurcb as to the practical maintenance of unity and concord in Christendom. §7- I have already shown, when speaking of the Branch Theory, that in the thirtieth canon of the Code of 1604 the English Church definitely repudiated the idea of having separated essentially from the other local Churches of the West^ There were great and serious differences, but these were not to be taken as involving a breach of unit}'. In the same Code there is included a con- stitution which is often put forward as indi- cating that in this unity were to be included, on equal terms, the organizations created in various countries by the Protestant or Cal- vinist reformers. The fifty-fifth Canon requires all preachers to bid prayer in a form beginning as follows : Ye shall pray for Christ's holy Catholick Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland." But, we are told, the Church of Scotland at this period was a Calvinist bod}', organized on a Presbyterian basis. Therefore, * Above, p. 25. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. according to this Canon, such bodies were to be regarded as forming regular parts of the Catholic Church. The argument is a striking instance of the transfer to other times of ideas proper to our own time. We are familiar with the long-established, permanent settlement of Presbyterianism. We readily forget that in the early seventeenth century there was no such thing. In Scotland the Church had been harried by Calvinism, precisely as the Puritans had endeavoured to harry the Church of England under Elizabeth. The whole eccle- siastical order had been thrown into confusion ; the bishops were all departed, and their places were filled, if at all, by mere titular holders of the temporalities. But the Church of Scotland had not, therefore, ceased to exist. However disorganized, it was none the less rightly to be aided, alike by prayer and by more active benevolence. The same Fathers of the English Church who bade prayer for the Church of Scotland took order also, at the earliest oppor- tunity, for supplying the Church of Scotland with what she lacked. In 16 lo the titular Scottish bishops received consecration in England, and were charged with the restora- tion of the ruined discipline of their Church. Nor is it only by this subsequent action that 52 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED we may determine the regard in which the Church of Scotland was held when robbed of her hierarchy. A later session of the same Con- vocation supplies a further doctrinal witness. In 1606 the Provincial Synods of Canter- bury and York adopted a most elaborate declaration concerning the government of the Church. It was divided into three books and sixty chapters, the doctrine of each chapter being for the most part digested into a eanon. Owing to the opposition of the king these canons were not promulged, but many years afterwards they were published, with their chapters, under the misleading title of OveralVs Convocation Book. The fifth canon of the second book contains the fol- lowing condemnation : — If any man shall affirm, under colour of anything that is in the Scriptures, either that our Saviour Christ tvas not the head of tJie Church from the beginning of it ; or, that all the particular churches in the world are otherwise to he termed one Church, than as He Himself is the head of it^, and as all the ' It would be stretching the sense of the canon too far to make it mean that this is the only mode or ground of unity. It is treating e.r professo of tlie f/overnmeid of the Church, and deals with only that one element of unity. Compare the quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas given above, p. 32. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 53 particular kingdoms in the world are called but one kingdom, as He is the only king and monarch of if; or, that our Saviour Christ hcdh not appointed under Him several ecclesiastical governors to rule and direct the said particu- lar churches, as He hath appointed several kings and sovereign princes to ride and govern their i^everal kingdoms ;' . . . he doth greatly err. The unity of the Church is here made precisely parallel to the unity of human society. It depends upon the One Head, from whom inferior rulers immediately derive their authority. Unity is at once organic and hierarchical. Human society is an organic unity, of which Chri.st is the Head, and all princes and magistrates are His vicegerents, ruling by His authority. The Church is also organic unity, gathered out of all mankind, of which Christ is again the one Head, and the bishops throughout the world are His vicars. In the chapter prefixed to this canon it is ex- pressly taught that Christ Himself immediately upon the Fall of Man, " not only began the erection of that one Church, selected people, and society of believers, which ever since hath been, and so shall continue His blessed Spouse for ever ; but also took upon Him thenceforth and for ever to be the sole' monarch and hca<l 54 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED of it, ruling and governing the same visibly by such priests and ministers under Him, as in His heavenly wisdom He thought fit to appoint " ; and that, when the fullness of time was come, He also " did, by the direc- tion of the Holy Ghost and ministry of His Apostles, ordain in the New Testament that there should be in every national Church some ministers of an inferior degree to instruct His people in every particular parochial church or congregation ; and over them bishops of a superior degree, to have a care and inspection over many such parochial churches or congregations, for the better ordering as well of the ministei's as of the people within the limits of their jurisdiction; and lastly, above them all, archbishops, and in some especial places patriarchs, who were first themselves, with the advice of some other bishops, and when kings and sovereign princes became Christians, then with their especial aid and assistance, to oversee and direct, for the better peace and government of every such national Churches, all the bishops and the rest of the particular Churches therein established ^" ' Overall's CoHVOcadon Book, pp. 124, 128, edit. Oxford, 1844. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 55 We may see here some crude and doubtful history. Wfe may be amazed at the confidence with which Divine authority is claimed for the formal organization of National Churches. But the very exaggeration of the language serves to emphasize the doctrine thus publicly taught, that one only Church was established by Christ Himself, an organic whole and unity, of which the several National or Provincial Churches are only administrative divisions. With this I conclude my survey of the public teaching of the English Church. §8. How does the existing state of Christendom answer to this teaching ? What sort of unity can we recognize in the Church, so divided as we see it ? Where is the one Church in Avhich we believe? The synodical teaching which we have reviewed takes little count of exist- ing divisions. Indeed, in the sixteenth century those divisions had not the appearance of permanence which they now have. Men were confronted, as they thought, with a pass- ing difficulty ; patience would find a solution. The continuance of division has compelled theologians to face, and gradually to answer, questions which the public teaching of the 56 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Church passes by. It is useless to define the one Church in terms which point to nothing now visible on earth, which may correspond to the experience of some golden age in the past, or to something which the providence of God has in store for the future, but which has no relation to existing facts. What is the unity of the Church now, and how is it to be recognized ? Does it exist ? Is it per- fect or impaired? What is needed for its perfection ? W^e must turn to the writings of theolo- gians. What have we learnt during the last three centuries? We ma}'^ expect to find a growincr consciousness of difficulties, and if the matter is not inscrutable, then also a growing clearness of definition. I shall refer to some few writers only, choosing those who enjoy the highest reputation, and who are most characteristic of their several periods. § 9- Cardinal Pole, as we have seen above, at- tacked Henry VIII for breaking the unity of the Church. He made it perfectly clear what he meant. In the Apologia ad Angliae Par- liamentum, prefixed to his work on Unity, he insists that for the presei-vation of unity BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 57 there must be one Chief Pastor of the Church Militant, even as there is one only Head of the Church Triumphant, and this Chief Pastor is the Roman Pontiff ^ His whole argument turns on the assumption by the king of the title of Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, the attainment of which title he recklessly takes to be the chief object of Henry's breach with the papacy^. An attack delivered in this vein was not a difficult one to answer. It was easy to show that the title adopted by the king made no inroad upon the unity of the Church, but merely indicated a certain legal relation between the prince and that part of the one Church which was locally established in his dominions. Such, in fact, was the tenor of the replies actually made. Before publishing his book ' " Quoil ;ul unitatuin Ecclesiae attiiiet, ut sit umis Faster in Ecclesia inilitaiiti nd exemplar triuiiiphantis, quain per- sonam J'uiUifex Romanus gtrit." I'uli Epist. Pars. i. p. 187. ' " Ut cniin te Hupremiim caput Ecclesiae in regno tiio conHtitueres, negasti unum in univerta Ecclesia caput esse," I'ro Uiiilale, fol. 3 a. edit. Argentorati, 1555. A little above he speiika of the overthrow of the papal jurisdiction as the greatest injury that could he done to the Church : " Dico igitur, dico hanc ahs te iniuriam Kccleniac inferri, ijua haud Bcio an major potuerit, (|uod suuui illi caput in terris aufers, cum I'oiilificem Uonuiii'im unicuni iu terris Ecclesiae caput et Christi Yicarium no^as." 58 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Pole sent a copy of it to the king, who placed it in the hands of Tunstali for examination. Tunstall replied in a long letter to Pole, answering his chief objections, and earnestly dissuading him from publication. I am con- cerned here, not so much with the intrinsic value of the bishop's argument, as with his presentment of the English case. He em- phatically denies the breach of unity, and shrewdly points out that Pole himself makes no attempt to prove it, but assumes it throughout. " Your purpose," writes Tunstall, "is to bring the king's grace, by penance, home unto the Church again, as a man clearly separate from the same already. And his recess from the (yhurch 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, and do conjecture every man as they list (blindly) of things unknown to them. " Ye presuppose, for a ground, the king's grace to be swerved from the unity of Christ's Church ; and that in taking upon him the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England, he intendeth to separate his Church of England from the unity of the whole body of BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 59 Christendom. . . . His full pui-pose and intent is, to see the laws of Almighty God purely and sincerely practised and taught, and Christ's faith without blot kept and observed in his realm ; and not to separate himself or his realm anywise from the unity of Christ's Catholic Church, but inviolably, at all times, to keep and observe the same, and to reduce his Church of England out of all captivity of foreign powers heretofore usurped therein, into the pristine state that all Churches of all realms were in at the beginning \" Tunstall states the English position clearly enough. " We believe,'' he says in effect, "in the one Church, and in the unity of that Church we abide." But he does not, any more than Pole, prove his case by argument. It was the same with Henry's other apologists. Sampson accumulated precedents for the king's action from Scripture, from the acts of the councils, from ecclesiastical history. The inference was that if such action in the past had not broken the unity of the Church, neither did the king's action now. But with the fundamental (juestion as to the true nature of ecclesiastical unity every one fenced. The ' TunBtall to Pole; Burnet, Becurds, Piirt III. book iii. no. 52 (^Pocock's edition, vol. vi. p. 177 seqci.). 6o THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS ^TREATED controvei'sies of the Great Schism were not yet forgotten, and he was a bold man who would venture on a definition. Pole indeed had the advantage here. He did not venture on defining the unity of the Church as con- sisting essentially in subordination to the Roman Pontiff, but he was certainl}'' feeling his way to this, and, as we have seen, within a few years this definition began to appear in books, and was finally adopted by all the theologians of the Roman schools. This idea •was behind Pole's argument and gave it a certain coherence. His adversaries apparently had no clear idea with which to encounter it. The same weakness appears in the defenders of the English Church for some time after- wards. They stoutly repel the charge of schism ; but they do not explain the nature of the unity which they defend. Jewel, in his famous Apologia, has a noble passage on the one Church in which we believe, not confined like that of the Old Testament to the circumscription of a single nation, but spread throughout the world, in the sense that no part of the human race is excluded ; but when he has to speak of the actual state of things he becomes at once hazy and irrelevant. He distinguishes vaguely between separating BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 6l from a part of the Church and separating from its en-ors and faults, without an}^ at- tempt to determine the nature of the union which remains ; he builds upon our unity with the whole of the Church in its best age ; he has nothing to say about the corporate or organic unity of the Church that now is. § lo. These were arguments of hard-pressed con- troversialists. Controversy was not .to be silent for many years to come, but our next author is one who had the extraordinary merit of placing even trivial disputes upon a broad and philosophic foundation. Hooker, brought up under Calvinistic influences, freed himself gradually from them as he became the cham- pion of the Church against the Puritans. In earlier days he could still speak of the invisible Church in the sense of Calvin, "that body mystical whereof Christ is the only head, that building undiscernible by mortal eyes, wherein Chi'ist is the chief corner-stone," and contrast with it "the visible Church, the foundation whereof is the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles profest'." In his mature work he ' Sermon II. § 23. This sermon was preached in tlie firBt year of Hooker's MaBtership of tlie Temple, 1585 6. See the note ta Kebleu edition- of the Workg, vol. iii. p. 483. 62 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED maintains with a wealth of argument the essential unity of the visible Church, no less than of the invisible. I will quote him at some length : — " When we read of any duty which the Church of God is bound unto, the Church whom this doth concern is a sensibly known company. And this visible Chuich in like sort is but one, continued from the first beginning of the world to the last end. Which company being' divided into two moieties, the one before, the other since the coming of Christ ; that part, which since the coming of Christ partly hath embraced and partly shall here- after embrace the Christian religion, we term as by a more proper name the Church of Christ. And therefore the Apostle affirmeth plainly of all men Christian, that be they Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, they are all incorporated into one company, they all make but one body. The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ consisteth in that uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one Faith which they all acknowledge, that one Baptism wherewith they arc all initiated. The visible Church of Jesus Christ BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 63 is therefore one, in outward profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity, and are necessarily required in every particular Chris- tian man/' A little below he adds : " Although we know the Christian faith and allow of it, yet in this respect we are but entering ; entered we are not into the visible Church before our admit- tance by the door of Baptism." He seems to allow no mark of membership in the one Church but that of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. " For apparent it is, that all men are of necessity either Christians or not Christians. If by external profession they be Christians, then are they of the visible Church of Christ ; and Christians by external pro- fession they are all, whose mark of recog- nizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned." He argues that even heretics are in some sort, though a maimed part, yet a part of the visible Church." Their baptism is allowed, and the honour of martyrdom is not denied them. They are .separated " not altogether from the company of believers, but from the fellowship of sound believers. For where professed unbelief is, there can be no visible Church of Christ; there may be, where 64 THE UNITY OP THE CHURCH AS TREATED sound belief wanteth." Even the act of ex- communication, he says, " neither shutteth out from tlie mystical, nor clean from the visible, but only from fellowship with the visible in holy duties It is clear that he here recognizes in the Church a soi't of organic unity which is of God, and is altogether independent of the wills and the human actions of the individual members of the Church. He then passes on to a different aspect of unity. " For preserva- tion of Christianity there is not anything more needful, than that such as are of the visible Church have mutual fellowship and society one with another." Here follows that passage, already quoted, in which particular Churches are compared to branches of the sea ; and the visible unity of all these is further founded on the common possession of certain marks or properties. " As therefore they that are of the mystical body of Christ have those inward graces and virtues, whereby they differ from all others, which are not of the same body ; again, whosoever appertain to the visible body of the Church, they have also the notes of eternal profession, whereby the world knoweth what they are : after the same ' Eccl. Pol. bk. iii. ch. i. §§ 3, 6, 7, 11, 13. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 65 manner even the several societies of Christian men, unto every of which the name of a Churc h is given with addition betokening severalty, as the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, England, and so the rest, must be endued with correspondent general properties belonging unto them as they are public Christian societies. And of such properties common unto all societies Christian, it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical PoUty \" By this expression he means the general order and government of the Church as ap- pointed by God -. Thus he makes the visible unity of the Church depend of necessity on the maintenance of lawful authority. On the constitution of this lawful authority he is not very explicit. The scope of his work did not demand this. Great as are its positive merits, Hooker's work on the Lcnvs of Ecdemistiml Polity is primarily a defence of the Church of England against the Puritans. These main- tained that no form of Church government is lawful or tolerable save what is explicitly set forth in Holy Scripture, and further, that all the teaching of Scripture on this point had ' Keel. Vol. bk. iii. ch. i. § 14. ' Il.id. ch. ii. §• I. E 66 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED been precisely ascertained and put in practice by the Calvinists of Geneva. The Genevan settlement was therefore the only tolerable form of Church order, and those bodies only which conformed to it were any part of the true visible Church of Christ. Against this contention Hooker had not to prove that any other form of government was essential ; in doing so he would have fallen into the argu- mentative blunder of attempting to prove too much. It was sufficient for his purpose to show that all the particulars of ecclesiastical polity are not explicitly contained in Holy Scripture ; many features, which are no less truly of God. may be derived from other sources. He had to defend the Catholic discipline received and established in the Church of England. It was not necessary, even if he had thought it right, to attack the Genevan discipline as actually unlawful. It must not however be supposed that Hooker allowed unlimited freedom in this matter to particular Churches. In that case the unity of discipline would disappear. " Dissimilitude in great things," he says, " is such a thing which draweth great inconveni- ence after it, a thing which Christian religion must always carefully prevent. And the way BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 67 to prevent it is, not as some do imagine, the yielding up of supreme power over all Churches into one only pastor's hands ; but the framing of their government, especially for matter of substance, everywhere according to the rule of one only Law, to stand in no less force than the law of nations doth, to be received in all kingdoms, all sovereign rulers to be sworn no otherwise unto it than some are to maintain the liberties, laws, and re- ceived customs of the country where they reign. This shall cause uniformity even under several dominions, without those woe- ful inconveniences whereunto the state of Christendom was subject heretofore, through the tyranny and oppression of that one uni- versal Nimrod who alone did all. And, till the Christian world be driven to enter into the peaceable and true consultation about some such kind of general law concerning those things of weight and moment wherein now we differ, if one Church hath not the same order whicli another hath ; let every Churcli keep as near as may be the order it should have, and commend the just defence thereof unto God'." In Hooker, then, we find the elements of ' Eccl. Pol. bk. viii. ch. iii. § 5. E 2 68 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the Church's unity broadly sketched, but not worked out in detail. Beginning with unity in the worship of one Lord, the unity of one Faith professed by all in common, and the sacramental unity of one Baptism, he pro- ceeds to the unity of government by which the Christian society is held together. He may seem, however, to have recognized in the one Faith only those ti'uths, the denial of which would fasten upon a man the name, not so much of heretic, but rather of apostate or infidel. So too, while asserting a necessary unity of government, he does not treat the form of such government as specifically deter- mined by the divine law ; he rather suggests that particular Churches, if they adhere to certain general principles, may vary it in details even of some importance. § II. Hooker holds an unique position in modern English theology, a position due partly to his philosophic breadth of mind, partly to those very circumstances which induced a certain incompleteness in his work. His special task was to turn the tide of Calvinism which threatened to overwhelm the Church. He did not, however, stand alone ; there were others BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 69 about him to fill up the gaps of his teaching. Already, four years before his great work appeared, Bancroft had preached the famous sermon on the Trying of Spirits, in which he asserted the episcopal government of the Church to be of divine right. Almost simul- taneously with the Laivs of Ecdesiadiccd Polity appeared the kindred work of Bilson on The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, in which the same principle was strenuously maintained. But beyond all ^is contemporaries Hooker made an impress on English wa3'S of thinking which has never been effaced. His temper in controversy, no doubt, had much to do with this. He was recognized from the first as the "Judicious." He sot the form of thinking, even where he failed to supply the matter ; the forces of the Church were marshalled against Calvinism, and the issues were clearly joined. Hooker died with the sixteenth century. During the forty years that followed, the fruits of his work were ripened. I shall make only one brief citation from a writer who sums up, more perfectly perhaps than any other, the teaching of the time. Ham- mond, the chaplain of Charles I, was amoug the most faithful and devoted disciples of 70 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the Laudian school. At the great crisis of the Church of England, in the year 1644, he published his Practical Catechism, in which we read as follows : — " The word ' catholic ' signifies ' universal,' dispersed or extended all the world over ; in opposition to the former state of the Jewish (.'hurch, which was an inclosure divided from all the world beside, in time of the law ; whereas now the gospel is preached to all the world, and, by those powers of the Holy Ghost forementioned, a Church with all those ministrations in it is constituted over all the world. This Church is a society of believers, ruled and continued according to those ordi- nances, with the use of the Sacraments, preach- ing of the word, censures, &c., under bishops or pastors, succeeding those on whom the Holy Ghost came down, and (by receiving ordi- nation of those that had that power befox-e them, i. e. of the bishops of the (Jhurch, the continued successors of the Apostles) lawfully called to those offices." So far in theoiy. Then he asks, " What is the practical part of this belief?" To this he answers: "The living peaceably, cliaritably, faithfully, and obediently within the fold of the universal Church, yielding all reverence to the decrees BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 71 and doctrines of it ; and in every particular or national Church, ' obeying them that have the rule over us,' labouring to preserve both unity of faith and charity with all our fellovp- brethren, both in that and all other particular Churches ; and not breaking into factions, parties, divisions, subdivisions ; but labouring our utmost to approve ourselves holy mem- bers of that holy Catholic Church, by unity, charity, brotheily love, ensuing and contending for peace, and all other branches of Christian purity ^" It is clear that Hammond regarded the essential unity of the Church as founded mainly in uniformity of government and the common use of the sacraments. Unity of faith, as of mutual charity, he seems to place rather among the objects of the Christian life, to be earnestly desued and carefully sought, than among those properties by which the one Church may be discerned. This way of thinking was common to most Eno-lish theo- logians of the time. They insisted much upon the corporate organization of the (Jhurch i careful attention to the form of public worship, strict observance of canonical order, would ' Hammond,' Pm(7. Cut. lib. v. sect. iv. pp. 329, 330, ad. 1847. ;2 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED have the effect of bringing men to a right DO D faith as well ; they hardly regarded the possi- bility of any Church retaining the apostolic discipline and yet losing the faith. Recog- nizing no rule in the Church but that of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, they judged all men who were duly subject to their own bishop in their own particular Church to be fully established in the uni- versal Church as well ; the bishops of the several Churches throughout the world were, potentially at least, united in one supreme senate ruhng the whole Church of Christ. The perfect realization of tliis idea], at least in England and the associated kingdoms, was the aim of Laud and his followers. The religious unity of the nation, based on strict ecclesiastical uniformity, was first to be secured. The aid of the secular arm was freely invoked ; it was the duty of the Christian prince to secure this unity within his dominions. When this was done, the three national Churches of England, Scot- land, and Ireland, bound together with inti- mate communion, were to exhibit to the world a pattern of wider unity, and the divisions of Christendom were to be healed by the universal apphcation of the same BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 73 principle. In the meanwhile, if practice was to be uniform, opinion was to be free. The great verities of the Christian faith must not be impugned ; iierce and heated contro- vers}' ought, perhaps, to be stifled ; but there must be no undue forcing of thought — above all, no proscription of opinion ; men must agree to differ, and, differing, to live together in unity. The ecclesiastical rigour of Laud was crossed by a remarkable breadth in the matter of doctrine. This was the weakness of his school. Too little account was taken of the passion with which men, orthodox or heretical, will press their beliefs. Too little importance was attributed to the right faith which alone can bind men together in the supernatural society of the Church. The uprising of Calvinism, no less against the Laudian toleration than against the Laudian strictness, proved this in part. The lamentable state into which the English Church was at once reduced proved it for the rest. The objective notion of the (Jhurch which had seemed adequate in pros- perity was found wanting in the day of ruin. Theologians could not abide by it. They no longer had before their eyes a great and splendid house in which there was visibly 74 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED room for vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earth, some to honour, some to dishonour. They could no longer dream of a vphole nation bound in one sacred society under the rulers of the Church. The house was fallen ; they saw the nation miserably deceived and divided, the bishops murdered, imprisoned, hiding, or driven to exile. Triumphant sectaries were trampling all ecclesiastical order under foot ; the Calvinist discipline was in part established, in part made way for mere anarchy ; no vestige of orthodox rule or worship was even tolerated. Where was now that National Church which proclaimed itself an integral part of the Universal Church, and as such demanded the allegiance of all Christian men within the nation 1 In what fashion did the Church of England still exist? Was it in exile, with the scattered bishops here and there exercising their pastoral function with doubtful right beyond their own borders ? Was it in hiding at home, where some few priests, amid the general defection, ministered as they could in timorous and scanty gather- ings of the faithful ? How did the actual state of the Church stand with the theory 'i BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 75 § 12- The pressure of this question had a remark- able effect on English theologians. They were not cowed by their misfortunes ; on the contrary, in the time of worst oppression, they were roused to extraordinary efforts. Some of the greatest works of English theology belong to this period ; and in these writings there is a tone, not of bitterness, such as persecution often engenders, but of breadth and sympathy beyond what is found in the previous age. There is a firm con- viction that the Church of England will be raised up again from her misery, and at the same, time, a wider outlook over the whole Catholic Church, their membership in which men prized the more in proportion as their own particular Church was forlorn. Bramhall, pursued by the dominant faction with a hatred second only to that which fell upon Laud, was derided as " the advocate of a dead Church." It was dead, he replied, " even as the trees are dead in winter, when they want their leaves ; or as the sun is set, when it is behind a cloud ; or as the gold is destroyed, when it is melting in the furnace. When I see a seed cast into the ground, I do not ask where is 70 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the greenness of the leaves 1 where- is the beauty of the flowers ? where is the sweetness of the fruit ? but I expect all these in their due season. Stay awhile, and behold the catastrophe. The rain is fallen, the wind hath blown, and the floods have beaten upon their Church ; but it is not fallen, for it is founded upon a rock. The light is under a bushel, but it is not extinguished. And if God in justice should think fit to remove our candlestick, yet the Church of England is not dead, whilst the Catholic Church survives It was in 1654, when the fortunes of the Church of England were at their lowest ebb, that Bramhall published his Jud Vindica- tion'^. An opponent might well sneer at him as the champion of a dead Church. It seemed superfluous to defend the Church of England against the charge of schism, when the Church of England no longer existed ; when, as her enemies might say, she had received her deserts, when sentence and execution had gone forth against her. But for Bramhall she lived ' Ueplicadon to the Bishop of Ckalcedon. M'orks, vol. ii. p. 95. Oxford, 1842. ' A Just Vin licafion of the Church of England from the unjml aspersion of Criminal Schism. Works, vol. i. p. 84. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 77 and claimed his allegiance. In rebutting the charge of schism he had occasion to define the unity which to rend were criminal ; and therefore we shall find in this treatise some- thing to our purpose. He goes far beyond the conception of the numerical unity of the Church, or of the local unity by which the Christians of any place are gathered into one society. The Church is to be united as well as one. " Schism is an exterior breach, or a solution of continuity, in the body ecclesiastic." According to the several modes of union there are sevei'al forms of schism. " Consider," he says, " by what nerves and ligaments the body of the Church is united and knit together, and by so many manner of ruptures it may be schismatically rent or divided asunder." He then passes without comment from the term unity to the term communion, which he uses in the same sense ; and he distinguishes the commu- nion of the Catholic Church as partly internal, partly external. " The internal communion consists prin- cipally in these things : to believe the same entire substance of saving necessary truth revealed by the Apostles, and to be ready im- plicitly in the preparation of the mind to 78 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED embrace all other supernatural verities when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them ; to judge charitably one of another ; to ex- clude none from the Catholic communion and hope of salvation, either eastern, or western, or southern, or northern Christians, which profess the ancient faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers, established in the first general Councils, and comprehended in the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds ; to rejoice at their well-doing ; to sorrow for their sins ; to condole with them in their sufferings ; to pray for their constant perseverance in the true Christian Faith, for their reduction from all their respective errors, and their re-union to the Church in case they be divided from it, that we may be all one sheepfold under that One Great ' Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls' ; and lastly, to hold an actual external communion with them 'in votis' — in our desires, and to endeavour it by all those means which are in our power. This internal comnmnion is of absolute necessity among all Catholics. " External communion consists, first, in the same Creeds or Symbols or Confessions of Faith, which are the ancient badges or cognizances of Christianity ; secondly, in the participation BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 79 of the same sacraments ; thirdly, in the same external worship, and frequent use of the same Divine Offices or Liturgies or forms of serving God ; fourthly, in the use of the same public rites and ceremonies ; fifthly, in giving communicatory letters from one Church or one person to another ; and, lastly, in ad- mission of the same discipline, and subjection to the same supreme ecclesiastical authority, that is, Episcopacy, or a general Council : for as single Bishops are the Heads of particular Churches, so Episcopacy, that is, a general Council, or Oecumenical assembly of Bishops, is the Head of the universal Church'." This external communion is not, says Bram- hall, of the like necessity with the internal. It may obviously be suspended by the just censures of the Church. "And as external communion may be suspended, so likewise it may sometimes be waived or withdrawn by particular Churches or persons from their neighbour Churches or Christians in their innovations and errors." And further the most complete external communion does not imply uniformity in all opinions, even upon matters of the gravest moment. " The Roman and African Churches held good communion ■ Works, vol. i. pp. 103, 104. 8o THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED one with another, whilst they diffei-ed both in judgement and practice about rebaptization We must follow him as he comes to the pith of his special controversy. " If any par- ticular Patriarch, Prelate, Church, or Churches, how eminent soever, shall endeavour to ob- trude their own singularities upon others for Catholic verities, or shall enjoin sinful duties to their subjects, or shall violate the un- doubted privileges of their inferiors contrary to the canons of the Fathers ; it is very lawful for their own subjects to disobey them, and for strangers to separate from them. And if either the one or the other have been drawn to partake of their errors upon pretence of obedience or of Catholic communion, they may without the guilt of schism, nay they ought, to reform themselves, so as it be done by lawful authority, upon good grounds, with due moderation, without excess, or the viola- tion of charity ; and so as the separation from them be not total, but only in their errors and innovations ; nor perpetual, but only during their distempers : — as a man might leave his father's or his brother's house, beinor infected with the plague, with a purpose to return thither again so soon as it was cleansed. ' Works, vol. i. pp. 104, 106. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 8t This is no more than what Gerson hath taught us in sundry places : ' It is lawful by the law of nature to resist the injury and violence of a Pope ^ ; ' and, ' if any one should convert his Papal dignity to be an instrument of wickedness to the destruction of any part of the Church in temporalities or spiritualities, and if there appears no other remedy but by withdi'awing oneself from the obedience of such a raging power, . . . until the Church or a Council shall provide otherwise ; it is lawful 2.' He adds further, that ' it is lawful to slight his sentences,' yea, ' to tear them in pieces, and thi'ow them at his head " Bellarmine in effect saith as much : — ' As it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he should invade our bodies ; so it is lawful to resist him invading of souls, or troubling the com- monwealth ; and much more if he should endeavour to destroy the Church ; I say it is lawful to resist him by not doing that which he commands and bv hindering him from ' Rerjulae Morales, tit. De rraecept. Decalog. [BramhaU'H reference : the Oxford Ed. addn ; Op. 1*. ii. fol. 131. Paris, 1521.] ' Lib. (h Auferibilitate Pupae, Consider. 14 [Op. P. i. fol- 35-1 ' De Unit. Ecclm., Consider. 10. [Op. P. i. fol. 38. " PoHsuiit occurrere cebuh, ip quibus . . . liceret, &c."] F 82 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH AS TREATED putting his will in execution ^' We ask no more. The Pope invaded our souls by enact- ing new oaths and obtruding new articles of Faith ; he troubled the commonwealth with his extortions and usurpations ; he destroyed the Church by his provisions, reservations, exemptions, &c. We did not judge him, or punish him, or depose him, or exercise any jurisdiction over him ; but only defended our- selves by guarding his blows and repelling his injuries^." A careful reader will note a certain omission in Bramhall's argument. Both the internal and the external communion of which he speaks are alike elements of a moral, not of a natural unity. They are alike to be upheld as a matter of duty, the former in all cases, the latter where possible. We do not here touch the essential unity of the Church — its unity as an organism. Bi-amhall transcends, as I have said, the idea of numerical unity ; does he ignore if? Numerical oneness is a necessary element in the full present- ment of the Chui'ch's Unity. We believe in Oiie Church. The unity of which we have heard Bramhall speaking might be the unity ' De llomun. Poniif. lib. ii. c. 29. [Op. torn. i. p. 820, A..] " Brauihall, Woilg, vol. i. pp. 106, 107. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. ^3 of essentially separate bodies, united in some sort by a complicated system of communi- cation. It is impossible to suppose that such was Bramhall's idea. There is abundant evidence to the contrary both elsewhere and close at hand. The Catholic Church, he says, is fo- tuvi homogeneum, and for this reason only " every particular Church and every particular person of this Catholic communion doth participate of the same name inclusively, so as to be justly called Catholic Churches and Catholic Christians He had occasion after- wards to justify what seemed to be the particularism of his Vindication. " No man can justly blame me," he says, " for honouring my spiritual mother the Church of England ; in whose womb I was conceived, at whose breasts I was nourished, and in whose bosom I hope to die. ... If I have had any bias, it hath been desire of peace, which our common Saviour left as a legacy to His Church ; that I might live to see the re-union of Cbristen- dom, for which I shall always bow the ' knees of my heart ' to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Howsoever it be, I submit myself and my poor endeavours, first, to the judge- ' Bramlittll, Wwkn, vol. i. ji. 109. K 2 84 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED ment of the Catholic Oecumenical essential Church ; which if some of late days have endeavoured to hiss out of the schools as a fancy, I cannot help it. From the beginning- it was not so. And if I should mistake the right Catholic Church out of human frailty or ignorance ... I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit myself to the true Catholic Church, the spouse of Christ, the mother of the Saints, the pillar of truth. And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith, that is, the Holy Scriptures interpreted by the Catholic Church, than to mine own private judgement or opinions ; although I should unwittingly fall into an error, yet this cordial submission is an implicit retractation thereof, and I am confident will be so accepted by the Father of Mercies, both from me and all others who seriously and sincerely do seek after peace and truth. Like- wise I submit myself to the representative Church, that is, a free general Council, or so general as can be procured ; and until then, to the Church of England, wherein I was baptized, or to a national English Synod : to the determination of all which, and each of them respectively, according to the distinct degrees of their authority, I yield a conformity BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 85 and compliance, or at the least, and to the lowest of them, an acquiescence ^" Bramhall then by no means lost sight of the essential unity of the Church, but the conduct of his argument put that thought in the background. The stress of the times, the miserable overthrow into which her pre- carious, if splendid, isolation seemed to have brought the Church of England, the obvious difficulty of resisting heresy with the forces of a divided Church, led him to insist on the paramount need of a moral unity. His argu- ment might have been sounder had he based the need more clearly upon the essential unity, of which moral unity is the right manifestation. Hooker, going always to the root of the matter, in like circumstanceswould probably have done so ; but Bramhall, if a better theologian, was a worse philosopher^ and therefore his con- clusions have not that air of absolute finality which, in spite of all omissions, characterizes the work of Hooker. He was not alone in this limitation. The circumstances of the time pressed moral con- siderations to the front. Thorndike also stood on this ground. " I maintain," he said, '• that the Church, by divine institution, is in point ' Wwkti, vol. ii. pp. 21-2. 86 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED of right one visible body, consisting in the communion of all Christians, in the offices of God's service ; and ought, by human adminis- tration, in point of fact to be the same." Unity is here regarded purely as a matter of right. Yet the One Church has a voice, a judgement, in fact as well as in right. " Owning, therefore," he adds, " my obligation to the whole Church — notwithstanding my obligation to the Church of England — I have prescribed the consent thereof, for a boundary to all interpretation of Scripture, all reforma- tion in the Chui'ch ^" It is the almost inevitable fault of con- troversial treatment to be thus incomplete. Attention is concentrated on the actually disputed point. The numerical unity of the Church was not at this time challenged, unless by the more extreme Independents. All were agreed as to the oneness of the true Church ; its boundaries and marks were in dispute. In controversial writings this numerical unity is taken for granted. It is only in the positive teaching of a trained theologian, covering the whole field, that we should expect to see it formally treated, and laid square and firm as the foundation of moral unity. We have this ' Thorndike, Works, vol. ii. pj'. 6 and 7. O.xford, 1845. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 87 positive teaching in the work of Pearson on the Creed. § 13- Through the worst years of the Calvinist oppression Pearson continued to lecture at St. Clement's, Eastcheap, where he delivered those discourses which he afterwards published as An Exposition of the Creed. The very conditions of the time, and the caution which they imposed, were favourable to the positive treatment of the subject. Pearson dealt with the broad, solid foundations of Christian faith and practice ; so far as he treated the contro- versies of the time at all^ it was by establishing the underlying principles on which they turned. For this reason his work never grows old ; it remains, like that of Hooker, an imperishable possession of the English Church. It is even more solid and homo- geneous, for the greater and more luminous passages of Hooker are imbedded in a mass of forgotten controversy, trivial and tiresome, while Pearson's arijumcnt deals throughout with fundamental verities. Expounding the ninth article of the Apostles' Creed, The holy Calholick Church; the Com- raunion of Saints; although there is here no 88 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TKEATED express mention of the note of unity, he nevertheless treats it with great fullness ^. The Chui'ch is One ; and the existence of this Church is a fact. " For when I say, I believe in the Holy Cathollclc Church,! mean that there is a Church which is Holy, and which is Catholick." He beo-ins with the origin of the Christian Church, when the Apostles gathered into their fellowship " the multitude of them that believed, who trere of one heart and one souiy Thus he establishes the definition of the Church from the beginning. But he then observes that the oneness of the Apostolic Church at Jerusalem differs in a way from the oneness of the Church in which we believe ; for " that Church, which was one by way of origination, was afterwards divided into many, the actual members of that one becoming the members of several Churches," whereas the Church in which we believe is " one by way of complexion, receiving the members of all Churches into it." So in the language of the ^ He note^ in the margin that it was expressed in Bonie of the most ancient forms of the Creed. Cyril of Jerusalem has it, ets" n'tav aylav Ka9o\iic^v (KKKrjcrlav. Alexander of Alexandria gives an emphatic form in his Confession ; /jtiav Hal ixuvTjv KaOoKtKfjv t^v anoOToXiK^v (KKKijaiav. Theoiloret. Hint. 1. 2. c. 4. It is of course contained in our Niceut Creed. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 89 New Testamefit the word Church has a double use. " Sometimes it admitteth of distinction and plurality; sometimes it reduceth all into conjunction and unity. Sometimes the Churches of God are diversified as many ; sometimes, as many as they are, they are all comprehended in one." It will be observed that Pearson treats the many Churches of the New Testament as divisions of the One Church founded in Jerusalem. He goes on to show that these divisions are pure!}- local, and establishes the unity of each local Church within itself. " When the Scripture speaketh of any country where the Gospel had been preached, it nameth always by way of plurality the Churches of that country as the Churches of Judaea, of Samaria, and Galilee, the Churches of Syria and of Cilicia, the Churches of Galatia, the Churches of Asia, the Churches of Mace- donia^. But notwithstanding there were ' Gal. i. 22 ; Acts ix. 31 ; 1 Cor. xvi. i, 19 ; Rev. i. 1 1 : I Thess. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. viii. i. ' It is obvious that on tliiii principle it wouKl be iiiore accurate to .S|)eak of the Churches of Eiifjlund tlian of tin- Church of Ktiglanil. I'earson would probably Iiave replieii that by ancient custom and by le;,'al conhtiliition the vai ious CluircheH of Englaiul are bound toj,'ether in a special unity of tlieir own. 90 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED several such Churches or Conffreorations of believers in great and populous cities, yet the Scriptures always speak of such Con- gregations in the notion of one Church. As when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Let your women keep silence in the Churches; yet the dedication of his Epistle is, Urdo the Chvrch of God ichich is at Corinth. So we read not of the Churches, but the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch,the Church at Caesarea, the Church at Ephesus, the Church of the Thessalonians, the Church of Laodicea, the Church of Smyrna, the Church of Per- gamus, the Church of Thyatira, the Church of Sardis, the Church of Philadelphia^. From whence it appeareth that a collection of several Congregations, every one of which is in some sense a Church, and may be called so, is properly one Church by virtue of the sub- ordination of them all in one government under one ruler. For thus in those great and populous cities where Christians were very numerous, not only all the several Churches within the cities, but those also in the adjacent parts, were united under the care and in- spection of one Bishop, and therefore was ' Acts viii. I ; xiii. i ; xviii. 22 ; xx. 17 ; i Thess. i. I ; Col. iv. 16 ; Rev. ii. and iii. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 91 accounted one Church ; the number of the Churches following the number ot" the Angels, that is, the rulers of them, as is evident in the Revelation." This was. of course, urged against the English Presbyterians and Independents ; but with Pearson it was much more than a controver- sial point. He was going to the foundation of the idea of unity. He has proceeded from the unity of the original Church at Jerusalem to the multiplicity of Churches throughout the world ; he has ascertained the principle of internal unity in each of these ; he now returns to establish by this same principle the essential unity of the whole Catholic Church. " Now as several Churches are reduced to the denomination of one Church, in relation to the single governor of those many Churches, 80 all the Churches of all cities and all nations in the world may be reduced to the same single denomination in relation to one supreme governor of them all, and tliat one governor is Chrid the Bishop of our souls Wherefore the Apostle, speaking of that in which all Churches do agree, comprehendeth them all under the same appellation of oik! ' Compare the Canon of 1606, above, p. 5J, and note. 92 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Church ; and therefore often by the name of Church are understood all Christians what- soever belonging to any of the Churches dispersed through the distant and divided parts of the world. For the single persons possessing faith in Christ are members of the particular Churches in which they live, and all those particular Churches are members of the general and universal Church which is one hy unity of aggregation ; and this is the Church in the Creed which we believe, and which is in other Creeds expressly termed One — / believe in one Holy Gatholick C/iurch." Aggregation, in itself, might be the gather- ing of essentially separate bodies, but Pearson has guarded against this misunderstanding by showing that the various Churches, which are thus aggregated, are themselves but local divisions of the Church originally founded in unity. And further they are aggregated, not by any action of their own, but by virtue of their proper relation to the one Head, which is Christ. This at once shows that something more than numerical unity is in- tended ; but so far nothing more is expressed, and thus Pearson grounds all which follows upon that numerical unity. The unity of the Church of which he now proceeds to speak BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 93 is the expression of the natural and essential oneness of the Church. He does not ex- pressly note this distinction, but it is inherent in his argument. " It will be further neces- sary," he says, " for the understanding of the nature of the Church which is thus one, to consider in what that unity doth consist." It is not then a mere aggi-egation. He turns back to the one Church as constituted in the beginning, and asks in what respect it was one. "We may collect," he says, "from their union and agreement how all other Churches are united and agree." And what do we find there. " They were described to be believing and baptized persons, converted to the faith by St. Peter, continuing steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers. These then were all built upon the same Rock, all pro- fessed the same faith, all received the same sacraments, all performed the same devotions, and thereby were all reputed members of the same Church." Starting from this he proceeds to enumerate six modes of the unity of the Church con- sidered in itself. This limitation is important, and rather obscure. He means a unity " be- side that of the Head, v/hich is one Christ, 94 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED and the life communicated from that Head, which is one Spirit." This latter we may perhaps distinguish, with other authors, as the invisible unity of the Church. By the unity of the Church, considered in itself, Pearson means a kind of social unity, which is, at least in some measure, visible. The sis modes of this unity are as follows : — I. In the first place the Church is one in respect of Origin. There is but one Founda- tion, which is Christ, and in so far* as the Apostles are called the foundation, yet they are united by the one Corner-stone. Upon this foundation " was the fii-st Church built, and whosoever have been, or ever shall be convei^ted to the true Christian faith, are and shall be added to that Church, and laid upon the same foundation, which is the unity of origination. Our Saviour gave the same power to all the Apostles, which was to found the Church ; but He gave that power to Peter, to show the unity of the same Church 1." ' He quotes in the margin the well-known passage of St. Cj-prian, de Vniiate, c. 4 : "Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurreclionein suain parem potestateni tribuat, et dicat, iSicut mitii me Pater, et ego mitto vo", &c., tamen ut unitateui iiianifestarct, unit;itis eiusdem originem ab uno incipienteiii Kua auctoritalc dispusuic. Hoc crant utique et ceteri Apostoli, BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 95 2. In the second place he puts the Unity of Faith. " The Church is therefore one, though the members be many, because they all agree in one faith. . . . They which believe the same doctrine delivered by Christ to all the Apostles, delivered by all the Apostles to believers, being all professors of the same faith must be members of the same Church." 3. Next he advances the Unity of the Sacraments. " Many persons and Churches, howsoever distinguished by time or place, are considered as one Church, because they acknowledge and receive the same sacraments, the signs and badges of the people of God. . . . All believing persons, and all Churches con- gregated in the Name of Christ, washed in the same Laver of Regeneration, eating of the same Bread, and drinking of the same Cup, are united in the same cognizance, and so known to be the same Church." 4. Thence he passes to the Unity of Hope. " Whosoever belongcth to any Church is some quod fuit Petrug, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potest- tatis, sed exordium ab uiiitato proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una uionstrctur." TIiIh he interprets: "For whereas all the rest of the ApoHtles hud tcnial power anil honour with St. Peter, yet CliriMt did pa? ticularly give that power to St. Peter, to bhow the unity of the Clitirch which he intended to build upon the foundation of the ApontleB " 96 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED way called ; and all which are so, are called i II one hope of their calling^' 5. Then follows naturally the Unity of Charity, which Pearson finds not so much in outward acts of mutual kindness, as in a certain inward and spiritual bond of common life. " They which are all of one mind, what- soever the number of their persons be, are in reference to that mind but one ; as all the members, howsoever different, yet being animated by one soul, become one body." 6. Lastly, the Church is one in the Unity of Discipline and Government, " by virtue whereof the same Christ ruleth in them all. For they have all the same pastoral guides appointed, authorized, sanctified, and set apart by the appointment of God, by the direction of the Spirit, to direct and lead the people of God in the same way of eternal salvation : as therefore there is no Church where there is no order, no ministry ; so where the same order and ministry is, there is the same Church.'" Here he inevitably quotes in the margin the two well-known passages from St. Cyprian, Episcopatus uvua est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur ; and Cum sit a Christo una Ecclesiaper totum riiundum in multa membra divisa, item BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 97 Episcopatus unus Episcoporum multomm concordi numerositate diffusus ^. These quo- tations fill up what would otherwise be a gap in the text, and identify the order and ministry which are essential to the unity of the Church. Such is the unity which Pearson finds in the Catholic Church. Nor is it only in theory that he regards the Church as thus one ; as an object of faith it is really existent. " For when I profess and say, / believe a Church, it is not only an acknowledgment of a Church which hath been, or of a Church which shall be, but also of that which is." This Church is indefectible, not so much by virtue of its own nature, as by reason of the promise of God ; and this promise relates not to each several part of the Church, but to the whole. A particular Church may fail and its candlestick be removed. " But 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 shall perish." § 14- If we critically examine this teaching of Pearson, we shall see that he is speaking throughout of the essential unity of the ' Cyprian, de Uuitiile, c. 5 ; Kyist. Iv. 24. Q 98 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Church. He is dealing with it, to use his own language, as an Object of Faith. It has therefore an objective reality. But neither is this a purely invisible reality ; for it is not so much the actual existence of the one Church which is propounded as the object of faith, but rather its perpetual existence to the end of time, according to the promise of God. The unity of the Church is a visible reahty, an object of human knowledge, which is seen by faith to be indefectible. Pearson, expounding the objective realities of the Creed, is not concerned with the moral unity of the Church — the unity which depends on human agency conforming to the purpose of God. We shall understand this the better if we bring into comparison what he says about the Holiness of the Church. This is not a holiness which ought to be, and may be, which is to be striven for and attained ; nor yet are there two Churches, " one, in which good and bad are mingled together, another in which there are good alone " ; but " the Church of God is universally holy in respect of all, by institu- tions and administrations of sanctity." In like manner the unity of which he speaks is not a unity that we are to strive after and to pray for. It is the essential unity in which the Churcli is BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 99 constituted by the Word of God. And this is not a mere abstract numerical unity. The Church is not only one ; she is also united. She is held together hy bonds, partly visible, as her origin, the sacraments, and the Episcopate ; partly invisible — the bonds of faith, and hope, and charity. It will follow, though the inference was beside the scope of Pearson's work, that just as the practical holiness of the Church, however imperfect, is the ex- pression of her essential and inherent holiness, so also the moral unity of the Church is the expression more or less perfect, more or less visible, of her indefectible essential unity. § 15- So Pearson taught in the days of oppression. He may be said to have definitely fixed the colour of English theology on this subject. There are questions which he did not touch, practical ditticulties with which he did not concern himself, but for the solution of all these it has been found necessary only to apply the principles laid down by Pearson. At the time when he wrote, the actual circumstances of England were in flagrant con- flict with his theory. But the anarchy was nearly at an end. Within a few months, a 2 lOO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED with dramatic suddenness, the restoration of order in Church and State was complete. Rarely has there been such a simple renewal of broken institutions. The surviving bishops resumed the administration of their dioceses ; the vacancies were filled at once ; the disorder of twenty j-ears was treated as a mere episode. What rendered this possible was the fact that a clear and definite foundation of theory had been laid. The confusion of thought con- sequent upon the breaking up of mediaeval ideas in the crisis of the Reformation had now passed away. The conception of the Church as an organic body realizing its life in local, provincial, or national organizations, which in the minds of the Laudian school had been too closely identified with the mere accidents of the English political system, was now purified by the failure of those accidents. It was not indeed shaken altogether free from them on their revival, but it was at least separable from them. Indeed the ecclesi- astical system was revived more whole and entire than the civil ; and its independence was thus more clearly discerned. During the latter part of the seventeenth century the English Church enjoyed a freedom of activity such as had never, perhaps, been known before. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. lOI The bishops then set to work vigorously to realize the ideal of the Church as now con- ceived, and statesmen, from whatever motive, were ranged at their side. The local unity of the Church within the borders of the nation was to be firmly established. Uni- formity of practice was not only enforced, as never before, on the actual ministers of the Church, but any separate activity was rigidly suppressed. The new dissent, which sprang from the repression of the older nonconformity, was prosecuted with inquisitoi'ial zeal. Nor was this care for orthodoxy narrowly confined to a mere nationalism. A new episcopate was forced on the reluctant Calvinism of Scotland, to bring that nation also into the unity of the Church. Towards the Calvinists of France and the Netherlands the attitude of many English divines was perplexing and inconsequent. Political ties and the danger of a common enemy had formerly associated them closely with England ; they had been commonly acknowledged as forming sub- stantially a part of the Catholic Church, though denuded of much that was essential to the true order of the Church. The stress of the conflict with Calvinism at home, and the more definite insi.steuce on the notes of 102 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the true Church which followed, made this attitude all but impossible. Political sym- pathy also was broken by the rivaby and the growing strength of Holland. Rome and Geneva were now alike enemies ^, and foreign Calvinism became as distasteful as the home-bred dissent. There was, however, this difference. The Calvinists of France were regarded as having some good grounds for withdrawing from the communion of bishops who allowed most of the errors of the Roman % See ; the English Calvinists were supposed to have no defence at all for rebellion against their bishops. We have to read with this caution the emphatic assertion of the rights of the Episcopate by English theologians of the period. Their attitude towards the Roman Church, on the other hand, was perfectly simple and consistent, though their language varied con- siderably in intensity. The Roman Church and all the Churches subject to the Papacy were regarded as indisputably parts of the ' See Beveridge's Oratio Cuiioiiica in his Tlie.Kiunis Theologicm, vol. ii. p. 340, ed. Oxford, 1816 : " Faxit ut Ecclesiiv nostra, vel potius sua, niagis magisque indies stabi- liatur, floreatque. Faxit, ut nec Koniae, nec Genevae, neo ipsae inferorum purtae adversus earn unquam praevaleant." This sermon was preached in one of the years 1679-80-81. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. Catholic Church ^. Yet there was little desire for closer union, or even for any intimate relations with them. They seemed to be full of corruption, doctrinal and practical. Above all, the claims of the Roman See barred the way, and the profound conviction that the Roman Court was bent on making good those claims by force awakened a frenzy of antagonism. Popery became the night- mare of the English people, and the gravest divines were not free from a certain obsession with regard to it. The period of the Popish Plot, of the Exclusion Bill, and of the in- trigues which gathered about the person of James IT, was not one for a fair and profitable ' We must except tliose who use the word Catholic as implying perfect orthodoxy. Beveridge, in the sermon just quoted, delivered amid the excitement of the Popish Plot, to which he makes an acrid allusion, fiercely denies the C'at/io- licily of the Roman Cliurch {Thesaurus Thcologicus, vol. ii. P- 335)' "At vero Romana ista Ecclesia, in cuius fidem raoresque Pontificii omnes iurati sunt, tot nova dogmata adinvenit, totque novos ritua Ecclesiae universali vel reiectos vel incognitos nuperinstituit,hodiequeimperat,utvixEccl'giae Christianae, nisi forsitan corruptissimae, neduiii Catholicae nonien mereatur. Nihil enim cumC'atliolica, nihil cum omnibus aliis Ecclesiis commune haliet, scd omnia potius di versa et con- traria, praeter ea in <iuibiis cum Anglicana conaentit." Yet even liere, with his vlx Eccle.iiae ('hrutimiae he grudgingly allows the »Hl)stanti.T.l itichnion of the Roman Church in tlie universal Church of Christ; I04 THE rXITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED discussion of the Roman controversy. Yet Barrow was able to treat it with candour and with some approach to courtesy. The interest taken by English divines in the conflict about the Galilean liberties led to a clearer distinction between the Papacy and the Churches subject to it. This cuhninated in the well-known attempt of Wake to detach the French Church bodily from the Papacy and to brincy it into line with the Church of England. The attempt failed through causes operating on both sides, but it is of lasting interest as the only step seriously undertaken, befoi'e the apathy of the eighteenth century was com- plete, towards the realization of that concep- tion of a united Church which occupied the minds of English theologians. Accepting the national organization of Christendom as an accomplished fact, standing to the order of the Church much as the provincial organiza- tion of the Roman Empii-e stood in the fourth century, they would draw the national Churches together, not as separate bodies politic joined in a federal union, but as already parts of an existing but disorganized unity. The Papacy they regarded asachief cause of the prevailing confusion. The Churches of Chris- tendom must break with the Papacy before BY EKGLISH THEOLOGIANS. they could become effectively united. United in reality they were, though not in effect. The note originally struck by Tunstall was maintained. The English Church was not sepai'ated from Catholic unity, nor was any Church that might follow her example. On the contrary, this was the only way to perfect unity. Every national Church must be reduced "out of all captivity of foreign powers heretofore usurped therein, into the pristine state that all Churches of all realms were in at the beginning Then only could the original unity of the Church be completely restored. § 16. To those who regard the Papacy as the divinely appointed instrument of unity, or even to those who think of it as the best practical guardian of unity, this will seem the wildest paradox. I am not here concerned to criticize or to defend it ; 1 merely propound it as the characteristic opinion of English theo- logians from the seventeenth century onward. The half-century following the Restoration was for the English Church a period of extra- ordinary learning and literary activity. Out of the mass of material available I shall make ' Above, J). 59. I06 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED a small number of typical citations. We naturally turn first to Barrow, as the author of a formal treatise on the Unity of the Church. He shows his sense of the im- portance of his theme by prefixing to it as a motto the saying of St. Augustine : Non habet caritatem Dei, qui ecclesiae non d 'digit unitatem^. He allows, in almost the same terms as Hooker the distinction between " the true universal Church, called the Church mystical and invisible," and "the visible Church Catholic here on earth." The former is " the catholic society of true believers and faith- ful servants of Christ, diffused through all ages, dispersed through all countries, whereof part doth sojourn on earth, part doth reside in heaven, part is not yet extant ; but all whereof is described in the register of divine preordination, and shall be re-collected at the resurrection of the just." This is abso- lutely and indefectibly united. The latter is " the society of those who at present or in course of time profess the faith end gospel of Christ, and undertake the evangelical covenant." This latter "doth enfold the other, as one mass doth contain the good ore and base alloy ; as one floor the corn ' Aug. (le llapt. 3. ' See above, p. 61. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. and the chaff; as one field the wheat and the tares ; as one net the choice fish and the refuse ; as one fold the sheep and the goats ; as one tree the living and the dry branches." The visible Church must there- fore correspond to the " true universal,"' and the same attributes are " by analogy and participation" assigned to it. This, there- fore, is also united, and " the question is. Wherein the unity of it doth consist, or upon what grounds it is called one ; being that it compriseth in itself so many persons, societies, and nations^ ?" The question thus put he answers by dis- tinguishing eight grounds of unity. 1. The Church is one by consent in faith and opinion concerning all principal matters of doctrine. All who desert this one faith are to be esteemed ipbo facto cut off and separated. But, on the other hand, there are points of less moment, more obscurely delivered, in which Christians may dissent, about which they may dispute, in which they may err, without breach of unity ^. 2. All Christians are united by the bands ' Barrow, Works, vol. iii. pp. 204, 205, edit. Nelson, 1846. ' Ibid. pp. 206, 207. I quote for the most part verbally, but, for convenience of compreiuion, without marks of quo- tation. Io8 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH AS TREATED of mutual charity and good-will. Any one, therefore, who highly offends against charity, separates himself from the body of Christ ; and since the causing of dissensions and factions in the Church is the most notorious violation of charity, the authors of causeless separations or of unjust condemnations of any Church are to be rejected as schismatic. 3. All Christians are united by spiritual cognation and alliance ; as being all regene- rated by the same incorruptible seed, being alike born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ; whence as the sons of God, and brethren of Christ, they become brethren one to another. 4. The whole Christian Church is one by its incorporation into the mystical body of Christ, making up one spiritual corporation or republic, whereof Christ is the sovereign Lord. A habit of disobedience, therefore, severs a man from this body. 5. All Christians are linked together in peaceable concord and confederacy. In par- ticular they are bound to assist one another in the common defence of truth, piety, and peace, in the propagation of the faith, and enlargement of the Church ' Barrow, Works, vol. iii. pp. 208, 209. EY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 109 6. The Church is held together by a common discipline exercised by lawful pastors, who ought therefore to maintain intercourse and concurrence to preserve truth and charity. No Church should admit to communion those who are excommunicated by another, or who are schismatically divided from it. 7. All Christian Churches are also one by a specifical unity of discipline, resembling one another in ecclesiastical administrations, which are regulated by the indispensable sanctions and institutions of their Sovereign. They are all bound to use the same sacraments according to our Lord's appointment, with- out any substantial alteration, and to uphold the order and ministry which God appointed. In lesser matters of ceremony or discipline, instituted by human prudence, Churches may differ ; but no power can abrogate the main form of discipline constituted by divine ap- pointment. It is a fundamental rule that but one bishop should be in one Church ; and no new priesthood can be ordained. 8. Lastly, it is expedient that all Churches should conform to each other in great matters of prudential discipline, although not insti- tuted or prescri])ed by God ' . ' B.'in-ow, Works, vol. iii. pp. 211, 212. no THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED It is clear that Barrow has in view that moral unity which is to be attained by sub- mission to the will of God. The essential unity or numerical oneness of the Church is postulated — the unity of the field, the floor, or the draw-net. What is to be sought is the effective unity of those who are contained as members in the one Church ; and these are the grounds to go upon. Having set them out he approaches the further question : " Whether the Church is also necessarily, by the design and appointment of God, to be in way of external policy under one singular government or jurisdiction of any kind ; so as a kingdom or commonwealth are united under the command of one monarch or one senate ? " He draws a negative answer from the silence of Scripture, from the practice of the Apostles, from the teaching of the Fathers, and from the fact that Churches not thus united have yet been recognized as Christian and Catholic. He argues it more particularly in a stern arraignment of the Papacy, which in claiming such singular jurisdiction has done not good but injury to the Church ^. It is to be noted that, according to Barrow, the Church is no more to be ruled by a senate ' Barrow, Works, vol. iii. pp. 212-319. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. Ill than by a monarch. The conciliar theory of the fifteenth century was no less foreign than the Papal theory to the essential constitution of the Church. Indeed he makes short work with it. General councils, he says, " are ex- traordinary, arbitrary, prudential means of restoring truth, peace, order, disciphue ; but from them nothing can be gathered concerning the continual ordinary state of the Church. For during a long time the Church wanted them ; and afterwards had them but rarely ; 'for the first three hundred years,' saith Bellarmine, ' there was no general assembly ; afterwards scarce one in a hundred years " The unity of the Church, therefore, is not effected by general councils, and cannot be dependent thereon. In pressing this argument, however, he uses an illustration which has to be read with caution: "General councils are wholesome expedients to clear truth and heal breaches ; but the holding of them is no more an argu- ment of political unity in the Church, than the Treaty of Munster was a sign of all Europe being under one civil government." But the Treaty of Munster was an agreement ' " Primis trecentis annis nulla fiiit coiiffre^^atio gcneralis ; postea vero vix ceiite»iuio anno." De Hum. Pont. i. 8. 112 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED between independent sovereign states ; and if Barrow's illustration is pressed too far it will commit him to the opinion that the several Churches of Christendom are in like manner separate and sovereign — an opinion clean contrary to the whole body of his treatise. We must, therefore, either pass this as an imperfect illustration, or we may suppose that Barrow was deeply impressed with the fundamental unity of the European system, which in the seventeenth century took the place of the older ideal of Christendom and the Empire. In that case he might see in a treaty agreed to by all the European Powers a close analogy to the decrees of an oecume- nical council. But the main point is that general councils are not for the ordinary government of the Church ; they are for exceptional emergencies. " In the opinion of St. Athanasius," he says, "there was no reasonable cause for synods, except in case of new heresies springing up, which may be con- futed b}' the joint consent of bishops For healing the disorders of the Church, therefore, Barrow did not look to the gathering of an oecumenical council. He even doubted whether, if possible, it would ' A than, de Syn. § 6. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. be expedient. In this respect be certainly moved somewhat from the usual ground of English divines, who from their first quarrel with the Papacy appealed to a general council, when one could be held. Barrow did not look to the methods of the fifteenth century, nor did he seek to revive even those ot the fourth or fifth. He found a closer correspondence with the needs of modern times in the century of St. Cyprian \ § 17- Such is the position maintained by Barrow, with a prodigious array of leai'ning, alike in his Discourne concerning the Uir'dy of the Church, and in his Treatii<e of the Pope's Siq^reniaey. We are here on the high ground of theory. ^Yhat was put forward as of practical moment? Every Christian man was bound to do what lay in his power to promote the unity of the (,'hurch. And how should he do this ? By living in dutiful subjection to those set over him in the Lord. Tlie practical enforcement of unity was to be sought in each several Cliurch; for English- men in the Church of England. This was that part of the Church Catholic in which ' Barrow, Works, vol. iii. (ip. 122, 22^. H 114 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED God's providence had placed them. Living in communion with this, they were in com- munion with the whole. This consequence was pressed at every turn. Dr. William Saywell, Archdeacon of Ely, published at Cambridge in 1689 an edition of the works of Launoi. The fact of itself is interesting, as an evidence of sympathy with the Gallican controversialists. The Preface, in which Saywell spoke not to English readers only but to the learned of Europe, admirably states the position of the English Church. " We have not," he says, " separated from the Catholic Faith, from the unity of the Church, or from any particular Church whatever^." Nor does he mean by this merely that we are not the authors of the schism or responsible for the separation ; the division, he would say, is only in certain relations, not absolute or essential. He sliows what is the nature of the really existing unity. The whole power — potestas et auctoritas — of teaching and ruling resides in the bishops and pastors of the Church ; the prime duty of Christian men is to submit to their ruling. If all the bishops of the world could be gathered together, they ' " Non enim a fide Catholica, ah unitate Ecclesiae, aut ab uUa Ecclesia particulaii separavimus." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. might determine all matters by their common suffrages, after the fashion of an aristocratic commonwealth. Saywell clearly did not share BaiTow's objection to an ecclesiastical senate. But since this can rarely be done, we must ordinarily depend upon the authority of the Church as diffused throughout the Episcopate, and exercised by the bishops in their respec- tive dioceses, or even as deputed by them to parish priests. He who submits to their rule is maintaining the unity of the Church; he who rebels is rightly excommunicate ^ ' I transcribe the whole of a long passage, as the book is uot reailily acces-ible to all, and the argiiirient is of first-rate importance : " Tola vero potestas et auctoritas docendi regendi corrigendi Ecclesiam Episcopis et Pastoribus com- missa est ; et nihil niagis Christianis iniungitur quani pacem colere, schismata vitare, Pastores audire, eis obedire et 86 subicere, eontm fidem seqiii ; et ne sub aliquo praetextu in doctrina et moribna ab ecclesiae imitate recedant, semper ad episcopos in dubiis et arduis reciirvendiim est. Qui vos a ml it' me audit, qui von reicit me etium reicit ; it ccce vrihixrum sum, iix'iiie ad coiiKumniatioiiein saeculi. Deinde ])oniiniis ipse modinn definiens qtioiiiodo lites et dissidia in Ecclesia tenninaniia sunt, ait: Si peccaverit in tc fratir, (He Ecclesiap, et si Kcclesiain non audierit, nit tibi lanquam Kthiiicus el I'lihlirriiius. Et per Ecclesiam hie Episcopi et Presbyteri sunt intelligendi ; quia stafim subiungitur, Quod- cttmque liijHveritis in lerris liijatum crit et in cacUn. Per Ecclesiam igitur Servator denotat cos quil)U8 incuuibit sen- tontiani ferre, et non obeditntes cxcouimunicationis vinculo ligare. Et si possent omnes Episcopi in unuui convenire, n 2 Il6 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Barrow, once more, enforces the same prin- ciple in his Latin tract De regimine Episcopali. In form this is merely an academic exercise, but it is full of the learning and the vigorous thought of the man. He has to maintain the thesis that "The rejection of episcopal rule, where orthodox and lawful bishops are estab- lished, makes in the proper sense of the word a deadly schism Episcopal rule, he says, is that ancient and universal order of the Church, by which one supreme pastor procul dubio omnibus aeqiiale esset ius et auctoritas de rebus ecclesiasticis communi sufFragio diiudicandi, ut est in regimine aristocratico : sed cum lioc saepe fieri non possit, unanimi Episcoporum consensu Ecclesia ita in Provincias, Dioeceses, et Parochias distributa est, ut quamvis diversis locis, eandem tamen fidem et caritatem onines vere Catholici summa cum benevolentia amplectantur ; et ad osttndendam strictam unionem et connexionem omnium membrorum inter se, et cum Christo capita, saepe Ecclesia coniparatur corpori, viti, domui, &c. Quorum partes vitam et perfectioneui amittunt quuni primum a toto vel sua propria sede et loco separantur. Atque ita hac ratione Laieus qui non atidit Parochuni, et Paroclius qui non audit Kpiscupum, et Kpi- scopus qui non audit Synoduiii Provincialeni, et Synod us Pro- vincialis quae non audit Collegium Pastorum sive Concilium vere generale, in rebus ad pacem et unitatem Ecclesiae spectantibus, non audit Ecclesiam, ao proiiide non Dominum ipsum qui dixit : Si Ecclesiam non audierit, ait tihi /anqiutiti Ethnicus et Puhlicanus." ' Worlis, vol. ill. p. 240 : " Eeiectio regiminis episcopa- lis, ubi habentur orthodozi et legitimi episcopi, facit proprie Bchisma mortale." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 117 and overseer was appointed to rule the whole congregation of clergy and laity in a certain defined region, with certain offices reserved to himself, as ordainingr and confirming and the exercise of jurisdiction^ Schism he accurately defines as a division within the Church, mar- ring the unity, charity, and peace in which it is the will of God that all Christians should abide. Schism is due either to faction within a particular Church, to an unjust refusal of one Church to communicate with another, or to the violation by any particular Church of the common rules and usages determined by the whole body ^. The guilt of schism is in- curred by those who reject episcopal rule, because, as he shows at large, it is either an act of rebellion against their immediate ' Works, vol. iii. p. 240 : " lUuil neinpe regimen, j)enes quod, in (listrictu quopiam ecclef ia<tico, singularis unus (ad id rite vocatuf, delectus, approbatus et consecratus) toti coetui, totique clero praeficitur, ceu p:istor et inspector supremus, in sacris quibuscuiique rebus di.tjjensandis et ordiuandis, vpfafitia quaedain obtinens et peculiaria munia sibi reser- vata, sacroe ordines couferendi, baptizatos confiruiandi, iuris- dictionem exercendi." ^ Ibid. p. 241 : "Cum una qiiae|iian) ecclesiasticae dis- pensalionitt inoduii\ qiieincuiique generali conucnnu a con- foederatis pa.storibus, fvra^iat aut eoncordiae gratia, lege i>ancitum, vel u.su firmatum (nulla cogente necessitate, vel gravi ratiuue suadente) viobif." Il8 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED superiors, or else it is a corporate departure from the fixed order of the Church and the institution of Christ. This proposition, how- evei", is to be read with two limitations : the bishop must be orthodox, for it is not merely the right of the faithful but their duty to withdraw their allegiance from a heterodox bishop ; and he must be kavful, that is to say, duly consecrated, and rightly promoted to his charge^. Subject to these two limitations, Barrow maintains the duty of submission, with no little insistence on St. Cyprian's judgement that the episcopate was expressly constituted for the defence of unity. The unity, as distinct from the mere numerical singleness of the Church, is to be upheld by ever}^ Christian remaining in the communion of his own proper bishop, and by all the bishops of the world remaining in communion with each other. I will quote one more author, Beveridgo, Bishop of St. Asaph, for piety and learning perhaps the greatest ornament of the English Church at the opening of the eighteenth ' Works, vol. iii. p. 241 : " Nam episcoporum lietero- tloxoruin uedum regimen, at comimniioncm ipsam leicere fas est, hno officii est." P. 242: ^' Lnjitiini ; hoc est, (jui cum rite conneirantur, turn iure populo suo praoficiuntur." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 119 century. Beveridge has left us several ordi- nation sermons, which form indeed a theo- logical tieatise on the sacred Ministry. The fourth of these treats of Salvation in the Church only, under such a Ministry. Start- ing from the text, And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should he saved (Acts ii. 47), he shows that by the Church is here meant the society which the Lord founded by choosing the twelve and the seventy, and afterwards " took cax'e to settle the perpetual government of it by granting to His Apostles the like power and commission which He had received from His Father for that purpose." Those converted by the preaching of the Apostles " are said to be added to the Church, that is, to the society or congregation of the faithful people before described ; consisting of the Apostles, as the governors of it, and of such as were joined to them, and held com- munion with them in the Word and Sacra- ments, which our Lord had instituted. And when the said society was dispersed, as it soon was, over the whole world, it was still the same, and retained the same name, being still called the Church. And not only the whole, but wheresoever any part of it was settled in any city, and the iterritories belonging to it, I20 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED that also was called the Church of that city; as the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Corinth, &c. And wheresoever there were several such cities and Churches in them be- longing to any province or country, they are called the Churches of that country ; as the Churches of Asia, Macedonia, &c. But as every private Christian is a member of some particular Church, so is every particular Church a member of the catholic or universal, which is always meant when we I'ead in Scripture of the Church in general, without the addition of place or country ^" Of the necessity of being thus added to the Church, he says : " Forasmuch as 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." This iiosition he supports by recalling the conversion of Cornelius, of the Aethiopian eunuch, and of St. Paul, concluding that God would rather work miracles to bring men into the Church, than save any without it. " Seeing therefore," he continues, " that the Holy Ghost hath so positively affirmed that '■ Beveridge, Works, vol. i. pp. 72-4, edit. Oxford, 1817. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIAXS. 121 the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved, and likewise hath given us such extraordinary instances of it ; it is no wonder that the Fathers so frequently assert, that there is no salvation to be had out of Christ's holy catholic Church ; but that whosoever would be a member of the Church triumphant in heaven, must first be a member of the Church here militant on earth '." Here is the same teaching. The Church is one and universal, but it is geographically distributed into several particular Churches. The plain duty of every individual Christian is to adhere to the particular Church in which God's providence has placed him, and so he is retained in the unity of the whole Church. Pai'ticular Churches also have their duty. Beveridge sets this out in a sermon preached before the Convocation of Canterbury. Every provincial Church is bound to adhere to all that is detennined by the universal Church, even in matters of rite and discipline. This obligation Hows from the very nature of an ordered society, and the Church is bound to be the most orderly of all societies ' Beveridge, Wori-s, vol. i. pp. 75-77. '■' Beveridge, Themiurus 'Duoloyicus, vol. ii. p. 331, edit. 0.\f"ord, i8i6: "Ad nctaiii Proviiicialiij cuiuslibet Ecclesiae 122 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED §i8. The teaching, theoretical and practical, which I have here set out is not that only of certain individual theologians. It is the expression of a belief solidly held by the whole Church of England, and of a practice which for a time was strenuously enforced. It was enforced, not only by spiritual censures, but also by civil penalties. In the heat of reaction from the anarchy tempered by tyranny into which Calvinism had plunged England, the State accepted the theory of the Church. All Chris- tians living within the realm were to be forced constitutiouem necessarium esse, ut Ecclesiae universae disciplina ac ritus ab eadem obsei ventur, constat ex ipsa Ecclesiae natura ac notione. Ecclesia enim, geiieratim sic dicta, una est permagna hominum ubicunque terraruni Christi fideni protitentium Societas aut Congregatio, cuius singulae Provinciales Ecclesiae totiJem sunt partes sive membra. In omnibus autein huiusniodi societatibus, qualis est Ecclesia, pars omnis toti suo coiigrua, et pars minor maiori consentanea esse debet. Hoc ratio suadet. Ho<^ ius naturale edicit. Hoc communis hominum consensus necessarium esse statuit. Adeo ut si quid a maiori, multo niagis quod a n)axima cuiiisvis societatis parte constituitur, eodem pars relicjua constringatur, ilhulque observare necesse habeat, si membrum manere et jirivilegiis istius societatis gaudere velit. Quod cum in onmibua cuiuscunque generis societatibus valeat, niulto magis in Ecclesia valere debet, quam omnium ordiuatissimam esse decet." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 123 into unity. The procedure adopted, as we now see, was terribly unwise, even if we say no worse. Civil rights were made dependent on conformity, and the sacraments w^ere profaned as a title to public office. Nor was this the whole of the harm done. The intimate con- nexion of Church and State bred an almost inevitable confusion in ordinary minds. The result was not patent while the repressive policy was maintained. But with the first Act of Toleration the result began to appear. Spiritual censures carried with them temporal disabilities ; therefore, if Dissenters were to be tolerated, they must be released from the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts. This was done, and the bishops and their officials were restrained from proceeding against a man who formally claimed his rights as a Dissenter. But the same man was driven by the Test Act to communicate in his parish church, in order to quality for office, lie was allowed, nay compelled, to claim the rights of a member of the Church, and, at the same tiine, he might not be subjected to the discipline of the Church. Occasional conformity, as it was called, was the inevitable result, and only a feeble attempt was made to restrain it. The authorities of the Church Avero thcmsolves in practice made 124 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED parties to the toleration of that dissent which in theory they denounced. With the popular delusions that ensued I am not directly concerned. I am dealing only with the teaching of theologians. But the existence of such delusions may lead us to ask whether an^-thing in the matter or manner of contemporary theology afforded them occasion. During the latter part of the seventeenth century English theologians were in face of a certain definite controversy. The country was affected by a twofold schism. On the one hand were the Recusants, or Papists, as they were invariably and accurately called, who refused the communion of the English bishops on the ground of heresy ; on the other hand there were organized bodies of Cal- vinist or Protestant Dissenters, who rejected the authority of the bishops as unscriptural. Each of these schisms was further connected with a ceitain theory of the Church, and theological writing, even when not directly polemical, was coloured by the consciousness of the dispute. This might have induced a preciseness of definition corresponding to what was found in Curialist and Calvinist authors. Tlie former, as we have seen, were diivon by BY EXGLISH THEOLOGIANS. the stress of controversy to import into the formal definition of the Church the note of subjection to the Roman Pontiff ; the latter were compelled to justify their separation by a theory which reduced the visible Church to a particular congregation of men associated by their own choice of companionship. Kut the theologians of the Eno-lish Church were not driven to any such straits. They took their stand on the historical position of their Church. They challenged opponents to dislodge them from this gi-ound. Tiiey examined and refuted all definitions framed for the purpose of ex- cluding them fiom the pale of the Church ; but they had no need to aim at an equal nicety in their turn. Their object was to show that neither Recusants nor Dissenters were justified in their separation. "I do not .scruple," says Barrow. " to affirm the Recu- sants in England to be no less schismatics tha^n any other separatists ^" To this end they laboured to show, on the one band, that in faith and polity the English Church con- fonned to the standard universally recognized until the rise of the papal monarchy; on the other hand, that she required of her children nothing but what was founde<l on warranty ' Barrow, M'or/cs, vol. iii. p. 225. 126 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED of Holy Scripture. Their practical teaching was : Spartam nactus es, hanc exorna. The inevitable result was an exagoreratecl nationalism, and a certain looseness of doc- trine. Disputants who were always telling Papists and Calvinists alike that they had no cause for separation from the national Church, could not be very precise on ditterences of opinion, and might easily seem indifferent to the truth. It is true they were not always consistent. According to their theory, strictly interpreted, they had no direct concern with the corruptions, practical or doctrinal, of other Churches, and notably of the Church of Rome. Their ground of quarrel with the Pope was, first, that he claimed a jurisdiction over them which they rejected, and, secondly, that he countenanced and admitted to his communion the English Recusants. Doctrinal disputes, however, with the Recusants, who took their doctrine from Rome, complicated the disci- plinary controversy with the Papacy ; and this was one of the causes which wrecked the attempt of Wake at a practical union between the Anglican and the Galilean Churches. On the other hand, the passionate, unreasoning abhorrence of papal rule, felt by nearly all Englishmen, embittered the doctrinal dispute, BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 127 until differences were rather exaggerated than minimized. The fading memory of the Puritan tyranny left nothing of the kind to sharpen the controversy with Dissenters, and they were too often treated as merely unreasonable schismatics. It was recognized, indeed, as we have seen, that there were grounds on which Chi-istian men might lawfully withdraw their obedience from the bishops set over them, but the nature of these grounds was seldom de- fined with precision ; it was enough to show that the grounds alleged by the Dissenters were insufficient. They were insufficient, partly because they were false, partly because they were trivial. The Dissenters were urged to lay aside their objections, renouncing those and waiving these. But for them, both alike were founded in conscience. The Church was exhibited in controversy as regardless of conscience, intolerant where she was strong, indifferent where she was weak. I speak of an impression produced by a cer- tain controversial method, not of the express teaching of any authors. It is an impression of the Church as a great national institution, embracing in a sense the whole population, without much regard to the belief or practice of individuals. Over against this idea stood 128 THE UXITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED the fact of the existence of several organized bodies, holding aloof from the national Church on the ground of certain beliefs or practices regarded by their members as vital. Combine the idea and the fact, which are inconsistent but not mutually exclusive, and there issues the confusion which seems to dominate English thought in the eighteenth century. Public opinion was able to accept in varying propor- tions the theory of the Established Church, and the theory of the denominational system. The Church of England appeared at one time the national organization of religion ; at another she was one denomination among many. Butler, with characteristic fidelity to fact, accepted the denominational system as existing. In his sermon on the Propaga- tion of the Gospel he claims the control of the work for the Church, but he thinks it " much to be wished that serious men of all denomina- tions would join in it." In the true spirit of latitudinarianism he bids them ''remember, that if Christianity is to be propagated at all. which they acknowledge it should, it must be in some particular form of profession. And though they think ours liable to objections, yet it is possible they themselves may be mistaken ; and whether they are or no, the BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 129 very nature of society requires some com- pliance with others \" But latitudinarianism was not always so logical as in Butler. Without having any clear conception of the unity of the Church, men were nevertheless fretted by the existence of Dissent. The effect of the prevailing confusion is noticeable in the attitude of Wesley. He could exhort his followers to remain united to the Church, while ignoring his whole life long the hier- archical basis of unity. Another effect is seen in the schemes for comprehension, as it was called, which the eighteenth century produced in abundance. Easier terms, not indeed of communion, for such could hardly be invented, but of admis- sion to the ministry of the Church, were sought in a relaxation of subscription ; Dis- senters were to be cajoled into a purely external union. Such schemes, renewed in the present century by Arnold and his followers, even if the Church could have agreed to them, would liave been wrecked upon the rugged conscience of the Dissenters. With them we have no immediate concern ; we are considering the teaching of theolo- gians. ' Butler, Sermoim, p. 174, edit. 1838. I 130 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED So far as this confusion of thought was due to the neglect of instant facts by the divines of the seventeenth century, an obvious remedy was to return to their principles and apply them rigorously to the facts as developed. This course was taken b}' those who saw the need. The Oxford movement, if it was an appeal to the Fathers, was no less a revival of the true English theology. In the face of a militant, an almost triumphant sectarianism, it was necessary to state afresh the theory of the Church. New principles were not wanted, but an application of old principles to existing circumstances. The need was supplied. I .shall not quote from any of the Tractarian leaders ; I shall quote from one who enjoyed far more fully than they the confidence of the whole English Church. Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Chrit^t appeared in the year 1H38. Its authority was at once recognized ; it remained for many years the standard work on the subject. I shall attempt to extract the author's leaching on the particular point of the unity of the Church. He treats this under the two general heads of unity in Communion and unit}'' in Faith. He subjects the idea alike of unity and of BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 13I schism to a searching analysis. "Particular Churches," he says, '■ were instituted by the apostles in obedience to the divine will, not to divide, but to organize the Church uni- versal." Their relation to the whole is thus clearly determined. They are rather ad- ministrative than component parts. They exist for the sake of the whole ; and the relations of an individual to them are determined by his relations to the whole. Palmer thus avoids the mistake of proceeding from the particular to the universal ; he recognizes from the first the universal in the particular. This leaves no room for the fault, common to so many English writers, of strenuously defending the unity of the particular Church, to the comparative or entire neglect of the unity of the universal. He looks both ways at once. " Hence the communion of the Church," he says, '• is twofold, and there may be offences against it in two ways : either in dividing the communion of a particular Church, or in dividing that of the universal Church. The one arises, when professing Christians divide or refuse to communicate with the particular Church of which they are members: the other, where particular Churches refuse to communicate with the universal I 2 132 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED Church ; that is, with the great body of Christians." On tlie effect of such schism he passes the severest judgement. " When one or more professing Christians separate them- selves 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 judgement, they are totally separated from the Church of God ^" After an examination of authorities he naturally concludes 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 less heinous, though he who commits it may be ' beaten with few stripes.' To separate openl}' from the universal Church, or, which is the same thing, to separate from a particular Church, on grounds and principles which equally involve sepai-ation from the universal Church, is, as I have said, inexcusable Are there then no grounds which can justify separation ? He allows their existence, but defines them much more narrowly than his predecessors. " The mere existence of doctrinal errors, or the corruption of rites ' Palmer, vol. i. pp. 51, 52. ^ Ibid. p. 61. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. and sacraments in any Church, afford no excuse whatever for separating from its com- munion. The abuses of the Corinthians, the errors of the Galatians, did not justify any separation from those Churches ; on the con- trary, the duty of union was strongly incul- cated on them by the Apostle. ... I speak here only of faults and defects which do not amount to a rejection of what God has plainly revealed, or to a manifest contradiction and disobedience to His commandment ; because if any Church of Christ should be guilty of such a rejection and contradiction, and obstinately persist in them, it would be ajwdate, and cease ipso facto to be a Church of Christ ; and therefore he wlio should forsake its com- munion, would not forsake the communion of the Church, but of a .synagogue of Satan Nothing short of apostasy, then, can justify separation from any particular Church. Unity in comrtmnion is thus intimately con- nected with unity in fai/h. Palmer regards this in two lights— as an obligation, and as an actual fact. "THE TRUTH revealed by Chiist must be believed by all Christians in order to salvation^." Put not every error amounts to heresy. "Heresy is the perti- ' Palmer, vol. i. pp. 64. " Ibid. p. 88. 134 "^HE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED naeious denial of some truth certainly re- vealed And this alone imperils salvation ; this alone excludes from the Church. Errors^ in matters of opinion are tolerable. But even in matters of faith, "if a doctrine has been declared de fide by the legitimate judgement 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 dif- ferent doctrine." And conversely, " Churches which through an er?w of fact, but on strong reasons, believe a doctrine to have been de- fined 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^." It follows that while the obligation of unity in faith lies upon all Christian people, it is not necessarily realized in actual fact. Apparent imity in faith cannot therefore be taken as a mark or sign of the Church, noi- can apparent disunion l»c taken as a proof of defection from the Church. But on the ' Palmer, vol. i. p. 91. ' Tbiil. pji. 106-108. He supports tlie.se propositions by many liistorieal iii.stances, but he does not allwle to a point of nuiuh interest at the present clay — their application to the so-called Nestoriaus and Monophysites of the East. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. other hand, " 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 funda- mental principles fiom sustaining unity in the truth, cannot be Churches of Christ \" Proceeding as he does from the universal to the particular. Palmer has no need to insist on the numerical unity or singleness of the Church. His object also led him to neglect this point. He had to set out the four notes of the Church — One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. Face to face with a multitude of discordant sects and communities, all clairainw for them- selves membership in the Church of Christ, he saw the necessity of determining which of them were entitled to the claim. Assumina: then the oneness of the Church, these, if their claim be true, must be parts of the one. But if so they must partake of its character. The notes of the true Church must in some way be found in them. The first of these notes is Unity. Palmer, as we have seen, reduced this to unity in communion and unit} in ' raliiiur, vol. i. p. 1 1 5. 136 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED faith. UBity, in the sense of singleness, is of no avail as a test ; it is not an attribute of which the parts can partake. Of the moral unity of the whole Church, of its corporate and sacramental unity, they can partake, and by this they can be tested. Palmer applies the test, along with those supplied by the other notes of the Church, to the vai-ious claimant bodies. He finds no difficulty in allowing the claims of the British and of the orthodox Eastern Churches. Of the Churches of the Roman communion, he distinguishes carefully between those founded anterior to any schism, those founded more recently in heathen lands, and those founded by an inva- sion of other Churches. The last only he pronounces schismatical, on the ground of broken unity in communion. He then turns to consider the case of the Protestant and Calvinist communities. Of the English Dis- senters he makes short work. He shows that the principle of separation is a " maxim of dissent \" and those who maintain it can have no claim to be regarded as integral parts of the Church whose note is unity. The Lutherans and Reformed of continental Europe he holds to have l)een unjustly and ' Faluier, vol. i. p. 406. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. against their will driven from the communion of the Church. He will not therefore lay to their charge the sin of schism. " Under such circumstances they had no remedy, and were obliged to remain as a distinct community until God should see fit to restore them to union with the rest of the Church." As individuals, therefore, they may be considered as not cut off totally from the unity of the Church ; but as organized bodies they lack the other notes of the true Church, and cannot be accounted integi-al parts of it. Their organization was purely provisional. The favour at one time shown them by English divines he attributes to a charitable inter- pretation of their acts and principles. " There was a great probability that they were not schismatics nor heretics ; and as they did not exhibit an unfriendly 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 tho agreement on certain points of doctrine and discipline against Rome may have, perhaps, induced us to give a better construction to some things 138 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED than they deserved, and to overlook some faults which an unfriendly, or even a strict criticism vs^ould have condemned." Their after history, however, made this impossible. They '■ deemed it necessary to assume the office and character of Churches of Christ in the ordinary sense '" ; and this " led them to reject that Catholic tradition which did not suppoit their novel system, and thus to open the door for the intrusion of heresy and infidelity ^" Thus Palmer, whose opinion I quote as interesting in itself, without passing judgement on its historical accuracy. It will be seen that Palmer treats his subject in that practical, not to say polemical, tone, which characterizes most of the authors that I have quoted. Of the unity of the Church in the abstract he has not much to say ; and therefore he does not touch, unless incidental]}', on the distinction between the essential, indestructible unity of the (Jliurch, and that practical unity which dopeuds on human agency. The distinction is, however, implied in a question which he treats at great length. He glances at essential unity when he speaks of an impossibility. " Unity of communion," he says, "being the law of ' Palmer, vol. i. pp. 382-392. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 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 he several dlljerent Churches, authorized by God and united to Christ^." But given the necessary existence of one Church only in each particular place, as a member of the Church universal, he goes on to ask the important question, " Whether the external communion of the universal Church can ever he interrupted'-." We have here a question which our older writers had strangely neglected. An affirmative answer is necessary to the defence of their position. It is an obvious fact that all the particular Churches which they recog-nized as parts of the universal are not actually knit in the bonds of perfect unity and communion. On the contrary they hold aloof, sullenly or fiercely ; they denounce, they even anathe- matize each other. If, then, the external communion of the Church cannot be inter- rupted, if the fullness of external communion be a part of the essential unity of the Church, it will follow that only one of these discor- dant parts can belong to the true Church. Controversialists had urged this against the ' Palmer, vol. i. j). 68. ^ ibid. pp. 71 seqtj. 140 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED English position ; English divines had been slow to answer. Palmer undertook the task. He shows that what is said in Holy Scrip- tui'e about the unity of the Church is either to be understood of a spiritual unity of rela- tions to Christ, or of spiritual privileges, which might exist even if external unity were inter- rupted ; or else must be taken as showing by way of moral precept rather what ought to be than what must be. From the very earnestness of our Saviour's repeated prayer for the unity of His disciples he infers " that the Church was in imminent danger of dis- union, and that so great an evil would most probably at some time arrive." He then shows that neither the Fathers nor the Coun- cils of the Church ever affirm the impossibility of such divisions among the members of the one Church as should amount to a breach of communion. The well-known passage in which St. Cyprian sa,ys that " unity cannot be severed, nor the one bod}^ by laceration be divided refers to the Novatian schism at Rome, and asserts only the impossibility of the coexistence of two Churches in one ' Cypr. De Unitnte, c. 23, p. 2.^1, edit. H artel : " Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus iinum discidio conpaginis eeparari, divulsis laceratioiie visceribus in frusta discerpi." BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS, 141 place. It says nothing of the estrangement of different parts of the Church from each other. In the thu'd place he brings into evidence the many recorded interruptions of communion between bishops alike of the East and of the West, in which it is agreed that both parties remained in the unity of the whole Church : he insists especially on the Great Schism of the fourteenth century, when for nearly forty years the Latin Church was divided into two or even three obediences. Lastly he quotes various theologians, and in particular Tourncly, as distinguishing three kinds of ex- communication ; the fii'st, " by which bishops are deprived of the charity and ecclesiastical communion of other bishops " ; a second, " by which a person was totally cut off from the body of the Church " ; and a third, " most customary among the ancients ... by which bishops or Churches separated themselves from mutual communion, and thus one, as it ivere, excommunicated the other, though not subject to it ^" This last kind, according to Tourncly, is not excommunication properly so called. "Therefore," he concludes, "if the Church universal should be divided into two portions hy audi an excommunication, neither party ' Tournely, Praelect. Theol. de Ecclesia, qu. iv. art. iv. 142 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED would be truly cut off from the Church, and therefore the Church would exist in different communions ^" There maybe divisions, in- ducing a breach of external communion, by which the unity of the Church, though im- paired, would not be destroyed. § 20. The elaborate but condensed argument in which Palmer deals with this question, fills up a serious gap in the English presentment of the doctrine of unity. His treatment of the doctrine as a whole is not exhaustive ; as I have noted, he passes by the points of essential and of numerical unity ; but he sup- plies what was lacking in earlier theologians. The defects and the merits of his work are closely connected. There is in his method a sort of hard and hammerins; logic which was needed for the rescue of English thought from the confusion that had mastered it. There is in his argument a tone of bitter polemic, and a certain narrowness of view, which occasionally betrays him into inconsistency. An instance may be found in his treatment of a question which was then beginning to press for solution. ' This passage is interesting ;is fixing the sense in which we speak of the Church as divided into various Cotnmutiion.'. See above, p. 23. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. The geographical arrangement of the Church was from the beginning the basis of practical unity. To St. Cyprian it was the pledge of unity : there was to be one bishop in a city, and a united episcopate. On this ground the English bishops took their stand in rejecting the Papal jurisdiction. All English theo- logians since have stood by the same principle, and Palmer with them. But he was familiar with a certain modification of it, established by centuries of usage in the East. The violent controversies which broke up the unity of the Eastern Church in the fifth and sixth centuries have left a legacy of confusion to our day. Inveterate schisms, following as a rule the lines of national divisions, are not easily healed, even when their original cause is removed. There are now several com- munities, Nestorian, Monophysite, or Mono- thelite in their origin, which have been led, chiefly by Roman influence, to abandon their heresy, and ai'e admitted to the communion of the Roman Church. But they retain their independent organization, and their jurisdic- tions are interlaced over the whole field of Oriental Christendom. The position is further complicated by a Latin Christianity, intro- duced in the timje of the Crusades. There 144 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED are thus, besides the Orthodox Eastern Church, various independent hierarchies, with their several patriarchs, all in communion with the Roman See. Palmer allows this to be effected without any formal breach of unity. As a provisional arrangement, at least, it may be tolerated ^ But when he has to face a not dissimilar state of things in the West, his judgement is much more rigid. Setting aside England, where it is clear that the adherents of the Roman communion separated them- selves in formal schism from the local Church, there have been established, in several new countries, rival hierarchies of the Anglican and the Roman communions. These are the fruit of a division which may well be re- garded as inveterate, and which follows in the main the lines of national cleavage — notably between England and Ireland. We might expect to find the same charitable judgement passed on these rival hierarchies as on those of the East. Palmer indeed de- fends in this way the establishment of an Anglican hierarchy in one region. After allowing the regularity of the Church founded by the French settlers in North America, he proceeds: "If, in Canada, the English com- ' Palmer, vol. i. pp. 302-304. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. munity united to our Catholic Churches have bishops and priests, it is only as a matter of necessity, because the Church there refuses them communion, and they are properly for the English only. The arrangement must be considered only provisional in a certain measure, and not designed to interfere with the prior claims of the Roman Churches there, within their proper didricts." But a similar establishment of bishops of the Roman com- munion in the United States he condemns without reserve : " When America received bishops from our Churches, the schismatics constituted a rival episcopacy, and so remain to this day separated from the true Church '." It might be more fairly argued that in the West, or in new countries associated with the West, as in the ancient field of Eastern Christendom, the effects of a long-standing quarrel may require, provisionally at least, some modification of the geographical arrange- ment of the Church. In the United States, with their extraordinary gathering of people from all parts of the old world, bred in every form of Christian profession, the question is most pi'essing and will perhaps find its solution. ' Palmer, vol. i. pp. 304, 305. Iv 146 THE UNITY OP THE CHURCH AS TREATED § 21- If it was the merit of Palmer's work to clear away confusion, his defects were hardly less serviceable in calling for the completion of his system. His neglect of the natural or essential unity of the Church compelled atten- tion to it, as the necessary foundation of all manifest unity. Manning followed him with a treatise on the unity of the Church, in which natural and moral unity are carefully distin- guished ; the natural unity which is the imme- diate work of God and is therefore indestruc- tible, and the moral unity which, depending on human agency, is variable and may fail entirely. This distinction became the keynote of the aspirations after the reunion of Christendom which have lately been so marked a feature of English religion. I have traced it in many of our older writers ; it has found clear and familiar expression duringthe last half-century. Dr. Alexander Forbes, the late Bishop of Brechin, proposed another distinction. He divided unity into objective and subjective. " Objective unity is that inwrought by our Head, Jesus Himself, through union with Him- self. It is wrought on His side, by the com- munication of the ' one Spirit,' and by the Sacraments, making us all one body in Him. It BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS, requires, on our part, continuity of the com- mission which He gave to His Apostles, and perseverance in the faith which He committed to the Church. Subjective unity is unity of will, and intercommunion with one another. Subjective unity may be suspended, while objective unity is maintained. Subjective unity was suspended during the schism at Antioch, yet objective unity is maintained, for the blessed Meletius is a saint. Subjective unity was suspended in the quarrels between the British and Western Churches in the Saxon times, yet nobody doubts of the salvation or sanctity of St. Aidan or St. Cuthbert. Sub- jective unity was suspended during the struggles of the antipopes, yet no one con- siders the followers of Peter de Luna as either heretics or schismatics. And thi.s must also apply to the mighty disunion between the East and the West, and between ourselves and the rest of Christendom. It is deeply to be deplored that the state of the Church is as it is ; but let us hope, that the evil is not so great as it seems, and that there is a fund of unity, if men only understood each other ; that the fissures are only surface ones ; that the disorder is functional, not organic ^" ' Forbes, Exphinalion of the Sicene Creed, jj. 276. Second edition, 1866. K 2 148 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED This is clearly a cross-division. The objec- tive unity of Forbes is partly natural and the immediate work of God, partly moral, depend- ing on our continuance and perseverance. Forbes would probably say that a purely natural unity is a mere abstraction. The Church, a society of moral beings, cannot have an}^ real unity which is independent of their moral co-operation. A simple static unity — the unity for example of the baptized as such — is nothing more than a classification ; nor does it become a living unity, through the relation of the members to the Head, without the express or implicit perseverance of the members in adhesion. Pusey, than whom no one of our day has pondered more deeply the question of unitj^ adopted these terms, but used them in the older sense. " Unity," he wrote, " in part, is the direct gift of God ; in part, it is the fruit of that ffift in the mutual love of the members of the Church. In part, it is a spiritual oneness wrought by God the Holy Ghost ; in part, it is a grace, to be exercised hy man, a consequence and fruit of that gift. In one way, it is organic unity derived from Christ, and binding all to Christ, descending from the Head to the Body, and uniting the BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. 149 Body to the Head ; in another, it consists in acts of love from the members one to another^." Quoting from St. Athanasius, he shows that the primal unity of the Church is " an actual mystical oneness, inwrought by Christ our Head, uniting the whole Church together in one with Himself in His Body; an actual oneness produced by grace, corre- sponding to tlie Oneness of the Father and the Son by nature-." He shows how St. Hilary urges against the Arians that the unity of the Church is an unity not of will but of nature ^. This unity is imparted primarily through the sacraments, and so far depends on the continuance of the powers given to the Apostles ; but the work done by the sacraments is essentially the work of God. Those who wilfully reject the organization by which sacramental grace is given, reject Christ. Those who retain it are like the river of Eden, which is one though it parted and became into four heads. " Unknown in face, in place separate, different in language, opposed, alas! in some things to one another, still before the Throne of (Jod they are One Holy (,'atliolic Apostolic Church ; each several portion praying for itself and for the rest, ' /j7re»/Vo)i, part i. p. 45. " Iliid. p. 47. ' Iliid.p. 51. 150 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED united in the prayers and oblation which it offers for all, by the One Bread and the One Spirit which dwelleth in alP." He then passes to the subjective, which is for him the whole moral unity of the Church. " The Divine gift of Unity requires, as a corre- sponding duty, mutual love as the exercise of that ' love of God which is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost which is given to us.' This has been called ' subjective ' unity, or ' unison of wills,' and of this, intercommunion is the natural expression." He shows, with his usual wealth of erudition, that in the history of the Church there have been numerous interruptions of communion without breach of the organic unity of the Church. He shows the true nature of Donatism, involving a different kind of schism from these, and one which is often misunder- stood. " The Donatists were not merely separated from the Catholic Church through- out the world, but denied its existence, and claimed to be the whole Church. The body was formed on a heresy, rejected by the Eng- lish Church 2." He points to the evidence of the life of grace, of the working of the Holy Ghost, in " the several Churches, owning the ' Eirenicon, part i. p. 57, et ante. ' Article XXVI. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. same Lord, united to Him by the same Sacraments, confessing the same Faith Objective unity is therefore the work of God. It is a gift of grace ; but since the Church is the creation of grace this gift is the natural law of the Church's life, organic, essential, indestructible as the Church herself. Subjective unity on the other hand is the result of human effort, corresponding to the Divine grace given ; like all the fruits of grace it varies with the varying efforts of the individual man. It can never disappear en- tirely, as holiness can never be banished entirely from the visible Church, but its natural expression by intercommunion may for a time be lost. § 22. It remains for me to summarize all this teaching — the public doctrine of the Church and the teaching of theologians. The Church is, in the first place, numerically one. There is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. There is, moreover, but one human race, one naturally indivisible human society, and the Church is designed to embrace the whole of it. There is but one foundation and ' Eirenicon, part i. pp. 58-66. 152 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED one superstructure. The Church is essentially singular, and is divided into a plurality of parts only for reasons of administration. It was founded in a single community, and re- mains as truly one, though widely expanded, as when gathered wholly at Jerusalem. The Church is eskentialiy one, not a mere aggregate of parts. This truth, propounded by Nicholson and others in the seventeenth century ^, but obscured or neglected by many writers, has more recently obtained the fullest recognition. This oneness, being essential, is not a mere matter of classification. It belongs to the nature of the Church. There is there- fore a natural unity ; and since the Church consists of persons united by the grace of God to Christ, in a manner comparable to the union of the members of a living body with ' Nicholson, Uxposilion of the Catechism, p. 58, edit. Oxford, 1 842 : " This Church is but one, as it is in the Nicene Creed ; one body knit together by one Spirit, under one Head. ' Tliere is but one Lord, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism.' Inwardly, then, and essentially it is but one, but outwardly and externally you may say the'-e be many Churches cither national or congregational ; who are bound to retain one faith, but may differ in rites and ceremonies."' It is not easy to see what he means by conijretjational. Of course he does n.it use the word in its modern sense. I think he must have had in view any gnmping of dioceses on otlier than national lines. BY ENGLISH THEOLOGIANS. their head, this unity is rightly called organic. From another point of view it is a social unity, since the Church visible is a form of human society, ordained by God as a means to the salvation of men. This unity of the Church, essential, natural, organic, social, is the work of God alone, fixed and immovable as the laws of nature. The Church is not only unalterably one, it is also unalterably united. The individual man is gathered into this unity not by any act or volition of his own. but by his baptism, which the Church as the Body of Christ administers, but in which the Holy Ghost Himself operates. In this unity the man remains until he is either cast from it by effective excommunica- tion, or falls from it by apostasy from the conditions of membership. In neither case is he removed by any act of human will, but by the working of a divine law — the natural law of the Cliurch's being. No man can divide the Church essentially. The member cut ott ceases to be a membei-. This unity, being organic, depends upon a certain principle of life, which is the possession of the true faith and sacramental grace. This is diffused through all tlie parts of the one Church, though it may not be found every- 154 THK UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS TREATED where in the same vigour ; and therefore if it fail entirely in any part, that part is cut off as a branch and withered. It ceases to be a part of the Church at all, remotely through its own will and action, but immediately through the cessation of the flow of life. This unity, being social, depends upon the continuance of a certain order. The Church was founded in the fellowship of the Apostles, and this fellowship developed, under the guid- ance of the Holy Spirit, into a hierarchy, which extends into every part of the Christian society. This hierarchy alone, by the gi-ace of God, binds the scattered parts together. The episcopate, in particular, is one solid indivisible order, and the individual Christian is held immovably in union with this whole order by communion with his own bishop. In addition to this natural, essential unity, there is another kind of unity proposed to the Church as an end of moral action. In contrast with the other it is called subjective, because it is immediately dependent upon human volition ; but as realized and expressed in action it is in truth equally objective. It is a moral as distinct from a natural, afunctional as distinct from an organic unity. It is the result of an effort, on the part either of the BY EXGLISH THEOLOGIANS. individual or of the community, to live in coiTespondence with the divine grace of unity. Its principle is charity. Its outward expres- sion is found, on the part of the individual, in loyal submission to authority, in mutual for- bearance, in prayer and almsgiving and other acts of charity ; on the part of the community, in the same acts corporately performed ^, and especially in free and pei'fect intercommunion. This moral unity corresponds to the natural unity of the Church, and therefore to its various phases. Corresponding with the organic unity of the Church is free and brotherly partici- pation in the sacraments, free and brotherly communication for the defence and propaga- tion of the faith. Corresponding with the social unity of the Church is the common action of each several diocese or province ; in a wider field, the brotherly intercourse of Church with Church, bishop with bishop, tlio mutual recognition of each other's acts, ' Moral union between England and the rest of Christen- dom might Metin to be ended after tlie accession of Elizabeth : yet in 1 565 public prayers were ordered for the rescue of the Knights of Malta from the Turks ; and in the following year for " the Emperor's excellent Majesty, as God's prin- cipal minister," and " all the Christian army now assembled with him," to resist the Turks in Hungary. See Liturgical Services of the lieiyn of Queen Elizuheth, Parker Society, VV- 5 '9-5 35' 156 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. mutual support against heresy or schism ; in the last resort, the assembly of a General Council and the universal acceptance of its decrees. This moral unity is an end : it is set before us accordincr to the will of God as a thing to be attained. It is also a means : it is neces- sary to the perfect well-being of the Church, to the final conversion of the world, to the accomplishment of the woi'k of salvation. It must therefore be realized ; but the necessity does not stand in any special time or manner. The moral unity of the Church may be realized in varying degrees. In different parts of the Church it may be realized in varying intensity ; between some parts there may be the closest union ; between others at the same time there may be grave dissension. No part, perhaps, can ever be entirely without moral union with the rest, but the outward expression of it may be all but wliolly lost. The moral unity is therefore variable, but the natural unity is indefectible. In this sense we declare our belief in the Church, past, present, and to come, OXE and united. INDEX. Aggregation, vinity of, 92. Aiclan, Saint, 147. Antioch, Schism of, 147. Apologia, Jewel's, 60. Apostasy, 6H, 13,^, 153. Arnold, 129. Articles, the Thirty-nine, 12, 19, 41, 42, 43. Athanasius, Saint, quoted, 112. Bancroft, his sermon on the Trying of Spirits, 69. Banes, his definition of the Church, 46. Barrow, 106-113, 116-118. — on General Councils, iii. Bellarmine, his definition of the Church, 12, 46. — on General Councils, 1 1 1. — on resistance to the Pope, 81. Beveridge, 1 18-121. — denies the catholicity of the Roman Church, 103. — on salvation only in the Church, 120. — on the enmity of Rome and Geneva to the English Church, 102. — on the powers of provincial Churches, 121. Bilson, 69. Boniface, Saint, 31. Bonner, 47, 49. Bramhall, 75-85. — on separation from Rome, 80. — on the reunion of Cliristendon, 83. — on submission to the rule of Faith, 84. Branch Tlieory, the, 20, 50. Bucchingcr, his definitions of the Church, 44. Butler, on the denominational system, 128. Canada, hierarchies in, 144. Canon ot 1604, English, on sectarian congregations, 13. on separation from other Churches, 25. on tlio Church of Scotland, 50. — of 1606, English, on the unity of the Church, 5^. Canterbury, Archbisliop of, and the Nestorians, 19. Centre of unity, Rome as the, 3t, 32, 49. Chichelo, his confirmation of Bishops, 33. Cole, his argument against the Book of Conimoii Prayer, 48. Communions, division of the (,'hurch into, 23, 142. Compri'liension, schemes of, 129. Conciliar Theory, the, iii. 158 INDEX. Constance, Council of, 33. Convocation of Canterbury, on reconciliation with Rome, 47. Cusa, Cardinal de, on the constitution of the Church, 34. Cuthbert, Saint, 147. Cyprian, Saint, quoted, 31, 96, :i3, 118, 140, 143. Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint, quoted, 88. Definitions of the Church, 12, 13, 31, 34, 37, 41, 43-47, 125. Denominational system, the, 128. Discipline, necessity of, 18, 65. — unity of, 96, 109. Dissent, principle of, 10, 136. Dissenters, their origin, 123-124. — their testimony to the principles of the Church, 16. — refuse comprehension, 127, 129. Donatism, its true nature, 150-151. Episcopate, necessity of the, 70, 116, 119, 154. — the united, 72, 79, 143. Essential unity, 71, 82,91, 97-99, 138-139, 152. Established Church, the, 128. Estius, his definition of the Church, 45. Evangelical Alliance, the, 11, 14. Excommunication, effect of, 64. — nature of, 141. External communion, interruption of, 79, 139. Faith, vinity of, 19, 62, 73, 95, 107, 131, 133. Fisher, his definition of the Church, 43. Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, 146. Fraternization with Dissenters, 15. Galilean Church, attempted union with the, 104, 126. — controversialists, English sympathy with, 114. their definition of the Church, 47. Gardiner, 47. Genevese Calvinists, the, 35, 66, 102. Geographical organization of the Church, the, 25, 39, 121. modified, 143. Gerson, on resistance to the Pope, 81. Gregory the Great, Saint, his definition of the Church, 31. Grindelwald Conferences, the, 14, 16. Hammond, teaching of his Practical Catechism, 69-71. — Canon of Truro, 16. Head of the Church, Christ Himself, 34, 37, 52, 9., 108, 149. — the Roman Pontiff, 36, 46, 57. — royal title, 36, 57-58. Henry VIII, 35, 56. Heresy, definition of, 134. Heretics, not wholly excluded from the Church, 44, 63. Hierarchy, institution of the, 54, 119. — necessity of the, 43, 70, 116, 154. Homilies, the authorized, definition of the Church, 13, 18. INDEX. Hooker, 20, 61-69, 85, 87, 106. Itistitution of a Christian Man, the, 37. Intercommunion, 79, 150. Invisible Church, Calvinist theory of the, 11, 14, 61, 106. Jewel, 60. King's Book, the, 37. Land, 72. Lannoi, 116. Lutherans, the, 35, 136. Lyndwood, Ids definition of the Church, 12, 34. Lyra, Nicholas de, on the constitution of the Church, 32. Manning, 146. Martin V, 33, 34. Meletius of Antioch, Saint, 147. Monophysites, 134, 143. Moral unity, 82, 110, 146, 150, 155-157. National Churches, 24, 54, 71, 74, 104, 128. — unity of, 72, loi. Natural unity, 146, 152. Necessary Doctrine, etc., definition of the Church in the, 37. — on the nature of unity, 38-40. Nestorians, 19, 134, 143. Nicholas I, his definition of the Church, 31. Nicholson, on essential unity, 152. Novatian schism, the, 140. Numerical unity, 77, 82, 86, 99, 135, 142, 152. Objective unity, 147, 155. Organic unity, 53, 64, 153-154. Overall's C'ontt/cation Book, 52-54. Oxford movement a revival of English theology, the, 130. Palmer, Treatise on the Church of Christ, 130-146. — on heresy, 134-135. — on interruptions of external communion, 139-142. — on relations with the Lutherans and Reformed, 137-138. — on separation, 132-133. — on the geographical organization of the Church, 141. — *• on the nature of excommunication, 141. Papists, 124, 126. Particular Churches, not indefectible, 97. — the unity of, 90, 131. Pearson. Kxpusition of the Creed, 87-99. — on Christ as the Head of the Church, 91. — on tlio episcopate, </>. — on the holiness of tlie Church, 98. — on the indolectibilitj' of the Church, 97. — on the modes of unity, 94-97. Pigliius, Alhortus, on the constitution of the Church, 44. Pole, ('iiKliiial, liis Defence of Unity, 35, 48, 56. — his Legatine Council, 49. i6o INDEX. Prayer-book, the Preface to, 9. — called schismatical, 4.8. Presbyterianism, 51. Protestants, the, 35. Pusey, on the nature of vmity, 148-151. Recusants, 124, 126. R«formers, relations with foreign, loi, 136. Restoration, the, loo, 105. Roman Communion, Churches of the, 25, 28, 136, 144. Roman See, its jurisdiction put aside in England, 35, 82. — regarded as the centre of unity, 31-32, 49. Sacraments, necessity of the, 42. — unity of the, 17, 95, 149. Salvation only in the Chiirch, 120. Saywell, Dr. William, 114. Schism, definition of, 77, 117. — effect of, 132. — • in England, 124. — the Antiochene, 147. — the Great, 32, 60, 141. Scotland, the Church of, 50, 72, loi. Separation, when justifiable, 118, 133. Social unity, 94, 153-154. Stapleton, his definition of the Church, 45. Subjective unity, 146, 150, 154. Swiss Reformers, the, 35, 40. Test Act, the, 123. Theodoret, 31. Thomdike, 85. Toleration, Act of, 123. Tournely, on excommunication, 141. Tunstall, 36, 47, 105. — his reply to Pole, 58-59. Turrecremata, Card, de, his definition of the Church, 34. h'nam Sanctam, the Bull, 32. Uniformity, compulsory, 123. United States of America, hierarchies in the, 145. Visible Church, the, 10, 41, 61, 106. — unity, 17, 41, 64, 65, 98. can be impaired, 79, 140, 147. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, 104, ia6. Weslej', 129. Wilfrid, Saint, 31. Winchester, the late Bishop of, 19. Wordsworth, Dr., Bishop of Lincoln, 20. 0X1 ORU: HORACE HAKT, IKINII.R TO THE UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF THE Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. WORKS BY THE REV. F. BOURDILLON, MA $. d. Bedside Keadlng's. Being short portions of Holy Scripture, with a simple Commentary. i2mo. ... Cloth boards a o The Week of Monrning; or, Short and Simple Exposi- tions OF Scripture, for the Use of the Bereaved. Clak o 10 Alone with God; or, IIixPs Tu Thought and Traver, for the Useof the Sick ; Based on Short Passages OF Scripture. Series I and II. i2mo. Cloth boards, each I o Lesser Lights, Series I and II. Post 8vo. Clo/h boards, each a 6 Straight On ; Directions, Encouragemf.nt, and Warn- ings ADDRESSED ESPECIALLY TO YoUNG MeN WHO HAVE SET OUT 9N THE WAY OF ETERNAL LiFK. Crown 8vo. Cloth boards I O A Quiet Visitor. A Book for Lying-in Women. Po^t 8vo. Clolh boards o lo Our Own Book. Very Plain Reading for People in Humble Life. Post 8vo Cloth boards I O Cloudy Days. Short Meditations on some Texts and Portions of Holy Scripture for the private use of those in trouble. Post 8vo Clolh boards i 6 A Chain of Love. Post 8vo. Cloth boards 2 o Volume of Tracts. Series I Clolh boards i o Ditto Series IL {largt type) Cloth boards i o 2 PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. WORKS BY MRS. RUNDLE CHARLES, AUTHOR OF " The Chronicles of the Schonberg-Cotta Family." The Beatitudes. Tliooghts for All Saints' Day. Post 8vo. Cloth boards. \t. 6d. " By the Mystery of Thy Holy Incarnation." Post 8vo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. "By Thy Cross and Passion." Tlioughts on the words spoken around and on the Cross. Post 8vo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. " By Thy Glorious Resurrection and Ascension." E.ister Thoughts. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. " By the Coming' of the Holy Ghost." Thoughts for Whitsuntide. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. The True Vine. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. The Great Prayer of Christendom. Thoughts on the Lord's Prayer. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. An Old Story of Bethlehem. One link in the great Pedigree. Fcap. 4to, vpith six plates, beautifully printed in colours. Cloth boards. 2S. 6d. Three Martyrs of the Klneteenth Century. Studies from the Lives of Gordon, Livingstone, and Patteson. Crown Svo. Cloth boards, ^s. 6d. Martyrs and Saints of the First Tvsrelve Centuries. Studies from the Lives of the Black-letter Saints of the English Calendar. Crown Svo. Cloth boards, gs. Against the Stream. The Story of an Heroic Age in England. With eight page woodcuts. Crown Svo. Cloth boards. 4s. Conquering and to Conquer. A Story of Rome in the days of St. Jerome. Illustrated. Crown Svo. Cloth boards, is. dd. Early Christian Missions of Ireland, Scotland, and England. Crown Svo. Cloth boards. 4J. Lapsed, not tost. A Story of Roman Carthage. Crown Svo. Cloth boards. 2s. 6d. Within the Veil. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. The Book of the Unveiling. Studies in the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Post Svo. Cloth boards, is. 6d. lady Augusta Stanley. Reminiscences. iSmo. Litup cloth. 6d. Sketches of the Women of Christendom. Crown Svo, Cloth boards. 3^. 6d. Thoughts and Characters. Being Selections from the Writings of Mrs. Charles. Crown Svo. Cloth boards, ^s. 6d. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. THE HOME LIBRARY. A Series of Books illustrative of Church History, &c., specially, but not exclusively, adapted for Sunday Reading. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, 3b. 6d. each. Black and White. Mission Stories. By H. A. Forde. Charlemagne. By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, B.A. \Yith Map. Constantine the Great. The Union of the Church and State. By the Rev. E. L. CuTTS, B.A. Oreat English Churchmen; or, Famous Names in ZSnglish Church History and Literature. By the late W. H. Davenport Adams. John Has. The Commencement of resistance to Papal Authority on the part of the Inferior Clergy. By the Rev. A. H. Wratislaw. Judsea and Her Bulers, from Kebnchadnezzar to Vespasian. By M. Bramston. With Map. Mazarin. By the late Gusi ave Masson. Military Beligious Orders of the Middle Ages; the Hospi- tallers, the Templars, the Teutonic Knights, and others. By the Rev. F. C. Woouhouse, M.A. Mitslav ; or, the Conversion of Fomerania. By the late Right Rev. Robert Milman, D.D. With Map. Uarcissus : A Tale of E.arly Christian Times. By the Right Rev. W. Boyd Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon. Blchelieu. By the late Gustave Masson. Sketches of the Women of Christendom. Dedicated to the Women of India. By Mrs. Rundle Ciiari.es. The Church in Soman Gaul. By the Rev. R. Travers Smitit. The Churchman's Life of Wesley. By R. Denny Urlin, Esq. The House of God the Home of Man. By the Rev. Canon Jelf. The Inner Xilfe, as Bevealed in the Correspondence of Celebrated Christians. Edited ljy the late Rev. T. ICrskine. The Life of the Soul in the World ; its Nature, Needs, Dangers, Sorrows, Aids, and Joys. By the Rev. F. C. W007UI0USE, M.A. The ITorth-Afrlcan Church. By the late Rev. JULIIJS Li.OYi). With Map. Thoughts and Characters : being Selections from the Writings of Mrs. KuNDLU Charles. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. THE DAWN OF EUROPEAN LITERATURE. A set of Works desifjned to present the chief races of Europe as they emerge out of pre-historic darkness into the light furnished by their earliest recorded words. Post 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d. each. Anglo-Saxon Z>iterature. By the Rev. Professor Earlk. Preach Literature. By the late Gustave Masson, B.A. Slavonic laterature. By W. R. Morfill, M.A. THE FATHERS FOR ENGLISH READERS. A Series of Monograms on the Chief Fathers of the Church, the Fathers selected being centres of influence at important periods of Church History, and in important spheres of action. Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2a. each. £eo the Great. By the Rev. Charles Gore, M.A. Oregory the Great. By the Rev. J. Barmby, B.D. Saint Ambrose: his Life, Times, and Teaching. By the Venerable Archdeacon Thornton, D.D. Saint Athanasins : his Life and Times. By the Rev. R. Wheler Bush. 2s. (id. Saint A\igustine. By the Rev. E. L. CuTTS, B.A. Saint Basil the Great. By the Rev. R. T. Smith, B.D. Sain* Bernard : Abbot of Clairvaux, A.D. 1091 — 115.^- I'y the Rev. S. J. Eales, D C.L. is. fid. Saint Jerome. By the Rev. Edward L. Cutts, B.A. Saint Hilary of Poitiers, and Saint Blartin of Tours. By the Rev. J. Gibson Cazenove, D.D. Saint John of Damascus. By the Rev. J. H. Lupton. Saint Patrick : his Life and Teaching. By the Rev. E. J. Newell, M.A. 2s. 6d. Synesius of Cyreno, Philoso- pher and Bishop. By Alice Gardner. The Apostolic Fathers. By the Rev. Canon bcoiT Holland. The Defenders of the Faith ; or, The Christian Apologists of the Second and Third Centuries. By the Rev. F. Watson, M.A. The Venerable Bede. By the Rev. Canon Brownb. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. 6 ANCIENT HISTORY FROM THE MONUMENTS. This Seriu of Books is chiefly intended to illustrate the Sacred Scriptures by the results of recent KlonumeDtal Researches in the East. reap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. each. Assyria, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nliieveli. By the late George Smith, of the British Museum. Sinai, from the Fourth EgTptiau Dynasty to the Present Day. By the late Henry S. Palmer. A New Edition, revised throughout by the Rev. Professor Sayce. \Yith Map. Babylonia (The History of). By the late George Smith. Edited by the Rev. Professor Sayce. Egypt, from the EarUest Times to B.C. 300. By the late S. Birch, LL.D. Persia, from the Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest. By the late W. S. W. Vau.x, M.A. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS. A Series of Manuals which furnish in a brief and popular form an accurate account of the great Non-Christian Religious Systems of the World. Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d. each. Buddhism— Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha. By T. W. Rhys Davids. With Map. Buddhism In China. By the Rev. S. Beal. ^Vith Map. Christianity and Buddhism : a Comparison and a Contrast. By the Rev. T. Sterli.ng Berry, D.D. Confucianism and Taoulsm. By Professor Robert K. Douglas, of the British Museum. With Map. Hinduism. By Sir Monier Williams. With Map. Islam and its Founder. By J. W. II. Stobart. With Map. Islam as a Missionary Helifflon. By Charles R. Haines. 2j. The Coran-I;s Composition and Teaching, and the Testimony it bears to the Holy Scripture*. By Sir \N illiam Muir, K.C.S.l. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. CHIEF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHIES. This Series of Books deals with the chief systems of Ancient Thought, not merely as diy matters of History, but as having a bearing od Modero Speculation. Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. Cd. each. Epicureanism. By William Wallace, Esq., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. Stoicism. By Rev. W. W. Capes, Fellow of Hertford College. Aristotelianism. The Ethics of Aristotle. By the Rev. I. Gregory Smith, M..\., Hon. LL.D. The Logical Treatises, the Metaphysics, the Psychology, the Politics. By the Rev. \V. Grundy, M.A. DIOCESAN HISTORIES. This Series furnishes a perfect Librar;- •'f English Ecclesiastical History. Each volume is complete in itself, and the possibility of repetition has been care- fully guarded againsL Fcap. 8vo, with Map, cloth boards. Bath and Wells. By the Rev. W. IIu.NT. 2S. dd. Canterbury. By the Rev. R. C. Je.nkins. gj. (3d. Carlisle. By Richard S. l- ERGUSON, Esq. is. 6d. Chichester. By the Rev. W. R. W. Stephens. With Map and Plan. 2^. Qd. Durham. By the Rev J. L. Low. W ith Map and Plan. 2S. Gd. Hereford. By the Rev. Canon I'HILLOTT. 3^. Lichfield. By the Rev. W. BEKESFORD. 2S. Cd. Norwich. B)y the Rev. A. Jessop, D.D. 2s. Cd. Oxford. By the Rev. E. Mar- shall. 2S. Cd, Peterborough. By the Rev. G. A. Poole, M.A. 2s. Cd. Salisbury. By the Rev. ^V. IL Jones. With Map and Plan. 2s. Cd. Sodor and Man. By A. W. Moore, M.A. With Map. St. Asaph. By the Ven. Arch- deacon Thomas, a*. St. David's. By the Rev. Canon Bevan. With M.np. 2S.Cd. Winchester. By the Rev. W. Benhai.:, B.D. is. Worcester. By the Rev. L Gregory Smh H, M.A. , and the Rev. Piiipps Onslow, ^LA. 3^. Cd. York. By the Rev. Canon Ornsuy,M.A.,F.S.A. is.Cd. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. EARLY BRITAIN. This Series has for its aim the presentation of Early Britain at great historic periods. Each volume is the work of an accredited specialist, ami the whole gives the result of the most recent critical examinations of our Early Records. Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards. An^rlo-Sazon Britain. With Map. 2s.6d. Celtic Britain. By Professor Rhys. With two Maps. 3*. ITornian Britain. By the Rev. W. Hunt. With Map. 2S. Gd. Post-Norman Britain. By Henry G. Hewlett. With Map. 3*. Boman Britain. BythelateRev. Preb.SCARTH. With Map. is.^d. CHURCH READERS. A Set of Gradtialed Readers ; for Sunday School and Home Usi. Fcap. 8vo, with Illustrations. No. I. Christian Children. Limp cloth, id. No. a. The Way of Life. Clolh boards, 4//. No. 3. Helps hy the Way : the Two Sacraments and Confirma- tion. Clolh boards, 44/. No. 4. The Church and its Service. Clolh boards, 6d. CONVERSION OF THE WEST. These are intended to show, in the first place, the condition of the chief races of the West before they were brought into contact with Christianity ; and, in the second, how their Conversion was brought about, and the immediate results. Fcap. 8vo, with Map, cloth boards, 28. each. The Continental Teutons, by the Very Rev. CHARLES MerivalB, D.D., D.C.L., Dean of Ely. The Celts, by the Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. The Engrllsh, by the Rev. G. F. Maci.ear, D.D. The ITorthmen, by the Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. The SlavB; by the Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. THE HEATHEN WORLD AND ST. PAUL. This Series of Books is intended to throw light upon the writings and labours of the Apostle of the Gentiles, by furnishing an account of the Environ- ment, Social, Political, &c., of St. Paul in the several great heathen centres. Fcap. 8vo, with Map, cloth boards, 23. St. Paul In Greece, by the Rev. G. S. Da vies, ^^.A., Charterhouse, Godalming. St. PatU in Damasctis and Araliia, by the Rev. Georgb Rawlin- SON, M.A., Canon of Canterbury. St. Pata at Borne, by the Very Rev. Charles Merivale, D.D., D.C.L., Dean of Ely. St. Paul in Asia Minor, and at the Syrian Antlocli, by the late Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. COLONIAL CHURCH HISTORIES. Fcap. 8vo, with Map, cloth boards. Diocese of Mackenzie Kiver, by the Right Rev. W. C. BOMPAS, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese. 2^-. New Zealand, by the Very Rev. Henry Jacobs, D.D., Dean of Christchurch. Containing the Dioceses of Auckland, Christ- chnrch, Dunedin, Nelson, Waiapu, Wellington and Melanesia. c,s. History of the Church in Eastern Canada and ITewfoundland, by the Rev. J. Langtry. 3j. SERMONS FOR THE PEOPLE. Post 8vo, cloth boards. Is. each. vou I. Sermons for Advent and Christmastide. II. Epiphany to Ash Wednesday. III. Ash Wednesday to Easter. IV. Easter Day to Tuesday in Whitsun Week. V. Trinity Sunday to Eighth Sunday after Trinity. VI. Ninth Sunday after Trinity to St. Michael and All Angels. VII. Seventeenth to Twenty-fourth after Trinity. LONDON : NORTHlJMBEnr.AND AVENUE, W.C. ; 43, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, K.C. NEW Yokk: E & J. 13. YOUNG & CO.