& 
 
 
 ■:^
 
 LIBRA FLY 
 
 O F THE 
 
 U N IVERSITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 NO.S.] TRACTS ON CATHOLIC UNITY. iPnce^i. 
 
 By Members of the Church of England. 
 
 An Essay to procure Catholic Communion upon Catholic 
 Principles. 
 
 (Reprinted from Deacon's " Complete Collection of Devotions," 1734.) 
 
 [In putting forth a reprint of this valuable Tract, the present Editors expressly 
 disclaim committing themselves to every sentiment or point of argument contained 
 in it, or to more than the general principle implied in the endeavour to reconcile 
 difiFerences on Catholic grounds. Nor, since it is now put forth solely for religious, 
 not for literary, purposes, has it been thought necessary to authenticate its history 
 beyond the following statement of a correspondent, well acquainted with the writings 
 of the period of its publication, to whom the Editors had referred for information on 
 the subject. " The only entry I can find among my Nonjuring documents 
 respecting the authorship of the ' Essay to procure Catholic Communion upon 
 Catholic Principles,' appended to Deacon's Collection of Devotions, is one from 
 Peter Hall's Fragmenta Liturgica, Vol. I., p. xlii., where the Essay is attributed to 
 Dr. Brett I possess a MS. list of about forty Works and Tracts published by 
 Dr. Brett ; but this Essay is not included in it. This is owing, probably, to its 
 having been published anonymously in ' The Complete Collection of Devotions,' in 
 the compilation of which, it is thought Deacon had the assistance of Brett, Gadderer, 
 Lawrence, and Campbell."] 
 
 *' I HAVE been at great pains," says Vincentius Lirinensis, "and 
 often made it my particular business to consult very many persons of 
 the highest rank for piety and learning, about a certain general rule 
 to distinguish the true Catholic Faith from the depravations of Heresy ;
 
 and after repeated enquiries, the sum of all their answers amounted to 
 this, That if I or any other Christian would discover the artifice of 
 growing heretics, and keep out of their snares, and continue perfectly 
 sound in the right faith, the way by God's grace is to secure it upon 
 these two foundations: First, upon the authority of Holy Scripture; 
 and after that, upon the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here, 
 perhaps, a man may ask this question, Since the Canon of the Scripture 
 is complete, and more than sufficient in every respect, what need is 
 there for adding the sense of the Catholic Church to such a perfect 
 rule ? To which question I answer, That there is good reason for such 
 addition ; because the Sacred Scriptures having a sublime sense, all 
 understandings cannot reach it alike ; but one expounds the Divine 
 Oracles after this manner, and another after that, insomuch that there 
 are almost as many opinions about the true meaning as there are ex- 
 positors. For instance, Novatianus interprets one way, Photinus 
 another, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius another, Eunomius, 
 Macedonius another, Apollinaris, PrisciUianus another, Jovinianus, 
 Pelagius, Celestius another, and in fine Nestorius another. And there- 
 fore, under so great difficulties, in such a perplexity of various error, 
 I hold it extremely necessary to apply the sense of the Catholic Church 
 to the Scriptures, as a rule to a line, and as the clue to conduct us in 
 this labyrinth of opinions. And for us who are in the bosom of the 
 Catholic Church, it ought to be our first and principal care to choose 
 such doctrines as we find to have been believed in all places, at all 
 times, and by all the faithful. For there is nothing truly and properly 
 Catholic (as the word sufficiently declares) but what truly and fully 
 comprehends all these. And we are thus Catholic when we follow 
 Universality, Antiquity, and unanimous Consent. But we follow Uni- 
 versality when we profess that only to be the true faith, which is pro- 
 fessed by the Church all the world over ; in like manner we are fol- 
 lowers of Antiquity, when we religiously adhere to that sense of 
 Scripture which manifestly obtained among the Holy Fathers our pre- 
 decessors ; and lastly, we follow Consent, when we embrace the defi- 
 nitions and opinions of almost all, if not all, the bishops and teachers 
 in the Ancient Church." 
 
 This is called very commonly the Golden Rule of Vincentius 
 Lirinensis, and without dispute is a most excellent rule, and the surest 
 guide for a Christian to follow. And there is certainly as much reason 
 for us to be guided by this rule now, or rather greater than in the time 
 of Vincentius. For as we are now almost 1300 years further distant 

 
 from the Apostolical age than the Church was in the days of Vincentius, 
 we may reasonably suppose the Church in general to have further 
 deviated from Primitive purity. The language also in which the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament were written, which was in those days a 
 living language and the vulgar tongue to a great part of the Christian 
 Church, is now become a dead language and no longer vulgar in any 
 part of the world ; consequently the understanding of it cannot be 
 obtained without great labour and difficulty, and only the learned can 
 attain it. Also the customs and manners of the age, to which the 
 Scriptures of the New Testament frequently allude, are less known and 
 understood than they were in the Primitive times ; and yet, without 
 the knowledge of those customs, interpreters must and will be at a loss 
 in their expositions. And whoever undertakes to expound the Scrip- 
 tures, without a competent knowledge of the language wherein they 
 were originally written, and of the customs to which they frequently 
 allude, must in many particulars be misled himself, and mislead his 
 followers. And as we are now further removed from the fountain head 
 than Christians were in the time of Vincentius, we are much more 
 liable to mistakes, in taking upon us to interpret the Scriptures without 
 the assistance of the Primitive Fathers, than those who lived in his 
 days. Therefore, if this was an excellent rule then, it is rather more 
 so now. And as to variety of opinions, it is most certain they are not 
 fewer now than they were then. The Romanist interprets the Scrip- 
 ture one way, the Lutheran another, the Cahanist another, and the 
 Church of England another ; to which may be added the lesser sects 
 of Antipaedobaptists, Quakers, Muggletonians, Socinians, Arians. &c., 
 who all expound the same Scriptures a different way. They all pre- 
 tend to make the Holy Scriptures their principal rule ; but then they 
 require you should understand them in such a sense as they are pleased 
 to put upon them. 
 
 What, therefore, shall a sincere honest Christian do in this case ? 
 Can a better rule be thought of to come to the knowledge of the truth, 
 than this laid down by Vincentius ? Undoubtedly there cannot. All 
 parties seem to be agreed that it is so. The four chief and most con- 
 siderable, both for number and learning, that is the Romanist, Lutheran, 
 Calvinist, and Church of England, have declared this to be the rule 
 they will adhere to, or at least which they are well disposed to follow. 
 And for the rest, who are inconsiderable for number with respect to 
 the others, though I cannot say they have any of them as a body acting 
 in community declared for this rule, yet they can hardly any of them
 
 bear to hear, that the Primitive Church believed not as they do. They 
 are sensible, that if their doctrines should appear to be entirely new, 
 utterly unknown to those who lived near to the Apostolical age when 
 the New Testament was written, and therefore could not but know 
 what the Apostles taught and practised, it must raise a great prejudice 
 against them and their opinions, and all impartial persons who duly 
 consider the matter, must judge them to be in the wrong. However, 
 I shall not trouble myself to make any proposition to these numerous 
 little sects. If an union could be procured between those great bodies 
 of Christians in this part of the world, and settled upon Catholic prin- 
 ciples, that is the Church of Rome, the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and 
 the Church of England, I am persuaded all these little sects would fall 
 and moulder away in a short time. Nor can a better method be found 
 for uniting them, than this golden rule ofVincentius Lirinensis ; and 
 if they would but all stand by their own authentic declarations, they 
 must and would be guided by this rule. 
 
 To begin with the Church of Rome : she has declared, in the 
 council of Trent (Sess. 4.) that "no man whatsoever shall interpret the 
 Scriptures in things relating to faith and doctrine, by trusting to their 
 own light, according to their particular sense, — or explain it contrary to 
 the unanimous consent of the Fathers." And again, in the creed of 
 Pope Pius IV. (Art. 14.) every priest is obhged to declare and say, 
 " I do receive the Holy Scriptures in the same sense that Holy Mother 
 Church doth, and always hath ; neither will I receive and interpret 
 them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers." 
 
 In the year 1533 the Protestants of Germany, who were then all 
 Lutherans, meeting together at Smalcald, where they protested against 
 any council that should be called by the pope, or over which the pope 
 should have any influence, do in their remonstrance, which they unani- 
 mously presented to the emperor Charles V. at that time, declare their 
 readiness to submit to the decrees of the truly Ancient Church, saying,* 
 " That they refused not to submit to the decrees of the councils of an 
 elder age, which were agreeable to the Sacred Scriptures ; but that the 
 councils of later years, which had given greater authority than is meet 
 to the decrees of men and to the pope, were very different from those 
 ancient ones." Chemnizius, a learned Lutheran, and scholar to PhiHp 
 Melancthon, the bosom friend to Luther himself, in his Examen of the 
 
 Osiand. Epist. Eccles Hist. cent. xvi. lib. ii., cap. 21, page 217.
 
 Council of Trent, when he comes to make his remarks on the decree I 
 have here cited from that council, testifies and says,* " I give a public 
 testimony for our Churches, how reverently we esteem the consent of 
 antiquity, the testimony of the ancients, and the confession and ex- 
 amples of the Ancient Church. — We confess that we dissent from those 
 who invent opinions, which have no testimonies from any age of the 
 Church. — -We believe, also, that no new doctrine is to be received which 
 is contrary to all antiquity." These words of Chemnizius I cannot take 
 as the opinion of a private man, for he delivers them not as his private 
 opinion, but testifies this to be the opinion or doctrine of the Churches 
 to which he belonged. And when we consider who he was, that he 
 was a man of eminent learning, bred up at the feet of Melancthon, one 
 of the principal Lutheran Reformers, who drew up the Apology for the 
 Augustan Confession, we cannot doubt of his knowledge of the prin- 
 ciples on which the Lutherans founded their Reformation, consequently 
 could not be deceived in the testimony, which he here gives concerning 
 their regard to Primitive Antiquity ; neither durst he, at the time he 
 wrote, and on such an occasion, have given this testimony, if it had not 
 been true. 
 
 In the Confession of Faith of the French Reformed (Art. 6.) 
 having given an account of their stedfast adherence to the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, they add, " We allow of that which those four ancient 
 councils have determined, and we detest all sects and heresies con- 
 demned by those holy ancient doctors St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, 
 St. Cyril, and St. Ambrose." It appears, from Quick's Synodicon in 
 Gallia Reformata, that Calvin, Beza, and the Genevan brethren, were 
 entirely of the same communion with the French Reformed, and that 
 Beza in particular was moderator in their synod of Rochel, 1571- Con- 
 sequently the Genevans, as well as the French, subscribe and embrace 
 this Confession. And the synod of Vitre, 1583, as I have it from the 
 same author,f testifies that the churches of the low countries had re- 
 ceived and subscribed the same Confession ; so that I conceive this 
 may be called. The Confession of Faith of all the Calvinistical Commu- 
 nion, wherein they allow what has been taught by the first four general 
 councils, and the ancient doctors St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril, 
 and St. Ambrose. If it be said that it appears, from the article of 
 which these words are a part, that they only allow these councils and 
 
 * Vol. i., page 339, 340, edit. Francofurt, 1576. 
 t Quick's Synodicon, page 1-1'3.
 
 6 
 
 these doctors as far as they have determined or taught concerning the 
 Trinity, but not as to other matters; I answer, that however that might 
 be their meaning as to what they say concerning the four councils, it 
 cannot be the meaning of the words which are applied to those ancient 
 doctors. For there they do not onl}' declare their detestation of those 
 sects and heresies which taught false doctrine concerning the Trinity, 
 but of "all sects and heresies condemned by those holy doctors." So that 
 if those holy doctors have condemned any sects and heresies, which 
 were not erroneous in any article concerning the Trinity, as they cer- 
 tainly have done, then those sects and heresies stand also condemned 
 by this Confession, otherwise they cannot detest all ; consequently this 
 Confession obliges those who subscribe it, that is all the Calvinists, to 
 follow and adhere to these holy and ancient doctors in all matters of 
 religion, for they have chosen them for their guides in all matters re- 
 lating to religion ; otherwise they do not show that detestation to all 
 sects and heretics condemned by these doctors, as they so solemnly 
 profess to do. And M. I'Arroque, a very learned man amongst the 
 French Reformed, says,* " I make no question but a belief agreed upon 
 by all Christians, at all times, and universally received at all times in 
 all climates of the Christian world, is Catholic, Orthodox, and by con- 
 sequence worthy to be retained in the Church, as an Apostolical truth." 
 I cannot indeed say, that he testifies this to be the opinion of all those 
 of his communion, as Chemnizius does for the Lutherans ; however, as 
 he was a man of learning, a zealous champion for his own communion, 
 and highly esteemed by them, 1 hope his authority may be of weight. 
 
 The kirk of Scotland, which was also formed upon Calvin's plat- 
 form, as appears from Knox's history,-]- addressed the Queen Regent, 
 A. D. 1557, desiring "That the ecclesiastical state might be reformed 
 according to the rules and precepts of the New Testament, the writings 
 of the ancient fathers, and the godly approved laws of Justinian the 
 emperor." And, a.d, 1560, as the same author;}; tells us, they proposed 
 the same to the Parhament, as that which they would abide by : " The 
 word of God, the practices of the Apostles, and the sincerity of the Pri- 
 mitive Church." 
 
 The Church of England, in her canons,^ 1571, says, "Preachers 
 shall in the first place take heed that they never teach anything in a 
 
 * History of the Eucharist, pages 195, 196. f Page 131, 4to. edition. 
 
 i History of the Eucharist, page 261. 
 
 H Page 237, as published by Bishop Sparrow, 4th edit. 1684.
 
 sermon, which they would have to be rehgiously observed and believed 
 by the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New 
 Testament, and which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have 
 collected from that very doctrine." Also, in the first part of the sermon 
 or homily concerning the Sacrament, she teaches that, " Before all things 
 this we must be sure of especially, that this Supper be done and minis- 
 tered, as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as liis 
 holy Apostles used it, and the good fathers in the Primitive Church 
 frequented it." Also, in the 30th canon, where the lawful use of the 
 cross in baptism is explained, (which is one of the canons made in the 
 year 1603, the latest canons by which the Church of England is guided 
 and directed) she declares and says, " So far was it from the purpose of 
 the Church of England to forsake the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, 
 Germany, or other such-like Churches, in all things which they held 
 and practised, that (as the Apology of the Church of England con- 
 fesseth) it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which do neither 
 endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men ; and 
 only departed from them in those points, wherein they were fallen both 
 from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical 
 Churches which were their first founders." As this canon refers us to 
 the Apology of the Church of England, which was written by Bishop 
 Jewel, it plainly gives the stamp of its authority to that book, at least 
 to so much of it as concerns the purpose of the Church of England not 
 to depart from the doctrine and practice of the ancient Apostolical 
 Churches. Therefore, what is contained in that book agreeable to this 
 declaration, may justly be urged as the doctrine of the Church of 
 England, authentically declared to be so in the preceding canon. This 
 Apology* says, " O immortal God ! Then Christ himself, and his 
 Apostles, and so many fathers were altogether in an error ! Then 
 Origen, Ambrose, Augustin, Chrysostom, Gelasius, Theodoret, were 
 betrayers of the Catholic faith ! Then such a consent of so many 
 bishops was nothing else but a conspiracy of heretics ! Or what was 
 then commended in them, is now condemned in us ! And what in them 
 was Catholic, that now, the minds of men being only changed, is of a 
 sudden become schismatical ! Or what formerly was true, now forthwith, 
 because it displeases them, shall be false !" Again, f " This one thing 
 they cannot say, That we have departed either from the Word of God, 
 or from the Apostles of Christ, or from the primitive Church ; but we 
 
 . * Pages 62, 63, edit. Francofuit, 1617. t Jewel's Apology, page lOo.
 
 8 
 
 have always thought the primitive Church of Christ and of his Apostles, 
 and of the holy fathers, to be Catholic ; nor do we scruple to call it 
 the ark of Noah, the bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, or 
 to place the assurance of our salvation upon it," Again,* " They say, you 
 were of us, but are now become apostates, and have departed from us. 
 We have, indeed, departed from them, and give God thanks for it, and 
 greatly rejoice at it. But we have not departed from the primitive Church, 
 from the Apostles, and from Christ." Once more.-f- " We are come 
 as near as possibly we could to the Church of the Apostles, and of the 
 ancient Catholic bishops and fathers, which we know to have been yet 
 undefiled, and (as Tertullian says) an uncorrupt virgin, as yet polluted 
 with no idolatry, nor with any great or pubhc error. Neither have we 
 only reformed our doctrine, but also our Sacraments, and our forms of 
 common prayers, agreeable to their rites and institutions ; and after the 
 example of Christ and almost all godly men, we have restored religion, 
 which had been shamefully depraved and neglected by them, to what it 
 was in the beginning." 
 
 This Apology, though written only by a private bishop, was (as 
 has been observed) received and owned by the Church of England in a 
 full convocation, and by her canon declared and acknowledged to be 
 The Apology of the Church of England ; therefore, what is written in 
 this Apology, is not to be esteemed the sense or opinion of a private 
 person, or of one single bishop, but of the Church of England herself^ 
 authentically declared to be so. It appears, also, from the epistle of 
 Peter Martyr prefixed to it, that it was received and highly approved 
 by BuUinger, Gualter, Wolphius, and other divines at Zurich, one of 
 the most considerable of the Calvinistical cantons in Switzerland It 
 was also very soon, as bishop Jewel himself tells Harding, translated 
 into the French, Italian, Dutch, and Spanish tongues, and sent into 
 France, Flanders, Germany, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, 
 Sweden, Scotland, Italy, Naples, and Rome itself. So that it seems 
 to have been a book received and admired by all that were called 
 Protestants, of what nation or language soever, and was looked upon 
 as an Apology, not for the Church of England only, but for all Pro- 
 testants in general ; consequently, not only the Church of England, but 
 all Protestants did believe the Church for some ages after Christ and 
 his Apostles to have continued pure and undefiled with any great or 
 public error, and that to the time of Ambrose, Augustin, Chrysostom, 
 
 * Page 155. f Pages 192, 193.
 
 Gelasius, and Theodoret, that is till about the middle of the fifth 
 century at least, she continued an uncorrupt virgin ; that so long the 
 doctrine, and Sacraments, and forms of common prayer were agreeable 
 to what was taught and practised by the apostles. However, besides 
 their approbation of this Apology, they have all, as has been shewed, 
 approved the doctrine of it by their own public and authentic decla- 
 rations. 
 
 The Church of Rome, indeed, has given no encomium of this 
 Apology, nor testified any approbation of it, but rather opposed and 
 condemned it, and several of that communion have been employed to 
 write answers to it. However, this Apology in making such an appeal 
 to the fathers of the first four or five centuries, and acknowledging 
 religion to have been pure and undefiled during that time, plainly 
 allows that part of the canon of the council of Trent, that the Scrip- 
 tures are not to be explained contrary to the unanimous consent of the 
 fathers. And the Church of England has evidently taught the same, 
 though in other words, when she requires her preachers to teach only 
 what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and 
 which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that 
 very doctrine ; nor do the Lutherans much differ from it, when they 
 declare that they are ready to submit to the ancient councils, and ac- 
 knowledge those decrees to be agreeable to the Scriptures. And the 
 like may be said of the Calvinists, when they declare that they detest 
 all sects and heresies condemned by those holy and ancient doctors, 
 St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril, and St. Ambrose, that is, the 
 most eminent fathers of the fourth century ; consequently, they must 
 acknowledge the Church to which those fathers belonged, and whose 
 communion they lived in, to have been pure and undefiled, as Bishop 
 Jewel in his Apology teaches. And the kirk of Scotland has clearly 
 acknowledged the Church to have been thus undefiled, as low as to the 
 reign of the Emperor Justinian, that is, as late as the sixth century ; 
 for they desire the Church " may be reformed according to the godly 
 laws of Justinian the emperor." 
 
 Indeed, as Dr. Wall observes in his preface to his History of 
 Infant Baptism, " There is no man that does really slight this argument; 
 though those that have no skill in it, or do suspect that it vrill go 
 against their side, will make as if they did. And therefore you shall 
 see both on the one side and on the other, those men who for a flourish 
 do pretend they lay small stress on it, as having proof enough from 
 Scripture, yet take all the pains possible to bring this argument to bear
 
 10 
 
 on their side, and that so zealously, that they often do it unfairly. 
 There is no Christian that loves to hear or admit that all the ancient 
 Churches practised otherwise than he does in a controverted matter." 
 
 Since all parties then seem to be agreed in the rule by which they 
 are to be guided, that is, the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the 
 doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, how comes it to pass 
 that there should be such a great difference amongst Christians in so 
 many material points ? That the Church of Rome, the Lutherans, 
 the Calvinists, and the Church of England (not to mention many other 
 lesser parties) should form diiferent communions, and be so opposite 
 the one to the other ? The reason undoubtedly must be, that some, 
 or it inay be all, have departed from their rule. And indeed every one 
 of these accuses the other of having done so. All Protestants, and the 
 Church of England in particular, charge the Church of Rome and those 
 Churches in her communion, with having fallen both from themselves 
 in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical Churches which 
 were their first founders. The Church of Rome, on the other hand, 
 charges the Church of England, and all other Protestant communions, 
 with revolting not only from her, but also from the truly ancient 
 Catholic and apostolic Church, and setting up a new Church or com- 
 munion very different from it. And perhaps there may be some just 
 grounds for this charge oUjboth sides. But I shall not enter into that 
 dispute ; my design is to reconcile differences, not to widen them ; and 
 therefore I shall not bring any particular charge of error against any of 
 these communions. I shall only say in general, that it is certain all 
 cannot be right ; but which communion is right or which is wrong, 
 or whether something may not be amiss in all, I desire to be excused 
 from asserting, and shall only shew how I conceive a Catholic union 
 among Christians upon Catholic principles must be effected, if ever it 
 should please God to give means and opportunity for it. 
 
 Let every communion but suppose it is possible that they may 
 have erred from this rule, which they pretend to be guided by, and 
 appoint a committee of their most learned men, who, without regard to 
 anything already settled, shall examine the fathers and councils, and 
 ecclesiastical historians for the first four or five centuries. Let them 
 give a faithful account of the faith then professed, the doctrine then 
 taught, the forms of administering the Sacraments, and the other parts 
 of religious worship then used, the several orders of the clergy by 
 which the Church was everywhere governed ; and in short, what was 
 the doctrine, practice, and constitution of the Catholic Church then dis-
 
 11 
 
 persed through as many nations as it is at this day. When such a 
 feithful account of this matter has been drawn up, then let them make 
 a fair and impartial comparison between the constitution of the ancient 
 Church and their own, and examine where they agree, and wherein 
 they differ ; and if they do find any material difference, let it be imme- 
 diately rectified. And if the Church of Rome, the Lutherans, the 
 Calvinists, and the Church of England, would each of them fairly and 
 impartially proceed in this manner, and try and rectify their several 
 communions by this rule, which they all profess to follow, it must bring 
 them all to an union, and they would all be of one communion, in the 
 same manner as the Catholic Church was for those centuries, during 
 which, it is acknowledged on all hands, that doctrine and religion were 
 most pure. For if all would embrace the doctrines and usages of the 
 Church, as taught and practised in the primitive times, v/ithout any 
 material additions or defalcations, there could then be no difference 
 between one Church and another, except in matters perfectly indif- 
 ferent, and such as could make no breach or division. 
 
 But the main obstruction to an union of Christians upon these 
 Catholic principles is, that whatever party shall make alterations in 
 their present form, either of government or worship, which some of 
 these, if not all, must certainly do in order to procure such an union, 
 and to make their church agreeable to the Primitive ; it will be at least 
 a tacit confession, that they have hitherto been in the wrong in some 
 material points. If the Church of Rome should alter anything de- 
 termined by the council of Trent, she must give up her infalhbility. 
 On the other hand, the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Church of 
 England, cannot alter their Confessions of Faith, Articles, or Liturgies, 
 in any material points, but it will be a reflection on their first Re- 
 formers, and also on themselves who have so strictly required subscrip- 
 tion to those Confessions, Articles, and Liturgies, and have already 
 declared them to be agreeable to the doctrine and practice of the Pri- 
 mitive Church, as well as the Holy Scriptures. However, as the 
 Lutherans, Calvinists, and Church of England, do all confess that the 
 Church is falhble, and that as the Church of England teaches in her 
 21st article, general councils may err, and sometimes have erred, 
 therefore much more may the councils of one province, kingdom, or 
 nation, be liable to err; it would not be so great a reflection upon any 
 of them, if upon a due examination and review of their doctrine and 
 worship they should find that they have been mistaken, even in some 
 material points, as it would be for the Church of Rome (which pre-
 
 12 
 
 tends to infallibility) if she should find herself mistaken. And certainly 
 it is much more for the reputation of a Church, which owns herself to 
 be fallible, to rectify any mistake she shall be discovered to be guilty 
 of, rather than to persist in it, and to maintain against the clearest 
 evidence that she is not mistaken. 
 
 And as for the Church of Rome, if she have any regard to the 
 authority of Vincentius Lirinensis, or indeed to her own rule settled 
 at the council of Trent, she must grant it to be possible for the whole 
 present Church to err. For if the whole present Church cannot err, 
 what occasion have we to enquire into the unanimous consent of the 
 fathers ? It is sufficient for us to hearken to the voice of the present 
 Church, without regard either to Scriptures or fathers. And Vincentius 
 plainly supposes it possible for the whole present Church to be cor- 
 rupted, saying, " What if some new error should infect not only a small 
 part, but be ready to spread itself at the same time over the whole 
 Church? Then we must be sure to cleave close to antiquity." And a 
 little after he observes, that it was once so in fact, saying, " When the 
 Arian heresy had not only spread its poison over a small part of 
 Christendom, but had in a manner infected the whole Christian world, 
 and almost all the bishops of the Latin Church (not excepting Pope 
 Liberius, then bishop of Rome, who subscribed to that heresy) partly 
 by fraud and partly by force, had gone into the delusion." Now, what 
 has been, may be again ; and if the pope and the whole Latin Church 
 did once fall into heresy, it is not impossible but they may fall so again. 
 Therefore it is no unreasonable request to desire, that the Church of 
 Rome would again review her doctrine and forms of worship, and per- 
 mit them to be tried by the test of antiquity. 
 
 But it may be said, what occasion is there for such a review ? The 
 Church of Rome revised all her doctrines and forms of worship in 
 the council of Trent, and found them, as that council determined, to 
 be all agreeable to Scripture and antiquity. The Lutherans, Calvinists, 
 and Church of England, did the same about the same time, when they 
 severally set about reforming themselves. What occasion, therefore, 
 for any further review? Besides, the Lutherans, Calvinists, and 
 Church of England, have all of them had several synods since, wherein 
 they have reviewed, altered, or at least explained several things at first 
 settled ; and must they be always altering and explaining? I answer, 
 as to the decrees of the council of Trent, and the several confessions 
 and articles and forms of worship drawn up by the several Reformers, 
 they were all drawn up at a time when the Chuvcli of Rome and the
 
 13 
 
 Reformers had exasperated each other to a very high degree ; when the 
 Reformers had driven the monks from their cells, and the bishops 
 from their flocks ; when they would give the Church of Rome no better 
 title than Babylon, and the chief bishop of that church Antichrist 
 and the Scarlet Whore : and though they did not put such names in 
 their confessions and forms of prayer, yet the chief of the Reformers 
 made no scruple to call the Church of Rome Babylon, and the beast 
 with seven heads and ten horns, and to style the pope Antichrist and 
 the Whore of Babylon. On the other side, writers of the Church of 
 Rome called the Reformers not only Schismatics, but Heretics, and 
 treated them as such, by burning and massacring them in a most 
 shameful manner, wherever they had power to do it. And on the 
 other side, the Reformers, where they had the power, made and exe- 
 cuted severe laws against them, and put many of them to death. So 
 that when the council of Trent sat, and the several Reformers made 
 their reformations, the feud was so great both on the one side and the 
 other, that more care seems to have been taken to condemn what each 
 party thought to be wrong in their opposites, than to consider and 
 establish what was right for themselves. And though they all declared 
 for the doctrine of the Scriptures and the primitive fathers, as has been 
 shewn, yet it is certain some of them never did well consult the fathers, 
 but rather adhered to their own interpretations of Scripture, whether 
 agreeable to the unanimous consent of the fathers or not ; otherwise 
 there must have been a much nearer agreement betwixt them. But 
 ■whether it is the Church of Rome, the Lutherans, the Calvinists, or 
 the Church of England, that has deviated most from the rule of Vin- 
 centius Lirinensis, from the rule which they have all pretended to 
 follow, is what I think it not proper for me to say ; neither shall I pre- 
 tend to determine, whether any one of them has exactly followed this 
 rule. It is not improbable, but the feuds between the Chiurch of Rome 
 and the Reformers being carried to so great a height, they might 
 all of them, in opposition to each other, deviate from that rule which 
 they pretended to be guided by. It is certain, they have in their 
 controversial writings mutually accused each other of having done so. 
 But it is to be hoped that, upon a more impartial review to be taken 
 in this matter by the learned of all sides, without regard to any 
 matters settled by the council of Trent or by the first Reformers, but 
 purely founded on the Scriptures, as interpreted by the practice of the 
 Church, and the unanimous consent of the fathers of the first three or
 
 14 
 
 four centuries, a CatlioHc communion of all Christians might be 
 obtained upon Catholic principles. 
 
 It is also to be considered, that when the Reformation was first 
 made, and when the council of Trent sat, the writings of the fathers 
 had not been fully examined, neither could be. The art of printing 
 was but newly invented, and many writings of the fathers and decrees 
 of the primitive councils were then undiscovered ; many spurious 
 pieces also were put upon the world as the genuine writings of the 
 fathers, which upon a fuller examination appear evidently to have been 
 of a later age. The works of several of those most ancient fathers, 
 who were disciples to some of the apostles, were unknown and undis- 
 covered, as the epistles of St. Clement, St. Barnabas, St. Ignatius, 
 St. Polycarp, and the Pastor of St. Hermas, who all wrote either 
 before the death of St. John the apostle, or in a few years after ; and 
 the writings of all the other fathers then printed were very imperfect 
 and incorrect ; several of their genuine works had not appeared, and 
 some which were not theirs were published under their names. But 
 now a more diligent search having been made into all, both pubhc and 
 private libraries, variety of manuscripts collated, all the proper methods 
 of true criticism employed ; many writings of the fathers, which were 
 thought to have been lost have been recovered, the genuine distin- 
 guished from the spurious, the true reading in some dubious places 
 discovered, and in a word, we have now much better means of inquiring 
 into the true doctrine and practice of the ancient church, and to know 
 in what points the Catholic fathers were unanimous and consentient, 
 than either the council of Trent or the first Reformers had, which 
 alone might, I think, be a just inducement to all parties to make a 
 review of their present constitutions, and to try them by this rule, 
 whereto all have testified their agreement. And as the council of 
 Trent and the first Reformers had not such opportunities of discovering 
 the true sense of the fathers, for want of many of their works since 
 recovered, and because the genuine works were not then separated 
 from the spurious, it will not be so great a reflection on them, if they 
 shall be found to have been mistaken, and to have deviated from their 
 rule in many particulars, because in a great measure they wanted the 
 means to make a right use of it, which by God's blessing we have 
 now. And therefore I conceive it may be a shame to us, if having the 
 means of following this rule more perfectly, we shall yet forbear to do 
 it, since all parties have so evidently declared it to be the rule we 
 ought to follow and be guided by.
 
 15 
 
 I am sensible that Reconcilers, though very great and worthy 
 men, such as Cassander and Grotius, and others, have generally had 
 the misfortune to be condemned by all parties; and if the same should 
 be my fate, I should not be much surprised at it. But then they have 
 been more particular in their methods of reconciling than I have been. 
 They have taken upon them to shew what one party ought to grant to 
 the other: I have done nothing of this kind; I have only shown the 
 rule, by which all pretend to be guided, and desired all to examine 
 impartially, whether they have or have not deviated from their own 
 rule; and only desired them, if they shall find that they have deviated 
 from their rule, that they would return to it again. I have not charged 
 any one communion particularly with having deviated from it ; I have 
 only said, that the difference between them is a demonstration that 
 some, if not all of them, have departed from their rule ; but whether it 
 be the Church of Rome, or the Church of England, or the Lutheran, or 
 the Calvinist who has thus departed, I pretend not to say. It is possible 
 one of them may be right; but which that one is I do not determine : 
 and it is possible all may be wrong; but I do not say that they are so. 
 It is certain, if any one of these is right, the other three must be 
 wrong, where they differ materially from it : but which I think to be 
 right, or which in my opinion comes nearest to the right, I have not 
 here said, or shall say; being resolved, as far as I am able, to give cause 
 of offence to no party, as I think but becomes one, whose earnest 
 desire is to procure a Catholic communion of all Christians upon true 
 Catholic principles, without partiality to any side ; and therefore, as 
 they all pretend to be guided by the same rule, that is, the Scriptures 
 as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the fathers, I only desire 
 that all would examine their own doctrine, chiirch-government, and 
 worship by this rule ; and if it shall be found, upon such examination, 
 that they have departed from it, then to correct every such deviation. 
 And as there are better means now for such an examination, than our 
 forefathers had at the time of the Reformation, it is to be hoped that 
 such a proposal may not be thought unreasonable ; and as no party is 
 condemned by it, so I may hope that no party can justly take offence 
 at it.
 
 THIS SERIES OF 
 
 TRACTS ON CATHOLIC UNITY 
 
 Will be continued at intervals. 
 
 THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS MAY NOW BE HAD: 
 
 1. The Providential Direction of the Movement of 1833 towards Visible Catholic 
 Unity. Price Id. 
 
 2. An Essay to procure Catholic Communion upon Catholic Principles. (A 
 Reprint.) Price 2d. 
 
 3. The One Sacrifice on Many Altars. Price Id. 
 
 Communications on the Subject of Catholic Unity will be gladly received by the 
 Editors, if addressed to them and forwarded to the Publisher. 
 
 London: JAMES DARLING, 81, Great Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields.
 
 -vK-'-rt;
 
 ^ 
 
 )> /' 
 
 Ir^^f;^