r ("•« ¦

;f4^'4i^'" *t *"'•'»

L k M, t rum
¦ ^"4 K-

- "^"^

. -^^t^k^^irrA;

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1940

THE CONTINUITY

Sije Cijutti^ of ^nakntr

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTUl^Y;

^iDo SltBcourses:

AN APPENDIX AND NOTES.

•REV. SA.MUEL SEABURY, D. D.,
aHector of t^e Cfmrdj of t|)c Slnnunciation, KeUj='3g'orfe.

'' Wg do not challenge a new Church, a new religion, or new Holy Orders; we obtrude no
innovation upon others, nor desire to have any obtruded on ourselves ; we pluck up the
weeds, but retain all the plants of saving truth." Bramhall.
" Concors Romanse et reformatae Eeclesiae fides,
Neutrius opinio. miM religio est."

PUDNEY & RUSSELL,
No. 7 9 Joji n-St BE ET.
1853.

Entered according to Act of Congress, by Pudnet jfe Russell, in the Clerk's
Office of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New- York.

i

Sel3

K

PREFACE

The following discourses were designed to explain anti defend
the position of the Church of England, so far as it involves that of
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States ; and they are
published at the instance of several of the author's parishioners,
whose partiality to him naturally led them to overrate their import
ance, and whose wishes a reciprocal feeling on his part rendered "it
impossible for him to resist.
The Appendix and Notes are intended to furnish documentary
proof of the chief points made in the discourses, and to unfold, more
fully than their limits allowed, some of the principles advanced in
them. The purpose of the first discourse is, to show that the Church of
England, in renouncing the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and
reforming itself from the errors and corruptions of Popery, under
went no organic change, but retained the ministry, faith and sacra
ments of Christ, and fulfilled the conditions necessary to their
transmission. The resolution of the Church of England to be loyal to the State,
and to maintain the Catholic Faith without the abuses and corrup
tions of later times, was firm and unyielding ; and the consequence
was, that the Pope of Rome was at length constrained to command
his subjects to leave the communion of a Church which he was un-
-able to reclaim to his obedience. The attitude thus assumed by the
papacy put an end for ever to all hopes of reconciliation between

PREFACE.

the Church of England and the Church of Rome. It led imme
diately to the separation of the Romanists in England from the ,
national Church ; and the second discourse, and the notes appended
to it, set before the reader the nature of this separation, (the first
that was made from the Church of England after th% Reformation,)
and the agencies by which it was effected.
On the defection of the Romanists, the English nation found itself
in possession of a Church, which was confessed by all to be
" the eye of the Reformation,** and " the bulwark of Protestantism."
Possessed of a primitive worship and a learned ministry, and debased
by no mixtures of enthusiasm or superstition, this Churgh gave a de
finite purpose and permanent form to the awakened spirit of liberty
and devotion. It stood forth the foremost defender of the rights and
liberties of national Churches, (and. through them of the individuals
that composed them,) against a spiritual power, having its centre at
Rome, but laying claim to universal dominion, and subjecting, as far.
as in it lay, the temporal power of every nation tcf its own control.
It was able to detect the forgeries and impostures of Rome ; it had
given her no advantage by running from her into any extreme ; it
was a national body already formed ; a body both Christian and
legal; a body which commended itself to the civil powers by the
loyalty of its constitution, and which was every way adapted to work
in its members that sober and substantial piety which makes religion
a "reasonable service."!
The Reformation virtually placed the appointment of the officers
of this Church in the' lay power, i. e. the power of the people ; it
also restored to the people the munificent endowments which the
piety ef their ancestors had bequeathed, to be held in trust for the
sacred purposes for which they were given ; and in all legislative
and judicial matters (save only such as were merely spiritual) it put
the temporal on a par with the spiritual power, so that " both their
authorities and jurisdictions," to use the words of 24 Henry VIII.
declaring the king the " supreme head of the Church of England,"
* Florentissima Anglia, Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum, Peculium Oheisti singulare
&c. — Diodati.
t See London Cases, vol. ii. Argument for Union.

PREFACE.

might " conjoin together in the due administration of justice, the one
to help the other.'" Moreover, this Church prescribed no sinful term
of communion, the only thing which justified separation from the
Church of Rome ;* and it laid no other limitation on natural liberty
of conscience than the Word of God as held by the common sense
of Christendom, or the universal judgment of the Church ; in effect
none other than is, by the consent of Christians from the apostles'
time, laid on it by God himself under the Christian Dispensation.
Whatever else this dhurch required, was considered by her to be in
itself dispensable and mutable, and was required only for ^e sake of
peace and union, and not as a term of communion necessary to sal
vation. Such was the Church which the good providence of God, in the
sixteenth century, bestowed on the people of England. It was only
necessary that the English people should sustain and support their
Church, by conforming to its services,.ftndi co-operating with its
ministry, in order to render it an effectual barrier against the return
of Popery, and to incite the Catliolic Churches of the several na
tions of Europe, then ripe for the movement, to reform themselves on
the same model, and to free themselves from the same yoke. In a
word, union and co-operatien with their Church, on the part of the
Englislt people, would have kept her in the position which. she had
taken, and beyond which no advance has yet been made — the fore
most in the progress of Christianitj' and civilization.
But, unhappily, the English peojple, as a body, did not co-operate
* Calvin pronounces his j'udgment on this matter with characteristic boldness :
" Wherever the Word of God is 'duly preached and reverently attended»to, and
the, true use of the sacraments kept up, there is the plain appearance of a true
Church, whose authority no man may safely despise, or reject its admonitions,
or resist its counsels, or set at nought its discipline, much less separate Trom it,
and violate its unity ; for our Lord has so great regard to the unity of his
Church, that he accounts him an apostate from his religion who obstinately
separates from any Christian society which keeps up the true ministry of the
Word and Sacraments. Such a separation is a denial of God and Chkist ; and
it is a dangerous and pernicious temptation so much as to think of separating from
such a Church, the communion whereof is never to be rejected, so long as it
continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments, though otherwise it be
overrun with many blemishes and corruptions." — Quoted in London Cases,vol. ii.,
with reference to Institut. Lib. 4, Sect. 10, 11, 12.

PREFACE.

with their Church. Remarkably enough, the secession of the Ro
manists, instead of cementing the union of those that remained, was
soon followed by the separation, one after another, on various pre
texts, of various bodies of Protestant Dissenters. Some of' these
demanded a more " spiritual" religion ; others of them clamored for
" the loaves and fishes," seeking to have their own denomination
established by law, in place of the Church which they had left ; and
others of them declaimed against all establishment of religion by
law ; quoting our Lord's words, '' My kingdom is not of this world,"
and making them good by letting his kingdom evaporate in a meta
phor, that so there might be no. spiritual body in though not of the
world, to which a temporal government could be united ; aiming to
denationalize the Church, in order that they might evangelize the
nation anew ; to pull down for the sake of building up. In fine,
instead of cleaving to the spiritual body already made to their hands,
and working in and through it for the propagation of religion, the
English people (who never disclaim for themselves the credit of be
ing the most practical people on earth) have, in great numbers,
looked with coldness on their Church ; have attributed to it many
faults which it has not, and shown no patience with those which it
has ; have, in a word, reviled and forsaken their Church, and arrayed
themselves in hostility against it. To the beginning of this course
they have, perhaps, been instigated more than they are willing to
believe by the papists ;* in its progress they have been steadily
assisted by the papists ; and at this day they are in league with the
papists for its consummation.
In justice, however, to the Protestant Dissenters from the Church
of England, it should be remembered, that most of the secessions
referr* to took place under the Tudors and the Stuarts, before the
government of Great Britain was settled on its present constitutional
basis, and while the crown wa,s, in most points, at war with the
people, instead of being made, as now, to represent their opinions
and to reflect their will.
In such a state of things, the lay power and influence which it
See 'Appendix V.

PREFACE. VU
had been the purpose of the Reformation to assert and vindicate,
passed to the people in name, but not in fact ; the crown and par
liament, who represented and exercised the legitimate lay element
of the Church, having almost as little sympathy with the people as
the Pope an4 his Cardinals who had absorbed and extinguished that
element ; and the people as a body b^^ing, under the one as well
as the other, effectually shut out from the just sphere of their in
fluence in the election of Church officers, the management of Church
property, and the enactm^t of Church laws.
But, whatever may. have been the causes of these secessions, the
result has been to weaken the fences erected against the papal
power, and to give it sftength and activity for new aggressions.
Instead of a compact national body, with its divinely appojnted
ministry and sacraments, its traditionary faith, its settled prescrip
tions and usages, and its well-defined and impregnable lines of op
position to the encroachments and .corruptions of' the papal power,
the English people now present a distracted front of numerous sects,
formed upon upstart theories, pursuing the most airy phantoms, and
united in hostility to Rome only on grounds that are equally subver
sive, of principles which lie at the foundation of the Christian reli
gion, and give it all its permanence and vitality.
In asserting^and vindicating personal rights and liberty in opposi
tion to the' encroachments of the crown and the aristocracy^ the
Protestant Dissenters were foremost ; and I am as ready as any
man to admire the sturdy independence and heroism which they dis
played. Viewed, however, in reference to the spiritual despotism
of which papal .Rome was and is the head and centre, this contest
was one of the people among themselves, the king and the peasant
both belonging to the same body ; and when the question is consi
dered in this aspect, it cannot be denied that the Church of England
has taken the lead in asserting and vindicating the rights and liber
ties of the people in opposition to papal usurpation and tyranny.
So early as the sixteenth century the Church of "England, (as
it is, in part, the aim of the following pages to show,) had as
serted the rights of the people and liberty of conscience ; and had

Vlll PREFACE.
placed both on a foundation than which the Protestants who have
since separated from her communion have shown none, in my
opinion, more definite and more stable.
The British Provinces, which afterwards became the United
States, were chiefly settled by those Protestant Dissenters who,
under the dynasty of the Tudors and the Stuarts, had asserted the
cause of popular rights and liberty against the crown, and who,
from the connection of Church and State, were naturally led to re
gard the Church, in the form in which it was established, as their
enemy ; and' to make tjt, equally with the temporal government to
which it was allied, the object of their assaults. They were settled
also in part by .members of the Church ofEngland, who, in defend
ing the principles of their Church, and opposing the counter opinions
of the denominations around theni, were as naturally led, in the con
test between the crown and the people, to side with the former
against the latter. I speak only, of course, of the tendencies of the
two systems, making due allowance for individual exceptions.
When the independence of the colonies was acknowledged, the re
lations of the parties were changed. Many of the supporters of the
crown removed to the mother country, or to those colonies which
still acknowledged her sovereignty ; while those who remained soon
ceased to be distinguished, by their political opinions, from the rest
of their countrymen. On the other hand, the successors of those
who had separated from the Church ofEngland abated their jealousy
and aversion towards the Episcopal Church. The introduction of
bishops, which they had before so strenuously opposed as to render
it in a high degree impolitic for the mother country to grant, they
not only ceased to object to, but even consented to facilitate by all
the good ofiices-in their power. The divine institution of Episco
pacy, the relative holiness of certain times and places set apart for
religious purposes, the order for Daily, Morning and Evening Prayer,
the forms for the administration of the holy Sacraments, and other
ordinances, religious vestments, and all our distinctive doctrines
and usages, which, when imposed under the crown by legal enact
ments, had been visited with unmitigated odium, began to find

PREFACE. IX
favor with the people, when they were no longer sought to be bound
on them without their owa consent, and were upheld only by the
moral power and sanction of the Church ; and it is a remarkable
fact that the Episcopal Church, which at the beginning of our civil
independence was reduced almost to extinction, has grown to its
present large and flourishing state chiefly by means of accessions
from those religious bodies which had separated, from the mother
Church'. The phase thus presented is, in truth, a new development
of the Reformation ; in which the rights (with their correlative du
ties) that were at first asserted for the crown in opposition to the
papal supremacy, have at length passed to the people in fact as well
as in name.
The natural inference from these facts is; that if the inhabitants
of Great Britain wish to arrest the growth of Popery, they should
rally around their Church, study itp institutions, and imbibe its spirit,
content, (as indeed they have reason to be happy) that, while
living the Church's life, they may now exert that influence on her go
vernment .which the silent change of their Constitution has secured for
them ; and that in thiscountry the main security against the same evil
consists in the distinct and firm avowal, by the Protestant Episcopal
Church, of the Divine Institution of her ministry, and of those funda
mental principles which she has received from the Church of Eng
land ; and in not suffering her strength to be w.eakened, as her
numbers are increased, by an infusion from religious bodies which
reject those principles.
In the present day, the various religious bodies, Roman and Protes
tant, appear to be retracing their old lines of demarcation, and recon-
noitering as if for a new conflict. The Romanists, in particular,
emboldened by their powerful alliances on the Continent of Europe,
by the fatuous concessions which have been made to them in Great
Britain, and by the numbers with which the tide of immigration has
swollen their ranks in this country, have assumed a more confident
tone than at any previous time since the Reformation ; repudiating,
foi; the most part, the softened explanations of their tenets which
they used to put forth, drawing tighter the reins of spiritual power.

PREFACE.

seeking to make themselves felt as a distinct religious body in
worldly politics, and being, in all respects, at much less pains than
formerly to disguise the true theory and genius of their Church. In
such a state of things, it is well for us to bear distinctly in mind the
causes which led to their separation from the Church of Eng
land, in order that we may perceive the consequences which would
result from a re-admission of their claims ; and to be guarded, at
the same time, against any concessions which may compromise the
character of our Church as a continuous body ; founded on the same
Faith, governed by the same Ministry, united in the same Sacra
ments, quickened by the same Breath, living the same Life, nour
ished by the same Word, and being in very truth the same Body
which our Lord Jesus Christ formed on earth before His ascen
sion, and promised to be with, by the secret energy of the Holy
Spirit, even unto the end of the world. If the following pages are
found, by God's blessing, to further these ends, and help others in
the detection of Roman errors without detriment to the Catholic
Faith, the .author's highest hopes respecting them will be realized.

THE

fatiratg 0f % €\mt\ d (ingM

DISOOUBSE I.

Hebrews xiii., 17.
" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves ; for thoy
watch for your souls, as they that must give account."
Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath purchased to
himself an universal Church, hath promised to be with
the ministers of apostolic succession to the end of the
"world.* By the ministers of apostolic succession are
meant those who have succeeded to the Holy Apostles
both in the orders which they received, in the doctrine
which they taught, and in the right to govern the
Church agreeably to the laws, and institutions of our
Saviour Christ ; and it is on the supposition that they
who now rule over us in our spiritual concerns have
lawfully succeeded to the Holy Apostles in authority
and doctrine, that we yield them due obedience, and
rely on the promise of the Head of the Church to own
us as His members, and to be present with us in the
energy of that Holt Spirit whom He hath sent from
the Father.
No question is made of the apostolic succession of
* " 0 Holy Jesus, who hast purchased to thyself an universal Church, and
hast promised to be with the ministers of apostolic succession to the end of the
world, be graciously pleased," &c. — Office of Institution in the Prater- Book.

the Church of England (from which the Protestant
Ejpiscopal Church in these United States has confess
edly derived both its orders and doctrine) until the
time of the sixteenth century ; none at least by any
persons who own the Church of Christ to be a corpo
rate body, capable of perpetuating itself, and of secur
ing to its members forever the same rights with which
they were originally invested. From the changes,
however, which were then made in the Church of En
gland, occasion has been taken to charge her with a
departure from the Apostolic rule : to meet which
objections, (such of them, at least, as are worthy of
consideration,) I purpose on this day* to vindicate our
claim to the Apostohc Succession in Orders and Juris
diction, touching also, incidentally, on the question of
succession in doctrine. In other words, I purpose to
show that the Church of England, in the eventful
changes of the sixteenth century, preserved its own
continuity, and maintained, as far as in it lay, the unity
of Christ's mystical Body.
To understand the state of the question, it is neces
sary to premise that the Bishop of Rome had, in times
preceding the Reformation, claimed to be the Head of
the Catholic Church, the source and fountain of all its
power and jurisdiction, and, in virtue of this alleged
supremacy, to exercise a sovereign control over the
English Church and nation. In the reign of Henry
VIII., however, an occasion was given for an expres
sion of the true sense of the English Church in refer
ence to the ground and validity of this extravagant
claim. For this monarch, who (whether deservedly
or not) had been honored by the See of Rome with
* The second Sunday in Lent, being one of the four stated times of Ordina
tion.

the title of Defender of the Faith,* and had received
its apostolic benediction for himself and all his pos
terity, propounded to the Bishops and Clergy in the
Provincial Synods of England, to the celebrated Uni
versities, and to the great Monasteries of the kingdom,
the following question, viz : " Whether the Bishop of
Rome hath any greater jurisdiction conferred on him
in Holy Scripture, in this realm of England, than any
other foreign Bishop ?" — requiring them, like men of
virtue and profound literature, (so ran the directions
to the University of Oxford,) diligently to intreat,
examine, and discuss the same, and to return their
opinions, in writing, under their common seal, to the
" mere and sincere truth of the same."f
This question lies at the foundation of the whole-
controversy, and it is therefore important to note both
the answer and the unanimity with which it was given.
The answer was, that " the Bishop of Rome has not
any grea^fcer jurisdiction conferred on him in Holy
Scripture, in this. realm of England, than any other
foreign Bishop."
The declaration is guarded. It makes no reference
to the Orders of the Roman Pontiff; that is, to his
character as a Bishop or Vicar of Christ, but only to
his jurisdiction or power of government. J It does not
deny the right of his jurisdiction in Italy, nor the fact
of his jurisdiction in England. It simply denies that
jurisdiction is conferred on him by the Di-vdne Law in
the realm of England. Within these limitations, how-
* See Appendix A. t See Appendix B.
t By Orders, is meant the power to preach the Word and administer the Sacra
ments of the New Law in the name of Christ. The power of conferring Orders,
vested by Christ's institution exclusively in bishops, is derived to the Bishop of
Rome in common with other bishops, called also vicars of Christ. Orders may
exist without the power of jurisdiction, as in the case of a church possessed of
a valid ministry and sacraments, but involved in heresy or schism. Jurisdiction,
so far as it is merely spiritual, and conferred by Christ as the Head of the

ever, the denial is absolute; since no other foreign
bishop pretended to any jurisdiction whatever in En
gland. In this answer all the bishops of England united,
with the exception of Fisher, Bishop of Rochester.
The Provincial Synods of Canterbury and York, the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the chapters
and convents throughout the kingdom, gave one and
the same answer : The Bishop of Rome has no greater
jurisdiction conferred on him in Holy Scripture, in
this realm of England, than any other foreign bishop ;
that is, under the limitations aforesaid, no jurisdiction
whatever. In the deliberate judgment, therefore, of
the Church of England, while yet it was in full com
munion with the Church of Rome, the jurisdiction
which the Bishop of Rome had exercised in England
was a human arrangement and not a divine ordinance ;
a power of man's concession and not of God's prescrip
tion.* Soon after this, Cranmer being Archbishop of Can
terbury, a convocation of the English clergy was held
at Lambeth, " to set forth a plain and sincere doctrine
concerning the whole sum of all those things which
appertain unto the profession of a Christian man." In
this work, which was approved by the two archbishops
and nineteen of the bishops, it was asserted as the
Church, cannot exist without Orders, and in connection with orders constitutes
what is called the power of thesKeys ; that is, the power to define the Faith
of Christ, (in other words, to declare what is and what is not heresy,) to absolve
penitents, to excommunicate the openly vicious, to degrade unworthy clergy
men, and, in general, to discharge all those functions which are necessary to
preserve and continue the Church as a corporate or politic body, independent of
the world. For further remarks on the subject of jurisdiction, and a com
parative view of the doctrine of the Churches of Rome and England on the
relation of the spiritual to the temporal power, see Appendix D.
* See Appendix C.

sense of the English Church, that the Bishop of Rome,
for several hundred years after Christ, had no primacy
or governance above any other bishop out of his own
province in Italy ; that his existing power was the re
sult of successive and gradual usurpations, and was
exercised in violation of the ancient canons, and of his
own oath, which bound him to observe the canons.
In making this declaration there was no intention to
separate from the Catholic Church,* or to disregard its
authority. On the contrary, the declaration was justi
fied by the ancient canons ; according to which it was
contended that the archbishops and bishops of every
national church had power to order all matters within
themselves, so long as they kept to the faith and unity
of the Catholic Church.
The supreme jurisdiction of the realm being denied
to the Bishop of Rome, devolved, so far as it was
merely spiritual, to the Bishops of the English Church,
and so far as it was outward ai:^d coercive, to the
crown. Hence the next step in the Reformation was
a parliamentary statute, declaring the King, for all
purposes of outward and coercive jurisdiction, to be
the Head of the English Church, and empowering
him and his successors to redress and reform all abuses
which may be lawfully reformed, to the increase of
Christ's religion, and of the peace and unity of the
realm.f The way was now open for the Church of England,
under the protection of the state, to do without the
Bishop of Rome what it had in vain sought to do with
him ; that is, to correct sundry abuses and corruptions
of religion which prevailed among the people. One of
the first things done was to translate the Holy Scrip-
* See 30th Canon of 1603, as quoted in the next sermon.
t See Appendix D.

tures of the Old and New Testaments. Some advances
were also made towards allowing the use of the En
glish language in the public services of the Church, by
the publication of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and
the Ten Commandments, together with prayers, suf
frages, and hymns, and select passages of Scripture for
morning and evening devotion. A Litany also, much
like that now in use, was set forth in English, to be
said alternately by the priest and the people, together
with some excellent prayers for private devotion.
Creeping to the cross and other like superstitions were
abolished. Shortly afterwards, in the reign of Edward VI., the
Holy Eucharist was administered in both kinds, and
restored to its ancient character of a communion as
well as a sacrifice ; while the ofiice for administering it
was adapted to these changes, and translated into the
English language.
A commission was also appointed, consisting of the
Ai'chbishop of Canterbury and other learned and dis
creet bishops, to prepare a complete collection of di
vine offices in the English language, and the result was
the Book of Common Prayer, which was first used on
Whitsunday, 1549.* In 1552 the Prayer-Book was
again set forth by Convocation, with some alterations,
together with the Articles of Religion and a Book of
Ordination, the same for substance as those which are
now in use.
These changes were made with the consent of the
archbishops and a large majority of the bishops. Some
five or six of the bishops dissented,f and these were
* See Appendix E.
t Viz : Bonner of London, Gardiner of Winchester, Day of Chichester,
Heath of Worcester, Voysey of Exeter, and Tunstall of Durham. The two
latter are said by some to have resigned.

.7
displaced, and others were ordained and settled in
their sees according to the laws of the Church and the
usual customs of those times.
Thus far at least there was no departure from the
Apostolical Succession either in orders or in doctrine.
Not in orders, for the bishops then living were, by the
confession of all parties, the lawful successors of the
Apostles : not in doctrine, for the rule by which they
proceeded in the changes which they made was the
Word of God, interpreted by catholic tradition and all
truly universal councils. They avowed their determi
nation to reform abuses and corruptions, but they at
the same time avowed their willingness to submit, in
all matters affecting the peace and unity of the Church,
to the decision of the Catholic or Universal Church
expressed by a free general council. They alleged, how
ever, what is undoubtedly true, that for several hun
dred years there had been no really universal council ;
that in the then state of Christendom such a council
was impracticable ; that there was no power of compe
tent jurisdiction to convoke it ; and that the abuses
and. corruptions of the day were too flagrant for their
reformation to be longer postponed. Under these cir
cumstances, they considered that the only way in which,
while reforming abuses, they could testify their sub
mission to the Catholic Church, was to proceed by the
rule which I have mentioned, viz : the Word of God,
as interpreted by catholic tradition ; that is, by a
Gontirmal succession of witnesses up to the time of the
Apostles. By this rule the Church of England consented to be-
tried ; and while adhering to this rule, it is manifest
that she could not depart from the Apostolic Succes
sion in doctrine. The face of the Church, indeed, be-

fore and after this reformation of abuses, was different ;
and hence the crafty sophist or the superficial observer
is ready to exclaim : " You have a new Church ; you •
do not adore in the Eucharist that which the priest
lifts up in his hands before the people ; you do not re
quire auricular confession ; you do not worship images ;
you have no masses for bringing souls out of pur
gatory ; you administer the Eucharist in both kinds.
Surely, whether these things are right or wrong, you
cannot pretend to be the same Church you were be
fore ; you have departed from the succession of doc
trine." To which the simple answer is, that these and
all like matters contained in the new creed of the
Church of Rome are either beside or contrary to the
Word of God, as interpreted by catholic tradition and
the truly oecumenical councils. In other words, they
are either beside or contrary to the Faith of the
Catholic Church, and are therefore no proof that we
have not succeeded to the doctrine of the Apostles.'""
On the death of Edward VI., and the accession of
" * To their usual question, then, ' Where was the Protestant Church or Re
ligion before Luther'!' I answer, first. That it was there, where their whole re
ligion cannot, as they grant, be found, in the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, it was,
as Bishop Usher saith well, where their Church was, in the same Place, though
not in the same State and Condition. The Reformation, or Protestantism, did
not make a new Faith or Church, but reduced things to the primitive purity ;
plucked not up the good seed, the Catholic Faith or true worship, but the after-
sown tares of error, as image worship, purgatory, &c., which were ready to
choke it. Did the Reformation in Hezekiah or Josiah's days set up a new
Church or religion different in essence from the old one ? Had it not been a
ridiculous impertinency for one that knew Naaman before, while he stood by, to
ask, where is Naaman 1 And being answered, this is he, for the inquirer, to
reply, it cannot be he, for Naaman was a leper — this man is clean. Was not
Naaman, formerly a leper and now cleansed, the same person \ A field of wheat
in part weeded is the same it was as to ground and seed, not another. In like
manner, the true visible Christian Church, cleansed and unclean, reformed and
unreformed, is the same Church altered, not as to essence or substance, but
quality or condition." — Mr. Samuel Gardiner, one of the writers in Gibson's
Collection of Tracts.

Queen Mary to the throne of England, the affairs of
the Church ceased for a time to be conducted by the
archbishops and bishops of the English Church, and
were managed by the authority of the Pope and of the
five or six bishops who had been displaced in the pre
vious reign.
The Pope of Rome, we contend, had no jurisdiction
in the English Church except by the consent of the
English Church, and consequently the acts and regula
tions of the Pope, in concurrence with the few bishops
who had been deposed by their lawful superiors, had
no canonical force, but were utterly null and void.
Aided, however, by the temporal power, these foreign
intruders expelled the majority of the lawful bishops
and substituted others in their place. Nor was this
all ; but, having procured the re-enactment of statutes
(which had been humanely repealed in the two preced
ing reigns) for the punishment of heretics by death,
they had the effrontery and the cruelty to burn as
heretics men who were better Catholics than them
selves, and whom they \vere bound, by the canons, to
reverence as the lawful bishops and spiritual fathers of
the Church. " Come," they said, " these are the heirs ;
let us kill them, and the inheritance shall be ours."
But it pleased God to baffle their designs. The
reign of Mary, though violent, was of short duration ;
and on the accession of Elizabeth, the bishops of Queen
Mary's days either -withdrew or were deprived of their
Sees. One only was suffered to conform.* They were
*The bishop who conformed, was Anthony Kitchen, who had been a sort of
Vicar of Bray, taking care, in all the changes, to keep in favor with the domi
nant party. The other bishops, who either resigned or were deprived (some
fourteen or fifteen in number), were schismatics, inasmuch as they had either come
into the places of lawful bishops during the lifq of the latter, or had received
consecration from, or held communion with, bishops who had been thus schis-

10
not the lawful bishops of the Church of England, but
had held their places by violence and usurpation under
a foreign jurisdiction. Besides, they had shed inno
cent blood ; they were believed, on good grounds, to
hold doctrines subversive of the government in the
State, and they upheld some of the most fiagrant abuses
and corruptions in the Church. There was, therefore, no
reason, either of justice or expediency, for allowing them
to remain. In the Providence of God, five of the law
ful bishops of the Church under Edward VI., were still
alive. These were now recalled, and all but one united
in settling the Church in that reformed state which had
been so rudely and unlawfully assailed. By these the
succession of bishops was preserved, and has ever since
been regularly continued ; so that the authority of the
bishops who have succeeded to them, both in respect of
orders and jurisdiction, is beyond reasonable question.
On a review of these facts, two or three remarks may
be thought worthy of attention ;
It has become common of late to extenuate the cru
elties exercised towards the Reformed Bishops in Queen
matically intruded. I am not aware that they themselves pleaded principle as
their reason for withdrawal ; and if they had, the plea, considering their antece
dents, would have carried but little weight. Burnet and Bramhall say expressly,
that they hoped, by acting in concert, to intimidate the Queen. I add, in the
words of Dr. Saywell, " they usurped their places by turning out the metropoli
tans, and a major part of the bishops of each province, and so could have no law
ful authority or jurisdiction. Queen Elizabeth therefore set them aside, and so
removed this violence and usurpation ; and being willing to restore all things as
they were settled in King Edward's reign, she calls back the bishops that were
still alive, which were only five in number ; Bishops Barlow, Scory, Coverdale,
Kitchin and Thirlby, and all but Thirlby concurred in settling the Reformation.
So we had still the major part of the lawful bishops to renew the succession ;
and they did ordain Archbishop Parker, and others, and it has been regularly con
tinued ever since. Thus the authority of our present bishops as to order, is be
yond dispute." (See Dr. Saywell's "Reformation of the Church of England,
justified according to the canons of the Council of Nice, and other general coun
cils, and the tradition of the Catholic Church." Cambridge, A. D. 1688.)

11
Mary's reign, by attributing them to ,the temper of
the age, which, as is pretended, itfected all parties
alike, and inci-ted each that was in the ascendency to
persecute its opponents. But what are the facts in this
case ? That the chief of the Reformed Bishops were
burnt at the stake as heretics is certain ;* and, on the
other hand, it is equally certain that, when the reform
ed party, in the reign of Elizabeth, obtained the ascen
dency, the Roman bishops were treated in a very
different manner. They were, it is true, and for good
reason, dispossessed of their Sees, to which they had' no
just title ; but not one of them was treated with sever
ity in consequence of anything done in the previous
reign. Most of them were suffered to live with their
friends ; two of them spent the remainder of their days
under the roof of Archbishop Parker, and one of them
was honorably buried by him at his death. Let us not
extenuate the conduct of the one party at the expense
of the other ; especially when it is also at the expense
of truth and justice.f
Attempts, indeed, are often made to excite odium
against the Reformed Church of England, and sympa
thy in behalf of her Papal opponents, in consequence
of a series of events which began soon after to be un
folded. But when these facts are placed in their true
light, the character of the English Church, for mode
ration and charity, will not suffer. In the first part of
the reign of Elizabeth, the kingdom almost universally
acquiesced in the Reformation. The deprived bishops
* This was bad enough ; but what aggravated the atrocity of the proceeding is,
thai the statute under which they were convicted, and condemned to the stake,
and which had been abrogated by 35 Henry VHL, Cap. 14, and again by 1
Edward VI., Cap. 3, was revived and re-enacted under Mary, as if for the very
purpose of applying it to the Reformers. For a fuller view of this topic the
reader is referred to Appendix G.
t For the grounds on which these statements are made, see Appendix H.

12
formed no party against it, and the clergy of the
Church, with a remarkable unanimity, came into the use
of the Reformed Liturgy. In the eleventh year of that
reign, however, the then Pope of Rome (Pius V.), find
ing the attempts of his predecessor (Pius IV.) to recov
er the kingdom by arts and persuasion fruitless,* issued
his buU of excommunication and deposition against the
Queen, absolving all her subjects from their oaths of
allegiance.f This it was, which gave an entirely new
aspect to the controversy, and led to all the subsequent
troubles. That the Pope of Rome should send mis
sionaries into England in opposition to the lawful bish
ops of that Church, was indeed a violation of the
ancient canons, but not an offence which should have
been visited by temporal penalties ; but to send his emis
saries into England to preach sedition and rebellion to
the people, was an offence against the State ; and, if
the State saw fit to punish such offences with rigor,
there is no reason to blame the Church ; nor, even if
we should approve of some of the political sentiments
of the offenders, are we bound to sympathize with them
as " missionary priests" and ministers of Christ, while
they abuse their office to the purposes of political fac
tion. For, even if such men have been "unjustly con
demned for treason to the State, this is no proof that
they were martyrs for Christ.
It is difficult to review the extraordinary events by
which the Church of England has been enabled to
maintain and vindicate her title to the Apostolic suc
cession, both in orders and doctrine, without believing
that she is yet to answer some great ends in the design
of Divine Providence. The intelligent and consistent
* See Appendix I.
t See the next Sermon, and Appendix L.

13
members of this Church have ever been most firmly per
suaded that her succession, both of right and of fact, to
the orders and faith of the Apostles, is the ground on
which the errors of the Roman Church may be most
successfully combated. All other opposition, however
noisy and boastful, begins with a \T.rtual surrender, and
must necessarily end in defeat. For, when the question
is as to identity with a society and doctrine which be
gan more than eighteen centuries ago, what is it but a
surrender to renounce, in the very outset, all pretence
of succession to the founders of that society, and the
original propagators of that doctrine ? The Church
of Rome knows this, and knows the immense advan
tage which the Protestant cause would derive from a
valid claim to the Apostolic succession. Hence, there
is no fact which her emissaries have more strenuously
denied, or resorted to more unworthy arts to obscure,
than the .validity of the Anglican orders. And it is
matter of wonder and regret that Protestants general
ly, including many estimable members of our own com
munion, should consent to further her interests by
affecting to treat the subject with ridicule ; or to repre
sent us as in covert alliance with the Church of Rome,
because we refuse to abandon the only solid ground on
which her errors may be met and. refuted.
During the past week, we have daily offered the
prayer that Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, who
hath purchased to himself an universal church, by the
precious blood of his dear Son, would mercifully look
upon the same, and that he would at this time so guide
and govern the minds of His servants, the bishops and
pastors of His flock, that they may lay hands suddenly
on no man, but faithfully and wisely make choice of fit
persons to serve in the sacred ministry of His Church ;

14
that He would give His grace and heavenly benediction
to all those who are ordained to any holy function ;
that he would replenish them with the truth of His doc
trine, and endue them with innocency of life, that they
may faithfully serve before Him, to the glory of His
great name, and the benefit of His holy Church. It is
impossible to offer this prayer, and not to connect with
it the ardent desire that suspicions and jealousies may
be removed, and heats and contentions allayed, so that
all who profess and call themselves Christians may be
united in a peaceful and charitable temper. In this
way only nn we promote the advancement of religion
and the salvation of mankind ; and let those who sin
cerely desire this end, consider that the way to pro
mote the glory of God, and the peace and unity of His
Church, is not to impose the private opinions of Roman
schoolmen, nor the extravagant devices of modern re
formers, but to maintain the truly ancient and Apostolic
faith, devotion and discipline, delivered and recom
mended by the Word of God, and the example of the
Primitive and Catholic Church.

THE

CnAmtg 0f % €\uxt\ 0f fitglaitlr.

DISCOUHSE II.

Hebrews xiii., 17.

" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves ; for they
watch for your souls, as they that must give account."
The right to govern, to which the duty of obedience
is correlative, is not here rested on the possession of
extraordinary and miraculous powers, such as were
necessary to the first settlement of the Christian Church
in the world, but on the possession of those standing
and ordinary powers which are necessary to the pre
servation of the Christian Church, in all ages, as an
orderly society. Obey them who " have the rule over
you," who " watch for your souls ;" and who, having
received this trust from the Divine Head of the Church,
either immediately (as did the Apostles) or at the
hands of those whom He has commissioned to convey
it, must at last " account" to him for the discharge of
it. Hence the inspired precept is one, not of partial
and temporary, but of universal and perpetual obliga
tion in the Christian Church ; and evidently supposes
a succession of officers in it, to whom its members are
always and everywhere bound to submit themselves in
all matters which they enjoin out of the Word of God,
or agreeably to the same, for the conservation of its
peace and unity. " Obey them that have the rule over

16
you, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for your
souls, as they that must give account."
Accordingly, it hath been the constant belief of the
Church that our Lord provided from the beginning for
the maintenance of a continual and orderly succession
of pastors ; that He sent His Apostles as Llis Father
had sent Him ; that is, with authority to send others
in His name, the power of propagating itself being an
element of the original commission ; and consequently,
that the spiritual rulers whom we are bound to obey,
are not such as have taken the oi9i<36 of the Christian
ministry on themselves, or derived it from the people,
but such as have received both the faith and doctrine
of Christ, and the authority to administer His sacra
ments, by an uninterrupted succession from the Holy
Apostles, and hold the same as a most precious trust
or deposit, for the custody and conveyance of which
they are responsible to God. Hence, when we are ac
costed with the ensnaring question which is put to
Protestants by the emissaries of the court of Rome,
" Who were the ministers of God that gathered that
society of men with whom you are now united ?" we
answer, directly to the point : The society with which
we are now united has been propagated from the
Church of England, and the Church of England has
been propagated by an unbroken succession of pastors
and doctrine from the Apostles of our Lord and Sa
viour Jesus Christ.
The only objection of any moment which is made in
rejoinder, is drawn from the changes which took place
in the state of the English Church at the time of its
reformation from Popery. In a previous discourse I
reviewed those events, and assigned some of our rea
sons for believing that the Apostolic Succession, both

17
in orders and doctrine, was, by the good Providence
of God, continued during those troublous times.
From this review it appears, I apprehend, that the ,
Church of England at that time separated from no
other body or society of Christians. She simply
affirmed that the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome
in England was founded on no divine warrant ; that
it had been the result of encroachments on the one ,
side, and concessions on the other ; that it had been
proved, after a long and full trial, to be burdensome
to the people, and operative of manifold evils ; that it
had been endured long enough, and ought to be at
once and forever declined. The separation, if such it
were, was from the court of Rome, in respect to its
claim of jurisdiction in England, and not from the
Church of Rome in respect to any points of faith or
order that had been ruled by the Catholic Church.
Leaving the Bishop of Rome to govern the Church of
R(?me, and the Churches also of such other countries
as deemed it for their benefit to continue subject to
his jurisdiction, the Church of England, under the
protection of the State, resumed the responsibility of
governing herself and her own members, agreeably to
the Word of God and Catholic tradition. She re
modeled her ritual, translated her prayers and offices
from a dead to a living language, and made such other
changes as she judged needful to meet and to guide
the awakening spirit and intelligence of the age. No
change, however, was made which shocked the feel
ings, or offended the consciences of her members, as
may be inferred from the fact that, of the 9,400 clergy
of the realm, only lYV refused to take the oath
acknowledging the supremacy of the Queen, which
was not administered until after the changes were
2

18
made.* Nor is this to be wondered at, for the reform
ation from popery had been gradual ; the minds of the
people were prepared for each successive step; and
when the reformation was completed, the Church of
England remained the same Church as before ; having
departed from no rule of Apostolic order, nor relin
quished any one point of the Catholic faith ; having
separated herself from no other Church, nor separated
any other from herself; and having continued to re
tain in her bosom the great body of her clergy and
people. For the space of eleven or twelve years after these
changes were made, the Romanists, as a sect distinct
from the Church of England, had no existence. The
Christian people of that country continued, after the
reformation as before, to attend their parish churches,
and to be in communion with their lawful pastors:
and the attendance was voluntary; the penal stat
utes which afterwards subjected the Church to so
much obloquy having not then been enacted, and the
people being constrained to attend the authorized ser
vice under no severer compulsion than one which was
intended as a check on idle and vagrant persons, and
imposed a fine of one shilling (to be collected and
given to the poor) for absence from church on the
Lord's day. Even they who had been at first opposed
* " The Parliament being dissolved, by authority of the same the Liturgy wa9
forthwith brought into the Churches in the vulgar tongue ; images were removed
without tumult ; the oath of supremacy offered to the Popish bishops and others
of the Ecclesiastical profession, which most of them had sworn unto in the reign
- of Henry the Eighth. As many of them as refused to swear were turned out of
their livings, dignities, and bishopricks ; and those (as themselves have written)
in the whole Realm, which reckoneth more than 9,400 Ecclesiastical promotions,
not above 80 parsons of churches, 50 prebendaries, 15 presidents of colleges,
12 archdeacons, as many deans, 6 abbots and abbesses, and 14 bishops, being all
which sate, saving onely Antony, Bishop of LlandafF, the calamity of his See." —
Camden Hist, of Eliz. p. 28.

19
to the changes, united, at least outwardly, with the
Reformed Church in prayer and sacraments;* and
there was a fair prospect that the pious care of the
Church for the better instruction and reformation of
her members, would be requited by their loyal attach
ment and steadfast devotion, and that the Catholic
faith would be kept by all in the unity of the spirit
and the bond of peace.
What was it, then, that first resisted and obstructed
this movement of the Church of England for the im
provement and edification of her people ? What was
it that first separated a portion of the members of
that Church from her fold, formed them into a new
sect, in opposition to their lawful pastors, and led to
the erection of altar against altar, and communion
against communion? The distinct answer to these
questions is, that, in the year 1569, the then bishop of
Rome issued a proclamation, in which, after premising
that he, as the successor of St. Peter, was made by the
Most High " Prince over all people and all kingdoms,
* " And the Queen, the nobility, the gentry, the clergy, and the main body of
the nation, were so well satisfied of the unlawful authority of those bishops that
were set aside, and the undoubted right of those who ordained Archbishop Parker,
that of about 9,400 clergy, above 9,200 did, with great joy, receive the bishops
and the reformation, and the rest of the nation, even those that were formerly zeal
ous for the Church of Rome, did join with them in prayers and sacraments, and there
was an universal agreement and concurrence in the commencement of the Church
ofEngland for ten or eleven years together, so that there was no other penal law but
that of md. a Sunday, to stir up lazy people to mind their duty ; and we might have
continued so till this day in that happy concord, had not the Pope excommuni
cated and deposed the Queen, and prohibited all her subjects, under pain of an
anathema, to own her sovereignty, and submit to the Bishops of the Church of
England. Upon which many separated from our communion, and have disturbed
our government ever since ; so that it is plain the schism is on the side of the
Papists, who, upon pretence of Papal authority, did withdrawlhemselves from
the communion of their own bishops, and make a formal division in the Church,
which was before united in peace and truth." — Dr. Saywell, A.D., 1688. See,
also, Appendix I.

20
to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build,"
he proceeds to excommunicate the Queen of England
and all her adherents, adding : " We moreover do de
clare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the
kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and
privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects
and people of the said kingdom, and all others who
have in any sort sworn unto her, to be forever absolv
ed from any such oath, and all manner of duty, of
dominion, allegiance and obedience ; and we do also,
by authority of these presents, absolve them, and do
deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to
the kingdom, and all other things before named. And
we do command and charge all and every, the noble
men, subjects, people and others aforesaid, that they
presume not to obey her, or her orders, mandates and
laws ; and those which shall do the contrary, we do
include them in the like sentence of anathema."*
Under the authority of this bull the emissaries of
the Bishop of Rome came into England and labored
for the accomplishment of these two ends : 1. To se
duce the people of England from allegiance to their
lawful sovereign ; and 2. To draw them away from
the Church of England, and to form them into sepa
rate congregations for the celebration of divine service,
according to the Roman use. In the former object
they failed, though not until after a long and obstinate
struggle, in which the government was compelled, for
its own preservation, to resort to measures of great
severity for their suppression.! In the latter object
they were partially successful. They seduced many of
the disaffected members of the Church of England
? See the Bull of Pius V., Appendix K.
t See Appendix L.

21
from the communion of their lawful pastors, and
formed them into separate congregations, which soon
came to be governed by what are called titular bish
ops, i. e., bishops who did not fill the ancient sees of
the realm; who were not consecrated according to
the ancient canons by the archbishop and bishops of
the province to which they belonged; who, in fact,
had no dioceses, but exercised their functions in En
gland on fictitious titles, and in virtue of no other au
thority than that which was founded on the exploded
right of the Bishop of Rome to jurisdiction in England ;
that is, in virtue of no divine authority at all. From
that time to the present, the two parties have continued
to hold, each towards the other, much the same rela
tive position. On the one side, the ancient church with
its bishops in the ancient dioceses, deriving their mere
ly spiritual authority, as successors of the Apostles,
from Christ, and with its ritual reformed from popery
and restored to the simplicity of the primitive age ;
and, on the other side, the new seceders gathered
around leaders who have been obtruded on the coun
try by a foreign power, whose orders are vitiated by
their notorious disregard to ancient canons, whose ju
risdiction is null and void, from the fact of its being
exercised in opposition to the lawful bishops of the
country ; (those bishops, I mean, to whom they are
bound to be subject by the law of Christ and the
canons of the Catholic Church, for I throw out of con-
fiideration the laws of the land ;) and who are identi
fied with the Church of England in the Catholic faith
which she has retained, and distinguished from her
only by an adherence to the popery which she has
rejected. Now, in regard to this separation, I remark — ¦

22
1. That it was unnecessary. Their Church, the
Church of England, had provided for them a Liturgy^
which, if not unexceptionable, at least contained all
things necessary to salvation. She had preserved for
them entire the faith into which they had been bap
tized, as it had been professed and defined in the four
universal councils (which Pope Gregory the Great
used to revere as the four gospels): the councils of
Nice and Constantiaople, of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
She had distinguished, as wasrA€et, the two sacraments
of the gospel — Baptism aftd the Holy Eucharist —
and provided for their most solemn celebration ; ac
cording to them that pre-eminence in which they
have been always and everywhere held in the Chris
tian Church. She had provided, also, decent and
edifying forms for the administration of those other
five institutions, which are less properly called sacra
ments, viz. : orders, absolution, confirmation, matri
mony, and the visitation of the sick and dying. She
appealed then, as she does now, for her justification to
the Word of God and Catholic tradition; having reject
ed only those things which were either unknown to the
Catholic Church of the first three or four centuries, or
which had not been ruled, by the universal councils just
mentioned, as of necessity to salvation. What sufficed for
salvation the?i must suffice nov> and always, to the end of
time. All this the Church ofEngland had provided ; the
only faults which can, without captiousness, be found
with her services, are faults of omission in things not
necessary ; faults which, if real, are far more tolerable
than the crusts and overlayings which she had removed ;
such, for example, as the incorporation of notorious
fables into her ritual.* The Church of England, there-
' * See Appendix M.

23
fore, had given her members no just occasion for sepa
ration, and hence the separation was unnecessary.
2. That the separation was wilful ; by which I mean
that it was an unwarranted exercise of private judg
ment in opposition to lawful authority. The changes
that were made did not extend to points that had been
ruled by the Catholic Church ; that is to say, by the
four universal councils which were held before the ex
ternal communion of the Church was interrupted. All
matters of this nature were considered as settled. The
changes that were made related only to matters that
were controverted ; and these were made in an orderly
and synodical way by the authorized guides of the
national church. For her justification in this course,
the Church of England may plead the voice of reason,
the command of Scripture, and the precedents of an
tiquity- Reason teaches us that in every society there
must be authority to decide controversies among its
members. Christ our Saviour has constituted this
authority in His church, and commanded us to obey it.
The universal councils of Nice and Constantinople,
Ephesus and Chalcedon, acted on this principle in de
fining the faith in opposition to the Arian and Macedo
nian heresies. ' " And not only the general councils
have exercised this authority, but particular churches
also, in national councils, in the councils of Orange,
Milevis and others, have used the same power over
their children, whom they were bound to teach and
govern, and for whose souls they were to account to
God ; and they did no more than was their right, so
long as they did it with submission to the general
church to whom they were subject ; for Christ said to
the Apostles, and by them to all the guides of souls
that should succeed them in a lawful ordination, ' He
that hears you, hears me, and he that despises you, de-

24
gpises me:— St. Cyp. JSp. 69."* This is what the Church
of England, did in those doctrines which were contro
verted at the time of the reformation, and which had
been determined by no universal council. She de
clared her own sense in these controversies, and deter
mined which side should be received and professed for
truth by her members. And to these determinations
her members were bound to submit, not as to infallible
verities, but as to probable truths ; and to rest in the
decisions of their Church until it should be made
plain by as great or greater authority that these de
cisions were erroneous. Suppose, then, and this is the
most that can be pretended, that the decisions of the
particular Church of England, in the controversies of
that day, seemed to any of her members to be con
trary to the doctrine of the universal church, still
they were obliged, on these principles — principles
which all Catholics acknowledge — to silence and peace,
and not to profess or to act in opposition to the deter
mination of their Church ; and this for the very suffi
cient reason that the public profession of a controvert
ed dogma is not necessary, but the preservation of the
peace and unity of the Church is.f But these sece
ders set up their own opinions on controverted doc
trines, against the determination of their Church ; and
they acted on these opinions so as to erect a rival
altar and a separate communion. Their separation,
therefore, was wilful and factious.
3. Had this separation been made under the direc
tion of the deposed bishops, it might then have had,
though no adequate sanction, yet some semblance of
•Bishop Sparrow, Preface to Collection of Articles, &c., of the Church of
England. i Ibid.

'^0

authority. But the chief of the deposed bishops kept
aloof; and the separation from the Church does not
appear to have been made under the conduct of any
who either then were, or •ever had been, its lawful
bishops. It was made at the instigation of a foreign
bishop, or of persons acting under his instructions ; and
that foreign bishop the same whom all (both the act
ing and deprived) bishops of England had declared,
almost with one voice, to have no jurisdiction in that
Country ; but who, though disowned and expelled by
the constituted authorities, both of the Church and
the State, stiU continued to intrude his agents into the
country, that he might, make for himself a party for
the avowed purpose of bringing the Church, and
through the Church the State, under his own rule and
dominion. No claim, as it seems to me, can be wilder,
than that of a monarch at Rome to a supremacy,
either spiritual or temporal, in England ; nor anything
more unnatural or uncatholic, more wild and fanatical,
than for professed Christians to separate from the
Church of their native country, and from their lawful
bishops, and to put themselves in subjection to the
monarch of a foreign and distant land. ,
A separation thus unnecessary, thus wilful, thus ex
travagant, has no mark, that I can see, to distinguish
it from a guilty schism. The members of the Church
of England, therefore, who at this time separated from
her communion, became thereby schismatics ; and the
Church of Rome, which caused and encouraged this,
as she has manifold other schisms, for her own tempo
ral aggrandizement, is responsible for the schism, and in
fected with its guilt. It is in vain for Romanists to
retort that the Church of England had before with
drawn from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
That withdrawal was the act of their own men ; and

26
if it be schismatical, then were the opponents and
persecutors of the reformers. Heath, Bonner, Gardiner,
Tonstall, Stokesly, Thirlby, etc., the schismatics. In
vain do they rail against the Church of England for
acknowledging the king as the supreme head; for
what is meant by this title (to pass by the fact of its
having been sanctioned by their own party) is not,
that the sovereign has, in his own person, or that he
can communicate to others, any part of that power of
orders and jurisdiction which Christ left to his Church,
but only that he has power to see that all subjects, as
well ecclesiastical as others, do their duties in their
several stations, and co-operate in their appointed
functions for the public good.* In vain do they seek
to reproach the Church with having taken her religion
from Parliament, since all the changes which were
made in her services were approved by the Church
herself in her convocations or synods, hefore they were
enacted in Parliament.f These and the like frivolous
pretexts are of no avail to exonerate them from the
charge of having needlessly and wilfully separated
from the Church of Enofland, and formed themselves
into congregations independent of her jurisdiction,
and under a foreign power.
In this view of the case will be found the explana
tion, 1st., of the name which we apply to those ;p'ofessed
Christians who are subject to the Bishop of Rome ; and,
2d., of the attitude which we hold towards them in
controverted questions-:
* See Appendix D.
t For example, the question of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was
submitted, as we have seen, to the Clergy, and resolved by them before it was
made the subject of statute in Parliament, In like manner, the Book of Com
mon Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion, Were approved and
adopted by the convocation of the Clergy before they were enjoined by Parlia
ment. See also Appendix N.

27
1. The Church ofEngland had, from her origin, been
accounted to be that part of Christ's Catholic Church
which existed in England. In her reformation from
Popery she had religiously abstained from all innova
tions in the Catholic faith, having taken for her rule
the Word of God, as interpreted by Catholic tradition.
She retained the Catholic creeds, and obliged her
members, on every occasion of public worship, to pro
fess their belief in the Holy Catholic Church. It was
not, therefore, to be expected that her faithful mem
bers should give the name of Catholics to an aggrega
tion of men that seceded from her communion, and set
up a rival worship within her own jurisdiction. These
seceders were separatists and schismatics ; and they,
therefore, like other sects, very naturally received a
name from their distinctive tenet, being called Roman
ists and Papists from their adherence to the govern
ment and Pope of Rome in opposition to their lawful
bishops. These designations were not, therefore,
originally bestowed, nor have they been since con
tinued, from any want of Christian courtesy ; they
were adopted naturally, and on principle, and have
been since continued among us by a consistent regard
to our own position, and a just adherence to historic
truth.* 2. The relation in which we are placed to the
Romanists in consequence of their separation from our
communion, A. D. 1569, by order of Pius V., deserves
to be borne in mind in the discussion of questions con
troverted between us. For inasmuch as we were pas
sive, and the formal act of separation was made by
them, we are not bound to show cause whv we remain
in the Church, but they are bound to show cause why
* See Appendix O.

28
they left it. The separation is their concern and not
ours ; they are bound to purge themselves from the
sin of schism, but we are not bound to confute the
arguments by which they seek to maintain and defend
their schism. It is enough for us that their arguments
are not directly conclusive, and we are not obliged to
listen to any other arguments than such as are directly
conclusive. They are bound to vindicate and prove
the principle on which they separated, and to show,
by plain and invincible pr.oofs, that we should adopt
the same principle ; and, if they fail in this attempt,
the whole controversy, in all rational and christian
judgment, is at an end* Now what is this principle ?
It is not that the particular propositions debated be
tween us are necessary as a means of salvation ; so that
our ignorance or disbelief of them puts us out of the way
of salvation. This is manifest, both from the nature of
the propositions and from the evidence on which they
rest. Belief in God, the Father Almighty ; in his
adorable Son, Jesus Christ ; in His incarnation, pas
sion and death ; in His glorious resurrection and ascen
sion, and in his second coming to judgment ; and belief
in the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father,
and whom the Son, agreeably to Plis gracious promis6,
hath sent from the Father to rule and comfort His
mystical body, the Holy Catholic Church ; to unite its
members, present and departed, on earth and in Para
dise, in one communion of Saints ; to be the principle
of a new and heavenly life to their souls and bodies,
delivering their souls from the bands of sin in this
world, and raising their bodies, in God's good time,
from the corruption of the grave, and advancing the
whole man, body and soul, to life everlasting, in
' See two Discourses of the learned Henry Dodwell : Quarto, London, A. D.
1688.

29
the kingdom of glory ; this belief, I say^ or belief in
the several articles of the Apostles' creed, is seen
at once to be intrinsically necessary to salvation
through Christ ; so that ignorance or disbelief of
it puts a man out of the way of salvation through
Jesus Christ. And the extrinsic evidence of its
divine origin is such that its rejection argues a most
culpable levity or obliquity of mind ; for the doctrine
is plainly contained in the original records of our faith,
and is moreover attested by the constant tradition of
the Catholic Church in every age and place from the
beginning. Now, compare ^with these immutable verities of the
Christian faith, the points that are controverted be
tween the Romanists and us; as, e. g.: That that
which the priest (after the consecration of the ele
ments in the Holy Eucharist) takes in his hand and
holds up before the people, is to be adored with the
adoration due to God ; that the images of Christ and
the Virgin Mary, and the other saints, are to be had
and kept, and duty of honor and worship is to be
given to them ; that the state of most souls, departed
in the faith of Christ, is a purgatory ; that a few others
(called s_aints) now reign together with Christ, and
that these are to be invoked, and their earthly relics
worshipped; that whole and entire Christ, and the
true sacrament, are received under one only species,
that of bread ; and, to name no more, that the defi
nitions of the council of Trent, all and every one, con
cerning original sin and justification, are to be firmly
embraced and received. These propositions are mani
festly no more than the determinations of curious ques
tions and scholastic disputes ; so that, even supposing
them true, the belief of them is not necessary to salva-

30
tion. We may adore our blessed Saviour in the cele
bration of the holy mysteries, without adoring that
which the priest holds up to the gaze of the people.
We may be saved, I trust, without worshiping the
images of the Virgin Mary and other saints ; without
worshiping their relics, and without belie-ving, with an
undoubting faith, that they themselves now reign with
Christ, while their bodies, which are part of themselves,
are yet mingled with the dust.* If we are in error in
believing that the souls of the faithful departed are in
a state of peace and refreshment, expecting with holy
hope the resurrection of their bodies, their acquittal
in judgment, and their admission to the kingdom of
glory, it is at least difficult to see how our salvation
can be promoted by exchanging this comforting doc
trine for the revolting belief that they cannot attain
to the final consummation of their hopes, except
through a process of purgatorial torment. And if we
receive the sacrament in both kinds, as our Lord com
manded, it can never be necessary for us to be resolved
whether whole Christ and a true sacrament be receiv
ed under one kind only or not.
That these propositions are not, even in the opinion
of Romanists themselves, so necessary but that they
may be ignored or disbelieved without peril to salva
tion, appears from these two considerations :
First. That in the Church of Rome, and in the
churches in communion with her, all who are baptized,
as well adults as infants, are baptized into no other
faith than that which is contained in the Apostles'
creed. I would not advance this argument if the
? An exception, however, should be made in the case of the Virgin Mary, for
whose bodily presence in heaven the Roman Church has consistently provided
by the story of the Assumption. See Appendix M.

31
Roman creed, which contains these controverted pro
positions were, like the Nicene creed, an expansion or
explanation of the Apostles' creed. Every man, how
ever, who compares the two, may see that it is not ;
but that the former contains several distinct propo
sitions, no germ of which is to be found in the latter.*
Assuming, then, the matter of the two creeds, the
Catholic creed and the Roman creed to be substan
tially different, I argue that Romanists themselves do
not believe the latter to be of the same necessity to
salvation as the former ; for, if they do, why are they
not baptized into it ? In fact, no member of the
Roman communion has been baptized into the Roman
creed ; all the members of that communion have been
baptized only into the Catholic creed ; and they are
obliged to believe and profess the matters contained in
the Roman creed, not by their baptismal vows, but
by the order of the Bishop of Rome.t
The other consideration is, that the Roman Church
excuses all those of its own communion who disbelieved
these controverted doctrines prior to the definition of
them by the council of Trent. This again shows con
clusively, that, Romanists themselves being judges, these
controverted doctrines are not necessary to salvation
in such sense that a man may not disbelieve them, and,
much more, be ignorant of them, without peril to his
soul.| And as there is no intrinsic necessity in these
* I am not aware that any sober-minded Romanist pretends to do more than
resolve the articles of his new creed into that part of the Apostles' creed, which
professes belief in the Holy Catholic Church. But this connection, if admitted,
only shows, and is, I believe, only meant to show, that these controverted pro
positions, when defined by the Church, must be received on her authority. In
this case, however, the propositions may be something beside the matter con
tained in the Apostles' creed, and be held necessary to salvation, not ex necessi
tate medii, so that they cannot be ignored or disbelieved without peril to salva
tion, but necessary only because the Church enjoins them ; which is a different
consideration and proceeds upon a different principle.
t See Appendix P. t See Appendix Q.

32
controverted tenets, so neither is there any such ex
trinsic evidence of their having been taught by the
Apostles as to convict any person who denies them of
irreverence or obstinacy. If there were, the early
fathers, at. least, could not have been ignorant of it
without fault ; and yet we often find the Romanist ex
cusing even their errors on the ground that they lived
before the matters in which he supposes them to err
were defined by the Church.
What then is the principle on which their separa
tion proceeds? On what principle is it that these
matters are changed from controverted propositions,
not into articles of peace, to which it is sufficient that
we offer no opposition, but into articles of faith, to be
received with firm and unwavering assent as the reve
lations of God? How is it that matters which are
neither necessary in themselves, having no essential
connection with the Christian. faith, and supported by
no such extrinsic evidence as to convince us of their
Apostolic origin, have come to be necessary to salva
tion, asiimuch so as the doctrine contained in the
Apostles' creed ? The answer is, that these matters are
imposed on the consciences of the separatists by an au
thority to which they think that they and all Christians
owe an unquestioning submission ; and that, in deference
to this authority, they are received without inquiry,
without examination, as the undoubted revelations of
God : and the authority to which they thus submit is
that of the Bishop of Rome. On the 9th day of De
cember, A. D, 1564, the then Bishop of Rome pub
lished a bull, in which these controverted propositions
were digested into the form of a creed, or rather of a
most solemn oath ; in which bull he distinctly com
mands all his subjects to vow, promise, and swear (so

33
help them God and the holy gospels !) that they will
most constantly retain and confess, entire and invio
late to their latest breath, these propositions of the
schools as (equally with the Apostles' creed) the true
Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved.*
It is to no purpose to say that the matters contained
in this new creed had been previously defined by the
Council of Trent. For this council has no pretence to
be considered as representingf the Universal Church.
It was convoked by the Bishop of Rome, and of course
could not be . recognized either by the Eastern
Churches, or by any other portion of the Church
Catholic, which denied his authority to convoke it ;
* Compare with this act of the Bishop of Rome the following decree of the
Universal Council of Ephesus, assembled A. D. 431, by the Emperor Theodo-
sius the Younger, to settle the dispute which had been raised in the Church by
the doctrines of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. " These things having
been read, the holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to
bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other creed besides that which
was settled by the holy Fathers, who were assembled in the city of Nicsea, with
the Holy Ghost. But those who shall dare to compose any other creed, or to
exhibit or produce any such to those who wish to turn to the acknowledgment
of the truth, whether from Heathenism or Judaism, or any heresy whatever, if
they are bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed, the bishops from their
Episcopal office, and the clergymen from the clergy ; but if they are of the laity,
they shall be anathematized." From this time the creed set forth by the second
(Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, and which is commonly
called the Nicene creed, was held in the utmost veneration by all the Catholic
Churches of the East and West. The first addition that was made to it was by
Pope Nicholas I., in the ninth century, and consisted in the words and the Son,
after the word Father, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Ghost. This
led to the great schism of the East and West, a schism never to be ended, says
our illustrious Bishop Pearson, till those words, and the Son, are taken out of the
creed. The next addition to this venerable symbol was by Pope Pius IV., A. D.
1564. See Appendix R.
t " Several bishops were for its taking the title of fficumenical Council
representing the tJniversal Church ; but it was at last resolved that they should
only take the title of Holy Sacred Oecumenical and Universal Council." — Dupin's
Church Hist., vol. iv., p. 74. This, however, was done, though Dupin does not
mention the fact, in opposition to the Protestants, who contended that the laity
should be admitted to vote 3

34
and it consisted of a small number of bishops,
chiefly Italians and Spaniards.* Nor has this council
obtained any additional weight of authority by the
reception of its decrees ; and the reason is, that they
were received without examination ; for within a year
after the council brought its deliberations to a close,
its definitions were collected into a creed, and peremp
torily enjoined by the court of Rome to be believed
without inquiry and examination by all Christians,
under peril of damnation. Hence, we are fully author
ized to say that these controverted propositions were
received as articles of the faith on the principle of obe
dience to the Bishop of Rome ; that very Bishop whom
not only the reformed, but even the Roman Catholic
bishops of England had declared, in that very age, to
have no jurisdiction conferred on him by God in that
realm. Now, when the controversy is brought to this issue,
it may soon be terminated. For the Bishop of Rome
has no more authority to prescribe articles of faith to
the Catholic Church than he has to depose sovereigns
from their kingdoms. The assumption of such author
ity rests on the ground, that the Church of Rome is vir
tually the Catholic Church, so that they, and only they
who take their faith from the See of Rome, are in com
munion with the Catholic Church. On this principle the
greater number of the Apostolic Sees, and the innu
merable Christians who are subject to them, are cut
off from the body of Christ, and the Catholic Church
is limited to a multitude of Christians united under a
visible monarchical head at Rome : a notion that
might be easily refuted from writers of the Roman
* The assembly was composed only of a small number of prelates, almost all
Italians and Spaniards. — Dupin's Church Hist., vol. iv., p. 72.

35
communion itself, were it not so vain and extravagant
that to espouse it is the sure mark of a weak or distem
pered mind.*
In denying that the Bishop of Rome has. any juris
diction given to him by God in these United States of
America, (which is the application to our own case, of
a principle derived to us from our mother Church, in
connection with the faith and sacraments of Christ,) we
* I have spoken of the Roman schism in England because it is more immedi
ately connected with the subject of my discourse. But in truth the imposition
of this new creed as a creed, of these school opinions as terms of Catholic com
munion, makes the Roman Church schismatic in reference to those Protestants in
other countries whom she has by this means driven from her communion. For
the articles themselves being no part of the essential faith of Christ, and yet
being imposed'by the Roman Church, not as probable truths for the direction of
its own members, but as of the essential faith of Chiist, to which every one is
bound heartily to assent as to the revelation of God, are sinful terms of commu
nion ; and consequently the guilt of the schism which they cause rests on the
party imposing them. That the adherents of the Roman Church are the more
numerous party, is no proof that they are not schismatics. Truth is not deter
mined by plurality of votes, and our faith in the promise of Christ to his Church
need not be shaken, thoug'a the whole of the Weslern Church should lun into
schism and heresy.
It is the Church, or rather the Pope and Court of Rome, " which," says Bram -
hall, "partly by obtruding new creeds and new articles of faith, and especially
this doctrine, that it is necessary for every Christian under pain of damnation
to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, as the Vicar of Christ, by divine ordination
upon earth, (that is, in eff'ect, to be subject to themselves who are his council
and officers) yea, even those who, by reason of their remoteness, never heard of
the name of Rome, without which it will profit them nothing to have holden the
Catholic faith entirely, and partly by their tyrannical and uncharitable censures,
have separated all the Asiatic, African, Grecian, Russian and Protestant churches
from their communion ; not only negatively, in the way of Christian discretion, by
withdrawing themselves for fear of infection, but privatively and authoritative
ly, by way ol jurisdiction excluding them (so much as in them lieth) from the
communion of Christ ; though those churches so chased away by them contain
three times more Christian souls than the Church of Rome itself with all its de
pendents and adherents ; many of which do suffer more pressures for the testi
mony of Christ, than the Romanists do gain advantages, and are ready to shed
the last drop of their blood for the least known particle of saving truth ; only
because they will not strike topsail to the Pope's cross-keys, nor buy indulgences
and such like trinkets at Rome. It is not passion, but action, that makes a
schismatic ; to desert the communion of Christians voluntarily, not to be thrust
away from it unwillingly." — Just. Vind., c. 8.

36
deny also, by necessary implication, that our Lord has
appointed a visible head on earth with a power of gov
ernment over all Christians, or all Churches.* We re
ject this theory of a spiritual monarchy for all churches
and Christians on earth, because we find no warrant for
it in Scripture or antiquity; moreover, we believe
that it is as visionary and presumptuous as is the
dream of a temporal monarchy for all nations and
peoples, and that the attempts to erect the one are as
surely productive of schisms and hatred in the Church,
as would be the attempts to erect the other of wars
and bloodshed in the world. On the other hand,
however, we do not regard the Church of Christ as a
promiscuous assemblage, nor do we believe that a
mere voluntary association, making for itself officers,
and compiling for itself a creed out of the Scriptures,
and setting up for itself observances in imitation of
the Holy Sacraments, becomes thereby a Church of
Christ. We believe the Church of Christ to be a con
tinuous body, gathered out of the world, in every age
and nation in which it subsists, by a ministry which
Christ himself sent (before his ascension into heaven)
with a mission capable of perpetuating itself to the end
of time ; united in a traditionary faith, which this
ministry was instructed to guard and transmit ; nour
ished by that Word of God which this ministry was
ordained to preach, and bound together in sacraments
which this ministry is authorized to dispense. In
every country where the Church exists, its members
are subject to presbyters, and these presbyters to their
bishops, and all particular bishops to the decrees and
canons of councils or synods of the whole; which
councils or synods are limited in their turn in matters
* See Appendix S

37
of faith by Holy Scripture and the creeds of the
Catholic Church. No subordination beyond this is
required by the divine law, and hence no Church of
any one country is subordinated, by the law of God,
to the Church of any other country. All further
union is a union of co-ordination., which supposes that
the churches of different countries stand on an equal
footing ; that all are mutually bound to receive and
extend to one another the rights and privileges of
membership ; and that no one Church is justified in
erecting its peculiar decrees and customs as terms of
Catholic communion. This union of subordination in
the Church of each particular province or country, and
of co-ordination among the churches of different and
distant countries, was the natural result of the propa
gation and extension of the Church by messengers
' who, like the Apostles of our Lord, were clothed with
authority, and all with equal authority, flowing from
one and the same commission. While these principles
of union prevailed, the Holy Church throughout all
the world was of one language and one speech ; all
particular churches were united in the same faith, and
the members of the whole, though scattered abroad.^ as
God intended, in the east and the west, the north and
the south, were yet partakers of the same sacraments.
In their present divisions and estrangements they are
more like a Babel than the mystical body of Christ ;
and in their confusion we may read the judgment of
God blasting the proud device which has sought to
collect and consolidate all churches and all Christians
under the government of one local and visible head ;
wMch lias taken hrich for stone., and slime for mortar.,
and sought to erect a tower wJiose top sTiould reach
to heaven. — Genesis xi., 1-9.

38
It was on this principle of co-ordinate union among
equal churches, whose members should be subordinate
to their proper local authorities, that the Church of
England proceeded in her reformation from popery; and
it is in vain to seek to disparage the principle by the
epithet of Anglican, as if it were a mere local or
national device, when we know that the union of the
Catholic Church, while it continued one and unbroken,
was in fact maintained on this principle ; that its most
lamentable schisms and divisions have in fact been
caused by the arrogant attempts of the Roman papacy
to effect union on the opposite principle of a universal
monarchy ; that the principle is one which in its nature
cannot array, and in fact never has arrayed,- Christians
of any one country hi opposition to their civil rulers, by
requiring of them a subjection, of any kind whatever,
to a local jurisdiction out of their country ; that so far
as the principle has been acted on, since the time of the
reformation from popery, it has been found to be pro
ductive of the same advantages which attended it in
the ancient Church ;* and finally, that as there is no
other obstacle to this principle of co-ordinate union
than the antagonistic principle of a monarchical union
for the aggrandizement of the court of Rome, so the
time may come when the churches in Europe and
America, now subject to the Roman Pontiff, may dis
cover the fallacy and pernicious consequences of their
fundamental principle of union, and seek to recover
and establish Catholic communion among the churches
* The Church ofEngland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and the Protest
ant Episcopal Church of the United States, may be cited as examples of co-ordi
nate union at the present time The liturgies and other formularies of these
Churches differ in many points, and some of these points of importance, and
yet the pulpits and communion of each are open to the clergy and communicants
of the other. In the Church of England I include the churches of Ireland, and
of all the British Provinces.

39
of different countries, on a principle consistent with
the ancient and proper local independence of each.*
That the Church of England proceeded on this prin
ciple in her reformation from popery, appears from her
own declaration. In the 30th of her " Constitutions
and Canons," set forth A. D. 1603, having justified
her use of the cross in baptism, by reference of it to
the age next succeeding the Apostles', and having re
marked " that in process of time the sign of the cross
was greatly abused in the Church of Rome.^ especially
after the corruption of popery had once possessed it,"
she adds ; " but the abuse of a thing doth not take
away the lawful use of it. Nay, so far was it from
the purpose of the Church of England., to forsake and
reject the churches of Italy., France.^ Spain., Germany.^
or any such like churches, in all things which they held
and practised, that, as the apology for the Church of
England confesseth, 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 particular
points, wherein they were fallen, both from themselves
in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolic
Churches which were their first founders."
There are moments and events in the affairs of men,
on which depend the destinies of future ages and
nations. Such a period is th^t which we have been
considering. What the reformation effected for Eng
land we know, for its results are spread out on the
page of history; how much greater benefits might
have flowed from it had it met with no unnatural
obstruction, we know not. What the state of things
has been, and still is, in tljose countries of Europe
* See Appendix T.

40
the churches of which have no other notion of commu
nion than that of subjection to a monarchical head
at Rome, is before us. What the state of things might
have been and might now be in those same coun
tries of Europe, if the churches of those countries
had then assumed the same ground with the Church of
England, and sought to maintain communion with
one another as co-ordinate churches, distinguished
indeed by local laws and usages, but united in the
faith and sacraments of Christ; what blessings that
are now wanting might have been obtained; what
evils, religious, political and social, that are now con
fessed and bewailed, might have been avoided ; this
can be fully and perfectly known to God alone.
It is with reluctance, brethren, that I have so far
departed from my usual course, as to bring before you
topics of a polemical nature. You have a right to ex
pect from the pulpit discourses which have a more
direct bearing on the faith and duties of the Christian
life, and I would not, without reason, disappoint your
expectation; but when an event transpii'es which
alarms the weak, and is made an occasion, by designing
men, of scattering around them the seeds of distrust
and suspicion, I am willing to set before you the
grounds which will enable you to estimate such an
event at its true value ; and, if I am not mistaken, the
natural inference from our discourse is, that the un
happy defection,* to which I have tacitly referred, is
a new instance of human weakness and folly ; and one
which we may distinguish from others only by bestow-
* The Right Rev. Levi Silliman Ives, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of North
Carolina, who, under plea of conscience, has violated the most solemn vows,
and deserted a post which he had long seemed unwilling to fill with quietness
and unable to maintain with credit. See Appendix U.

41

ing on it a somewhat larger tribute of pity and com
passion. Never let us cease to regard it as an instance of
God's favor and goodness towards us, that in the
reformation of our Church from the corruptions of
popery. His good Providence hath preserved to us the
ancient Apostolical government, and through it a
ministrtt divinely authorized to preach the Word of
Christ, and to administer His sacraments. Let us show
our gratitude to God for this blessing, by making it our
sincere endeavor daily to increase and go forward in
the knowledge and faith of God and his Son Jesus
Christ, by His Holy Spirit ; so that as well by God's
ministers as by them to whom they have been appoint
ed ministers, the Holy name of God may be always
glorified, and His blessed kingdom enlarged, through
the same, His Son Jesus Christ.

43

APPENDIX.

A.— Page 3.
In the year of our Lord 1521, a consistory was held at Rome, un
der Leo X., then in the ninth year of his papacy, in which Mr. John
Clark, (sometime afterward Bishop of Bath,) orator for Henry VIII.
King of England, France, and Ireland, presented to his Holiness, in
a set speech, and with many formalities, a treatise which his royal
master had composed agains| Martin Luther, entitled, " Assertio
Septem Sacramentorum ;" or, " A Defence of the Seven Sacraments."
The oration of Clark (which is a furious and abusive tirade against
Luther) and the response of his Holiness (which is in good taste) are
curiosities in their way ; but the bull which soon after followed is
something more: it is the recorded and still unrevoked judgment of
the Church of Rome, whereby, in virtue of her power of benediction,
she has, with a bountiful and liberal hand, blessed Henry VIII. and
all who should spring from his loins, bestowed on him the title of
Defender of the Faith, in order to enable and engage him to use the
material sword (which soon after fell on the heads of poor Fisher and
Sir Thomas More) for the excision of unsound members of the
Church, and forbidden all men to transgress its mandate in the pre
mises under pain of incurring the " indignation of Almightt God, and
 of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul." We are content to say
that Henry VIII. was an instrument and occasion in the hands of God
(and such have been many vile and unprincipled men) for the accom
plishment of good. "Whether he were the monster of lust which he is
commonly represented to have been, is a question in which the Re.
formed Church, as such, has no concern ; but whether they who own
the Church of Rome for the mother and mistress of all churches can
vilify him (however much he may deserve it) without either exposing
their souls to danger, or imputing vanity and levity (see the bull) to
the judgment of their said mother and mistress, is a question for their
own doctors and casuists to decide. I annex the bull as I find it pre
fixed to the treatise of Henry VIII. on the Seven Sacraments, (a
treatise which is worthy of any modern Pope for its theology, and

44
rivals Luther himself in invective ;) a translation of which was printed
in Dublin, 1776. Leo X., Bishop,
And Servant of the Servants of God, to our most dear son in Christ,
Henry, the illustrious King of England and Defender of the Faith,
sends Greeting, and gives his Benedictions.
By the good Pleasure and Will of Almighty God, presiding in the
Government of the Universal Church, though unworthy so great
charge. We daily employ all our Thoughts, both at home and
abroad, for the continual Propagation of the Holy Catholic Faith,
without which none can be saved. And that the methods which are
taken for repressing such as labor to overthrow the Church, or per
vert and stain her by wicked Glosses and malicious Lies, may be
carried on with continual Profit, as is ordered by the Sound Doctrine
of the Faithful ; and especially of such as shine in regal Dignity, We
employ with all our Power, our Endeavours, and the Parts of our
Ministry. And as other Roman Bishops, our Predecessors, h^ve been accus
tomed to bestow some Particular Favours upon Catholic Princes, as
the Exigencies of Affairs and Times required, especially on those who,
in tempestuous Times, and whilst the rapid Perfidiousness of Schis
matics and Heretics raged, not only persevered constantly in the
true Faith and unspotted Devotion of the Holy Roman Catholic
Church, but also as the Legitimate Sons and stoutest Champions of
the same, have opposed themselves, both spiritually and temporally,
against the mad Fury of Schismatics and Heretics : So also. We,
for your Majesty's mosit excellent Works, and worthy Actions done
for Us, and this Holy See, in which by Divine Permission we pre
side, do desire to confer upon your Majesty, with Honour and im
mortal Praises, That, which may enable and engage you carefully to
drive away from our Lord's Flock the Wolves, and cut off" with the
material sword the rotten members that infect the Mystical Body of
Jesus Christ, and confirm the Hearts of the almost discomforted
Faithful in the Solidity of Faith. Truly when our beloved Son,
John Oark, your Majesty's Orator, did lately in our Consistory, in
Presence of our venerable Brethren, Cardinals of the Sacred Roman
Church, and divers others holy Prelates, present unto Us a Book,
which your Majesty, moved by your Charity, (which effijcts every
Thing readily and well,) and inflamed with Zeal to the holy Catholic
Faith, and Fervour of Devotion towards Us, and this Holy See ; did
compose, as a most noble and wholesome Antidote against the Errors
of divers Heretics, often condemned by this Holy See, and now again
revived by Martin Luther: When, I say, he offered this Book to Us,
to be examined, and approved by Our Authority ; and also- declared,
in a very eloquent Discourse, That, as your Majesty, had by true
Reasons, and the undeniable Authority of Scripture and holy
Fathers, confuted the notorious Errors of Luther ; so you are like
wise ready, and resolved to prosecute, with all the Forces of your

45
Kingdom, those who shall presume to follow, or defend them ; having
found in this Book most admirable Doctrine, sprinkled with the Dew
of Divine Grace ; We rendered infinite thanks to Almighty God,
from whom every good Thing, and every perfect gift proceeds, for
being pleased to fill with his Grace, and to inspire your most excel
lent Mind, inclined for all Good, to defend, by your Writings, his
Holy Faith, against the new Broacher of these condemned Errors ;
and . to unite all other Christians, by your Example, to assist and
favour, with all their Power, the Orthodox Faith, and evangelical
Truth, now under so great Peril and Danger.
Considering that it is but just, that those who undertake pious
Labours, in defence of the Faith of Christ, should be extolled with all
Praise and Honour ; and being willing, not only to magnify with
deserved Praise, and approve with our Authority, what your Ma
jesty has with Learning and Eloquence writ against Luther ; but also
to honour your Majesty with such a Title, as shall give all Christians
to understand, as well in our Times, as in succeeding Ages, how
acceptable and welcome your Gift was to Us, especially in this junc
ture of Time : We, the true successor of St. Peter, (whom Christ,
before his Ascension, left as his Vicar upon Earth, and to whom he
committed the Care of his Flock,) presiding in this Holy See, from
whence all Dignity and Titles have their Source ; have with our Bre
thren maturely deliberated upon these Things ; and with one consent
unanim%usly decreed to bestow on your Majesty this Title, viz :
Defender of the Faith. And, as we have by this Title honoured you ;
we likewise command all Christians, that they name your Majesty by
this Title ; and that in their Writings to your Majesty, immediately
after the word King, they add. Defender of the Faith.
Havifig thus weighed, and diligently considered your singular
Merits, we could not have invented a more congruous name, nor
more worthy your Majesty, than this worthy and most excellent
Title ; which, as often as you hear, or read, you shall remember your
own merits and virtues : Nor will you, by this Title, exalt yourself,
or become proud, but, according to your accustomed Prudence,
rather more humble in the Faith of Christ ; and more strong and
constant in your Devotion to this Holy See, by which you were ex
alted. And you shall rejoice in our Lord, who is the Giver of all
Good Things, for leaving such a perpetual and everlasting monument
of your Glory to Posterity, and showing the Way to others, that if
they also covet to be invested with such a Title, they may study to
do such Actions, and to follow the Steps of your most excellent Ma
jesty ; Whom, with your wife, children, and all who shall spring from
you, We bless^with a bountiful and liberal Hand ; in the Name of
Him from whom the Power of Benediction is given to Us, and by
whom Kings reign, and Princes govern ; and in whose Hands are the
Hearts of Kings :
Praying, and beseeching the most High, to confirm your Majesty
in your holy Purposes, and to augment your Devotion ; and for your
most excellent Deeds in Defence of his Holy Faith, to render your
Majesty so illustrious and famous to the whole World, as that our

46
Judgment in adorning you with so remarkable a Title, may not be
thought vain, or light, by any Person whatsoever ; and finally, afi;er
you have finished your course in this Life, that he may make you
Partaker of his eternal Glory. It shall not be Lawful for any Person
whatsoever, to infringe, or by any rash Presumption to act contrary
to This Letter of our Subscribing, and Command. But, if any one
shall presume to make such Attempt ; let him Know that he shall
thereby incur the Indignation of Almighty God, and of the holy Apos-
ties, Peter and Paul.
Given at St. Peter's in Rome, the fifth of the Ides of October; in
the year of our Lord's Incarnation 1521, and in the ninth year of our
papacy.

B.—Faffe 3.
The question was propounded at that time in consequence of a
" dispensation" from Rome. For Arthur, the eldest son of Henry
VII., had married Catharine, daughter of Ferdinand, King of Spain,
and died about five months after the marriage. In order to retain
her dowry in England, Henry VII. jiroposed to Ferdinand a contract
of marriage between Catharine and his second son, afterwards Henry
VIII. The proposition was acceptable to Ferdinand, but unfortu
nately the marriage of a brother's wife was forbidden, totidem verbis,
in Leviticus xviii., 16. To remove the obstacle recourse was had to
the then Pope of Rome, Julius II., who granted a bull, in which he
says, " We, by apostolical authority, do give you by these presents
our dispensation to contract a marriage between you by lawful words
in the present tense, and after such contract (even though it be already
made) lawfully to remain in the same," &e. In virtue of this license
and dispensation the contract was made, though the marriage (for
Henry, at the time of the contract, was but a boy of twelve years)
was not solemnized until after the death of Henry VII.
The question of the lawfulness of the marriage was not mooted
until some twenty years afterwards, when a marriage was proposed
between Miry (the only child of Henry and Catharine who lived to
adult years) and the Duke of Orleans, the second son of Francis I.
" Before \ve treat of such marriage," said one of the councillors of the
French king, "we must first inquire whether the Lady Mary be
King Henry's lawful daughter. Because she was born of the Lady
Catherine, his brother's widow, which kind of marriages are contrary
to the laws of God." See Mason, (Lindsay's, p. 126,°with the author-

47
ities there adduced,) who adds : " This scruple concerning that mar
riage being incestuous was first raised in the King of Spain's court,
from whence it spread itself into France and Flanders."
Instigated by the machinations of Cardinal Wolsey, (who had his
own ends to answer,) Henry VIII. afterwards applied to the then
Pope, Clement VII., to declare his marriage with Catherine invalid ;
and Clement, as we learn from his private secretary, the famous his
torian, Guiociardini, secretly made (and gave in charge to Cardinal
Campegio) a bull decretal, annulling the dispensation of Pope Julius,
and pronouncing the marriage to be of no force. See the passage of
Omcciardini, in Lindsay^s Mason, as above.
Wearied with the delays and evasions of the Papal Court, (for the
contingency on which the use of the decretal depended did not arise,)
and desirous — so at least he professed — to have the matter settled one
way or the other for the satisfaction of his own conscience, Henry final
ly submitted the question to the convocation of the clergy of his king
dom, who decided (by a vote of 253 to 19) that the marriage, being
prohibited by the law of God, was not within the dispensation of the
Pope. " In this same convocation," adds Mr. Lindsay, in his preface
to Mason, " the last under Archbishop Warham, the Pope's Su
premacy began to Jje warmly disputed, though they came to no reso
lution at present; but soon after, in Cranmer's time, they did come
to a resolution, in both Provinces, that by the Word of God the
Pope has no more jurisdiction in England than any foreign bishop ;
wherein it is remarkable, that, in the province of Canterbury, only
four of the lower house voted for the Pope's authority, and one
demurred. To which I may add, that about the same time, (to wit,
1534,) Edward Lee, Archbishop of York, John Stokesly, Bishop of
London, Cuthbert Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, and Stephen Gardiner,
^hop of Winchester, made severally their solemn and voluntary
profession and promise, in writing, under their respective hands and
seals, and in the faith of bishops, declaring (amongst other things)
that the Papacy of Rome is not ordained of God by holy Scripture,
but set up only by man ; and that the Bishop of Rome is not to be
called Pope, nor Supreme Bishop, or Universal Bishop, nor Most
Holy Lord, but only ought to be called Bishop of Rome, and Fellow-
Brother, as the old manner of the most ancient bishops hath been, &c.
" The University of Cambridge, by a public and solemn Instrument
under their common seal, did, in the same year, determine and de
clare, ' that the Bishop of Rome hath no more state, authority, and
jurisdiction given him of God in the Scriptures, over this realm of

48
England, than any other externe bishop hath.' That the same Bishop
.Gardiner, (to say nothing of a Latin apology, supposed to be written
by him, by way of justification of the king's conduct, in answer to the
Pope's extravagant bull,*) in his book, intituled, "De Vercl ObedientiA,
did not only solidly and deliberately confute the Pope's said usurped
authority, but also proved the said marriage between the king and
Queen Catherine not to be good nor lawful. To which book of Gar
diner's, Edmund Bonner (afterwards Bishop of London) prefixed a
preface full of commendations, enforcing the same arguments, and
treating the Pope with rough language : yea, and the same Bishop
Gardiner (as a person of honour tells us) declared, moreover, that
the king was bound in conscience to reform his Church. That the
same Bishop Tunstal, in a sermon preached, about the same time
before the king, on Palm-Sunday, proved, by manifest grounds, out
of the Scriptore, the Fathers, and Councils, that the Bishop of Rome
hath no such authority by the Word of God committed to him as he
doth challenge, and treated both Cardinal Pole and the Pipe himself
with great freedom of speech. That, besides the said sermon, the
same Bishop Tunstal did join with John Stokesley, Bishop of London,
in writing a letter to the said Cardinal, wherein they clearly prove
that the Bishop of Rome hath no special superiority over other
bishops, &c. That John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, in a sermon
on Good-Friday, 1538, before the king, at Greenwich, did zealously
preach on the king's behalf against the Pope's usurped supremacy."
For a fuller statement of this matter see next note.

C.—Fage 4.
As the right of the Bishop of Rome to jurisdiction in Englandis
the hinge upon which the whole controversy with the Romanists
turns, it will be satisfactory to the reader to see some of the proofs of
the unanimity with which that right was denied, when the question
was first propounded, and while'yet the Church of England was in
communion with the see of Rome.
In the first place, I adduce the declaration of (he learned Mr.
Wharton (as quoted by Collier,) in his Observations on Strype's
Cranmer, who says, " that the renunciation of the Pope by the clergy
• Reference is made to the bull of Paul IIL, excommunicating and deposing
Henry VIIL See M. M.

49
and the religions was general ; that the originals are still remaining
in the Exchequer ; that he had in his custody no less than a hundred
seventy and five such authentic instruments, transcribed from thence ;
that these transcripts contain the subscriptions of all the bishops,
chapters, monasteries, colleges, hospitals, etc., of thirteen dioceses,
and that, to his certain knowledge, the original subscriptions of the
remaining dioceses were lodged elsewhere."
In the convocation of the province of Canterbury, the question
being put by Archbishop Cranmer, both houses came to a resolution
that the Pope had no greater jurisdiction, etc., than any other foreign
bishop. In the lower house, four voted for the Pope's authority, and
one demurred. At the same time an instrument, or declaration of
the sense of the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury
was drawn and signed with this title, — Quod Bomanus Episcopus
nan habet majorem jurisdictionem sibi a Deo coUatam, in hoe regno,
quam alius quivis externus Episcopus. See Collier's Eccle. Hist.
foi. ed., vol. ii., p. 94, who refers to " Journal of Convoc, foi. 59."
For the satisfaction of the English reader I translate the instru
ment, which declares the judgment of the Convocation of the province
of York, the original of which is No. 26 of Collier's Records : —
The Judgment of the Convocation of the Frovince of York, rejecting
the Pope's Authority.
To the most illustrious and excellent Prince and Lord Henry VIIL,
by the grace of God King^^f England and France, Defender of the
Faith, and Lord of Ireland, Edward, by divine permission. Arch
bishop of York, Primate and Metropolitan of England, in Him,
through whom kings reign and princes rule. Greeting :
We do your Royal Highness to wit, by tenor of these presents,
that, according to the mandate of your Royal Majesty, before the
Bishops and Clergy of York, in a holy Provincial Synod of the Prov
ince, or convocation of the Bishops and Clergy of the same province
of York, held in the capitular house of the Metropolitan Church, at
York, on the fifth day of the month of May, in the year of our Lord
MDXXXIV., now current, and continued from day to day, the fol
lowing conclusion was proposed, viz.. That the Bishop of Rome, in
the Holy Scriptures, has not any greater jurisdiction in the realm of
England than any other foreign bishop. And, moreover, on the part
of those deputed by us to preside in the same synod, the Bishops and
Clergy were admonished, asked, and required to confirm and cor
roborate said conclusion with their own consent, if they should think
and judge the same consonant to truth and not repugnant to the
Holy Scriptures. At length, the said Bishops and Clergy of the
Province of York afoi-esaid, after diligent entreatment of the same,
and mature deliberation, unanimously and concordantly, none of them
dissenting, affirmed the aforesaid conclusion to have been and to be
true, and with one mind consented to the same.
4

50
The which, all and singular, and by tenor of these presents, we
declare and signify to your Royal Highness.
In proof and testimony of which, all and singular, we have caused
our seal hereto to be put.
Done at our Manor of Camodd, on the first day of June, A. D.
MDXXXIV., and in the third year of our consecration.
The judgment of the University of Oxford shows the care and
labor with which the question was considered, and the solicitude that
¦was felt to preserve the honor of the University. The English reader,
I hope, will not be displeased if I translate this also, referring to No.
27 of Collier's Records for the Latin : —
To all the sons of Holy Mother Church, to whom these presents may
come, John, by divine permission. Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor
of the University of Oxford ; also, the whole Assembly of Doctors
and Masters in the same, Regent and non-Regent, in Christ,
Greeting ;
Whereas our most illustrious and mighty Prince and Lord, Henry
VIIL, by the grace of God, King of England and France, Defender
of the Faith, and Lord of Ireland, in consequence of the earnest peti
tions and complaints of his subjects, in Parliament, against some
intolerable foreign exactions, arid of some controversies in relation to
the power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and of various and
urgent causes, then and there declared against the same Bishop, has
been approached and solicited to consult in this matter for the good
of his subjects, and to satisfy their complaints ; and whereas he him
self, like the wise king of Israel, having a watchful care for the inter
ests of his subjects in this realm, and profoundly considering in what
manner he may establish the best laws for his realm, and cautious,
above all, that he may decree nothing against Holy Scripture (which
he ever hath been and will be most ready to defend, even to death,)
has, of his own mind and care, publicly and solemnly transmitted to
this Academy of Oxford the following question, to be disputed by
its Doctors and Masters ; viz., Whether the Bishop of Rome have any
greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in Holy Scripture in this
realm of England than any other foreign Bishop? and hath com
manded that, after mature deliberation and diligent examination had
on this question, we certify, under the common seal of the University,
in due form and solemnity,' what, in our judgment, the Holy Scrip
tures decree on this subject :
" We, therefore, the Chancellor, Doctors and Masters aforesaid,
often remembering and deeply sensible how virtuous and holy a
thing it is, how consonant to our profession, and due to submission,
obedience, and reverence, and how congruous to charity, to show
plainly the way of Righteousness and Truth to as many as desire to
walk in the footsteps of the Holy Scriptures, and with secure and
quiet conscience to stay their anchor on the Law of God, could spare
no vigilance that in so just and honorable an application, and to so
great a Prince, (under whose auspices we are bound to obey the Su-

51
preme Ruler,) we might give all the satisfaction in our power.
Accordingly, after having received the aforesaid question, with all
humility, devotion and due reverence, the Divines of our Academy
being convoked from all parts, the space of many days being taken,
and a sufficiently ample time for deliberation, during which, with all
the diligence in our power, with zeal for justice, with religion and
with conscience uncorrupt, we thoroughly examined as well the books
of Holy Scripture, as the most approved interpreters of the same,
often and often consulting them, most accurately collating and
repeatedly examining them, and moreover, after solemn disputations
openly and publicly held and celebrated, have at length all come
unanimously to this opinion and have consented in the same ¦; viz. :
That the Bishop of Rome has not any greater jurisdiction conferred
on him by God in Holy Scripture, in this realm of England, than
any other foreign Bishop.
And this, our assertion, opinion or determination, thus deliberate
ly discussed and concluded by us, according to the requirement of
the statutes and ordinances of this our University ; we do publicly,
in the name of the whole Academy, by these presents, affirm and at
test as true, certain, and consonant to Holy Scripture.
In proof and testimony of which, all and singular, we have caused
these letters to be executed, and confirmed by the common seal of
our University.
Done in our House of Convocation, on the 27th day of June, and
in the year of our Lord's nativity MDXXXIV.
Next, I adduce the following passage from " The Institution of a
Christian Man,'' published in 1537, and commonly called the Bish
op's Book. The preface is signed by twenty-one, i. e., by all the
Bishops, by eight Archdeacons, (Bonner included, who was then Arch.
deacon of Leicester,) and by seventeen of the other clergy. The ex
tract is taken from the chapter " On the Sacrament of Orders," pp.
116—119 of Oxford ed., 1825.
Finally, being thus declared, not only what is the virtue and effi
cacy, with the whole institution and use of the sacrament of holy
orders, but alsa in what things oonsisteth the power and jurisdiction
of priests and' bishops, and unto what limits the same is extended by
the authority of the gospel, and also what is added thereunto by the
grants and sufferances, or permission of kings and princes ; we think
it convenient, that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach
the people committed unto their spiritual charge, that whereas cer
tain men do imagine and affirm, that Christ should give unto the
Bishop of Rome power and authority, not only to be head and gov
ernor of all priests and bishops in Ciirist's Church, but also to have
and occupy the whole monarchy of the world in his hands, and that
he may thereby lawfully depose kings and princes from their realms,
dominions and seigniories, and so transfer and give the same to
such persons as him liketh ; that is utterly false and untrue ; for
Christ never gave unto St. Peter, or unto any of the Apostles, or

53
their successors, any such authority. And the Apostles St. Peter
and St. Paul do teach and command that all Christian people, as
well priests and bishops, as others, should be obedient and subject
unto the princes and potentates of the world, although they were in
fidels. And as for the Bishop of Rome, it was many hundred
years after Christ before he could acquire or get any primacy or
governance above any other bishops out of his province in Italy.
Sith the which time he hath ever usurped more and more. And
though some part of his power was given unto him by the consent of
the emperors, kings and princes, and by the consent also of the cler
gy in general councils assembled ; yet surely he attained the most
part thereof by marvellous subtilty and craft, and specially by col
luding with great kings and princes ; sometimes training them into
his devotion by pretence and color of holiness and sanctimony, and
sometimes constraining them by force and tyranny ; whereby the
said Bishops of Rome aspired and arose at length unto such great
ness in strength and authority, that they presumed and took upon
them to be heads, and to put laws by their own authority, not only
unto all other bishops within Christendom, but also unto the empe
rors, kings, and other princes and lords of the world, and that under
the pretence of the authority committed unto them by the gospel ;
wherein the said Bishops of Rome do not only abuse and pervert the
true sense and meaning of Christ's word, but they do also clean con
trary to the use and custom of the primitive Church, and also do
manifestly violate as well the holy canons made in the Church imme-
diately after the time of the apostles, as also the decrees and consti
tutions made in that behalf by the holy fathers of the Catholic
Church, assembled in the first general councils ;* and finally they do
* In connection with this statement the reader may peruse the following
canons, which I transcribe from Hammond's " Canons of the Church :"
Apostolical Canons, No. 34. — The bishops of every nation must acknowledge
him who is first among them ; and account him as their head, and do nothing of
consequence without his consent ; but each may do those things which concern
his own Parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him
[who is the first] do anything without the consent of all ; for so there will be
unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even to the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
Council of Nice, Canon 4. — It is most proper that a bishop should be constituted
by all the bishops of the province ; but if this be difficult on account of some
urgent necessity, or the length of the way, that at all events three should meet at
the same place, those who are absent also giving their sufTrages, and their con
sent in writing, and then the ordination be performed. The confirming, how
ever, of what is done in each province, belongs to the metropolitan of it.
Canon 6. — Let the ancient customs be maintained which are in Egypt and
Lybia, and Pentapolis, according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has author
ity over all those places. For this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome.
In like manner in Antioch, and in the other Provinces, the privileges are to be
preserved to the Churches. But this is clearly to be understood, that if any one

53
transgress their own profession, made in their creation. For all the
Bishops of Rome always, when they be consecrated and made
be made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great synod de
clares that he shall not be a bishop. If, however, " two or three bishops, shall,
from private contention, oppose the common choice of all the others, it being a
reasonable one, and made according to the ecclesiastical canons, let the choice
of the majority hold good.
Cmneil of Antioch, Canon 9. — It behooves the bishops in every province to own
him who presides over the metropolis, and who is to take care of the whole pro
vince : because all who have business come together from every side to the
metropolis. Wherefore, also, it has been decreed, that he should have a prece
dence of rank, and that the other bishops should do nothing of consequence with
out him, according to the ancient canon which we have received from our
fathers ; or, at any rate, only those things which belong to each particular
parish, and the districts which are under it. For each bishop is to have author.
ity over his own parish, and to administer it with that piety which concerns
every one, and to make provision for all the district which is under his city, to
ordain presbyters and deacons, and to determine everything with jud'gment ; but
let him attempt to do nothing further without the bishop of the metropoUs, and
let him not do anything without the consent of the others.
Council of Constantinople, Canon 3. — The bishops must not go beyond their
dioceses, and enter upon churches without their borders, nor bring confusion
into their churches ; but, according to the canons, the Bishop of Alexandria must
have the sole administration of the affairs of Egypt, and the Bishops of the East
must administer the East only, the privileges which were assigned to the
Church of Antioch by the canons made at Nice being preserved ; and the bishops
of the Asian diocese must administer the affairs of the Asian only ; and those
of the Pontic diocese, the affairs of the Pontic only ; and those of Thrace, the
affairs of Thrace only. Moreover, bishops may not, without being called, go
beyond the bounds of their diocese for the purpose of ordaining, or any other
ecclesiastical function. The above written canon respecting the dioceses being
observed, it is plain that the synod of each Province must administer the affairs
of the Province, according to what was decreed at Nice. But the churches of
God which are amongst the barbarians, must be administered according to the
customs of the Fathers which have prevailed.
Council of Ephesus, Canon 8. — The most beloved of -God, and our fellow
Bishop Rheginus, and Zeno, and Evagrius, the most religious bishops of the
Province of Cyprus, who were with him, have declared unto us an innovation
which has been introduced contrary to the laws of the Church, and the canons
of the Holy Fathers, and which affects the liberty of all. Wherefore, since evils
which affect the community require more attention, inasmuch as they cause
greater hurt ; and especially since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as
followed an ancient custom, in performing ordination in Cyprus, as those
most religious persons who have come to the Holy Synod have informed us,
by writing and by word of mouth, we declare that they who preside over the
Holy Churches which are in Cyprus, shall preserve, without gainsaying or op
position, their right of performing by^ themselves the ordinations of the most
seligious bishops, according to the canons of the Holy Fathers and the aiicient

54
bishops of that See, do make a solemn profession and vow,*' that they
shall inviolably keep and observe all the ordinances made inthe
eight first general councils, among the which it is specially provided
and enacted, that all causes shall be finished and determined within
customs. The same rule shall be observed in all the other dioceses and in the
provinces everywhere, so that none of the most religious bishops shall invade
any other province, which has not heretofore from the beginning been under the
hand of himself or his predecessors. But if any one has so invaded a province,
and brought it by force under himself, he shall restore it, that the canons of the
Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the pride of secular dominion be privily
introduced under the appearance of a sacred office, nor we lose by little, the
freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has given us by
his own blood. The Holy and CEcumenical Synod has therefore decreed that
the rights which have heretofore and from the beginning belonged to each Pro
vince, shall be preserved to it pure and without restraint, according to the custom
which has prevailed of old : each metropolitan having permission to take a
copy of the things now transacted for his own security. But if any one shall
introduce any regulation contrary to what has been defined, the whole Holy and
Ecumenical Synod has decreed that it shall be of no effect.
Council of Chqlcedon, Canon 28. — We, following in all things the decisions
of the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty
most religious bishops which has just been read, do also determine and decree
the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Con
stantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the
throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the one
hundred and fifty most religious bishops, being moved with the same intention,
gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging, with reason,
that the city which was honored with the sovereignty and senate, and which en
joyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like
her in ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her. And [we also decree]
that the metropolitans only of the Pontic, and Asian, and Thracian dioceses,
and moreover the bishops of the aforesaid dioceses who are amongst the barba
rians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned most holy throne of the most
holy church of Constantinople ; each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses
ordaining the bishops of the Province, as has been declared by the divine canons ;
but the metropolitans themselves of the said dioceses, shall, as has been said,
be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the proper elections been made ac
cording to custom, and reported to him.
* The vow or profession referred to, may be seen in Gfratian's Coepus Juris
Oanonioi, Distinctio XVI., caput 8., ed. Colonise Munatiane, 1730.
Aueioritate Romani Pontificis sancta octo consilia roboraniur.
Sancta octo universalia concilia, id est primum Nicaenum, secundum Constan-
tinopolitanum, tertium Ephesinum, quartum Chalcedonense, item quintum Con-
stantinopolitanum et sextum, item Nicaenum septimum, octavum quoque Con-
stantinopolitanum, usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, et pari honore et
venerationc digna habere, et quae praedicaverunt et statuerunt modis omnibus
sequi et prsedicare, quaeque condemnaverunt ore et corde condemnare profiteer.

55
the province where the same be begun, and that by the bishops of
the same province ; and that no bishops shall exercise any jurisdic
tion over kings and bishops as the Bishops of Rome pretend now to
have over the same. And we find that divers good fathers. Bishops
of Rome, did greatly reprove, yea, and abhor, (as a thing clean con
trary to the gospel, and the decrees of the Church,) that any Bishop
of Rome, or elsewhere, should presume, usurp, or take upon him the
title or name of the universal bishop, or of the head of all priests, or
of the highest priest, or any such like title. For confirmation
whereof, it is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, neither
in Scripture, neither in the writings of any authentical doctor, or au
thor of the Church, being within the time of the apostles, that Christ
did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the
pre-eminence of power, order or jurisdiction, between the apostles
themselves, or between the bishops themselves ; but that they were
all equal in power, order, authority and jurisdiction. And that
there is now, and sith the time of the apostles, any such diversity of
or difference among the bishops, it was devised by the ancient fathers
of the primitive Church, for the conservation of good order and unity
of the Catholic Church ; and either by the consent and authority, or
else at least by the permission and sufferance of the princes and civil
powers for the time ruling. For the said fathers, considering the
great and infinite multitude of Christian men, so largely increased
through the world, and taking examples of the Old Testament,
thought it expedient to make an order of degrees, to be among
bishops and spiritual governors of the Church ; and so ordained some
to be patriarchs, some to be primates, some to be metropolitans,
some to be archbishops, some to be bishops. And to them did
limit severally, not only their certain dioceses or provinces, wherein
they should exercise their power, and not exceed the same, but also
certain bounds and limits of their jurisdiction and power. Insomuch,
that whereas in the time of the apostles it was lawful indifferently to
all bishops (certain of them assembling themselves together) to con
stitute and consecrate other bishops ; the said fathers restrained the
said power, and reserved the same in such wise, that without the
consent and authority of the metropolitan or archbishop, no bishop
could be consecrated within any province. And likewise in other
cases their powers were also restrained, for such causes as were then
thought unto them convenient. Which differences the said holy
fathers thought necessary to enact and establish, by their decrees and
constitutions, not for that any such differences were prescribed or
established in the gospel, or mentioned in any canonical writings of
¦ the apostles, or testified by any ecclesiastical writer within the apos
tles' time ; but to the intent that thereby contention, strife, variance,
That is — The Holy Eight Universal Councils, viz. : — the first of Nice, etc., I
promise to keep whole and inviolate in every point, and to hold worthy of equal
honor and veneration ; to follow and declare by every means what they have
declared or ordained, and to condemn with mouth and heart what they have con
demned.

56
and schisms or division, should be avoided, and the Church should be
preserved in good order and concord.
I will trouble the reader with but one more extract, and it shall be
the united testimony of the inseparable Gardiner and Bonner. For
on the publication of Paul III.'s bull, excommunicating and deposing
Henry VIIL, Gardiner, in a work entitled " Of True Obedience,"
came out manfully in defence of his sovereign, to whom, by the
way, he was, as Bramhall tells us, a " very near relation :" (on which
the editor of Bramhall notes : " Gardiner is said (see Biogr. Brit.
art. Gardiner, note B.) to have been the illegitimate son of a Dr.
Woodvill, Bishop of Salisbury, who was brother to Elizabeth, queen
of Edward IV., and grandmother of Henry VIIL") The work "Of
True Obedience" was first published in London in 1534-35, and again
in 1536 at Hamburg, with a preface by Bonner. In this work Gardi
ner says : " No foreign bishop hath authority among us. * * *
All sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with
MOST steadfast CONSENT, THAT NO MANNER OF PERSON BRED OR
BROUGHT UP IN EnGLAND HATH AUGHT TO DO WITH THEM."
I give the quotation as I find it in Bramhall's Works, vol. i, p.
121, of the Oxford edition of 1842; the learned editor of which in
forms us in a note, that the passages quoted by Bramhall, from
Gardiner's book, are in pp. 812, 817, of the reprint of it (with Bon
ner's preface) in Brown's appendix to Gratius, Fascicul, Rer. Expe-
tend, et Fugiend. London, 1690." It is needless to refer to
Tonstall, Longland, (see the extract from Lindsay in the previous
note) and Bekenshaw, Roman Catholics of that age, who have left tes
timonies to the same effect. For the above citations and references
make it certain, at least to my mind, that the Pope's supremacy was
rejected in England, not (as the Romanists pretend) under fear of a
Premunire, but from a deep conviction and long experience of its
evils, and with the hearty and unanimous consent of all ranks and
classes of men in the kingdom.
If my subject required me to extend my remarks to the estimation
in which the Bishop of Rome was, at that time, held in Ireland, the
folloif ing extract from Bramhall (who was born in the reign of Eliza
beth, and was at the time of his death Primate and Metropolitan of
all Ireland) might furnish a text for an instructive discourse :
J " And to shew yet further, that Ireland was unanimous herein with
England, we find in the three and thirtieth year of Henry the Eighth,
which was before all thoughts of reformation, not the Irish only, as
the O'Neals, O'Reillys, O'Briens, O'Carrols, &c., but also the Eng
lish, families, as the Desmonds, Barries, Roches, Bourkes, whose pos-

57
terities do still continue zealous Romanists, did make their submis
sions by indenture to Sir Anthony Sellenger, then chief governor of
that kingdom, wherein they ' acknowledged King Henry to be their
sovereign lord, and confessed the king's supremacy in all causes, and
utterly renounced the jurisdiction of the Pope.' So the Bishop of
Winchester might well say, that there was an universal and steadfast
iBonsent in the separation from Rome." (Bram. vol. i., p. 122.)

I).— Page 5.
In all this, if we except the word " Head" of the Church, as ap
plied to the King, there was really nothing new. The Kings of
England, from time immemorial, had been called the Protectors and
Tutors (Guardians) of the Church ; and the statute (26 Henry VIIL)
which empowered the King to redress and reform abuses, was not
introductory of a new law, but declaratory of the old law of the King
dom. " Our Kings," says Sir Roger Twisden, "were originally en
dued with authority to cause the English Church to be reformed by the
advice of their Bishops, and other of the Clergy, as agreeing vfith
the practice of all ages. For who introduced the opinion of Tran-
substantiation ? made it an article of Faith ? barred the Lay of the
Cup? Priests of marriage ? who restored the Mass in Queen Mary's
days, before any reconciliation made with Rome ? — but the Ecclesi
astics of this Kingdom under the Prince for the time being, who
commanded or connived at it." And if the King and Parliament,
with the advice and consent of the Bishops and Clergy, restored the
Cup to the Laity and enacted other reforms by law, where was the
departure from ancient usage? The particular acts, indeed^were
of a different nature, but the principle of procedure was the same.
And yet these proceedings drew fronf Paul IIL, the then Bishop of
Rome, one of the most furious bulls that ever issued from the
Vatican. In this bull (for a further account of which see Appendix
MM.) the Pope denounces Henry as a heretic and schismatic, because
he had denied the Bishop of Rome to be the Head of the Church
and Vicar of Christ, and declared himself to be the Head of the
Church. The King, however, as Twisden remarks, had simply done
neither the one nor the other. He had not denied that the Pope
was the Head of the Church in his own dominions, nor in France,
Spain, or any other country that chose to acknowledge him in that
character. He had simply denied (and that with the consent and

58
approbation of the Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy of his
Kingdom,) that the Pope was the Head of the Church throughout all
the world, and consequently in the realm of England. He had not
denied the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ in his own diocese — for
such, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, are all
bishops in their respective dioceses. Neither had he declared hin#
self to be the Head of the Church of England in such a sense as to
be the source of any merely spiritual jurisdiction, but only in such
a sense as to be the source (exclusively of all foreign power) of
all outward and coercive jurisdiction in the realm of England.
To perceive the necessity of denying this supremacy to the Bishop
of Rome and of restoring it to the crown, (or to the people, as we
would say, if the government of England had been of the republican
and not of the monarchical kind,) it is proper to advert to the theory
of the Roman divines on the relation of the spiritual and temporal
powers. " The temporal power," says one of the ablest and most
guarded of their number, " has its princes, its laws and its judg
ments ; and the spiritual power in like manner has its bishops, its
canons and its judgments. The end proposed by the former is tem
poral peace ; the end proposed by the latter is everlasting salvation.
Sometimes these powers are found separate, as formerly in the age
of the apostles ; and at other times, as now, they are found conjoined.
When the spiritual and temporal powers are conjoined, they make
one body, and ought therefore to be connected, and the inferior sub
jected and subordinated to the superior. And so the spiritual does
not mix itself with temporal affairs, but suffers them all to proceed
as they did before they were conjoined, provided they do not ob
struct the end of the spiritual power or are not necessary for the at
tainment of this end. But if any such thing happen, the spiritual
power can and ought to coerce the temporal by every way and means
which shall seem necessary to its end. "*
From this moderate theory (for moderate it is in comparison with
* Ita prorsus'politica potestas habet suos principes, leges, judicia, &c., et simi
liter Ecclesiastica sues Episcopos, canones, judicia. Ilia habet pro fine, tempo-
ralem pacem, ista salutem aeternam. Inveniuntur quandoque separates,
ut olim tempore Apostolorum, quandoque conjunctae, ut nunc. Quando autem
sunt conjunctae unum corpus efficiunt, ideoque debent esse connexse, et in
ferior superiori subjecta et subordinata. Itaque spiritualis non se miscet tem-
poralibus negotiis, sed sinit omnia procedere, sicut antequam essent conjunc
tae, dummodo non obsint fini spirituali aut non ' sint necessaria ad eum conse-
quenduro. Si autem tale quid accidat, spirituahs potestas potest et debet
coercere temporalem omni ration e, ac via, quae ad id necessaria esse videbitur.—
Bellar. de Romano. Pont. Lib. V., C. 7.

59
the extravagant theories of the canonists) the reader may easily con
jecture the state of the English nation while it acknowledged its
subjection to a spiritual coercive power, the source and fountain of
which was at Rome. The results of this unnatural relation are thus
summed up by Bramhall, who has adduced a mass of facts to show
that these and not the imperious temper of Henry VIIL were the
real grounds of renouncing the papal supremacy in England.
• " First. The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court, com
mitted from age to age without hope of remedy.
" Secondly. Their most unjust usurpations of all rights, civil, ec
clesiastical, sacred and profane, of all orders of men, kings, nobles,
bishops, &c.
" Thirdly. The malignant influence and effects of this foreign juris
diction, destructive to the right ends of ecclesiastical discipline, pro
ducing disunion in the realm, factions and animosities between the
crown and the mitre, intestine discords between the king and his
barons, bad intelligence with neighbor princes, and foreign wkrs.
" Fourthly. A list of other imconveniences, or rather mischiefs, that
did flow from thence ; as, to be daily subject to have new articles of
Faith obtruded upon them, to be exposed to manifest peril of idola
try, to forsake the communion of three parts of Christendom, to- ap
prove the Pope's rebellion against general councils, and to have their
bishops take an oath — contrary to their oath of allegiance — to maintain
the Pope in his rebellious usurpations.''
One unhappy effect of the extravagant claims, before the Reforma
tion, in behalf of the spiritual power, was to beget a reaction after
wards towards the opposite extreme. Hence the Hobbian, or, as it
is more commonly called {euphoniae gratia, I suppose, for the infidel
of Malmesbury was its sturdiest patron, and his name fits it better
than that of the German physician), the Erastian theory ; which re
gards the Church as the mere creature of the state. It must be con
fessed that this theory, though it has never had the effect to deprive
the Church of its spiritual powers, has yet had a disastrous influence.
It has choked the true principles of the Church as maintained from
the Reformation to the Revolution ; it has fostered a distrust and
jealousy of all who assert her divine constitution as a body politic
originally distinct from the state ; and it has shown itself in a relent
less determination to keep her down to the rigorous letter of laws,
(originally enacted for her protection as well as the state's against
the evils of a foreign jurisdiction,) which, though they leave unim
paired her spiritual powers, so cripple her in the use of these powers.

60
as to render them inoperative in some important matters of exterior
jurisdiction. The theory of the Church of England divines on this subject, if
I rightly understand it, is simple. They regard the state and the
Church as two separate and concurring bodies, each capable of pre
serving its own continuity, and of existing independently the one on
the other, but both uniting and helping each other in the attain
ment of their respective ends. The jurisdiction of the Church
they understand to be merely spiritual, operating outwardly, in
deed, (unless for wise ends restrained by the state,) in synods,
judicatories, canons, &c., but wholly debarred, by its divine con
stitution, from all attempts to give effect to its decisions and
enactments by any other than merely spiritual censures or penalties.
All coercive jurisdiction even in spiritual matters and over spiritual
persons they refer exclusively to the state. The Church, they sayj
may make canons and press them on the consciences of her mem
bers ; but only the state can make laws and guard them by compul
sory penalties. Thus distinct and yet concurrent, they tell us, were
Church and state under Constantine, and for several hundred years
afterwards ; and the denial of the papal supremacy, and the expul- ¦
sion of the canon law from England, was a return of the two bodies
to their former relations ; the Church, i. e., the persons and goods of
its members, becoming subject in all things (saving faith and a good
conscience) to the temporal and coercive power of the state, and so
rendering unto Csesar the things which are Caesar's ; and the state
conceding all merely spiritual power to the Church, keeping her in
the exercise of it to the great ends for which it was given, and aiding
and protecting her in the pursuit of those ends.
The fusion of these two bodies into one, under the supreme head
ship of the Bishop of Rome, was not brought about without a long
and violent struggle. In fact, as stated in the commencement of this
note, statutes excluding the Pope and his agents from the kingdom
had been enacted long before the Reformation. Of this a practical
proof was given in the case of Lalor, a papal emissary in the times
of James I , whose indictment was framed in accordance with ancient
statutes, for the very purpose of showing thatjthe denial of the
Pope's supremacy was so far from being a novelty that it was in fact
the old law of the realm. This case is also remarkable as having
given occasion to the famous fifth report of Sir Edward Coke, in
which he reviews the struggle for the supremacy ; an extract from
which is given at the end of this note.

61
lam aware that the statute (26 Henry VIIL, cap. 1.) entitling the
king the head of the English Church (and quoted in the passage tO
which this note refers) enacts that the king shall have power to re
form " all such errors, heresies, abuses, &c., whatsoever, which by
any manner of spiritual authority may be lawfully reformed," &o. ;
and I am aware also that both Papists and Puritans (who are tied
together, like Samson's foxes, with firebrands at their tails, and their
heads diverse ways for the destruction of the Church of England)
have thence inferred that the crown claims to be the source from
which the bishops derive their ofiice and all their jurisdiction, even
the power of the keys. The Puritans made it one of their charges
against Archbishop Laud, that " he had said he received his jurisdic
tion from God and from Christ, contrary to an act of Parliament (the
act under consideration), which says bishops derive their jurisdiction
from the king." But the defence of the brave old bishop on this, as
on other points, was prompt and conclusive. " That statute," he
tells his truculent judges, " speaks plainly of jurisdiction in foro
contentioso, and places of judicature, and no other. And all their
forensical jurisdiction, &o., all bishops in England derive from the
crown. But my order, my calling, my jurisdiction in foro conscien-
<jce,.that is, from God and by divine and apostolical right.* The juris
diction mentioned in the statute is plainly of a temporal nature,
and is called spiritual, because it deals with ecclesiastical per
sons and causes, and to distinguish it from the merely temporal
power which deals with persons and things as they have reference to
a common and not to a sacred use. The causes referred to (and
mentioned soon after in the same statute) are causes testamentary,
causes matrimonial, and divorces, tithes, oblations, obventions, &c.,
which, with the dispensations and other impositions, had been a drain
to the kingdom and a source of enormous revenue to the Bishop of
Rome. The purpose of this and the like statutes is to exclude the
power of the Bishop of Rome over ecclesiastics and causes of this kind,
and to restore that power to the crown ; and they are enacted under
the proviso which in one of them is expressed, that neither " this act,
nor any thing or things therein contained, shall be hereafter interpreted
and expounded that your grace, your nobles and subjects, intend by
the same to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ's
Church in anything concerning the very articles of the Catholic faith
of Christendom, or any other things declared by Holy Scriptures, and
the Word of God, necessary to yours and their salvation ; but only
* Wharton's Troubles and Trials of Laud. Folio, London, A. D. 1695, p. 309.

to make an ordinance, by policies necessary and convenient, to re
press vice, and for the good conservation of the realm in peace,
amity and tranquillity, from ravin and spoil ; enforcing much the
old ancient customs of this realm in that behalf, not minding to seek
for any relief, or succors, or remedies for any worldly things, but
within this realm, at the hands of your highness, your heirs and suc
cessors, kings of this realm ; which have sought to have an imperial
power and authority in the same, and not obliged in any worldly
causes to any superior."
To repel this " sinister persuasion of evil-minded persons," as it
is termed in the disclaimer of Elizabeth, of an intention on the part
of the crown to assume to itself that authority which is merely
spiritual, I need only refer to the form of consecration contained
in the Ordinal, which has been repeatedly confirmed by parliamenta
ry statutes, first by the act of Edward VI., annexing the Ordinal to
the Prayer Book, and afterwards by the three several acts of Uni
formity. For the form of consecration, as Bishop Gibson and others
have remarked, expressly refers the jurisdiction of the English
Bishops to a two-fold original ; viz. : the Word of God and the Laws
of the Land ; and plainly recognizes a power of jurisdiction derived
to Bishops by divine right, i. e., by the Word of God, before and
independently of that which is conferred on them by .the laws of the
realm. The part referred to is the question of the Archbishop to the
Bishop elect, and the answer thereto, before the imposition of hands:
" Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in you,
quietness, love and peace among all men ; and such as be unjust and
disobedient and criminous within your diocese, correct and punish,
according to such authority as you have by God's Word, and as to
you shall be committed by the ordinance of this realm? Answer.
I will do so by the help of God."
From all which it appears, I apprehend, that the spiritual jurisdic
tion, mentioned in the statute, refers only to that exterior and coer
cive jurisdiction, which belongs to the sovereign authority of every
nation, as they say in Great Britain, to the crown, or as we say here,
to the people ; which, though for awhile usurped by the Bishop of
Rome, was restored at the Reformation to the crown ; and which is
clearly distinguished, on the one hand, in its nature, end and origin,
from that power of jurisdiction which is merely spiritual ; and, on
the other hand, in its name, and in the objects on which it is exercised,
from that which is merely temporal.
P. S. I give an extract from the fifth report of Sir Edward Coke,

68
above referred to, for the sake of the facts which it states, and which
are not invalidated by an occasional sentiment or expression betray
ing the Erastianism of the author :
For, albeit, the kings of England were absolute emperors within
their dominions, and had under them as learned a prelacy and clergy,
as valiant and prudent a nobility, as free and wealthy a commonalty,
as any was then in Christendom ; yet if we look into the stories and
records of these two imperial kingdoms, we shall find that if these
laws of provision and praemunire had not been made, they had lost
the name of imperial, and of kingdoms too, and had been long since
made tributary provinces to the Bishop of Rome, or rather part of
St. Peter's patrimony in demesne. Our kings had had their sceptres
wrested out of their hands, their crowns spurned off" from their heads,
their necks trod upon ; they had been made laquies or footmen to
the Bishop of Rome, as some of the emperors and French kings
were ; our prelates had been made his chaplains and clerks, our
nobility his vassals and servants, our commons his slaves and villains,
if these acts of manumission had not freed them. In a word, before
the making of these laws, the flourishing crown and commonwealth
of England was in extreme danger to have been brought into most
miserable servitude and slavery, under color of religion and devo
tion to the See of Rome. And this was not only seen and felt by
the king, and much repined at and protested against by the nobility,
but the commons, the general multitude of the subjects, did exclaim
and cry out upon it. For the commons of England may be an ex
ample unto all other subjects in the world in this, that they have
ever been tender and sensible of the wrongs and dishonors offered
unto their kings, and have ever contended to uphold and maintain
their honor and sovereignty. And their faith and loyalty have been
generally such, (though every age hath brought forth some particular
monsters of disloyalty,) as no pretence of zeal or religion could ever
withdraw the greater part of the subjects to submit themselves to a
foreign yoke, no, not when popery was in her height and exaltation ;
whereof this act and divers others of the same kind are clear and
manifest testimonies. For this act of 16 Rich. II. was made at the
prayer of the commons ; which prayer they make not for themselves,
neither show they their own self love therein, (as in other bills which
contain their grievances,) but their love and zeal to the king and his
crown. When after the Norman Conquest they importuned their
kings for the great charter, they sought their own liberties ; and in
other bills preferred commonly by the commons against shripfs,
escheators, purveyors, or the like, they seek their own profit and
ease. But here their petition is to the king, to make a law for the
defence and maintenance of his own honor. They complain, that by
bulls and processes from Rome, the king is deprived of that jurisdic
tion which belongs of right to his imperial crown ; that the king doth
lose the service and council of his prelates and learned men by
translations made by the Bishop of Rome ; that the king's laws are
defeated at his will, the treasure of the realm is exhausted and ex-

64
ported to enrich his court ; and that by those means the crown of
England which hath ever been free, and subject unto none, but im
mediately unto God, should be submitted unto the Bishop of Rome,
to the utter destruction of the king and the whole realm ; which God
defend, say they ; and thereupon, out of their exceeding zeal and
fervency, they offer to live and die with the king in defence of the
liberties of the crown. And lastly, they pray and require the king,
by way of justice, to examine all the lords in Parliament, what they
thought of these manifest wrongs and usurpations, and whether they
wo"uld stand with the king in defence of his royal liberties, or no.
Which the king did according to their petition ; and the lords spirit
ual and temporal did all answer, that these usurpations of the Bishop
of Rome were against the liberties of the crown, and that they were
all bound by their allegiance to stand with the king, and to maintain
his honor and prerogative. And thereupon it was enacted with a full
consent of the three estates, that such as should purchase in the court
of Rome, or elsewhere, any bulls or processes, or other things which
might touch the king in his crown and dignity royal, and such as
should bring them into the realm, and such as should receive them,
publish them, or execute them, they, their notaries, proctors, maia-
tainers and counsellors, should be all out of the king's protection,
their lands and goods forfeited to the king, their bodies attached if
they might be found, or else process of praemunire facias to he
awarded against them. Upon these motives, and with this affection
and zeal of the people, was the statute of 16 Rich. IL made, where
upon we have framed our indictment.
Now let us look higher, and see whether the former laws made by
King Edward I. and King Edward III. against the usurpation of the
Bishop of Rome, were not grounded upon the like cause and reason.
The statute of 38 Edw. IIL, cap. 1, expressing the mischiefs that did
arise by breves of citation, which drew the bodies of the people, and
by bulls of provision and reservation of ecclesiastical benefits, which
drew the wealth of the realm to the court of Rome, doth declare, that
by these means the ancient laws, customs and franchises of the realm
were confounded, the crown of our sovereign lord, the king, dimm-
ished, and his person falsely defamed, the treasure and riches of the
land carried away, the subjects of the realm molested and impover
ished, the benefices of holy Church wasted and destroyed, divine
service, hospitality, alms-deeds and other works of charity neglected.
Again, 27 Edw. IIL, cap. 1, upon the grievous and clamorous com
plaint (for that phrase is here used) of the great men and commons
touching citations and provisions, it is enacted, that the offenders
shall forfeit their lands, goods and chattels, and that their bodies be
imprisoned and ransomed at the king's will.
_ But in the statute 25 Edw. IIL, wherein the first law against pro-
visors made, 25 Edw. I., is recited, there is a larger declaration of
these inconveniences than in the two last acts before mentioned.
For there all the commons of the realm do grievously complain, that
whereas the holy Church of England was first founded in estate of
prelacy by the kings and nobility of that realm, and by them en-

65
dowed with great possessions and revenues in lands, rents and ad-
vowsons, to the end the people might be informed in religion,
hospitality might be kept, and other works of charity might be
exercised within the realm ; and whereas the king and other founders
of the said prelacies were the rightful patrons and advowees thereof,
and upon avoidance of such ecclesiastical promotions had power to
advance thereunto their kinsmen, friends and other learned men of
the birth of that realm, which being so advanced became able and
worthy persons to serve the king in council, and other places in the
commonweal ; the Bishop of Rome, usurping the seignory of such
possessions and benefices, did give and grant the same to aliens,
which did never dwell in England, and to cardinals, which might not
dwell there, as if he were rightful patron of those benefices ; whereas
by the law of England he never had right to the patronage thereof;
whereby in short time all the spiritual promotions in the realm
would be engrossed into the hands of strangers, canonical elections
of prelates would be abolished, works of charity would cease, the
founders and true patrons of churches would be disinherited, the
king's council would be weakened, the whole kingdom impoverished,
and the laws and rights of the realm destroyed. Upon this
complaint it was resolved in parliament, that these oppressions
and grievances should not be suffered in any manner; and
therefore it was enacted, that the king and his subjects should
thenceforth, enjoy the rights of patronage ; that free elections of arch
bishops, bishops, and other prelates elective, should be made accord
ing to the ancient grants of the king's progenitors and their founders ;
that no bulls or provision should be put in execution, but that the
provisors should be attached, fined, and ransomed at the king's will,
and withal imprisoned, till they had renounced the benefits of their
bulls, satisfied the party grieved, and given sureties not to commit
the like offence again.
Now, Mr. Lalor, what think you of these things? Did you be
lieve that such laws as these had been made against the Pope 200,
250, 300 years since? Was King Henry VIIL the first prince that
opposed the Pope's usurped authority ? Were our Protestants the
first subjects that ever complained of the court of Rome ? Of what
religion, think you, were the propounders and enacters of these
laws? Were they good Catholics or good subjects, or what were
they ? You will not say they were Protestants, for you will not
admit the reformed religion to be so ancient as those times; neither
can you say they were undutiful, for they strove to uphold their
liege lord's sovereignty. Doubtless the people in those days did
generally embrace the vulgar errors and superstitions of the Romish
Church, and in that respect were papists as well as you. But they
had not learned the new doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, and
transcendani; authority over kings; they did not believe he had
power to depose princes, and to discharge subjects of their allegiance,
to abrogate the fundamental laws of kingdoms, and to impose his
canons as binding laws upon all nations, without their consents ; they
thought it a good point of religion to be good subjects, to honor
5

66
their king, to love their country, and to maintain the laws and liber
ties thereof, howsoever in other points they did err and were mis-led
with the Church of Rome. — Hargrave's State Trials, vol. xi.

'E.—Page 6.
In the act of Parliament in the fifth year of Edward VI., which
¦established these alterations bylaw, it is 'declared that the first book,
or that of 1549, " was agreeable to the Word of God and the Primi
tive Church ;" but " because there hath arisen in the use and exer
cise of the said common service divers doubts for the fashion and
manner of the administration thereof, rather by the curiosity of the
minister and mistakes, than of any other worthy cause, therefore," &c.
In other words, the alterations were not made in consequence of any
change in the opinion of the Church, nor in compliance with the rule
by which its reformation had proceeded ; but they were made as a
concession, in things not absolutely essential, to a faction which
refined only to consume, and which, from that time to the present,
has involved the Church of England in internal strife and dissension.
The chief of these alterations in the liturgy and communion service
were: 1. In respect to the forms of the oblation and invocation in the
consecration of the elements. In the liturgy of 1549 these forms
were expressed, but were omitted in the revision of 1552.
2. In the delivery of the elements to communicants. In the liturgy
of 1549, the priest, in giving the body, is directed to say, " The
body of our Lord Jesus Christ, preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life ;" and to use a like form in delivering the cup. In
the revision of 1552, the minister, in delivering the bread, was directed
to say, " Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for
thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving ;" and
to use a like form in giving the cup. In 1559 these two forms were
united, as they now stand in the English and American Prayer Books.
3. In respect to express prayer for the faithful departed. In the
general prayer of intercession the minister was directed to say : —
" Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church ;" and the prayer
contained the following sublime and salutary words : " And here we
do give unto Thee most high praise and hearty thanks for the won-
derfiil grace and virtue, declared in all thy saints, from the beginning

67
of the world ; and chiefly in the glorious and most blessed Virgin
Mary, mother of thy Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, and in
the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, whose examples,
(O Lord,) and steadfastness in Thy faith, and keeping Thy holy com
mandments, grant us to follow. We commend unto Thy mercy,
(O Lord,) all other Thy servants, which are departe d hence from us
with the sign of Faith, and do now rest in the sleep of peace ; grant
unto them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy and everlasting peace, and
that at the day of the general resurrection, we and all they which be
of the mystical body of thy Son, may altogether be set on his right
hand, and hear that his most joyful voice : Come unto me, O ye that
be blessed of my Father, and possess the kingdom which is prepared
for you from the beginning of the world : Grant this, O Father, for
Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate." '
In the revision of 1552 the prayer was introduced with the words,
" Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on
earth f and the act of commemoration, that is to say, the whole pas
sage above quoted from the liturgy of 1549, was expunged. In 1662,
however, the following act of commemoration, the same now used in
the English and American Prayer Books, was adopted : "And we also
bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in Thy
faith and fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their
good examples, that with them wemay be partakers of Thy heavenly
kingdom : Grant this," &c.
Our American Prayer Book contains express forms of the Oblation
and Invocation, taken from the Liturgy of the Scotch Episcopal
Church. It is also the honor of the Episcopal Church of Scotland,
and should be an inexpressible comfort to her members, that her lit
urgy commemorates the departed members of Christ's Church with
an express prayer that they, as well as those members who are now
militant on earth, may attain to a joyful resurrection and acquittal in
the day of judgment. The prayer is introduced, as in the office of
Edward VI., with the words, " Let us pray for the whole state of
Christ's Church;" and the part to which I refer reads as follows:
" And we also bless thy holy Name, for all thy servants, who, hav
ing finished their course in faith, do now rest from their labors. And
we yield unto Thee most high praise and hearty thanks, for the won
derful grace and virtue, declared in all Thy saints, who have been the
choice vessels of Thy grace, and the lights of the world in their seve
ral generations : most humbly beseeching Thee to give us grace to
follow the example of their steadfastness in Thy faith, and obedience

68
to thy holy commandments, that at the general resurrection we, and
all they who are of the mystical body of Thy Son, may be set on
his right hand, and hear that his most joyful voice. Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the founda.
tion of the world : Grant this," &c.
In this connection I beg to lay before the reader the following let
ter of the illustrious Bishop Horsley, in which he expresses very de
cidedly his opinion of the comparative merits of the two English
Liturgies of 1549 and 1552. It is in reply to a letter of the Rev.
John Skinner, requesting of Bishop Horsley permission to publish a
collation which he (Bishop Horsley) had made of the English and
Scotch offices. The letter is given by Bishop Skinner, p. 157 of his
judicious and learned treatise on " The Office for the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper," &/C.
" My Dear Sir :
"Nothing but the unusual pressure of Parliamentary business
has prevented me from returning an earlier answer to your favour of
the 28th of last month. You are at full liberty to make the use
proposed of my " Collation of Offices." With respect to the com
parative merit of the two Offices for England and Scotland, I have no
scruple in declaring to you, what some years since, I declared' to
Bishop Abernethy Drummond, that I think the Scotch Office more
conformable to the primitive models, and in my private judgment
more edifying, than that which we now use; insomuch that were I
at liberty to follow my own private judgment, I would myself use
the Scotch Office in preference. The alterations which were made in
the communion-service, as it stood in the first book of Edward VL,
to humour the Calvinists, were, in my opinion, much for the worse ;
nevertheless, I think our present Office is very good, our form of con
secration of the elements is sufficient ; I mean that the elements are
consecrated by it, and made the body and blood of Christ, in the
sense in which our Lord himself said the bread and wine were his
body and blood. 1 remain. My dear Sir,
Your affectionate and faithful Servant, S. St. Asaphens.
London, June 11 th, 1806."
" Anglia moesta dole tantum tibi lumen ademptum :
Patrouum ablatum Scolia moesta dole."
In quoting this letter of Bishop Horsley, and in humbly confessing
not only that my judgment wholly approves, but that my heart also

69
warms with the distinctive excellencies of the Liturgy .of 1549, 1 beg
to say, that I neither entertain myself, nor have I a particle of sym
pathy with those (if any such there be) who do entertain, the least
feeling of discontent or dissatisfaction with our present formularies..
Indeed, when I consider how perilous the work, and at how perilous a
crisis effected, of removing the many fables and superstitions that had
grown over our ritual, my feelings of gratitude that all which gave just
offence has been expunged, and that so much (beyond what is neces
sary) of comforting doctrine and pious usage has been saved and
continued to us, are so strong, as completely to overpower and ex
tinguish the regret which I might otherwise feel at the loss of the
comparatively little that was sacrificed to the captiousness and spir
itual vandalism of a party which was more bent on extirpating popery
than on preserving the Catholic faith.

G.—Page 11.
In their treatment of heretics, the primitive bishops were content
to follow the directions of St. Paul to Titus : " A man that is an
heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he
that is such is subverted and sinneth ;" (the last word suggests, that
heresy, from the first, was understood to involve not only error of
doctrine, but viciousness of life ;) and Christian people w^ere expected
to do no more than to avoid those whom their bishops rejected. But
after the establishment of Christianity under Constantine, the Em
perors, believing the morals of the state to depend on the purity of
the Church, conferred privileges on those who remained in her com
munion, from which others, whom the Church disowned as heretical,
were excluded. Hence, after the council of Nice, A. D. 325, had
declared the doctrine of the Arians to be heresy, it was decreed, by
an Imperial edict, that they who, according to the faith and discipline
of the Apostles, believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
confessing the unity of the Divine Nature under a Trinity of per
sons, should receive the designation, and be admitted .to the privilege
of Catholic Christians; while all others should be treated as heretics.
For some time afber, heresies were connected with seditions and tu
mults; and hence the rigor of the laws against them, which, however,
seldom proceeded to the penalty of death. At least Cardinal Bellar-

70
mine, who has ransacked all antiquity, sacred and profane, for his pre
cedents, alleges no more of Theodosius, Valentinian, Martianus, and
other religious Emperors, than that they " sometimes" resorted to the
"ultimum suppUcium;" taking for granted that the " ultimum suppli-
cium" in these cases means death, and forgetting to m-ention that the
Emperors had an eye rather to disorder and sedition in the State,^
than to erroneous opinion in the Church. The omission, however,
(for I would not be too hard on Bellarmine, whose smooth and trans
parent latinity makes some amends for the harshness of his creed,)
is pardonable in one who is firmly persuaded that an obstinate
heretic ought to be killed, out of pure favor to himself; since the
longer he lives the more errors does he devise, the more people does
he pervert, and the greater the damnation he heaps upon his soul.
" Denique (it is his crowning argument in favor of putting heretics to
death,) hereticis obstinatis beneficium est, quo de hac vita tollantur;
nam quo diutius vivant, eo plures errores excogitant, plures perver-
tunt, et majorem sibi damnationem acquirunt." {Bellarm. Be Laicis,
cap. 21, last paragraph.)
Before the division of the Empire, (about the beginning of the 9th
century,) the bishops appear to have confined themselves to the office
of declaring what constituted heresy, leaving it to the ten>poral magis
trate to prosecute the heretic. But after this period, as the canon
law superseded the imperial code, and bishops stretched their powers
from the persuasion of the souls of men, to the coercion of their
bodies,* things began to wear another face ; and as Pasce oves was
* The Council of Trent empowers bishops to imprison and inflict corporal pun
ishments ; and the spiritual power may always, according to Bellarmine, use the
secular as its instrument, even as the soul uses the body, for the accomplish
ment of its purposes. But the temper of the Roman Church will be best
understood by the two following canons, the first of the Third Council of Lateran,
A. D. 1179, on the treatment of heretics, and the other of the Fourth Council of
Lateran, A. D. 1215, on papal authority over the possessions of sovereign
princes. By the creed of Pius IV. (see Appendix R.) all Romanists are obliged
to confess these two canons as part of the Christian Faith, necessary to salva
tion. I have used Mr. Perceval's translation.
Canon XXVII. (On the Treatment of HereLies.)
Although ecclesiastical discipHne, as the blessed Leo saith, being content
with the judgment of the priests, does not take sanguinary revenge, yet is it
assisted by the decrees of Catholic princes, that men may often seek a saving
remedy through fear of corporal punishment. On this account, because in Gas-
cony, Alb, and the parts of Thoulouse, and other places, the damnable perverse-
ness of the heretics whom some call Cathari, others Patarenes, 'others Publicans,
others by different names, has gained such strength, that they no longer practice
their wickedness in secret, as at other times, but make open manifestation
of their error, and draw over the weak and simple folk to an agreement with

71
made to conclude for the supremacy ; so John xv., 6, where withered
branches are said to be cast into the fire and to be burnt, was made
an unanswerable argument for dooming heretics to the flames. It
was not, however, until the early part of the 1 3th century, that an
instance of this dreadful punishment occurred in England. The
Publicans, as they were called, who were burnt in many parts of
France in the 12th century, (as others had before been in Italy,)
though numerous in England, were not there suffered to receive this
them ; we decree to subject them and their defenders and receivers to anathema ;
and under pain of anathema we forbid that any presume to maintain or support
them in his, houses or land, or to have any dealings with them. But if they
depart in this sin, let not the oblation be made for them (under any pretext of
privileges granted to any from us, on any other ground,) nor let them receive
burial among Christians. In like manner we decree concerning the Brabamjons,
and the people of Aragon, Navarre, the Basque Provinces, and other ruffians
who exercise such cruelty against the Christians, that they pay no respect to
churches nor monasteries, nor spare widows and girls, old men and boys, nor
any age or sex, but after the manner of heathens waste and destroy every thing ;
that they who have conducted them, or kept and supported them in the districts
where they have so furiously conducted themselves, be publicly denounced
throughout the churches on Sundays and other holy days, and be considered
bound by the same sentence and penalty as the forementioned heretics, nor be
admitted to the communion of the church, until they have abjured that pestilent
company and heresy. And let all persons whatsoever who are bound to
them by any agreement, know that they are released from all debt of fidelity or
courtesy, or any manner of service, so long as they persist in such iniquity.
Moreover, we enjoin them, and all others of the faithful, that for "-he remission
of their sins, they manfully oppose such disasters, and with force of arms defend
the Christian people against them, and let their goods be confiscated, and let it
be free for princes to subject such persons to slavery. And whosoever shall
there depart this life in true repentance, let them not doubt that they will obtain
pardon of their sins, and the fruit of eternal reward. We also, out of the divine
mercy, and relying on the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, grant
to the faithful Christians who have taken arms against them, and at the advice
of the bishops or other prelates, have contended to drive them out, a relaxation
for two years from enjoined penance : or if they have m^de a longer stay there,
we leave it to the discretion of the bishops, to whom the care of these things is
enjoined, that at their will, a greater indulgence in proportidfc to their labor, be
granted unto them : but we order that those who shall contemptuously have
refused to obey the warning of the bishops in this respect, be estranged from the
participation in the body and blood of the Lord, &c.
Canon III. — (Papal Authority over the Possessions of Sovereign. Princes.)
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy which exalteth itself
against this holy orthodox and Catholic faith, which we have set forth above :
condemning all heretics, by whatsoever names they may be reckoned, who have
indeed diverse faces, but their tails are bound together, for they make agreement
in the same folly.
Let such persons, when condemned, be left to the secular powers who may
be present, or to their officers, to be punished in a fitting manner, those- who are
of the clergy being first degraded from their orders : so that the goods of such
condemned persons, being laymen, shall be confiscated ; but in the case of clerks,
be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends.
But let those who are only marked with suspicion, be smitten with the sword
of anathemas, and shunned by all men, until they make proper satisfaction, un-

72
punishment. ("Publicani," says Roger Hoveden, A. D. 1182, as
quoted by Twisden, " comburebantur in pluribus locis per regnum
Franciae, quod Rex Anglise nullo modo permisit in terra sua, licet
ibi essent perplurimi.") In the 13th century, however, there was
one, and I believe but one instance, and in the 14th century but two
instances, of this execrable punishment for heresy in England. About
the commencement of the 15th century (A. D. 1400) occurs the case
of William Sautre. Before this time there was no statute on the
•
less, according to the grounds of suspicion and the quality of the person, they
shall have demonstrated their innocence by a proportionate purgation. So that
if any shall persevere in excommunication for a twelvemonth, thenceforth they
shall be condemned as heretics. And let the secular powers, whatever offices
they may hold, be induced and admonished, and, if need be, compelled by eccle
siastical censure, that, as they desire to be accounted faithful, they should, for
the defence of the faith, publicly set forth an oath, that to the utmost of their
power they will strive to exterminate from the lands under their jurisdiction all
heretics who shall be denounced by the church ; so that whensoever any person
is advanced, either to spiritual or temporal power, he be bound to confirm this de
cree with an oath.
But if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by the chUrch, shall
neglect to cleanse his country of this heretical filth, let him be bound with the
chain of excommunication, by the metropolitan, and the other co-provincial
bishops. And if he shalt scorn to make satisfaction within a year, let this be
signified to the supreme Pontiff: that, thenceforth, he may declare his vassals
to be absolved from their fidelity to him, and may expose his land to be occupied
by the Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, may, without contra
diction, possess it, and preserve it in purity of faith : saving the right of the chief
lord, so long as he himself presents no difficulty and offers no hindrance in this
matter : the same law, nevertheless, being observed concerning those who have
not lords in chief.
But let the Catholics, who, having taken the sign of the cross, have girded
themselves for the extermination of the heretics, enjoy the same indulgence, and
be armed with the same privilege as is conceded to those who go to the assist
ance of the Holy Land.
But we who believe decree also to subject to excommunication, the receivers,
the defenders, the abettors of the heretics ; firmly determining that if any one,
after he has been marked with excommunication, shall refuse to make satisfac
tion within a twelvemonth, he be thenceforth of right in very deed infamous,
and be not admitted to public offices or councils, nor to elect for any thing of the
sort, nor to give evidence. Let him also be intestible, so as neither to have
power to bequeath nor to succeed to any inheritance.
Moreover, let no man be obliged to answer him in any matter, but let him be
compelled to answer others. If, haply, he be a judge, let his sentence'have no force,
nor let any causes be brought for his hearing. If he be an advocate, let not his
pleading be admitted. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be in
valid, and be condemned with their damned author. And we charge that the
same be observed in similar cases. But if he be a clerk, let him be deposed from
every office and benefice, that where there is the greatest fault, the greatest ven
geance may be exercised.
But if any shall fail to shun such persons, after they have been painted out
by the church, let them be compelled, by the sentence of excommunication, to
make fitting satisfaction. Let the clergy by no means administer the sacra
ments of the church to such pestilent persons, nor presume to commit them to
Christian burial, nor receive their alms nor oblations : otherwise let them be de
prived of their office, to which they must not be restored without the special in
dulgence of the Apostolic See.

73
subject, and the four persons above mentioned were punished under
the common law, having been first convicted and condemned by
ecclesiastical process; Sautre, in a provincial council under the Arch
bishop of Canterbury.
The first parliamentary statute in relation to heresy (5 Richard
II, cap. 5) was enacted A. D. 1381, and entitled " An act against
preachers of heresie." The preamble sets forth that, " forasmuch as
it is openly known that there be persons within the realm, going
from county to county, and from town to town, in certain habits,
under dissimulation of great holiness, and without license, etc., preach
ing daily, not only in churches and church-yards, but also in markets,
fairs, and other open places where a great congregation is, divers ser
mons, containing heresies and notorious errors, to the great emblem-
ishing of the Christian faith, etc. ; which persons do also preach
diverse matters of sclaunder, to engender discord and dissension be
twixt diverse estates of the said realm, as well spiritual as temporal,
in exciting of the people to the great peril of all the realm ; which
preachers, cited or summoned before the ordinaries of the places,
there to answer, etc., will not jobey to their summons and command
ments, nor care not for their monitions nor censures of the Holy
Church, but expressly despise them, and moreover, by their subtil
and ingenious words, do draw the people to hear their sermons, and
do maintain them in their errors by strong hands and by great routs ;"
•and the ordinance is, "that the king's commissions be made and di
rected to the sheriffs and other ministers of our sovereign lord the
king, or other, etc., to arrest all such preachers, and also their fautors,
maintainers and abettors, and toxoid them in arrest and strong pris
ons till they will justify them according to the law and reason of the
Holy Church." The statute imposes no other penalty, and is evi
dently intended merely to preserve the public peace, and not to pun
ish men for their opinions. It does not encroach, I apprehend, on
liberty of conscience.
The next statute (2 Henry IV., cap. 15) is entitled " An act touch
ing heresies," and was enacted A. D. 1400, the same year in which
Sautre was burnt. This act is remarkable in itself, and so important
in estimating the true nature of the reformation, and the bearings
respectively of the Papal and Regal supremacy, that I transcribe the
ordinance entire, omitting the long and tedious preamble. It is en
titled " An act touchino' Heresies," and enacts :
That none within the said realm, or any otlier dominions subject to
his Royal Majesty, presume to preach openly or privily, without license

74
of the diocesan of the same place first required and obtained ; Curates
in their own churches, and persons hitherto privileged, and other of the
canon law granted, only except. For that none, from henceforth, any
thing preach, hold, teach, or instruct, openly or privily, or make or
write any book contrary to the Catholic faith, or determination of the
Holy Church, nor of such sect and wicked doctrines and opinions shall
make any conventicles, or in any wise hold or exercise schools ; and, also
that none from henceforth, in any wise, favor such preacher, or maker
of any such and like conventicles, or holding or exercising schools, or
making or writing such books, or so teaching, informing, or exciting the
people ; nor any of them maintain, or anywise sustain. And that all
and singular having such books, or any writings of such wicked doctrine
and opinions, shall really with effect deliver or cause to be delivered,
all such books and writings to the diocesan of the same place within for
ty days from the time of the proclamation of this ordinance and
statute. And if any person or persons, of whatsoever kind, estate,
or condition that he or they be, from henceforth do or attempt against
the royal ordinance and statute aforesaid, in the premises or in any of
them, or suehj^ooks in the form aforesaid do not deliver, then the
diocesan of the same place in his diocese, such person or persons in
this behalf defamed or evidently suspected, and every of them, may,
by the authority of the said ordinance and statute, cause to be arrest
ed, and under safe custody in his prisons to be detained, till he or
they of the articles laid to him or them in this behalf, do canonically
purge him or themselves, or else such wicked sect, preachings, doc
trines, and heretical and erroneous opinions, do abjure according as
the laws of the church do require, so that the said diocesan by him
self or his commissaries do openly and judicially proceed against
such persons so arrested, and remaining under his said custody, to all
the effect of the law, and determine that same business according to
the canonical decrees within three months after the said arrest, any
lawful impediment ceasing. And if any person, in any case above
expressed, be before the diocesan of the place or his commissaries
canonically convict; tSien the same diocesan may do to be kept in
his prison, the said person so convict for the manner of his default, and
after the quality of the offence according and as long as to his discre
tion shall seem expedient, and moreover, to put the same person to
the secular court, (except in cases where he according to the canoni
cal decree ought to be left,) to pay to our sovereign lord the king
his pecuniar fine, according as the same fine shall seem competent
to the diocesan, for the manner and quality of the offence, in which
ca?e the same diocesan, shall be bound to certify the king of the same
fine in his exchequer by his letters patents, sealed with his seal, to
the effect that such fine by the king's authority, may be required and
levied to his use of the goods of the same person so convict. And if
any person within the said realm and dominions, upon the said
wicked preachings, doctrines, opinions, schools, and heretical and
erronius informations, or any of them be before the diocesan of the
same place or his commissaries sententially convict, and the same
wicked sect, preachings, doctrines and opinions, schools and infer-

75
mations, do refuse duly to abjure, or by the diocesan of the same
place or his commissaries after the sibjuration made by the same per
son pronounced, fall into relaps, so that according to the holy canons
he ought to be left to the secular court, whereupon credence shall be
given to the diocesan of the same place, or to his commissaries in
this behalf, then the shiriff'of the county of the same place, and may
or, andshiriffs or shiriff, or mayor and bailiffs of the city, town and
borough of the same county, next to the same diocesan or the same com
missaries, shall be personally present in preferring of such sentences,
when they by the same diocesan or his commissaries shall be required ;
and they the same persons and every of them, after such sentence pro
mulgate, shall receive ; and them before the people in an high place do
to be burnt, that such punishment may strike in fear to the minds of
other, whereby no such wicked doctrine, and heretical and erronius
opinions, nor their authors and fautors in the said realm and dominions
against the Catholick faith. Christian law and determination of the holy
Church, (which God prohibit,) be sustained or in any wise suffered, in
which all and singular the premises concerning the said ordinance and
statute, the shirifl"s, mayors and baililfs, of the said counties, cities,
boroughs and towns, shall be attending, aiding and supporting, to the
said diocesans and their commissaries."
This statute, it will be seen, ordains that no person in the king's
dominions, or subject to his royal majesty, shall hold, teach or in
struct openly or privately, or make or write any book contrary to
the Catholic faith or determination of holy Church; that none shall
favor, maintain, or in any wise sustain, those who make or write
such books ; that all and singular who have such books or writings
shall deliver them to the bishop ; and that the bishop may arrest
and detain in safe custody in his (the bishop's) prison all who are
accused of transgressing in any of these particulars, until they can
purge themselves from suspicion. But this is not the worst; for
all persons who had the misfortune to be suspected of heresy, are
directed by the statute to be detained in custody, until they abjure
their erroneous opinions, so that (here lies the craftiness of this
tyrannical act) " the diocesan by himself, or his commissaries, do
openly and judicially proceed against such persons so arrested and
remaining under his said custody, to all the effect of the law, and
determine. that same business according to the canonical decrees with
in three months after the said arrest."
The statute enacts that the man who is convicted of heresy shall
be burnt to death ; but what does it tell us that heresy is ? On this
point it is utterly vague and undefined. And whom does it declare
to be the judges of heresy, and by what rule does it authorize them
to proceed in the determination of heresy ? The bishops were to be

76
the judges of heresy. Very well. And the rule of judgment, what
was that ? The Scriptures ? The known definitions of the Catholic
Church? Nothing of the sort, but their own canonical decrees;
that is, any thing and every thing which might be made to appear
repugnant, not to the well known compendious and immutable faith
of the Catholic Church, but to the expansive and expanding canons
and decrees enacted and administered by bishops subject to the See
of Rome. Any man, indeed, who failed in aught in obedience to his
bishop, as (to take Lord Coke's instance) in the payment of a legacy,
might, under this statute, be brought under suspicion of heresy, de
tained in the bishop's prison until he had yielded to his extortion, and
possibly condemned to the stake as a heretic, when in fact he had
done no more than (and perhaps not so much as) transgress a canon,
of the bare existence of which he had never heard. We shall see
presently that these evils were not imaginary.
The above act of Henry IV. is moreover remarkable as being the
first on the English statute book that made heresy a capital offence,
and ordained the heretic to be burnt. The next statute in relation
to heresy is entitled " An Act for the Reformation of Heresy and
Lollardy." The preamble declares, that " Forasmuch as great
rumors, congregations and insurrections, here in the realm of Eng
land, by divers of the king's liege people, as well by them which
were of the sect of heresy, commonly called Lollards, as for other
of their confederacy, excitation and abetment, now of late were
made, to the intent to annul, destroy and subvert the Christian faith
and the law of God and holy Church within the same realm of
England, and also to destroy the same, our sovereign lord the king,
and all other manner of estates of the same realm of England, as well
spiritual as temporal, and also all manner of policy, and finally the
laws of the land ;'' and appears to be aimed against heretics not
as such, but as disturbers of the peace and subverters of the laws of
the kingdom. It enacts that all officers, on their admission to office,
shall take an oath to destroy Lollardy and assist the Ordinary there
in, and empowers justices of the peace to- inquire of offences against
the act, and have the offender, unless indicted for an offence which
belongs to the cognizance of the secular judge, delivered to the Ordi
nary. It humanely provides that suspected persons, while in
custody of the sheriff, may be admitted to mainprise, and moreover
gives them the benefit of a trial by jury, before they are surrendered to
the spiritual power to be tried for heresy. It leaves the former acts
unrepealed.

77
The above are all the statutes touching heresy, which were enacted
before the reformation, and they continued in force until A. D., 1533.
The most important of them is the statute of Henry IV., and taken
together, they will give the reader some insight into the nature of
the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England ; showing it to be an
outward and coercive power, originally granted by the crown, to the
Bishop of Rome, for the advancement of morals and religion, and
abused by the grantee, by means of canons and decrees, administered
by bishops responsible to himself, for the purpose of bringing the
conscience, estate and liberties of the subject under his own control.
What the crown gave under Henry IV., it took away (as it had a per
fect right to do) under Henry VIII. ; and, if I mistake not, it was the
divorce of the latter from the Pope and canon law of Rome, which
made him a monster of iniquity in the eyes of the papacy, far more
than his divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
The statute of Henry IV. was repealed by 25 Henry VIIL, cap.
14, and I crave from the reader a careful perusal of the preamble of
the latter statute assigning the reasons for the repeal of the former.
A comparison of the two will put him in no worse position than be
fore for judging for himself, whether the rights and liberty of con
science for which the English people arid their American descendants
are proudly distinguished, have been owing to the papal jurisdiction
in England, or to its overthrow and continued exclusion.
25 Henry VIIL, Cap. 14.
An Act for the Punishment of Heresie.
In most humble wise lamentably shewethunto your highness, your
most humble, loving and obedient subjects, the commons of this your
realm, that where the clergy of the same, in the second year of king
Henry the IV., one of your most noble progenitors, upon their sug
gestion did interpret and obtain by authority of the Parliament,
holden iu the said second year, that it should be lawful for every
Ordinary to convent, arrest and imprison any person or persons,
whom they thought defamed or suspect of heresy, and them to keep
in their prisons till they were purged thereof, or abjured, or commit
ted to lay power to be burned, after the determination of the holy
Church, and canonical sanctions, as in an act made at the Parliament,
holden in the said second year of king Henry the IV., amongst
other things more at large doth appear. Forasmuch as the said act
doth not in any part thereof declare any certain cases of heresy, con
trary to the determination of the holy Scripture, or the canonical
sanctions therein expressed, whereby your most loving and obedient
subjects might be learned to eschew the dangers and pains in the said
act comprised, and to abhor and detest that foul and detestable crime
of heresy ; and, also, because those words canonical sanctions, and

78
such other like, contained in the said act, are so general, that unneth*
the most expert and best learned man of this your realm, diligently
lying in wait upon himself, can eschew and avoid the penalty and
dangers of the same act and canonical sanctions, if he should be ex
amined upon such captious interrogatories, as is, and hath been ac
customed to be, ministefed by the Ordinaries of this realm, in cases
where they will suspect any person or persons of heresy. And over
this, forasmuch as it standeth not with the right older of justice nor
good equity, that any person should be convict, and put to the loss
of his life, good name, or goods, unless it were by due accusation and
witness, or by presentment, verdict, confession or process of outlawry;
and, also, by the laws of your realm, for treason committed to the
peril of your most royal majesty, upon whose surity dependeth the
whole wealth of this realm, no person can, nor may be put to death
but by presentment, verdict, confession, or process of outlawry, as
is aforesaid. Wherefore it is not reasonable, that any Ordinary, by
any suspection conceived of his own fantasie, without due accusation
or presentment, should put any subject of this realm in the infamy
and slander of heresy, to the peril of life, loss of name and goods.
And, that also, there be many heresies and pains, and punishment for
heresies declared and ordained, in and by the canonical sanctions, and
by the laws and ordinances made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome,
and by their authorities, for holding, doing, preaching or speaking of
things contrary to the said canonical sanctions, laws and ordinances,
which be but humane, being meer repugnant and contrarious to the
prerogative of your imperial crown, regal jurisdiction, laws, statutes,
and ordinances of this your realm ; by reason whereof your people of
the same, observing, maintaining, defending, and due executing of
your said laws, statutes and prerogative royal, by authority of that
act, made in the said second year of king Henry the IV., may be
brought into slander of heresy, to their great infamy and danger, and
peril of their lives. In consideration whereof it may pilease your
highness, by the assent of your lords spiritual and temporal and com
mons in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the
same, to annul, abrogate, frustrate, and make void the said act, made
in the second year of king Henry the IV., and everything therein con
tained, (ffiiso/i's Codex, p. 410.)
The remainder of this, statute, however, goes on to provide for the
punishment of heresy and lollardy under certain specific restrictions,
and unhappily concludes by ordaining that the condemned person re
fusing to abjure his errors, " shall be committed to the lay power to be
burnt in open places, for example of others, as hath been accustomed."
The next statute is that of 1 Edward VL, cap. 12, and it deserves
to be emphatically noticed that by this statute all previous acts of
Parliament touching religious opinions are, without reservation, re
pealed and annulled. The third section of the act is as follows :
" An obsolete word, signifying scarcely or hardly.

79
iii. — And also be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all
acts of Parliament and statutes, touching, mentioning, or in anywise
concerning religion or opinions, that is to say, as well the statute
made in the fifth year of the reign of the king's noble progenitor, king
Richard the IL, and the statute made in the second year of the reign
of king Henry the V., and the statute also made in the twenty-fifth
year of the reign of king Henry the VIIL, concerning punishment and
reformation of hereticks and lollards, and every provision therein
contained, . . . shall from henceforth be repealed, and utterly
void and of none eff'ect." {Ibid. p. 404. )
On the death of Edward VL, and the accession of Mary, the papal
party again came into power, and instantly the sanguinary statutes
reappear.
1 Mar. Cap. 6.
An Act for the Reviving of the three Statutes made for the Punishment
of Heresies.
For the eschuing and avoiding of errors and heresies, which of late
have risen and grown, and, much increased within this realm, for that
the Ordinaries have wanted authority to proceed against those that
were infected therewith. Be it therefore ordained and enacted by
the authority of this present Parliament, that the statute made in the
fifth year of the reign of king Richard the IL, concerning the arrest
ing and apprehension of erroneous and heretical preachers, and one
other statute made in the second year of the reign of king Henry the
IV., concerning repressing of heresies and punishment of hereticks,
and, also, one other statute made in the second year of the reign of
king Henry the V., concerning the suppression of heresy and lollardy,
and every article, branch and sentence Contained in the. same three
several acts, and every of them, sTiall from the twentieth day of Jan
uary next coming, be revived and be in full force, strength and effect,
to all intents, constructions and purposes for ever. {Ibid. p. 405.)
Thus the atrocious statute of Henry IV., which, for the gravest rea
sons, and after manifold experience of its evils, had been repealed in
the reigns of Henry VIIL and Edward VL, was revived under
Mary, and bequeathed as a precious legacy to the English Church and
nation " for ever !" The revival of it conferred once more an inquisi
torial power on the "Ordinaries," i. e. the bishops, "who (which was
a sad spectacle to behold) polluted England in all parts thereof
by burning Protestants alive. For," continues the truthful Camden,
who was living at the time, " they destroyed more of all ranks and
qualities ; bishops, ministers of God's Word, and of the common
people, by this horrible kind of death, within the space of five years,

80
than (as some have observed) king Henry the VIIL did in full seven
and thirty years ; ' or than England ever saw so served since the time
that in the reign of king John, Christians first began among us to
tyrannize one over another with fire and faggot.''
On the accession of Elizabeth, the coercive jurisdiction in England,
which the Bishop of Rome had originally received as a trust from the
crown, and had afterwards claimed as his own and sought to use, to
the ruin of every sovereign that did not bow to him the neck, was
f jrever restored to the crown. This was done by the act entituled
" An act to restore to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state
Ecclesiastical," passed in the first year of Elizabeth, the fifteenth sec
tion of which reads as follows :
§ XV. And, that also, it may please your highness, that it may be
further established and enacted by the authority aforesaid ; That one
act and statute made in the first and second years of the late king
Philip and queen Mary, entituled, an act for the reviving of three
statutes, made for the punishment of heresies ; and, also, the said
three statutes mentioned in the said act, and by the same acts revived,
and all and every branches, articles, clauses and sentences contained
in the said several acts and statutes, and" every of them, shall be from
the last day of this session of Parliament, deemed and remain utter
ly repealed, void, and of none eiFect, to all intents and purposes ; any
thing in the said several acts, or any of them contained, or any other
matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding. ( Gibson's Codex,
p. 405.)
Thus it appears that when the papal party came into power under
Mary, the statutes punishing religious opinions with temporal penal
ties having been previously repealed under Edward VL, were revived
and enforced, and when that party went out of power these statutes
were again repealed. These are facts, from which every reader may
draw his own conclusions. How long it would have been, had the
same party remained in power, before erroneous opinions would have
ceased to be punishable by confiscation of goods, and by fire and fag
got, and whether, if papists should regain the power, they would again
make the same use of it, are merely speculative questions on which
I have no disposition to dwell. Peihaps the present state of things
in Naples and Tuscany may throw light on the subject.
The reader may ask whether in this act of Elizabeth, repealing all
' fijrmer statutes, there were no reservation, continuing heresy as a
punishable offence ? Certainly there was, but it was one which so
defined and limited the offence, that it could not well be abused to
the purposes of tyranny. It is found in the 36th section of the act :

81
I XXXVI. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority afore
said, that such person or persons to whom your highness, your heirs or
successors, shall hereafter by letters patent, under the great seal of En
gland, give authority to have or execute any jurisdiction, power, or au
thority spiritual, or to visit, reform, order, or correct any errors, heresies,
schisms, abuses, or enormities by virtue of this act, shall not in any
wise have authority or power to order, determine, or adjudge any
matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been
determined, oidered, or adjudged to be heresy, by the authority of the
canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general councils, or any of
them, or by any other general council, wherein the same was declared
heresy, by the express and plain words of the said canonical scrip
tures, or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to
be heresy, by the high court of Parliament of this realm, with the as.
sent of the clergy in their convocation ; anything in this act to the
contrary notwithstanding. {Ibid, p. 425, Sec. XXXVI.)
" The ground of making this limitation," says Gibson, " was a
retrospect to the times of popery, in which everything was adjudged
to be heresy that the Church of Rome thought fit to call by that
name, how far soever, in its own nature, from being fundamental, and
how contrary soever to the .gospel and the ancient doctrine of the
Catholic Church ;. such as speaking against pilgrimages, against the
worship of images, against the necessity of auricular confessions, and
the like." No trap like that of the " canonical decrees," is set for
the unwary; the rule for the determination of heresy is made to be
the same as that adopted by the emperors of Christian Rome, a rule
founded in reason and equity ; viz., the original records of the Chris
tian Church, as held and explained by the common and universal
sense of the Christian Church ; in other words, the decrees of the only
really oecumenical councils ; or the plain and express declarations of
Holy Scripture ; or, the concurrent voice of the clergy and laity of the
nation. Nothing, as it seems to me, is wanting to bring this statute into
harmony with liberty of conscience, as distinguished from the re
straints of tyranny on the one hand, and from the wayward humors
of men on the other, except the prohibition of temporal penalties for
errors of opinion. Unhappily this prohibition was wanting, and
Christian England in consequence presented, both in this and the foi-
lowing reign, several examples of punishment for opinion, which can
not be justified. This most cruel and disgraceful stain on the English
law, however, was wiped out by 29 Charles II., cap. 9, on which
Bishop Gibson has a note, which sufficiently shows the state and po
sition of the Church of England ; " Upon the abrogating of all the
6

82
ancient statutes made against hereticks, the cognisance of heresie and
punishment of hereticks returned into its ancient channel and bounds;
and now belongs to the Archbishop, as metropolitan of the province,
and to every bishop within his own proper diocese, who are to punish
only by ecclesiastical censures." {Ibid, p, 427.)
Thus in the treatment of heresy, the Church of Christ, after being
tossed for centuries on an ocean of strife and blood, is restored in
England, and through the labors of the Church of England, to the
apostolic rule ; him that is an heretic, reject and avoid ; deal with him
by spiritual censures, but lay not on him the hand of secular power :
neither give the name of heresy (which consists in the denial of some
fundamental point of the Christian faith) to every opinion supposed
to be erroneous, lest your zeal against it involve you unconsciously
in acts of oppression and tyranny ; nor yet resolve it into a difference
of private opinion, lest, while you thus cause it to evaporate, you be
found to deny the objective reality of the Christian faith ; but look
upon it as a real evil; make the plain words of Scripture and the
judgment of the Universal Church the criterion for its detection,
and express your displeasure of it only by spiritual censures. This,
if I rightly read the above statutes, is the ground of the Church of
Engbnd ; and, on this ground, Esto perpetua I

TL.—Page 11.
The following account of the bishops that were deprived under
Elizabeth, and of the treatment which they received, is from Bishop
Burnet's History of the Reformation. I have compared it with Dr.
Lingard, vol. vii., note H., on the reign of Elizabeth, and I have also
compared Lingard's statement with the account of the deprived
bishops in the " Execution for treason," &c., of Burleigh, the lord
treasurer under Elizabeth, and with the more minute account of them
by Bishop Andrewes (who may also be regarded as a contemporary
witness,) Tortura Torii, pp. 146, 147, London, 1609 ; and have no
fear that the correctness of Burnet's narrative on this point will be
impeached. " When the Parliament was over, the oath of supremacy was soon
after put to the bishops and clergy. They thought, if they could
stick close to one another in refusing it, the queen would be forced to
dispense with them, and would not, at one stroke, turn out all the

83
bishops in England. It does not appear how soon after the dissolu
tion of the Parliament the oath was put to them ; but it was not long
after ; for the last collation Bonner gave of any benefice, was on the
6th May this year, (1559.) The oath being offered to Heath, Arch
bishop of York ; to Bonner of London ; Thirleby of Ely ; Bourn, of
Bath and Wells ; Christopherson of Chichester ; Bain of Lichfield ;
White of Winchester, and Watson of Lincoln ; Oglethorpe of Carlisle ;
Tuberville of Exeter ; Pool of Peterburg; Scot of Chester; Pates of
Worcester ; and Goldwell of St. Asaph ; they did all refuse to take it ;
so that only Kitchen, Bishop of Landaff", took it. There was some hope
of Tonstall; so it was not put to him till September ; but he being
very old, chose to go out with so much company, more for the decen
cy of things, than out of any scruple he could have about the supre
macy for which he had formerly writ so much. They were upon their
refusal put in prison for a little while ; but they had all their liberty
soon after, except Bonner, White and Watson. There were great
complaints made against Bonner, that he had, in many things, in the
prosecution of those that were presented for heresie, exceeded what the
law allowed ; so that it was much desired to have him made an ex
ample ; but as the queen was of her own nature merciful, so the
reformed divines had learned in the gospel, not to render evil for evil,
nor to seek revenge ; and as Nazianzen had of old exhorted the or
thodox, when they had got an emperor that favoured them, not to retal
iate on Arians for their former cruelties ; so they thought it was for
the honour of their religion to give this real demonstration of the
conformity of their doctrine, to the rules of the gospel and of the
Primitive Church, by avoiding all cruelty and severity, when it looked
like revenge.
" All this might have been expected from such a queen, and such
bishops ; but it shewed a great temper in the whole nation, that such
a man as Bonner had been, was suffered to go about in safety, and
was not made a sacrifice to the revenge of those who had lost their
near friends by his means. Many things were brought against him and
White, and some other bishops ; upon which the queen promised to
give a chai'ge to the visitors, whom she was to send over England, to en
quire into these things ; and after she had heard their report, she said she
would proceed as she saw cause ; by this means she did not deny
justice, but gained a little time to take off" edge that was on men's
spirits, who had' been much provoked by the ill usage they had met
with from them.
" Heath was a man of a generous temper, and so was well used by
the queen ; for as he was suffered to live securely at his own house in
Surrey, so she went thither sometimes to visit him. Tonstall and
Thirleby lived in Lambeth with Parker, with great freedom and ease ;
the one was learned and good natured, the other was a man of busi
ness ; but too easie and flexible. White and Watson were morose,
sullen men ; to which their studies, as well as their tempers, had dis
posed them, for they were much given to scholastical divinity, which
inclined men to be cynical, to overvalue themselves, and despise
others. Christopherson was a good Grecian, and had translated Eu-

84
sebius and the other Church historians into Latin, but with as little
fidelity as may be expected from a man violently addicted to a
party ; Bain was learned in the Hebrew, which he had pro
fessed at Paris, in the reign of Francis the I. All these chose
to live still in England; only Pates, Scot and Goldwell, went
beyond sea ; after them went the lord Morley, Sir Francis Engle-
field. Sir Robert Peckham, Sir Thomas Shelly and Sir John Gage,_who,
it seems, desired to live where they might have the free exercise of
their religion ; and such was the queen's gentleness, that this was not
denied them, tho' such favour had not been shewed in Queen Marie's
reign. Fecknam, Abbot of Westminster, was a charitable and gen
erous man, and lived in great esteem in England. Most of the
monks returned to a secular course of life, but the nuns went beyond
sea." {Burnetts Reform, vol. ii., pp. 396, 397, foi. London, 1683.)

I.— Page 12.
On Elizabeth's accession to the throne, A. D. 1558, among other
announcements to foreign powers, she " sent to Sir Edward Karn,
who had been Queen Mary's resident at Rome, to give the Pope
news of the succession. The haughty Pope (Paul IV) received it in
his ordinary style, declaring, ' That England was held in fee of the
Apostolick See ; that she could not succeed being illegitimate, nor could
he contradict the declarations made in that matter by his predecessors,
Clement the VII. and Paul the III. He said, it was great boldness
in her to assume the crown without his consent ; for which in reason
she deserved no favour at his hands ; yet, if she would renounce
her pretensions, and refer herself wholly to him, he would shew a
fatherly affection to her, and do everything for her that could consist
with the dignity of the Apostolick See.' When she heard of this,
she was not much concerned at it ; for she had written to Karn as
she did to her other ministers, and had renewed his powers upon her
first coming to the crown, being unwilling in the beginning of her
reign to provoke any party against her ; but hearing how the Pope
received this address, she recalled Karn's powers, and commanded
him to come home. The Pope on the other hand required him not
to go out of Rome, but to stay and take care of an hospital over
which he set him ; which it was thought that Karn procured to him
self, because he was unwilling to return into England, apprehending
the change of religion that might follow, for he was himself zealously

85
addicted to the see of Rome." {Burnefs History of the Reformation^,
vol. ii. p. 374, folio edition.)
The first complaint of these proceedings came not from England,
but from Rome itself. For the succeeding Pope, Pius IV., coming
the next year to the papacy, condemned the mad and insolent
answer which his predecessor had made to the address of the Queen
of England ; and to prove his sincerity, " sent one Parpalia to her,
in the second year of her, reign, to invite her to joyn herself to that
see, and he would disannul the sentence against her mother's marriage
confirm the English service, and the use of the Sacrament in both
kinds ; but she sent the agent word to stay ait Brussels, and not to
come over. The same treatment met Abbot Martinengo,'who was
sent the year after with the like message. From that time, all treaty
with Rome was entirely broken off"." {Ibid, p. 417.)
" However, the next year the Pope renews his applications, and
sends another Nuncio, viz : Abbot Martinengo alias Martinego, who
(it is said) staid in Flanders till he sent to ask leave to be admitted
into the kingdom ; but the queen saw it not safe to admit him, think
ing it implied a tacit acknowledgment of the Pope's usurped su
premacy, whereof he was now justly deprived by act of Parliament,
and withal, she considered what advantages the Popes have always
made to themselves from the smallest concession ; and that which
(doubtless) increased the queen's dislike to the Nuncio's entrance
was, that the very noise of his coming had so wrought upon some
papists, that they not only openly violated the laws made against the
Pope and his authority in former reigns, but spread false reports,
that the queen was at a point to change her religion, and alter the
government of the realm ; whilst others practised with the devil by
conjurations, charms, and casting figures, to be informed of the
length of her reign ; and at the same time the Pope's legate being in
Ireland, not only joined himself to some desperate traytors, who were
employed in stirring up rebellion there, but as much as in him was,
deprived her majesty of all right and title to that kingdom. Add to
all this, that there was a law as ancient as Henry the II.'s time, which
commands that if any one be found bringing in the Pope's letters
or mandate, let him be apprehended, and let justice pass upon him
without delay, as a traytor to the king and kingdom. Upon these
and other considerations the Nuncio was denied entrance." ( Gibson's
Tracts, vol. iii., tit. xiii., with references.)
That Pius IV. dispatched Vincentio Parpalia, Abbot of St. Saviour,
to the Queen of England, with a flattering letter, and with secret in
structions of some sort or other, is certain, and that these secret instruc
tions pledged the see of Rome to approve the English Liturgy on
condition of the queen's acknowledging the Pope's jurisdiction in En-

86
gland, is also rendered pretty certain from the researches and statement
of Burnet, especially when taken in connection with the Pope's letter,
which the reader may be pleased to peruse :
To our most dear Daughter in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England.
Our most dear Daughter in Christ, greeting, and Apostolicall Benedic
tion : How greatly we do desire (according as our Pastorall office
requireth) to take care of your Salvation, and to provide as well for
your Honour as the establishment of your Kingdome, both God the
searcher of our hearts knoweth, and you yourself may understand by
the instructions which we have given to this our beloved son, Vincen
tio Parpalia, Abbot of Saint Saviour, a man known unto you, and of
us well approved, to be by him imparted unto you. We do therefore
(most dear daughter) exhort and admonish your highness again and
again, that, rejecting bad counsellors which love not you but them
selves, and serve their own desires, you would take the fear of God
to counsel!, and acknowledge the time of your visitation, obeying our
fatherly admonitions and wholesome advices ; and promise to yourself
all things concerning us which you shall desire of us, not onely for
the salvation of your soul, but also for the establishing and confirming
of yourroyall dignity, according to the authority, place and function
committed unto us by God, who if you return into the bosome of the
Church, (as we wish and hope you will) are ready to receive you
with the same love, honour and rejoicing, wherewith that father in
the gospel received his son that returned unto him. Although our
joy shall be so much the greater than his,inthat he rejoyced for the
salvation of one son only ; but you, drawing with you all the people
of England, shall not only by your own salvation, but also by the
salvation of the whole nation, replenish us and all our brethren in
generall (whom God willing, you shall hear shortly to be congregated
in an CEcumenicall Councill for abolishing of heresies,) and the whole
Church with joy and gladness ; yea, you shall also glad heaven" itself,
and purchase by so memorable a fact admirable glory to your name,
and a much more renowned crown than that which you wear. But of
this matter the same Vincentio shall treat with you more at large,
and shall declare unto you our fatherly aflPection, whom we pray your
highness that you will graciously receive, diligently hear, and give
the same credit to his speech which you would doe to ourself Giv-
en at Rome, at Saint Peter's, etc., the 15th day of May, 1560, in our
first year. (Camrfew, p. 46.)
Here the Pope assures the queen that she may promise to herself
concerning him, all things that she could desire of him, not only for
the salvation of her soul, but also "for the establishment and confirm
ing of her royal dignity," according to the authority, &c., committed
to him by God. Certainly the queen's honour and dignity were most
deeply concerned in maintaining the order which had been so deliber"

87
ately estaljlished, and therefore the Pope can hardly be understood to
mean less than that he would sanction the changes which had been
made in the Church of England, provided she would acknowledge his
supremacy. There is nothing, I apprehend, in the changes themselves,
to make such a proposition incredible, (for rather than lose the
brightest gem in his crown, and the' usurped right of confirming the
English bishops in their jurisdiction, the Pope would have been con
tent not only to concede the marriage of priests, and communion in
both kinds, for which he could find precedents, but even to receive
and allow, as some of his followers have since done, the XXXIX Arti
cles themselves,) and much in the antecedents of the papacy to render
it probable ; it having ever been the systematic policy of the Roman
see, and one great means of attaining to the power which it then
wielded, when it could neither sell nor retain, anything in dispute, to
give it, that the gift may serve as a precedent in after time for the
right of the said see to dispose of the same at its pleasure.
If the reader desire any further proof than the strong presumption,
afforded by^the letter of the Pope, and confirmed by the statement of
Burnet, he may have it from Sir Edward Coke, who has averred the
fact, and declared that he himself received his information .directly
from the queen. I take .this account from Sir Roger Twisden, (His
torical Vindication, p. 176, A.D. 1675,) who refers to a charge of Sir
Edward Coke, at Norwich, then in print. Having remarked that some
had objected to this statement, that it was not divulged until A. D.
1606, or 46 years after the information was alleged to have been re
ceived from the queen, and while she was not living to contradict
it. Sir Roger adds : " For the being first mentioned 46 years after, that
is not so long a time, but many might remember-: and I myself
have received it from such as I cannot doubt of it, they having had
it from persons of nigh relation unto them who were actors in the
managing of the business. Besides, the thing itself was in eff"ect print-
•ed many years before ; for he that made the answer to Saunders in his
seventh book, De Visibili Monarchia, who it seems had been very
careful to gather the beginnings of Queen Elizabeth, that there might
be an exact history of her, tandem aliquando, quia omnia acta dili-
genter observavit, qui summis reipublicae negotiis consulto interfuit
(by one who had been a careful observer of events, and had taken part
in public aff"airs,) rela,tes it thus : *
" That a nobleman of this country being about the beginning of
the queen's reign at Rome, Pius IV. asked him of her majesty's cast-

ing his authority out of England, who made answer that she did it?
being perswaded by testimonies of Scripture, and the laws of the realm,
nuUam illius esse in terra aliena jurisdictionem, [that the Pope had no
jurisdiction in a country foreign to his own dominions ;} which the Pope
seemed not to believe, her majesty being wise and learned, but did
rather think the sentence of that court against her mother's marriage to
be the true cause, which he did promise not only to retract, sed in ejus
gratiam quascunque possum prseterea facturum, dum ilia ad nostram
ecclesiam se recipiat, & debitum miht primatus titulum reddat, [but
will do moreover whatever I can in her favour, provided she will
return to our Church and restore to me the due title of the primacy,] ,
and then adds, Extant apud nos articuli Abbatis Sanctae Salutis manu
conscript!, extant Cardinalis Moronse literas, quibus nobilem ilium ve-
hementer hortabatur, ut earn rem nervis omnibus apud reginam nos
tram soUicitaret. Extant hodie nobilium nostrorum aliquot, quibus
papa multa aureorum millia pollicitus est, ut istius amicitise atque
foederis inter Romanam Cathedram & Elizabetham serenissimam
authores essent ; [that is, as I understand, the author quoted by Twis
den adds ; there are extant among us the articles of instruction to the
Abbot of St. Saviour, written in the Pope's own hand ; and the let
ter of Cardinal Morona, in which he exhorts that functionary to use
all his infiuence to press this matter with our queen ; and there are
now living several of our nobles to whom the Pope made large pro
mises of money, provided they would effect the desired reconciliation
and friendship between the Roman see and our most gracious Queen
Elizabeth.] This I have cited the more at large, for that Camden
seems to think, what the Abbot of St. Saviour propounded was not in
writing, and because it being printed seven years before the Cardinal
Moronas' death, by whose privity (as protector of the English) this
negotiation past, without any contradiction from Rome, there can no
doubt be made of the truth of it. And assuredly, some who have con-
veniency and leisure may find more of it than hath been yet divulged ;
for I no way believe the Bishop of Winchester wo.uld have been in
duced to write, it did constare (it was true) of Paulus IV., nor the
queen herself, and divers others of those times, persons of honour and
worth, (with some of which I myself have spoken) have affirmed it for
an undoubted truth, did not somewhat more remain (or at least had
formerly been) than a single letter of Pius IV., which apparently had
reference to matters then of greater privacy. And here 1 hold it not
unworthy a place, that I myself talking sometime with an Italian gen
tleman (verst in publick affairs) of this oflTer from the Pope, he made
much scruple of believing it ; but it being in a place where books
were at hand, I shew'd him on what ground I spake, and asked him
if he thought men could be devils to write such an odious lie, had it
not been so. Well (says he) if this were heard, in Rome amongst
religious men, it would ii^ver gain credit ; but with such as have in
their hands the maneggi della corte, [the intrigues of the court,] (for
that was his expression) it may be held true.
" Indeed, the former author doth not express (as perhaps then not
so fit to be publisht) the particulars those articles did contain were

89
writ with the Abbot's own hand, (which later pens have divulged,)
but that, in general, it should be any thing lay in the Pope's powet, on
her acknowledging his primacy : and certain no other could by him
have been propounded to her, nor by her with honour accepted, than
that of his allowing the English Liturgy : so that they who agree he
did by his agent (according to his letter) make propositions unto her,
must instance in some particulars, not, dishonourable to herself and
kingdom to accept, or allow what these writers affirm to have been
them. And I have seen, and heard weighty considerations, why her
majesty could not admit her own reformation from Rome ; some with
reference to this Church at home, as that, it had been a tacite acknow
ledgment it could not have reformed itself, which had been contrary
to all former precedents ; others to the state of Christendom as it then
stood in Scotland, Germany and France : but with this I have not
took'upon me to meddle here."

J.—Piige 19.
"The Liturgy," says Camden, in the first year of Elizabeth, " was
forthwith brought into the churches in the vulgar tongue ; images
were removed without tumult, [and] the oath of supremacy [was]
oflfered to the bishops and others of the ecclesiastical profession. "*
* * As many as refused to swear were turned out of their livings,
dignities and bishoprics ; and these, he proceeds to say, amounted in
all to 177, the fourteen bishops included." Now, from this fact, that
out of the 9,400 clergy of the realm, upwards of 9,200 took the
oath of supremacy, and acquiesced in the other changes above indi
cated, I think it fair to infer that the great body of the people con
tinued to adhere to the Church after it was reformed from popery,
and to frequent its services as before. The same may also be inferred
from what Camden adds soon after : "Thus was religion in England
changed, whilst all Christendom admired that it was wrought so
easily and without commotion. But, indeed, it was no sudden change
(which is never lightly endured), but slow and by degrees. For (to
repeat summarily what I have said before) the Romish religion stood
a full month and more, after the death of Queen Mary, in the same
state as it was before. The 27th of December it was permitted that the
Epistle, Gospels, Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed,
and the Litany should be used in the vulgar tongue. The 22d of March,
when the estates of the realm were assembled, by the renewing of a
law of Edward VL, was granted the whole use of the Lord's Supper,
to wit, under both kinds. The 24th of June, by authority of an act

90
" cojscerning the uniformity of Public Prayer and Administration o
the Sacraments,' the sacrifice of the Mass was abolished, and the
liturgy in the English tongue established. In the month of July the
oath of supremacy was ministered to the bishops and others : and in
August images were removed out of the churches, broken or burnt.''
Thus it appears that the most important of the changes were, one
after another, " permitted " and " granted," as if in compliance with
the wishes of the people, and that they were acquiesced in by the
bishops, who did not revolt until the tender of the oath of supremacy,
which, however, five of them, viz.. Heath, Bonner, Tonstall, Bayne,
and Bourne had taken twice before, viz., under Henry VIIL and
Edward VI. All this, combined with the gradual nature of the
changes, makes it so apparent, that the mass of the people remained
in the Church, that there is little need of direct, evidence in support of
the fact. Some such evidence, however, I proceed to adduce :
First, I give the declaration of Bramhall {Just Vindication, vol. i.,
p. 248), who was born in the same century : " For divers years," he
says, " in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, there was no re
cusant known in England ; but even they who were most addicted
to Roman opinions, yet frequented our churches and public assem.
blies, and did join with us in the use of the same prayers and divine
offices, without any scruple, until they were prohibited by a Papal
Bull, merely for the interest of the Roman Court."
The Roman titular Bishop of Chalcedon having affirmed that the
statement was false, Bramhall replies : " I said, that ' for divers years
in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign there were no recusants
known in England, until papists were prohibited by a Bull to join
with us in our public form of serving God.' This he saith is most false.
If it be so, I am more sorry ; it was before my time. But I have no
reason to believe it to be false. If I had the use of such books as I
desire, I should show great authors for it ; and as it is, I shall produce
some not to be contemned, who say not much less. First, I cite a
treatise printed at London, by John Day, about the time when Pius
V.'s Bull was published against Queen Elizabeth, called " The Dis
closing of the Great Bull that roared at my Lord Bishop's Gate,"
with a " Declaratory Addition" to the same : — " In hope of the suc
cess of this Bull, a number of papists that sometimes did communi
cate with us, or at the least come ordinarily to our public prayers,
have of late forborne." With which author Mr. Camden agreeth,
who saith, that " the more modest papists did foresee a heap of
miseries hanging over their heads, by the means of this Bull, who

91
formerly could exercise their own religion securely enough within
their own private houses, or else, without any scruple of conscience,
were content to go to Church to hear the English service." The
reason of this indiff"erency and compliance is set down by one of their
own authors, because the queen, " to remove, as much as might be,
all scruples out of the' people's heads, and to make them think that
the same service and religion continued still," &c., "provided that
in the Common Prayer Book there should be some part of the old
frame still upheld," &c., " by which dextrous management of affairs
the common people were instantly lulled asleep and complied to
every thing." {BramhalTs Works, vol. ii., pp. 245, 246.)
" But hear," says Bishop Andrewes ( Tortura Torti, p. 149), who was
chaplain in ordinary to Elizabeth, and who had just before remarked,
"All who remember the first eleven years of Queen Elizabeth,
will declare that never was any period more mild and gentle than
that;" "hear," he says, " the Jesuit himself, Philopatrus, who, in
other respects one of our revilers, but constrained by the force
of truth, thus addresses the queen, in respect to the beginning of her
reign: "While in the beginning of your reign, you dealt some
what mildly with the Catholics ; while yet you did not treat them
with great violence, nor greatly urge any either to participation of
your sect, or to a denial of the ancient faith, all things seemed to
proceed in a pretty tranquil course ; no great complaints were heard ;
no remarkable dissention or opposition was manifested, and some
there were, who (although the thing was wrong), in order to please
and gratify you, frequented your churches in body at least, though
their heart was not there." " Here," continues Andrewes, " you read,
painted in Jesuit ink, the beginnings of the reign which you calum
niate. But, observe, that it is envy itself which utters these words,
and that, therefore, the less they express, the more they mean. And
yet you hear even from him ¦» * * ' that there was no great
dissention,' and that even of those who were Romanists in heart, there
were some that actually united in the prayers and Divine offices of
the Reformed Church." '*
* Audi Philopatrum ipsum Jesuitam, insignem alioqui convitiatorem, sed
veritatis vi victum, Reginam de Regni sui initijs sic alloquentem : Dum initio
Regni tui mitius alamanto cum Catholicis ageres, dum nullum adhuc vehemen-
tissime urgeres, nlfflum admodum premeres, vel ad sectae tuae participationfei,
vel fidei antiquse abnegationem, omnia sane tranqijilliore cursu incedere vide-
bantur, nee audiebantur magnse querelse, nee insignis aliqua dissensio aut repug-
nantia cernebatur, nee deerant Cquamquam male} qui Ecclesias vestras, ut vobis
placerent ac gratificarentur, corpore saltem, etsi non animo frequentabant. Legis
hie, Jesuitico atramento depicta, quae tu turn saeva calumniaris Regni Principia.

92
To these I will add the testimony of one whose veracity is unques
tionable, and who speaks of the matters that happened almost within
his own recollection. Lord Coke, in the case of Garnet, says: "The
coming of this Garnet into England (which very act was a treason),
was about twenty years past, viz., in July, 1586, in the twenty-eighth
year of the reign of the late queen, of famous and blessed memory ;
whereas the year before, viz., the twenty-seventh year of Elizabeth,
there was a statute made, whereby it was treason for any, who was
made a Romish priest, by any authority from the see of Rome,
sithence the first year of her reign, to come into her dominion : which
statute the Romanists calumniate as a bloody, cruel, unjust, and a
new upstart law, and abuse that place of our Saviour, ' O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are
sent unto thee,' Mat. xxiii., 37., to that purpose. But, indeed, it is
both mild, merciful and just, and grounded upon the ancient fundar
mental laws of England. For (as hath already in the former arraign
ments been touched) before the Bull of impius Pius Quintus, in the
eleventh year of the queen, wherein her majesty was excommunicated
and deposed, and all they accursed who should yield obedience unto
her, there were no recusants in England, all came to church, (howso
ever popishly inclined, or persuaded in most points) to the same Divine
service we now use ; but thereupon, presently, they refused to as
semble in our churches, or join with us in public service, not for con
science of anything there done, against which they might justly except
out of the Word of God, but because the Pope had excommunicated
and deposed her majesty, and cursed those who should obey her ; and
so upon this Bull ensued open rebellion in the north, and many garboils.
But see the event: now most miserable in respect of this Bull was
the state of Romish recusants, for either they must be hanged for
treason, in resisting their lawful sovereign, or cursed for yielding due
obedience unto her majesty. And, therefore, of this Pope it was said
by some of his own favorites, that he was Homo plus et doctus, sed
nimis credulus ; a holy and learned man, but over credulous, for that
he was informed and believed that the strength of the Catholics in
England was such as was able to have resisted the queen. But
At tu, audire te hie existima loquentem invidiam ipsam ; puta autem minus hie
dici, plus intelligi. Audis tamen, vel ab eo neminem admo(^^ tum pressum, non
magnag turn querelas, non insignem aliquam dissensionem extitisse : non
ergo ita tum refertos carceijes, non tot Episcopos, tot nobiles, fortunis omnibus
exutos, actos in exilium, career! perpetuo mancipatos. Crede saltem huic
testi ; inimicus homo est, nihil in gratiam dicit : crede (inquamj vel inimico
huic homini, & de Regina posthseo obmutesce.

93
when the Bull was found to take such an eff'ect, then was there a disr
pensation given, both by Pius Quintus himself, and Gregory XIII.,
that all Catholics might show their outward obedience to the queen :
ad redimandam vexationem et ad ostendendam externam obedien-
tiam; but with these cautions and limitations: 1. Rebus sic stan
tibus ; things to stand as they did. 2. Donee publica bullse executio
fieri possit ; which is to say : They must grow into strength, until
they were able to give the queen a mate, that the public execution of
the Bull might take place.
"And all this was confessed by Garnet under his own hand, and now
again openly confessed at the bar." {Hargrave''s State Trials. Trial
of Garnet.)
To which I may further add the following note from Gibbon's " De
cline and Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. ii., p. 203, (Harper,
182(5 :) "In the beginning of the last century, [that is, (for Gibbon
wrote in the eighteenth century) a,bout thirty years after the publica
tion of Pius V.'s bull,] the Papists ofEngland were only a thirtieth, and
the Protestants of France only a fifteenth part of the respective na
tions to whom their spirit and power were a constant object of appre
hension. See the relations which Bentivoglio, (who was then Nuncio
at Brussels, and afterwards cardinal,) transmitted to the Court of
Rome. (Relazione, torn, ii., pp. 211,241.) Bentivoglio was curious,
well informed, but somewhat partial."

K.—Page 20.
By way of introduction to the Bull of Pius V., excommunicating
and deposing Elizabeth, and stirring up her subjects to revolt, I beg
leave to off'er to the reader a brief statement, compiled from unques
tionable authorities, which throws light on its origin, and proves it to
be but one of a series of measures, (of which the reader will form
his own opinion), by which the Roman see sought to re-establish its
supremacy in England.
There is a Life of Pius V., written hj Hieronymo Catena, and printed
at Rome, A.D. 1588, with the privilege of Sixtus V. Camden, in his
Annals of Elizabeth, having referred to Catena as " an author for his
faithfulness made free of the city of Rome, and Secretary to Cardinal
Alexandrine, Pius V.'s nephew, gives a pretty long extract from this

94
work, from which I shall quote what chiefly relates to my present
purpose. " Pius v.," says Catena, " being inflamed with zeal for restoring
the Romish religion in England, and depriving Queen Elizabeth of
her kingdom, since he could not have an Apostolic Nuncio, or any
public person to carry on these matters, procured one Robert
Ridolpho, a gentleman of Florence (who lived in England under
color of merchandizing), to animate men's minds to work the destruc
tion of Queen Elizabeth, which he diligently performed, not only
among the Catholics, but also with some Protestants, who in this con
spired together, some out of private hatred to those that aspired to
the Crown, and others aff'ecting innovations. Whilst these things
were privately acting, there happened a diff'erence between the
Spaniard and Queen Elizabeth, about some money that was inter
cepted. From hence the Pope taking occasion, persuaded the
Spaniard to assist the conspirators in England against Queen Eliza
beth, that so he might more securely carry on his aff"airs in the
Netherlands, and the Romish religion might be restored in Britain.''
Having mentioned the intrigues of the Pope to bring the French
into the scheme, and some other particulars of the conspiracy. Catena
proceeds : " The Pope, to forward the matter, published a Bull, de
posed the queen from her crown, and absolved her subjects from all
their oaths of obedience, sending printed copies thereof to Ridolpho
to be dispersed all over England. Hereupon the earls of Northum
berland and Westmoreland took up arms against their prince ; who
soon after, for lack of money, withdrew themselves into Scotland.
Norfolk and others were committed to custody, among whom was
Ridolpho, whom the Pope had commanded to furnish the conspirators
with an hundred and fifty thousand crowns ; which, being kept in
prison, he could not do.
" But, foreasmuch as the queen could not discover the depth of
the conspiracy, he with the rest was let out of prison, and then dis
tributed those crowns among the conspirators ; who sent him to the
Pope to give him notice that all things were prepared and in readiness
at home, against Queen Elizabeth, and to interest the Spaniard forth
with to assist them out of the Low Countries. The Pope commended
the enterprise," etc.
Catena goes on to state that the Pope sent Ridolpho to the
Spaniard, under another pretence, and to Portugal with instructions.
" The Spaniard he urged to aid the conspirators, and the more eff"ec-
tually to persuade him, he promised to go himself to their succor, and,

95
if need were, to mortgage all the goods of the Apostolic see, chalices,
crosses, and holy vestments. As for difficulty, there was none at all
in it if he would send Chapini Vitelli out of the Netherlands with an
army into England ; which the Spaniard with all alacrity commanded
forthwith to be done, and the Pope himself provided money in a
readiness in the Netherlands." (See Camden's Eliz., Anno 1572, p.
180, of the 3d Eng. edit., A.D. 1675.)
This secret distribution of the Bull by Ridolpho appears to have
been about a year before it was placarded by Felton on the palace
gate of the Bishop of London. For -the Bull was not made public in
England till the year after it was concocted at Rome ; to which delay,
by the by, Saunders (a Roman author of that age), in his treatise on
the Visible Monarchy of the Church, ascribes the ruin of the hopeful
rebellion. For having remarked that " Pius V., the chief bishop,
A.D. 1569, sent a reverend priest, Nicholas Morton, an Englishman,
into England, to declare to certain noblemen, by the Apostolic autho
rity, that Elizabeth, who was then in possession, was a heretic; and
that for that reason she had fallen from all dominion and power, and
was to be regarded by them as a heathen, and that they were not to be '
compelled to obey her laws or mandates ;" he adds, " By which denun
ciation many noblemen were led to attempt the liberation of their
brethren, and they hoped, certainly, that all Catholics would have as
sisted them with all their strength ; but, although the matter happened
otherwise than they expected, because all the Catholics knew not
THAT Elizabeth was declared to be a heretic, yet the counsels
and intents of these noblemen were to be praised 1"
It will be seen by the above extract from Catena, that the Earls of
Northumberland and Westmoreland, on the failure of their abortive
insurrection, sent to the Pope to give him notice that all things were
in readiness for a new outbreak. One is naturally desirous to know in
what terms the pretended Father of Christendom responded to these
two promising sons; and it so happens that, in the Life of Pius V.,
by Gabutius, printed at Antwerp, 1640, we have the identical letter
which his Holiness addressed to them. From this letter, (the whole
of which may be seen in Gibson's Collection, vol. 3d. tit. xiii.) which
is addressed "To our beloved sons, Thomas, Earl of Northumber
land, and Charles, Earl of Westmoreland, in England," and dated at
"Rome, at St. Peter's, under the Fisher's Ring, the 20th day of
February, 1570," lam content to make the following extract :
" Our Lord Jesus Christ hath by you (men dear to us, and
eminent as well by the study of Catholic piety as by nobleness of
birth,) determined, peradventure, to renew and confirm the ancient

96
union of the Roman Church with that kingdom [England] ; and
therefore hath infused into you that mind most worthy of the zeal
of your Catholic faith, that you should attempt to redeem back that
kingdom (delivered from the most vile servitude of a woman's lust)
to the ancient obedience of this Holy Roman See. Which pious
and religious endeavour of your minds we commend (as is fit) with
just praises in the Lord, and giving it that our blessing which you
desire, we do with the benignity which becomes us, receive yoiir
honors flying to the protection of us, and of this Holy See, to whose
authority they subject themselves ; exhorting you in the Lord, and
with all possible earnestness of our mind, entreating you to persevere
constantly in this your so exceeSing good will and laudable purpose.
* * * But if, in asserting the Catholic faith and auth ority of
this Holy See, you should suffer death, and your blood be spilt ; it
would be much better for the confession of God, to fly by the com
pendium of a glorious death to life eternal, than living basely and
ignominiously, to serve the lust of an impotent woman with the loss
of your souls."
In eff"ect this Roman " Saint" (for Pius V. was canonized, A. D.
1712) adds a ninth to the eight benedictions of the gospel : " Blessed
are they who for my sake shall die as traitors on earth, for they shall
be crowned as martyrs in heaven."
The policy here marked out was not peculiar to Pius V. Pope
Gregory XIII. afterwards renewed the same Bull of excommunication
and deposition against Elizabeth, probably at the time when he was
intriguing to procure the kingdom of Ireland for his base-born son.
(See Camden's Eliz., Anno 1578). It was again renewed by Pope
Sixtus V. ; who, " that he might not seem to be wanting to the cause,
sending Cardinal Allen, an Englishman, into the Low Countries,
renewed the bulls declaratory of Pius Quintus and Gregory Thir
teenth, excommunicated the queen, dethroned her, absolved her sub
jects from all allegiance, and published his crusade in print, as it were
against Turks and Infidels, wherein, out of the treasury of the
Church, he granted plenary indulgences to all that gave him help and
assistance.'' Strange, that in the face of these and other like facts of history,
there are men even now to be found, who hope that the Roman see
may become a central and controlling power among the nations of the
earth, for harmonizing their disputes by force of reason, and prevent
ing appeals to the sword 1 At least I have heard the vision fondly
confessed, not indeed by Romanists or Churchmen, but among the
amiable descendants of the Puritans in the bosom of New-England.
I suppose, because, having pricked the bladder of Peace Societies,
they were impatient to soar upward in a new balloon of grander
dimensions.

97
But I am detaining the reader from the Bull of Pius, (the gospel
according to the papacy,) which I transcribe from Camden's Eliza
beth, Anno 1570 ; a Bull which has never been revoked, and which is,'
therefore, as much the act of the Roman see to-day, as when it was
first issued, j
Pius, Bishop, SERVAN>r to God's Servants,
for a future memorial of the matter.
" He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power, in heaven
and in earth, hath committed His one Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth,
namely, to Peter, the chief of the apostles, and to Peter's successor,
the Bishop of Rome, to be by him governed with plenary authority.
Him alone hath he made prince over all people and all kingdoms,
to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build ; that he may
preserve his faithful people (knit together with the baud of charity)
in the unity of the spirit, and present them spotless and unblamable
to their Saviour. In discharge of which function, we, who are, by
God's goodness, called to the government of the aforesaid Church, do
.spare no pains, labouring with all earnestness, that unity and the
Catholic religion (which the Author thereof hath, for the trial of his
children's faith, and for our amendment, suffered to be tossed with so
great afflictions) might be preserved sincere. But the number of
the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no place in the
whole world left which they have not essayed to corrupt with their
most wicked doctrines ; and, amongst others, Elizabeth, the pretended
Queen of England, the servant of wickedness, lendeth thereunto her
helping hand, with whom, as in a sanctuary, the most pernicious per
sons have found a refuge. This very .woman having seized on the
kingdom, and monstrously usurped the place of Supreme Head of
the Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction.
thereof, hath again reduced the said kingdom into a miserable and
ruinous condition, which was so lately reclaimed to the Catholic faith
and thriving condition.
" For having by strong hand prohibited the exercise of the true
religion, which Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had by
the help of this See restored, after it had been formerly overthrown
by Henry the Eighth, a revolter therefrom, and following and em
bracing the errors of iieretics, she hath changed the royal council,
consisting of the English nobility, and filled it up with obscure mgn,
being heretics ; suppressed the embracers of the Catholic faith ; con
stituted lewd preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the
sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fastings, choice of meats, unmarried
life, and the Catholic rites and ceremonies; commanded books to be
read through the whole realm, containing manifest heresy, and ap
pointed impious rites and institutions, by herself entertained and
observed according to the prescript of Calvin, to be likewise observed
by her subjects ; presumed to eject bishops, parsons of churches,
7

98
and other Catholic priests, out of their churches and benefices, and to
bestow them and other church-livings upon heretics, and to determine
of Church causes ; prohibited the prelates, clergy and people to
acknowledge the Church of Rome, or obey the precepts and canonical
sanctions thereof ; compelled most of them to cond'escend to wicked
laws, and to abjure the authority and obedience of the Bishop of Rome,
and to ackno-ft ledge her to be sole Lady in temporal and spiritual mat
ters, and this by oath ; imposed penalties and punishments upon those
which obeyed not, and exacted them of those which persevered in the
unity of the faith and their obedience aforesaid; cast the Catholic
prelates and rectors of churches into prison, where many of them,
being worn out with long languishing and sorrow, miserably ended
their lives. All which things being so manifest and notorious to all
nations, and by the serious testimony of very many so substantially
proved, that there is no place at all left for excuse, defence, or evasion :
We, seeing that impieties and wicked actions are multiplied, one
upon another, as also that the persecution of the faithful and affliction
for religion groweth every day heavier and heavier, through the in
stigation and by the means of the said Elizabeth ; and since we under
stand her heart to be so hardened and obdurate, that she hath not
only contemned the godly requests and admonitions of Catholic
princes, concerning her cure and' conversion, but also hath not so
much as suffered the Nuncios of this See to cross the seas for this
purpose into England, are constrained of necessity to betake our
selves of the weapons of justice against her, being heartily grieved
and sorry that we are compelled thus to punish one to whose ances
tors the whole state of Christendom hath been so much beholden.
Being, therefore, supported with His authority, whose pleasure it was
to place us (though unable for so great a burthen) in this supreme
throne of justice, we do, out of the fulness of our apostolic power,
declare the aforesaid Elizabeth as being a heretic and favourer of
heretics ; and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred
the sentence of excommunication, and to be cut off" from the unity
of the Body of Christ. And, moreover, we do declare her to be
deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all
dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever ; and also, tlie nobility,
subjtcis, and people of said kingdom, and all others who have in any
sort sworn unto her, to be forever absolved from any such oath, and
all manner of duty, of dominion, allegiance and obedience ; and we
also do, by authority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive
the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, and all other
things before named. And we do command and charge all and
every the noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they
presume not to obey her, or her orders, mandates and laws ; and
those which shall do the contrary, we do include them in the like
sentence of anathema. And because it would be a difficult matter
to convey these presents to all places wheresoever it shall be need
ful : our will is, that the copies thereof, under a public notary's hand,
and sealed with the seal of an ecclesiastical prelate, or of his court,
shall carry altogether the same credit with all men, judicially and

99
extrajudicially, as these presents should do if they were exhibited or
showed. " Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation
of our Lord, one thousand five hundred and sixty-nine, the
fifth of the calends of March, and of our Popedom the
fifth year. C.^. Glorikrius.

h.—Page 20.
It is well known that a number of Romish priests were put to
death under the reign of Elizabeth : the pretence of the Romanists
is, that they suffered for conscience ; and there is a book entitled
" Missionary Priests," intended to glorify them as a part of the
noble army of martyrs who have fallen as victims to the rage of
he^hen persecution. The fact is, however, that these poor creatures
were executed for treason, for exciting seditions in the state, and for
plotting the deposition and death of the queen, under the authority
and direction of the Bishop of Rome. For proof of this, see the
trial of Garnet and others of the same stamp, in the State Trials.
" The execution of justice in England, not for religion but for
treason," is the title of a paper which was prepared and published
under the direction of Burleigh, secretary to Queen Elizabeth, and
may, therefore, be regarded as authority for the transactions of that
reign. The occasion of its publication was to disabuse foreign
princes and states of the false impression which they had received
from certain persons, who, according to their own story, had been
compelled to leave their native England and Ireland, on account
of their attachment to the religion of Rome, and their maintenance
of the Pope's authority ; and its purpose is to show the true charac
ter of these men, and the utter falsehood of their representations.
In this paper, Burleigh refers to many of the bishops of Queen
Mary's time, then living, and to great numbers both of clergymen
and laymen known to adhere to the Roman religion, and to the
Pope's supremacy as of Divine right, who had never been molested
by the State. " And if, then," he proceeds, " it be inquired for
what cause these others have of late suff"ered death, it is truly to be
answered, that none at all are impeached for treason, to the danger
of their life, but such as do obstinately maintain the contents of the
Pope's Bull aforementioned, which do import that her majesty is

100
not the lawful Queen of England — the first and highest point of
treason ; and that all her subjects are discharged of their oaths
of obedience — another high point of treason ; and all warranted to
disobey her and her laws — a third and a very large point of treason."
The same document having referred to the notorious evil lives
of some who had been plotting against the Government, adds : " It
liked the Bishop of Rome, as in favor of their treasons, not to
color their offences as themselves openly pretended to do, for avoid"
ing of common shame of the world, but flatly to animate them to
continue their former evil purposes, that is, to take arms against
their lawful queen — to invade her realm with foreign forces — to pur
sue all her good subjects, and their native countries, with fire and
sword," etc.; and these, it continues, "thus acting under the banner
of Rome, * * have justly suff"ered death, not by force of any new
laws established either for religion or against the Pope's supremacy,
as the slanderous libellers would have it seem to be, but by the
ancient temporal laws of the realm, namely, by the laws of ]^r-
liament, made in King Edward III.'s time, about the year of our
Lord, 1330, which is above two hundred years and more past, when
the Bishop of Rome and Popes were suffered to have their authority
¦ecclesiastical in this realm, as they had in many other countries."
This paper of Burleigh furnishes documentary proof of a fact (of
which, indeed, sufficient evidence of another kind may be had else-
'where) which may in this connexion be submitted to the atten
tion and judgment of the reader.
The case was this : The Bull commanded the subjects of the
queen not to obey her; and she being excommunicated, all that
•did obey fell under the same anathema with herself Here then
was a strait : if the Romanists obeyed the queen, they incurred the
Pope's curse ; if they disobeyed her, they were in danger of the laws
'Of their country. What, then, were they to do? What they did do
was this : they brought the case to the notice of the Roman see
;and requested that, until the time should come when the Bull could
be publicly executed, it should be so understood as to bind the
¦queen and the heretics, but not to bind the Romanists ; so that the
latter might, with a good conscience, avail themselves of the protec
tion of the laws, for the purpose of attempting to subvert them, and
until their attempts should succeed. So careful were they to strain
out the gnat of disobedience to the Bishop of Rome, while they
swallowed the poison of treason to their country. And here is the
sanction of their conduct by the Church of Rome :

101
"Facultates Concessce, pp. Roberto Parsonio et Edmundo Campiano,
pro Anglia, die 14 Aprilis, 1580.
" Petatur a summo Domino nostro, explicatio Bullae declaratoriEe
per Pium Quintum contra Elizabetham & ei adherentes, quam
Catholici cupiunt intelligi hoc modo, ut obliget semper illam &
hasreticos, Catholicos vera nullo modo obliget, rebus sic stantibus,
sed tum demum, quando publica ejusdem Builte executio fieri pote
nt." Then followed many other petitions of faculties for their fur
ther authorities, which are not needful for this purpose to be recited.
But in the end followeth this sentence, as an answer of the Pope's :
" Has preedictas gratias concessit Summus Pontifex patri Roberto
Parsonio & Edmundo Campiano in Angliam profecturis, die 14
Aprilis, 1 580. Prtesente patre Oliverio Manarco assistente."
The English of which Latin sentences is as followeth :
' Faculties granted to the two Fathers, Robert Parsons and Edmund
Campian,for England, the 14<A of April, 1580.
" Let it be asked or required of our most holy Lord, the explica
tion or meaning of the Bull declaratory made by Pius the Fifth
against Elizabeth, and such as do adhere to or obey her ; which Bull
the Catholicks desire to be understood in this manner, that the same
Bull shall always bind her and the hereticks, but the Catholicks it
shall by no means bind, as matters or things do now stand or be,
but hereafter, when the publick execution of that Bull may be had
or made."
Then, in the end, the conclusion was thus added :
" The highest pontiff" or bishop granted these foresaid graces to
Fathers Robert Parsons and Edmund Campian, who are now to take
their journeys into England, the fourteenth day of April, in the year
of our Lord 1580, being present the Father Oliverius Manarke,
Assistant." I learn from one of the writers in Gibson, that this paper of Bur
leigh received an answer at the time; and as the answer was written
by a Cardinal, and ought to carry some weight, the reader may not
be displeased to see the account of it given by the author referred
to : " Cardinal Allen," he says, " in his Answer to the Treatise of
the Lord Treasurer, entitled, ' The Execution of Justice in England,'
though he confesses the matter-offact, as it hath been above related,
yet positively asserts that Campian and the rest of the priests, the
earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, and all that had suf
fered for putting the Bull of Pius V. in execution, were martyrs,
^chap. I and 2; that the priests and Catholick brethren had behaved
themselves discreetly, and nothing seditiously, in their several an
swers to the articles proposed to them concerning that Bull, cap. 3
and 4 ; that it is a part of Catholick doctrine, that heretical princes,

102
being excommunicated by the Pope, are to be deprived, and that
their subjects are thereupon absolved from their allegiance ; and that
princes, being thus deposed, their subjects may take up arms against
them for heresy, or for any other cause for which the Pope shall
declare that they deserve deprivation, cap. 5 and 6 ; that such wars
for religion are not only just, but honorable ; and endeavors to prove
those his assertions of the Pope's power and superiority over kings,
in case of heresy, apostacy, or other like, to be agreeable to God's
Word, and not treasonable nor undutiful to any prince or State in
the world, p. 77. He vindicates the authority of the Lateran Canons,
etc., and brings several instances from Gregory VII. downwards, of
princes deprived, as he contends, justly, particularly King John and
King Henry IL, cap. 6 and 7. He threatens, p. 181, etc., utter ruin
to the queen and her adherents, from the Pope and Catholick princes
confederate against her, unless they returned to the unity of the
See Apostolick, or granted the Roman Catholics a toleration, cap. 8
and 9. And in the conclusion. If the Roman Catholicks would do us
the favor to reprint this book (for now it is very rarely to be met
with), all that read it might there plainly enough find the reasons
why the penal laws against them were then, as they are now,
thought so unjust and cruel by that party, and how much their argu
ments and pretences for toleration, in some late treatises, are diff"er-
ent from those they made use of in that age, as if they hud altered
their principles as to the deposing power and extirpation of all
hereticks and rebels to the Apostolick See, which this Cardinal, and
the rest of our English seminary priests, in those days, maintained
not only to be lawful, but decreed in several General Councils as
articles of faith."
It is but fair to add, that these principles were not embraced by
all the Romanists of that day. Indeed, .the secular priests and the
Jesuits had a sort of family quarrel (Camden, who personally knew
many of them, hints his belief that the quarrel was a sham, and that
the parties were at heart agreed), in the course of which-the former
berate the latter roundly for their dishonest and treasonable prac
tices, and profess their affection for the queen, and their gratitude
for the kind treatment they had received from her government.
Thesenotes are running to an inordinate length ; buthaving exhibited
at some length the conduct of the one party of these distracted schis
matics, it seems but fair to give a taste of the wholesome correction
which they received from the other. This was administered in a
paper entitled, " Important Considerations, which ought to move all

103
bue and sound Catholicks, who are not wholly jesuited, to acknow
ledge, without all equivocations, ambiguities or shiftings, that the
proceedings of her majesty, and of the State with them, since the
beginning of her highness's reign, have been both mild and merciful.
Published by sundry of us, the secular priests, in dislike of many
treatises, letters, and reports which have been written and made in
divers places to the contrary, together with our opinion," etc. This
brochure, which is addressed to " Right honorable, worshipful, well-
beloved lords, ladies, earls, countesses, viscounts, viscountesses,
barons, baronesses, batchelors, virgins, married, single," is a tumid
aff"air. I will quote but one passage, and it shall be from the pero
ration : " That, therefore, you shall not have cause to curse us, nor
your innocent blood to cry against us, together with the Jesuites that
have already brought you into a fool's paradise of zealous aspires,
nor your posterity bewail our silence, whiles any English blood
remains alive ; this is the cause of our breach, and herein have we,
do we, and will we be disobedient to death. Never shall our
adversaries be able to upbraid us, or stain our priestly function and
Catholick profession with a Calvinian, or a Buchananian, or Cart-
wrightian, or a huff'-muff" Puritanian popularity, which is the only
mark the Jesuites aim at. Never shall her majesty nor the State
suspect us for any bill exhibited by us or our means, in her High
Court of Parliament, for any alteration and change of the ancient
laws and customs, which both Puritans and Jesuites do greedily
gape after and labor for. Never shall any prince, people, or nation,
point at us for traitors, unnatural, disloyal, false-hearted, unkind,
ungrateful Englishmen ; laugh us to scorn, and worthily reject us,
after they had the sack and spoil of our country by our means.
Never shall all the drifts, plots and devices the Jesuites, or yet the
devil himself can invent, bring us to be in the predicament of
treason, treachery, ambitious aspires and conspiracies with them.
Never shail the Catholick Church or commonwealth of England find
so wicked- a member as a Wolsey, a Parsons, a Creswell, a Garnet,
a Black well, among those whom you (dear Catholicks) account of as
reprobates, malecontents, atheists, and of God forsaken. Never
shall the child of any peer, noble, or lord, of or in this land, say, a
secular priest (termed indiscreetly by you, dear Catholics, one of the
faction) was cause of my ruin, and overthrow of my honorable
father, house, blood and name; which may be said, and will be
proved, by sundry examples against the Puritans and Jesuites, as
well conjunct as apart. Never shall any royal lady of the court,
maid of honor, or daijisel of rare aspect," etc.

104
But in what light was this party of the schismatics regarded by
the see of Rome, the approbation of which was the great object of
their " aspires?" They could not hope for much if the Jesuits were
in favor, and they got less than they hoped for, if we may take the
word of Widdrington, one of their side and a contemporary, who (as
quoted in the Jesuites Behaviour, p. 156, Gibson's Preservative, vol.
3), relates : " That Queen Elizabeth having discovered that she was
minded to show favor to as many Roman Catholick priests as should
give her assurance of their loyalty, and to exempt them from suffer
ing the penalties of her laws, some well-meaning men went to Rome
to carry the good news, as they thought it ; but when they were
come thither, they found themseh'es much mistaken : instead of
thanks, they were reproached by the governing party, and branded
with the name of schismaticks, spies and rebels to the See Apos-
tolick : and, moreover, there was one of that party compiled a
treatise in Italian, to advise his Holiness that it was not good and
profitable to the Catholick cause, that any liberty or toleration
should be granted by the State of England to Catholicks."

M.—Page 22.
Take for instance the story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary,
which, as collected by Bishop Hickes out of the offices of the Roman
Church, is in brief this : When the Virgin died, all the apostles,
wherever dispersed, were suddenly caught up in the air and brought to
Jerusalem. When there assembled, a visien of angels appeared unto
them, and the vision was attended with Ihe sweet psalmody of the
heavenly powers; in which the Blessed Virgin resigned her soul in a
glorious manner into the hands of God, and the angels and apostles
continuing to sing together, her body was carried out and put in a
coffin, and buried at Gethsemane, where the angels continued to sing
three days together. At the end of three days, Thomas, who was
not with the apostles when she died, came to Jerusalem, and being
desirous to worship the body of the Blessed Virgin, they went to
Gethsemane to take it up ; but when they had opened the grave, and
the coffin, to their great astonishment there was no body there ; and
they all agreed in this opinion, that it had pleased the Word of God
and the Lord of Glory, who took his body out of the Blessed Virgin,
not to suffer her to see corruption ; but to do her the honor. to trans
late it into heaven, before the common and universal resurrection.

105
An annual feast, called the Feast of the Assumption, is celebrated
in the Roman Church, on the 15th of August, in commemoration of
this fabulous occurrence ; which feast, and the offices relating to it, were
abolished by our Reformers. It is from the office for the Assumption
in the Roman Breviary that the above account is compiled, and who
ever will be at the-pains to verify it, will see that it is not exaggerated,
but the reverse.
If the authorities of the Roman Church really believe with the
old mystics and modern infidels, that the story of our Blessed" Lord
is a myth contrived for the edification of the people, but devoid of
historic truth, why do they not honestly say so ? But if they believe
in the literal truth of the gospel, why do they retain this transparent
fable in the offices of their Church ? For consistency's sake, they
should either declare our Lord's Ascension a fable, "or else abolish
the Feast of the Assumption.
" I cannot but observe here," says Bishop Hickes, {Speculum B.
Virginis,p. 88,) after having given the particulars of this myth about
the Virgin Mary, " how well the story of her Assumption is framed
to answer to our Lord's Ascension, and how Thomas was absent at
this meeting of the apostles, just as he was at that in which Jesus
stood in the midst of them, and shewed unto them his hands and his
side. Poor, unfortunate apostle! thou art always tardy, and canst
never come in time to meet the rest of thy brethren. But perhaps
he was at the Indies, and had a greater journey than the rest, who
were nearer to Jerusalem. I am as content as any man to admit
this excuse ; and if you further desire to know what death the Blessed
Virgin died of, the author of the Contemplations will tell you that
she died of a spiritual fever, into which she fell through a seraphick
vehemency of Divine love, which infiamed her blood, and set her
sacred heart on fire ; and that her assumption was in this manner :
Her glorious soul, saith he, descended from her imperial seat in
heaven, accompanied with seraphims and chiefest saints, and re-assumed
her sacred body, and ascended with it again, and placed it above all
the troops of the blessed. Being ascended in body and soul into
heaven, she was seated on a throne above all seraphims, next to the
most glorious Trinity, and inaugurated, proclaimed and acknowledged
queen of all pure creatures, and at her coronation she was clothed
with the sun, and had the moon for her foot-stool, and was crowned
with an imperial crown of twelve stars. And truly, in some of her
offices, the 1st verse of the 12th chapter of the Revelations is applied to

106
her, where it is written, ' And there appeared a great wonder in
heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,
and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.' "

[Owing to the cancelling of a note and a consequent change in the lettering,
the following note was accidentally overlooked, and a mistake made in one of the
references. The note relates to a passage on p. 26, (where the reference is erro
neously made to be " D.") and is here inserted in its proper place.]
lAiA.—Page 26.
As intimated in the text, the title " Head of the Church" was ac
corded to the first king of England who assumed it, by his Roman
Catholic bishops ; to which may be added, that the title, after being
sanctioned by Romanists, was, on the completion of the Reformation)
laid aside by Protestants, because, from a feeling of reverence, they
would not apply to an earthly potentate the appellation which is com
monly given, though in a totally different sense, to our Saviour. The
title was first assumed by Henry VIIL, and retained by Edward VL,
and by Queen Mary also, during part of her reign ; the very act
which was passed in the first year of her reign to restore Popery,
(entitled " An Acte for the Repeale of certayne Statutes made in the
time of the Raigne of Kinge Edwarde the Syxthe,") styling the
queen "The Supreme Head of the Church of England and Ireland."*
The title, however, (by which no more was meant than a civil or
political headship, such as that of Saul, who is called (1 Sam. xv. 17)
"the head of the tribes of Israel") was discontinued under Elizabeth,
and has never since been resumed ; though, of course, the thing in
tended by it is retained as the just prerogative of the crown. Indeed,
the restoration of this power (which had been usurped by the Bishop
of Rome), was the necessary consequence of restraining appeals to
Rome, of determining causes of justice and disputes of law within
the realm, and of reducing the ecclesiastics (then shielded by the
canon law) to a just accountability to the laws of the land.' Of the
necessity of restoring this power to the crown, there need be no
further proof than is afforded by the Bull of Paul IIL, summoning the
king ofEngland (Henry VIIL) to appear within ninety days at Rome,
and stand to the judgment of that Court, on his alleged delin
quencies. This Bull, which is entitled, " Damnatio et Excommunicatio Hen-
rici VIIL, Regis Anglias, ejusque fautorum & complicum, cum aliarum

107
poenarum adjectione," may be seen in full in Burnet's Collection of
Records, vol i., p. 166. After some preliminary matters, it sets
forth that Henry was not ashamed to publish and compel his subjects
to hold certain laws and general constitutions, among which was this,
" Quod Romanus Pontifex caput Ecclesise & Christi Vicarius non
erat, & quod ipse in Anglica Ecclesia supremum caput existebat :"
That the Roman Pontiff" was not the head of the Church and Vicar of
Christ, and that he himself was the Supreme Head of the Church in
England. (See Appendix D.) For the rest, suffice it to give the
Synopsis of Collier, vol ii., p. 98., of the folio edition.
In this instrument " he gives Bishop Fisher a great character, and
styles him a cardinal. He admonishes the king to relinquish his
errors, and repent his crimes, summons his highness to appear with
in ninety days at Rome, either in person or by proxy, and stand to
the judgment of that court. And in case of refusal, he was, after the
term prefixed, to be excommunicated, and the kingdom put under an
interdict. And, upon non-performance of the conditions above
mentioned, the subjects are commanded to withdraw their allegiance ;
all other Christian countries are forbidden the liberties of intercourse
and commerce with the English; the ecclesiastics are ordered to
"depart the kingdom with all expedition ; the temporal nobility and
gentry to form themselves into an army, and drive the king out of
his dominions. And as for foreign kings and princes, they are
exhorted in the Lord, as Saunders transcribes it, to treat Henry and
his abettors, as rebels to the Church, and undertake a Holy War
against them, till they have brought them to recollection and submis
sion to the Apostolic See ; and, to disentangle their consciences and
encourage them the better, all their alliances, treaties and engage
ments, of what kind soever, with the king of England, are declared
null and void.
" And for the more eff'ectual apprehending of those who stood firm
for the king, his Holiness grants Letters of Reprisal to Christendom
in general : and thus any body that could seize 'em, might make
slaves of their*persons, and take their eff'ects for their own use.
" Farther, there's an order directed to all the prelates, to excom
municate the king and his abettors publicly in their churches. And
lastly, all persons are laid under the like censure that shall hinder this
Bull from being either published or executed. And that the king
and his friends might not pretend themselves unacquainted with the
Pope's resolution, this instrument was order'd to be fixed on the
doors of the principal churches of Tournay, Bruges, and Dunkirk."
Was it not high time for the king to take care of himself, and
proclaim himself the head of all matters in his own dominions ? As
Romanists, however, are accustomed to assert that the kings ofEng
land, since the rejection of popery, have claimed that power of juris.

108
diction which Christ left to the Church, I annex one of the injunctions
of Elizabeth, A.D. 1559, the 37th Article of the Church of England,
and the corresponding article as it stands appended to our American
Prayer Book. On a comparison of them, it will be seen that they
are intended merely to assert the supremacy of the law of the land,
in Great Britain and the United States, over all classes of men, ec
clesiastical and secular, in opposition to the civil and political power,
in these countries, of the Bishop of Rome.
An Admonition to Simple Men deceived by Malicious.
The queen's majesty being informed, that in certain places of the
realm, sundry of her native subjects being called to ecclesiastical
ministry of the Church, be by sinister persuasion and perverse con
struction, induced to find some scruple in the form of an oath, which,
by an act of the last Parliament, is prescribed to be required of divers
persons for their recognition of-their allegiance to her majesty, which
certainly never was ever meant, nor by any equity of words or good
sense can be thereof gathered : would that all her loving subjects
should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended
by the same oath, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bond, re
quired by the same oath, than was acknowledged to be due to the most
noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, her majestie's
father, or king Edward the Sixth, her Majestie's brother.
And further, her majesty forbiddeth all manner of her subjects to
give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most
sinisterly and maliciously labor to notifie to her loving subjects, how
by words of the said oath it may be. collected, that the kings or
queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge autho
rity and power of ministry of Divine service in the Church, wherein
her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons.
For certainly her majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any
authority, than that has been challenged and lately used by the said
noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, and king
Edward the Sixth, which is, and was of ancient time due to the
Imperial Crown of this realm, that is, under God^ to have the
sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her
realms, dominions and countries, of what estate, either ecclesias
tical or temporal soever they be, so as no other sovereign power
shall or ought to have any superiority over them. And if any person
that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said oath, shall
accept the same oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning, her
majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her
good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner. of
penalties contained in the said act against such as shall peremptorily
or obstinately take the same oath.

109
From the SUth Article of the Church of England, entitled, of " Civil
Magistrates."
The queen's majesty hath the chief power in this realm of Eng
land, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of
all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in
all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any
foreign jurisdiction."
Where we attribute to the queen's majesty the chief government,
by which titles we understand the minds of some dangerous folks to
be off"ended : we give not our princes the ministering either of God's
Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions also set
forth by Elizabeth our queen, do most plainly testifie ; but that only
prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly
princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should
rule all estates and degrees, committed to their charge by God,
whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the
civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.
The same article, as it stands annexed to our American Prayer
Book, is entitled and reads as follows :
Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
"The power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well
clergy as laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things
purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are
professors of the gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the civil
authority, regularly and legitimately constituted."

N.— Pa^e 26.
Reformation, as has been remarked by Dodwell, (Answer to Six
Queries, &c., London, A. D. 1688.) may be considered two ways :
1. As preached and imposed under pain of spiritual censures, and of
exclusion from the communion of the Church, and q, deprivation of
all the privileges consequent on that communion ; and this is cer
tainly the right of the Church, and was accordingly practised by the
Church of England on its reformation from popery. 2. As enacted
as a law of the land, and consequently as urged the same way as
other laws are under temporal penalties and external coercion ; and
this is, undoubtedly, the right of the secular power. And this was
all in which the secular power concerned itself in the reformation.
Of course we are responsible only for the action of the Church, and
are not obliged to defend the proceedings of Parliament. But as the

no
cry of " Parliamentary religion" is one of the common places of the
Romanists, it may be as well to add, that the reformation from
popery by Parliament in the 16th century, proceeded on the same
principle as the imposition of popery by Parliament in the previous
ages. The Church of England has been no more indebted to Parlia
ment in its disbelief and rejection of popery since the Reformation,
than it was in the belief and'admission of popery before the Reforma
tion. The Church of England first cast popery out of the hearts of
the people by a pure gospel, and then the state declared it cast out
by law.
If it be said that the magistrate was obliged by the law of the
land and the canons of the Church to follow the advice of the greater
part of the bishops, the answer is, that the legal right of the bishops
to advise the magistrate might be forfeited by their personal misde
meanors, and of this point the magistrate was the judge. And as to
canonical right, the bishops that were deprived under Elizabeth (in
reference to whom the objection is made) were intruders, who had
been thrust upon the Church of England by a foreign jurisdiction,
and were striving to uphold a system of doctrine and usage which
the Church of England had rejected. Romanists themselves admit,
that the greater part of bishops in a particular or national church, may
become heretical, and that in such a case the magistrate is not bound
to acknowledge their canonical rights, or to heed their censures.
On the subject of this, and the pre'v'ious note, compare Appendix D.

O.—Page 27.
In the ancient state of the Church, when the main body of Chris
tianity was at unity with itself, the word Catholic, or universal, was
applied to the common faith, and to those Christians and Christian
churches, wheresoever dispersed, which held the common faith ; and
thus served to distinguish the faith held in common by the main body
of Christians, from the errors of particular men, and the main body
itself from all particular divisions founded upon such errors. For
example : the main body held to one distinct and consistent faith in
the Holy Trinity, and the word Catholic, or universal, was aptly used
to distinguish that faith and the persons who professed it, from the
Arians, Macedonians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and others, who either

Ill
directly denied, or held opinions " which, by necessary consequence,
subverted it. The main body held to the doctrine of original sin,
which Pelagius and his followers denied ; hence the doctrine and its
followers were Catholic, while the opposite tenet and its followers
were Pelagian. The main body held to episcopacy as Christ's insti
tution, while Aerius rejected it; and hence the former is reputed
Catholic, while the latter is known as the heresy of Aerius ; and so
in other cases.
But when the main bodywf Christians was divided into the
Churches of the East and West, both parts retained the name of
Catholic, though either part was schismatical and heretical in the
judgment of the other. The Romanists, indeed, would have us be
lieve that the Pope of Rome cut off" the Eastern Christians from the
communion of Christ ; but the Eastern Christians, who are not behind
them in magniloquence, are equally positive that their Popes expelled
the Western Pope from the true Church, and affixed on him and his
followers the brand of heresy and schism.
" Some time since," to give the reader their own account of the
schism, " the Pope of Rome, being deceived by the malice of the
devil, and falling into strange novel doctrines, revolted from the
unity of the holy Church, and was cut oflT; and it is now like a shat
tered rag of a sail of the spiritual vessel of the Church, which formerly
consisted and was made up of five parts, four of which continue in
the same state of unity and agreement : and by these we easily and
calmly sail through the ocean of this life, and without difficulty pass
over the waves of heresy, till we arrive within the haven of salvation.
But he who is the fifth part, being separated from the entire sail, and
remaining by himself in a small piece of the torn sheet, is unable to
perform his voyage, and therefore we behold him at a distance tossed
with constant waves and tempest, till he return to our Catholic, Apos
tolic, Oriental, immaculate faith, and be reinstated in the sail from
whence he was broken off"; for this will make him secure, and able
to weather the spiritual storms and tempests that beset him. Thus,
therefore, the holy Church of Christ with us subsists on four pillars,
namely, the four Patriarchs, and continues firm and immovable. The
first in order is the Patriarch of Constantinople ; the second is the
Pope of Alexandria ; the third of Antioch ; the fourth of Jerusalem."*
With these diff"erences, however, we are not here concerned, but
only with the fact that both sides retained the name of Catholic, and
* See the answer of the Eastern Patriarch to the Nonjuring Bishops. Lath-
bury's History of Nonjurors, p. 320.

112
that the word has consequently ceased to be a note or mark to dis
tinguish those who hold the common faith of the ancient Church from
heretics and schismatics.
On the state of things prevailing in the ancient Church was founded
the direction of Cyril: "If you go into any city, do not inquire for
the Church and the house of God ; for the heretics say that they
have the house of God and the Church ; but inquire fiir the Catholic
Church, for this truly is the proper name for that holy Church, which
is the mother of us all." Pacian, also, another ancient writer, has
prettily remarked — " Christian is my name, and Catholic my sur-
pame ; by the former I am distinguished from infidels, by the latter
from heretics and schismatics." Both these passages are quoted by
Bellarmine (and often since by other Romanists) to show that the
word Catholic is a note of the Church, as distinguished from heretic.
We have seen, however, that in the time in which Cyril and Pacian
lived, the word Catholic was indeed a note or mark to distinguish
the professors of the true faith from heretics, but that at present the
case is otherwise. For it is notorious that Christians of the Eastern
and Western Churches are both called Catholics, and yet each believe
the other to be involved in heresy and schism. A Romanist follow
ing the direction of Cyril, among the Orientals, would be directed to
a Church which he would account heretical ; and without some more
distinctive appellation than the name and surname assigned to him
by Pacian, he would inevitably be confounded with those who, in the
judgment of his Pope, are heretics and schismatics.
" It was, therefore," says Field, (On the Church, book 2, chap.
9,) "more than ordinarie impudencie in Bellarmine to affirme that the
name of a Catholike is a note of true Cathplike profession, when he
knew it to be common to such as himselfe pronounceth heretikes. And
it is yet more intolerable that he sayth there is no heresie which re-
ceiveth not her name from some particular man, the author and be
ginner of it : and that whosoever are named after the names of men
are undoubtedly heretikes. For of what man had the Apostolici their
name, whose author and first beginner was never knowen, (as Bernard
sayth) that we might assure ourselves the divell was authour of that
damnable sect? and who dare pronounce all the Thomists, Scotists,
Benedictines, and the like, to be heretikes ? "
Every person conversant with the writings of the Church of Eng
land divines, knows that they constantly apply the word Catholic
to the common and ancient faith retained in their liturgy, and to
those Christian men and Christian societies who have adhered to the

113
ancient faith ; and that they have as constantly applied the word
Romanist or Papist as a note of particularity to that schismatical and:
heretical faction, which, in the 16th century, split off" from the Catholic
Church ofEngland, and set up separate congregations of their own.
This is simply a fact ; and whatever may or may not be inferred from
it, we must take leave to adhere to the traditionary use received from
our fathers.
CONVERSATION BETWEEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC NODLEMAN AND Av
GENTLEMAN OF THE CHURCH OE ENGLAND.
" ' Gent. — * * * * * It damns almost all the papists, as
well as those that are not papists.'*
* The author refers to the Bulla in Coena Domini, which is published at Rome
every year on Maunday-Thursday, or the Thursday in the Passion Week, the
day on which our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist. Nowhere, perhaps, in the
same compass can there be found a more faithful expression of the genius of the
Roman as distinguished from the Catholic Church than is exhibited in this Bull ;
and nowhere certainly, except in the archives of Rome, does there exist such
another specimen of impudence, arrogance, and (especially considering the time
chosen for its publication) impiety and blasphemy. It is true, as Leslie says,
that it damns almost all papists as well as those that are not papists ; an incon
gruity which is of no moment compared to the advantage of keeping up a rule
ready to be put in practice when the fitting time shall come.
The first section of this Bull damns not only all persons who live out of the
Roman communion, and all their adherents, receivers, favorers and defenders,
but also all who without the Pope's permission, "knowingly read, keep, print,
or any ways, for any cause whatsoever, publicly or privately, on any pretext or
color, defend, those books containing heresy or treating of religion."
The second section damns all and singular of whatsoever station or degree,
and puts an interdict on all universities and colleges, who appeal from the orders
or decrees of the Pope, for the time being, to a future general council, together
with all who aid and favor the appeal.
The seventh section damns all those who carry or transmit to the Turks, or to
those who are expressly and by name declared heretics by the Roman See, horses,
arms, iron, iron-wire, tin, steel, and all kind of metals and warlike instruments,
timber, hemp, rope, &c., and other things of this nature' which they may make
use of to the prejudice of Christians and Catholics.
The eighth damns all persons, " even though they be bishops or kings,''
hindering and invading those who bring provisions or other necessaries for the
Court of Rome.
The ninth damns all persons who apprehend or detain, by themselves or by
others, those who come to or return from the Roman See.
The eleventh damns all those who apprehend, imprison or detain Roman car
dinals, bishops, &c., or banish them from their territories.
8

114
" ' Lord. — We desire not to be called papists ; we think it a word
of contempt, as if we were only partisans for the Pope, and of that
party or faction of Christians who would raise his power above the
Church and every thing else.'
"' Gent. — I am' glad your lordship thinks so; and, indeed, the
Church of France (where you were bred) are not papists in this sense;
they are got free, in a good measure, from the servitude of the Pope,
but they are still Roman Catholics.'
" ' Lord. — We do not delight in that word neither, as if our Catho
licism were tied only to Rome ; we term ourselves Catholics in
general, as members of the Catholic, or Universal Church.'
The thirteenth damns, with all imaginable particularity, all persons, ecclesi
astic or secular, who shall presume to appeal from any decrees pronounced by
>the Court of Rome or by its sanction ; as also those who any other ways have re
course to secular courts and the lay power, and who cause such appeals to be
admitted by the lay power, or who presume to restrain those who would carry
their appeals to the See of Rome.
The fifteenth damns all persons who, under pretence of their office, shall sum
mon bef ire them to their tribunal, on any pretext whatever, ecclesiastical per
sons, against the rules of the canon law.
The eighteenth damns all those, even though they be emperors or kings, presi
dents of kingdoms, counselors, senators, &c., who, without the special and ex
press license of the Pope of Rome, shall impose tributes, and other charges upon
clergymen, prelates, and other ecclesiastical persons, and the goods and revenues
of churches and monasteries.
The nineteenth damns " all and every magistrates and judges, notaries,
scribes, executors, sub-executors, any ways intruding themselves in capital or
criminal causes against ecclesiastical persons, by processing, banishing, or appre
hending them, or pronouncing or executing any sentences against them, with
out the special, particular, and express license of this holy apostolical see."
The Bull has in all thirty sections, but let these extracts suffice. They who
can hring themselves to believe that this Bull is conceived in the spirit of the
gospel of Christ, and adapted to make men loyal citizens and good Christians,
will have no occasion to distinguish between Papists and Catholics. "True it
is," said the Parliament of Paris, A. D. 1687, speaking of this Bull, " that if this
¦decree whereby the Popes declare themselves sovereign monarchs of the world,
:be legitimate, the majesty-royal will then depend on their humor, all our liberties
will be abolished, the secular judges will no longer have the power to try the pos
session of benefices, nor the civil and criminal causes of ecclesiastical persons ;
and we shall quickly see ourselves brought under the yoke of the inquisition."
It is a sad illustration ("and there are many suchj of the boasted unity of the
iChurchof Rome, that while she constantly (once ayear in due form) pronounces
the a'love anathemas, she also constantly holds communion with many, e. g., the
[French and English Romanists, who not only practically disregard them, but do
not even receive the Bull which contains them ; thus cutting off" from her com
munion those who do not receive her sanctions, and at the same time holding com
munion with those she has cut oflT. A Church thus inconsistent with itself is not
one ; and its pretended unity is unreal — a sham.

115
"' Gent. — We call ourselves so too, and in the same sense; and
pray every day for the Catholic Church in our Liturgy. Therefore,
we call not you Catholics, because it would not distinguish you from
us ; but Roman Catholics is calling a part the whole.'
" ' Lord. — You know the meaning ; not that the particular Church
of Rome is all the churches in the world, but she is called Catholic,
as being the head principle of unity and communion to all other
churches.' " ' Gent. — If this be the frame of this Catholic Church, it must
have been so always.'
'"¦Lord. — Yes, surely, for there was always a Catholic Church;
that is, some particular church so called, in the same sense as Rome
is now.'
" ' Gent. — Pray then, my lord, tell me what particular Church was
so called in this sense, before there was a Christian in Rome ? And
how came that Church to lose it ? And how was it transferred to
Rome ? Every bishop, every church, and every member of it^
may be called Catholic, and were so called, as being included in the
general notion of the .Catholic Church ; but in the sense you have
mentioned, as head and principle of unity to all churches, no bishop
or Church ever had it, till taken up in the latter times bv the bishop
and Church of Rome.' "—Leslie's " Case Stated," A. DI 1713.
The unity of the Divine Nature is the fundamental principle of
the Catholic Church, and the exclusive assumption of the name Uni
tarian, by a particular denomination, is no proof of the contrary.
Nobody in these days connects convulsive tremblings with the name
of Quaker, or a certain method of devotion with that of Methodists.
We call two-thirds of the people on the earth Pagans, without sup
posing them to h^ peasants ; and Heathen, without doubting that the
nations are ' the Lord's and his Christ's.' In like manner, we might
cheerfully submit to dwarf down the word Catholic to the Creed of
Pius IV. and the dimensions of the Roman Church, without a fear
that the name would be taken for the thing, if custom, quem penes, etc.,
which gives the law to language, required it. But this is the very
point at which I stick. Such a use of the word is, in my opinion, not
only bad divinity, but bad English. It may be good Italian, or good
French, or good Spanish, or good Irish, and from a convergence of
such influences, it may be made (like many other solecisms) under
the Noah Webster of the next generation, good American ; but it
certainly is not, and I hope never will be, good English ; and though
I would be no more wanting in courtesy than was Busby in loyalty,
yet, as he refused to take off" his hat to majesty in the presence of
his sc!iolars, so I confess there are many tokens of civility which I
should prefer to the wilful perpetration of bad English.

116
At the risk of an abrupt transition, though with the certainty of
a good suggestion to the reader, I shall quote (and so cut short this
note) a passage from the able Analysis of Irenaeus, by Dr. Beaven,
the present learned professor of divinity in Trinity College, Toronto ;
" It is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distin
guish ourselves from separatists, was in use in his age, [the age of
Irenaeus, who lived in the second century,] namely, that of Church.
men. And that was perfectly natural, for the Church had a name
from the beginning ; but its attribute of Catholicism or universality,
as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies,
was not observed till afterwards, and therefore the name of Catholic
was posterior to that of Churchman." — Beaven' s Irenceus, p. 210,

F.—Page 31..
This point is so clearly and fully expressed by Archbishop Synge
in his " Charitable Address to all those who are of the Communion
of the Church of Rorne," (London, A. D. 1746,) that, though the
passage is long, I venture to quote it entire :
" When a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan, or any person who has been
brought up in infidelity, is converted to the true faith, before he is
received and made a member of the Church of Christ, it has always
and everywhere been the practice, that at the time of his baptism,
he should solemnly make a profession of the Christian faith, and a
promise of Christian obedience. The way of doing this has usually
been, and still continues to be, by returning a proper answer to cer
tain questions which, for that purpose, are appointed to be put to
him : and when an infant is brought by his Christian parents or
friends to be baptized, his sureties (whom we commonly call god
fathers and godmothers) do, in his name, make the like answers to
the same questions, as a security to the Church, that the child shall
be brought up in the same faith and religion. If, therefore, you
would know what that faith and religion is, into which you have all
been baptized, and thereby made members of Christ's Holy Church,
and heirs of eternal salvation, I desire you would only read the
office of baptism, as it is set down in the ritual of your own
Church, and. there you will find what answers you, or your sureties
in your name, were required to make to the questions then proposed
to you, which will fully inform you what that faith or religion is,
which your own Church must allow to be sufficient in order to eter
nal salvation; because she requires no more from any man in order
to his being received as a true member of the Christian Church, by

117
the holy sacrament of baptism. And because this matter is a lit
tle more fully expressed in the order of baptizing persons who are
of age, than in that for the baptism of infants, I shall from thence faith
fully translate all those same questions and answers, and then refer
them to your serious consideration : nor will I conceal anything
which is there added for the better understanding either the ques
tions which are proposed, or the answers that are required to be re
turned to them.
" For example, then : Let us now suppose that a person from his
infancy brought up in heathen idolatry, should be so far persuaded
of the truth of Christianity, as to become a convert to it, and should
apply to a priest of the Church of Rome, to the intent that he might
be received into the Church by baptism : The Roman ritual, pub
lished by the Pope's authority (which, in these cases, is allowed to
be the rule whereby every such priest is to be directed) — t,he Roman
ritual, I say, in the first place orders (and that very rightly) that
such convert should be diligently instructed in the Christian faith,
and the rules of holy living, and should, for some days, be exercised
in works of piety ; that his will and purpose should often be in
quired into ; and that he should not be baptized without sufficient
instructions and knowledge, and by his own free will and consent.
And that such his instruction, knowledge, will, and consent, may
openly appear, so as to give satisfaction to the Church into which he
is to be received, that he is a sincere convert, and a true Christian,
the priest is required, before he baptizes him, to put the following
questions to him, and the convert to return such answers as are sub
joined to the several questions :
" ' Priest.- — By what name art thou called ?'
" ' Convert. — N.'
" ' Priest.— N. What desirest thou of the Christian Church?'
" ' Convert. — Faith.'
"'Priest. — What does faith procure for you?' [Fides quid tibi
praestat.] " ' Convert. — Eternal life.'
" ' Priest. — If thou wilt have eternal life, keep the commandments.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy s.oul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself On
these two commandments the whole law depends, and the prophets.
Now, faith is, that thou shouldst worship one God in Trinity, and
the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the Pfersons nor dividing
the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of
the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the substance of these
three is one, and but one Divinity.'
" ' Priest. — N. Dost thou renounce Satan ?'
" ' Convert. — I renounce him.'
" ' Priest. — And all his works ?'
" ' Convert. — I renounce them.'
- " ' Priest. — And all his pomps ?'
" ' Convert. — I renounce them.'

118
" ' Priest. — Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty, the
Creator of heaven and earth ?'
" ' Convert. — I believe.'
" ' Priest. — And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy
Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh and eternal life ?'
" ' Convert. — I believe.'
"In the order of administering baptism as well to infants as to
persons who are of age, as it is set down in the Roman ritual, there
are divers things which are liable to very just exceptions, of which I
here take no notice, my only design at present being (as I have said),
to show what that faith and religion is into which all members of
the Roman communion are baptized. But as I pasa along, I cannot
but observe, that when the priest makes the sign of the cross upon
the forehead and breast of such a convert as 1 am now speaking of,
amongst other things which he says to him to exhort him to a holy
life, he bids him abhor idols and reject images (horresce idola,
respue simulacra), which, I think, is hardly to be reconciled with the
practice of the Church of Rome, or with the faith which she pro
fesses and avows, it being expressly made an article of faith in that
Church, that honor and veneration is due, and to be given, to the
images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the other saints. Nor does it
appear that the heathens themselves paid greater worship to their
images, than what is maintained and practised in those countries
where the Roman religion is established. Sorne, perhaps, will tell
you, that simulacrum and imago have not exactly the same signi
fication. For answer to which, I need only refer you to a Latin
dictionary. Or, if there should, be some small difference in the sig
nification of these two words (as I profess I can find none), yet this
would be but a poor distinction to rely upon in matters of faith and
religion, upon which the salvation of our souls depends. But I
must return to the point which I am now upon.
" That the Church may be the better satisfied that the convert is
sincere in his profession of the Christian faith, he is required to
repeat the Apostles' Creed together with the priest, and also to say
the Lord's Prayer. Soon after which the priest puts the same ques
tions to him, touching his renouncing of Satan, with all his works
and pomps, and his belief of the Articles of the Christian Faith, and
receives the same answers, as was done before ; and then further
asks: " ' Priest. — N. What dost thou desire ?'
" ' Convert. — Baptism.'
" ' PmsC— Wilt thou be baptized?'
" ' Convert.— -l will.'
" And then the priest baptizes him with water, ' In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :' by which he is ad
mitted as a member of the Church of Christ."
I need not here stand to give you any fuller account of this order
for administering baptism ; of which you may fully satisfy yourselves

119
by having recourse to the Roman ritual, and such of you as do not
understand the Latin tongue, may have it interpreted to you by any of
your clergy. But what I have now faithfully extracted out of it, is
sufficient to show, what that faith and religion is, upon the profession
of which alone, every person is, by the sacrament of baptism, to be
admitted a member of your own Church ; and when an infant is
brought to be baptized, his sureties, in his name, make the very same
and no other profession.
Now here I beseech you to observe, that in all this there is_not the
least word or intimation of the Pope or his supremacy, the pre-emi
nence of the Church of Rome above all other churches, the doctrine
of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the worshiping of
the host, the communion under one kind or species alone, doctrine
of purgatory, with masses and prayers for the dead, indulgences,
praying to saints, worshipping of images and relics ; the number
of seven sacraments, and neither more nor fewer, auricular confes
sion to a priest, penance, pilgrimages ; or of any point whatever,
which at this time is controverted between you and us. If, then,
neither the profession nor belief of any of these things is required as
necessary to qualify any irian to be baptized and received as a true
member of Christ's Church, is it not most proper for you to exa
mine and demand by what authority they ar6 imposed upon you to
be believed and received as necessary to eternal salvation ? Can any
thing be necessary to salvation, which - God (the only Author and
Giver of salvation) does nqt require from us ? Or if God does thus
require the belief and profession of these things from us, why are
they not fexpressed,- or at least 'sufficiently implied in that profession,
which every Christian is required either in his own person, (or if he
be an infant) by. his Sureties to make, when he is received as a mem
ber of Christ's Church by baptism 1
The only answer to this difficulty that I could ever meet with from
any of you, is, " That though those things are not here expressed,
yet they are all sufficiently implied in that one article of the Catholic
Church, which makes a part of the Apostle's Creed ; it being the duty
of every single Christian to believe as the Church believes, and that
therefore when you profess that you believe the Holy Catholic
Church, you therein profess the belief of all those things which the
Church (you say) believes, and has accordingly defined ; for which
reason there are very few of you that ever give yourselves the trou
ble of making any farther inquiry into the particular points of your
faith. But if this be a good answer, what necessity can there be for
a Christian at the time of his baptism, or indeed at any other time,
to make profession of any other article of faith besides this of the
Holy Catholic Church, in which (according to this doctrine) all the
rest are sufficiently implied and contained ; or if it be necessary that
a Christian, at the time of his baptism, or his sureties for him, should
make profession of some other articles of faith beside this one ; why
not all of them? Or what reason can be given why the profession
of faith, published by Pope Pius IV., in the year 1564, and now
universally received and owned by the Church of Rome, as the true

120
Catholic faith, out of which no man can be saved, (as it is there ex
pressed) why this profession of faith (I say) should not every Article
of it, be made at the time of baptism? Indeed the matter seems
very plainly to speak for itself, that great numbers of learned men of
the Roman communion know very well, that the latter part of Pope
Pius's profession of faith, which we reject, was no part of the faith
of the ancient Christian Church; and, therefore, the governors of your
church dare not make it a part of the baptismal profession, lest, by
such an innovation, they should give occasion for a schism amongst
yourselves, which every man may see, would soon be the conse
quence of the introduction of such a practice.

Q.—Fage 31.
Several of our own theologians, e. g.. Bishops Beveridge and Bull
and Dr. Waterland, have with great learning, traced the succession of
doctrine in reference to the Holy Trinity, and to our Lord's divinity
and consubstantiality with the Father, through the ante-Nicene
fathers up to the age of the Holy Apostles. But I recollect no in
stance, and venture to say that none can be pro'duced, of their excusing
any ante-Nicene writer for denying the consubstantiality, on the ground
that this doctrine had not then been defined by the Council of Nice.
The reason is obvious ; for if the doctrine of our Lord's divinity be
true, its truth is evidently such as to be intrinsically necessary to
salvation ; as necessary before the Council of Nice as afterwards, and
not first made necessary by the definition of the council. But when
Bellarmine excuses some distinguished men (and among them, if I
remember right. Cardinal Pole), for not believing the doctrine of
justification, e. g., as defined by the Pounoil of Trent before the defi
nitions were made, it is plain that he considers the necessity of the
doctrine as flowing not from its intrinsic truth, but from the authority
.of the body defining and imposing it.

U.—Page 33.
The clause affirming the procession from the Son had been surrep
titiously introduced into the creed in several of the Western churches
%efore it received the sanction of the Roman See. Pope Leo IIL,

121
when the matter was referred to him, resolutely refused to sanction
the addition ; and to show his care and reverence for the venerable
symbol, he caused it to be engraved in silver plates, one in Latin,
and another in Greek, in the same words in which the council of
Constantinople had penned it, commemorating the procession from
the Father only : " In the Holt Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father, and is with the Father and the Son
to be worshiped and glorified." These plates were taken out of the
Archiva at Rome, says Bishop Pearson from Photius, and so placed
by Leo that they might be acknowledged and perpetuated as the
true copies of that creed not to be altered. " Such," he adds, " was
the great and prudent care of Leo the Third, that there should be no
addition made to the ancient creed authorized by a general council,
and received by the whole Church. But not long after the following
Popes, more in love with their own authority than desirous of the
peace and unity of the Church, neglected the tables of Leo, and ad
mitted the addition," which affirms the procession from the Son.
This was probably first done, as Pearson states, by Pope Nicholas I.
The common opinion of our great divines who have touched on
this subject is, that this difference of expression involves no difference
of opinion between the Eastern and Western churches. There can
be no doubt, I apprehend, that the Greek Church, in retaining the
precise words of the ancient symbol, has retained also the true faith
which they were meant to express : for all confess that " The Holy
Ghost proceedeth from the Father." Neither can there be a doubt
that the- Latin addition may be safely used ; it being confesseld by
all'that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, i. e., from the
person of the Father, and from the Son, i. e., from the substance
which is common to the Father and the Son, and numerically one in
both. It may be questioned, however, whether the unauthorized ad
dition of the Roman Church, which, unhappily, needs explanation,
has not obscured the doctrine of the unity of the Divine nature, and
given occasion to certain unhappy scholastic disputes, which, in modern
times, have arisen in the West.*

• The curious and extraordinary work (printed, but not published, and dedi
cated to the Bishops and Synods of the Church in the United States) of ibe Rev.
William Palmer, deacon, contains, p. 284 and 429, &c., a Inminous comparison of
the Greek and Roman doctrine on this subject. Whatever may be the result of
Mr. Palmer's " appeal," the collateral benefits of it, in raising the tone of Catholic
feeling, and inspiring a respect for the Eastern Church among Christians of the
West, will, we may hope, be great and lasting.

122
The point which I wish to impress on the reader is the profound
reverence which h.is ever been cherished for the Catholic Creed, as
declared by the ancient and oecumenical councils of Nice and Con
stantinople, of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and of the perils to which it)
and through it, the unity of which it is the bond, has been exposed
by the lust of power in the Roman See. With these remarks)
I annex the Bull of Pius IV., to which reference is made in the text,
in order that the reader may see the ground and origin of the Papal
Creed. The translation, which follows it, is taken (together with the
Latin) with a few verbal alterations from an anonymous writer of the
17th century. BULLA SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI,
DOMINI PII,
DIVINA PROVIDENTIA PAP./E QUARTI
SUPER FORMA J U II A M E N T I PROFESSIONIS FIDEI.
PIUS, Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei, adperpetuam Rei Memoriam.
Injunctim nobis Apostolicae servitutis officium requirit, ut ea quse
Dominus omnipotens ad providam Eeclesiae suae directionem, Sanctis
Patribus, in nomine suo congregatis, Divinitas inspirare dignatus est
ad ejus laudem et gloriam incunctanter exequi properemus. Cum
itaque juxta Concilii Tridentini dispositionem omnes, qu8s deinceps,
Cathedralibus &, superioribus Ecciesiis prsefici, vel quibus de ilia-
rum dignitatibus, oanonicatibus, & aliis quibuscunque benefictis Ec-
clesiasticis, curam animarum habentibus, provideri continget, publi-
cam orthodoxee fidei professionem facere, seque in Romanse Ecclesise
obedientia permansuros sponder.e, & jurare teneantur : Nos volentes,
etiam per quoscunque, quibus de Monasteriis, Conventibus, Domibus,
& aliis quibuscunque locis Regularibusquorumcunque Ordinum, etiam
Militarium quocunque nomine vel titulo providebitur, idem servari,
& ad hoc, ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus
'exhibeatur, unicaque & certa illius forma cunctis innotescat, nostras
solicitudinis partes in hoc alicui minime desiderari, formam ipsam
prsesentibus annotatam, publicari, & ubique gentium pereos ad quos
ex decretis ipsius Concilii, & alios prsedictos spectat, recipi & obser-
vari, ac sub poenis per concilium ipsum in contravenientes latis, juxta
banc & non aliam formam, professionem prsedictam soleniniter fieri
Auctoritate Apostolica, tenore prassentium districte prsecipiendo man
damus hujns.modi tenore.
Ego N. firma fide credo & profiteer omnia & singula, quae conti-
nentur in Symbolo fidei, quo sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur : vide
licet : — •
Credo in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, factovem cceli &
terras, visibilium omnium & invisibilium, & in unum Dominum Jesum

123
Christum, Filium Dei unigentium, & ex Patre natum ante omnia
sascula, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri. per quem ojnnia facta
sunt: qui propter nos homines & propter nostram salutem descendit
decoelis, & incarnatusestdeSpiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, & homo
factus est, crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontic Pilato passus, &
sepultus est & resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas, & ascendit
in coelum, sedet ad dextram Patris, & iterum venturus est cum gloria
judicare vivos & mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis : & in Spiritum
Sanctum Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre, Filioque procedit:
qui cum Patre & Filio simul adoratur & conglorificatur, qui locutus
est per Prophetas : & unam Sanctam, Catholicara, & Apostolicam
Ecclesiam. Confiteor' unum baptisina in remissionem peccatorum,
& expecto resurrectiohem mortuorum, & vitam venturi saeculi.
Amen. 1. Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem
Ecclesise observationes & constitutiones firmissime admitto &
amplector. 2. Item sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum quem tenuit & tenet
sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu & interpre-
tatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, neo cam unquam nisi juxta
unanimem consensum Patrura accipiain, & interpretabor.
3. Profiteer quoque septem esse vere & proprie Sacramenta, novas
legis a Jesu Christo Domino nostro instituta, atque ad salutem humani
generis, licet non omnia singulis necessaria; scilicet, Baptismum,
Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Pcenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem,
Ordinem & Matrimonium, illaque gratiam conferre, et ex his Baptis
mum, Confirmationem, & Ordinem, sitie sacrilegio reiterari non
posse. 4. Receptos quoque & approbates Ecclesise Catholicie ritus, in
supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administiatione re-
cipio, et admitto.
5. Omnia & singula, quae de peecato Original!, & de justificatione
in Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo definita & declarata fuerunt am
plector et recipio.
6. Profiteer pariter in Missa off"eri Deo verum, proprium & propi-
tiatorium sacrificiura pro vivis & defunctis, a.tqne.in sanctissinio Eu-
»charistiffi Sacramento esse, vere, realiter & substantialiter corpus &
sanguinem, una cum anima & divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
fierique conversionem totius substantite panis in corpus, & totius
substantias vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia
tr^ansubstantionem appellat.
7. Fateor etiam sub altera tantum specie, totum atque integrum
Christum, verumque Saeramentum sumi.
8. Constanter teneo Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fide-
lium suflTragiis adjuvari.
9. Similiter & sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, venerandos
atque invocandos esse, eosque oratiDnes Deo pro nobis oflTerre, atque
eorum reliquias esse venerandas.
10. Firmissime assero imagines Christi ac Deiparae semper Virginis,

124
riecnon aliorum sanctorum habendas & retinendas esse, atque eis
debitum honorem ac venerationem impertiendam.
11. Indulgentiarum etiam Potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam
fuisse, illarumque usum Christiano popiilo maxime salutarem esse,
affirm o.
12. Sanctam Catholicam, & Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam,
omnium Ecclesiarum matrem, & magistram agnosco, Romanoque
Pontifici Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis successori, ac Jesu
Christi Vicario verum obedientiam spondee ac jure.
13. Castera item omnia a saoris canonibus, & oecumenicis conciliis,
ac praecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita, & de
clarata, indubitanter recipio, atque profiteer, simulque contraria omnia
atque haereses quasounque ab Ecclesia damnatas, rejeotas, & anathe-
matizatas, ego pariter da-mno rejicio & anathematize.
14. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse
potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteer, & veraciter teneo, eandem
integram & inviolatam, usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantis-
sime (Deo juvante) retinere & confiteri, atque a meis subditis vel
illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri, &
prasdicari, quantum in me erit, curaturum.
Ego idem N. spondee, voveo, ac jure sic me Deus adjuvet, & haec
sancta Dei Evangelia !
Volumus autem quod preesentes literae in Cancellaria nostra Apos
tolica, de more, legantur : & ut omnibus facilius pateant, in ejus
Quinterno describantur, ac etiam imprimantur. Nulli ergo omnino
hominum liceat hanc paginam nostras voluntatis & mandati infringere,
vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Siquis autem hoc attentare praesump-
serit indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac Beatorum Petri & Pauli,
Apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum.
Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, Anno Incarnationis
j^^_^ DominiccB Millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo quarto,
Idibus Novembris, Pontificatus nostri Anno quinto.
Fed. Caedinalis C^esius,
Cae. Glorierius.
Lectffi & publicatffi fuerunt suprascriptae literae Romas in Cancellaria
Apostolica Anno Incarnationis Dotninicae Millesimo quingentesimo
sexagesimo quarto. Die vero sabbati, Nona Mensis Decembris,
Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris & Domini nostri Pii Papas
Quarti, Anno quinto. A. Lomelinus Custos.

125
THE BULL OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD,
THE LORD PIUS,
BY DIVINE PRO'VIDENCE THE IV. OP THAT NAME,
UPON THE FORM OF THE OATH OP THE PROFESSION OF THE FAITH.
PIUS, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, that these Presents
may he of everlasting Memory.
The office of apostolical service incumbent upon us, requireth, that
such things- as Almighty God, for the provident government of his
Church, hath deigned by his divine Spirit to inspire into the Holy
Fathers congregated in his name, we, without delay, hasten to exe
cute to his praise and glory. Seeing, therefore, it is so disposed by the
Council of Trent, that all such as hereafter shall be promoted to any
prsefectship in cathedral or other great churches, or to whom it shall
happen to be provided for out of the dignities, canonries, and what
soever other ecclesiastical benefices of the said churches, having a
curateship, shall be obliged to make a public profession of orthodox
faith, and to promise and swear, that they shall ever persevere in the
obedience of the Church of Rome ; we also having a will that the
same be observed and practised by all such as shall be provided for
out of monasteries, convents, houses, and whatsoever other places of
regulars of whatsoever orders, even of military professions, under
whatsoever name or title, and desiring also that so much solicitude as
concerns ourself, may not to any one seem to be wanting in this matter,
to the end that a profession of one and the same faith may be uni
formly made by all, and one only and certain form thereof may be ex
hibited to all ; we, by apostolical authority and by the tenour of these
presents, districtly commanding, command, that the form which is
expressed in these presents, be published, and throughout all nations,
by those to whom it belongs, according to the decrees of the said
council, and by others above said, be received and observed, and
under such pains as the said council hath decreed against the refractory,
the said profession shall be solemnly made in this following and no
other form, and under this following tenour.
I, N., with firm faith, believe and profess all and several the things
which are contained in the symbol of faith which the Church of Rome
doth use, to wit :¦ — -
I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and
earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before
all time, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten
and not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things
were made. Who for us men and for our salvation descended from
heaven and took flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and
was made man, crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered,
and was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scrip
tures, and ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
and is to come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, of

126 -•
whose kingdom shall be no end : and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord,
and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and is
adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spake
by the prophets : and one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church. I
confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and expect the resurrec
tion of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
1. I most firmly receive and embrace the apostolical and ecclesi
astical traditions, and all other customs and constitutions of the same
Church. 2. Also I admit the holy Scripture in that sense which the holy
mother Church hath held and holdeth, to whom it belongs to judge
of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures; nor will I
ever receive or interpret them but according to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers.
3., I profess also that there are seven true and proper Sacraments
of the new law, in.stituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, for the salvation
of mankind, although all are not necessary to each one ; to wit,
Order, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, penance, Extreme Unction,
Matrimony ; and that these all give grace, and that of these Baptism,
Confirmation, and Order, cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.
4. I also receive and admit all received and approved rites of the
Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the above said
sacraments. 5. I also embrace and receive all and several the things which have
been defined and declared in the sacred and holy synod of Trent con
cerning original sin and justification. .
6. I also profess that in the mass there is off"ered to God a true,
proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, and that
in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly, really,
and substantially the Body and Blood together with the soul and
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and there is made a perfect change
of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole sub
stance of the wine into his blood; which change the Catholick Church
calleth transubstantiation.
7. I confess, also, that whole and entire Christ and the true Sacra
ment is received under one only species, {of bread.)
8. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that souls there
detained are hoi pen by the suff'rages of the faithful.
9. Likewise that the saints reigning with Christ, are to be worshipped
and invocated, and that they offer prayers for us to God, and that
their relics are to be worshipped.
10. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, the Virgin Mary,
and of the other saints, are to be had and kept, and duty of honour
and worship to be given to them.
11. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the
Church by Christ, and that the use of them is most conducive to the
salvation of the Christian people.
12. The holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of Rome I ac'cnow-
ledge to be the mother and mistress of all churches ; and I vow, swear,

127
and promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, as successor of
B. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
13.^ Also all and whatsoever other things delivered by way of
tradition, defined and declared by the holy Canons, and the General
Councils, and chiefly by the sacred and holy synod of Trent, I un
doubtedly receive and profess : and at the same time all contrary
things and heresies whatsoever, by the Church damned, rejected, and
accursed, 1 also damn, reject, and accurse.
14. This true Catholick faith, without which no man can be saved ;
which at this present I freely profess and truly hold, I, the same N.,
do promise, vow, and swear most constantly, God assisting, to retain
and confess entire and inviolate to the very last gasp of life ; and to
procure, as m"ch as shall lie in me, that the same be held, taught, and
prea(hed by all my inferiours, and by those who are committed to
mv care and charge. So God help me, and these holy Gospels of
God! Moreover, it is our will that these present letters be read in our
Apostolical Chancery according to the custom ; and, that they may
be more open to all, they shall be written in the Quintern of our said
Chancery, and also imprinted.
Therefore it shall be lawful to no man whatsoever to infringe the
page of this our will and commandment, or with daring rashness to
contradict it. But if any one be so presumptuous as to attempt that,
let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God,
and of the B. Peter and Paul his apostles.
Given at Rome, at S. Peter's, Aim. Chr. 1 564, the Ides of
November, in the fifth year of our Pontificate.
Fed. Cardinalis Cesius.
Cas. Glorierius.
The letters above-written were read and published at Rome in the
Apostolical Chancel, Ann. 1564,, on Saturdiiy the 9th of December,
in the fifth year of the Pontificate of the Most Ho.'y Father and Lord
jn Christ, our Lord Pope Pius the Fourth. A. Lomelinus Custos.
In this Bull the Bishop of Rome, acting as the executive of the
Holy Fathers, i. e., the College of Cardinals, sets forth and com
mands, to be received as of faith, certain things which the Spirit of
God, (as it is professed) had inspired into them when congregated
in His name.
The first point is, that every Christian " promise with firm faith to
believe and profess all and several the things which are contained in
the symbol of faith which the holy Church of Rome doth use."
The symbol or creed which follows, consists of two parts. The
former part is the ancient and well known Catholic Creed ; the other

128
part, which was never heard of until the publication of this Bull, is
properly the Roman or Papal Creed.
It deserves to be remarked that, whereas, the Catholic creed comes
to us directly from the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, and is
their own act and profession, the Roman creed comes from the Coun
cil of Trent, at second hand, being compiled out of its voluminous
proceedings by the Pope and his Cardinals.
The first article of the Roman creed is, " I most firmly receive and
embrace the apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other
customs and traditions of the same Church ;" i. e., the Church of Rome,
which was mentioned expressly in the outset. The next article is, " I
admit the holy Scripture in that sense which the holy mother Church
both held and holdeth," &c. ; and if we wish to know what is meant
by " holy mother Church," we must turn to the twelfth article, which
declares the Church of Rome to be the mother and mistress of all
churches, and exacts an oath of obedience to the Bishop of Rome.
Thus the compilers of this creed have contrived to work into ita
covert confession that the Church of Rome is virtually the Catholic
Church. I am not aware that the Council of Trent has inserted this
point among its definitions of faith.
One feature of this Roman creed is remarkable ; and that is, the
diminutive form of its expressions ; a form proper in the definitions
of Trent for the determination of controversies, but a mere engine of
craft when used, as in this creed, to conceal matters which plainly and
honestly avowed might be promptly rejected. This is especially exem
plified in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 1 Uh articles, which, though very soft
in expression, are made to uphold the most stupendous abuses ; and
are, in fact, mere bands to tie the corpse of Popery to the living body
of Catholicism.
The same feeling which restrained me from making any comments,
not required by my argument on the temper of the Bulls of Paul III.
and Pius V., (see Appendix Mm and K,) restrains me also in the pre
sent instance. The three Bulls are equally, though in diff"erent ways,
manifestations of the spirit of the Roman papacy ; but what manner of
spirit it is which they manifest, is a point which may be safely left to
the calm reflection of the reader.
It is difficult, however, to restrain an expression of sorrow and
indignation when one sees the adulterate matter of this Papal
creed, the mere sweepings of the schools, put on a level with
the sublime and awful confession of the Catholic Church. That
such a heap of opinions should be raised to the name of the

129
Catholic Faith, is indeed a natural consequence of the fundamental
principle of the Roman Church, viz., that it is virtually the Catholic
Church ; but this very assumption, and the consequent imposition of
these inferior matters, as terms of communion for all other churches,
is itself a most palpable and flagrant violation of the golden maxim :
" Unity in faith, liberty in opinion, and charity in all things." What
ever particular Church may separate from the Church of Rome, in
consequence of the imposition of this new creed as a creed, and of the
matters contained in it as necessary to salvation, the cause, and there
fore the guilt of such separation and schism, belong, on Catholic prin
ciples, to the party that imposes it.

8.— Page 36.
I say, " power of goverfiment," or jurisdiction over all Christians
and all Churches, and appointed by Christ ; for as it W3,s not from
the Catholic Church, but only from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome, that the Church of England originally withdrew, so a supre-
macy of power or authority conferred by Christ on the Bishop of
Rome, over the whole universal Church, is all that we have occasion
to deny. What symbolical significance the fathers may attribute to
the pre-eminence of St Peter, (the prince of the apostles, as was
Homer the prince of poets,) or what station the ancient Church may
have accorded to the Bishop of Rome for the preservation of unity
and order, are at this day questions of no practical moment ; since
the claim now set up under the specious name and pretence of " a
centre of unity," is not for a primacy of order, or even for a govern
ing power delegated by the Church, but for a supremacy of power
and authority over the whole Church, conferred immediately by its
Divine Head. It is folly and mockery (I hope it is never fraud and
duplicity) for Romanists to multiply words about the principium
unitatis, and the deference anciently accorded to the Pope of Rome
by other popes,* his equals by divine institution, when by the asser
tion of a universal supremacy for their Pope, founded on God's ap
pointment, they have made a wreck of Catholic unity, and embroiled
* The appellation of Pope (Papa) was, anciently, given to all Christian
Bishops; but about the latter end of the llth century, in the Pontificate of
Gregory VII., it was usurped by the Bishop of Eome, whose peculiar title ithai
BTer since continued. — See Appendix T. Note, pp. 143, 144.
9

130
in war and blood almost every nation in which they have lived.
Only one explanation can be given of this readiness of Romanists to
prove what we are not concerned to deny, and that is, their inability
to prove the precise point which we do deny ; for when they come
to this, they handle it tenderly and evasively, and advance no argu
ment- which has not been answered aga,in and again by their own
men ; and. popes among the number. What better does Bellarmine
than trifle on this point ? He tells us in his fourth book, De Romano
Pont. (chap. 23d,) in the words of St. Cyprian, that our Lord gave,
parem potestatem, equal power and authority to all his apostles when
he said to them, " As my Father .hath sent me, even so send I you."
But if all were made equal in power, ho-w could one have the rest in
subjection ? Nothing easier, if you will believe the cardinal ; for
thus he discourseth, (Ibid. lib. 1, c. 12,) "St. Cyprian says nothing
against our opinion, for we confess that the apostles were equal in
apostolic power, and had entirely the' same authority over Christian
peoples, but [we contend] that they were not equal among them
selves ;" thus distinguishing without making a diflference, and grant
ing all we ask ; for if the apostles and their successors have alto
gether the same authority conferred on them by Christ over Chris
tian people, how can it be said that Christ has ordained all Christian
people to be subject only to one and his successor, (supposing for
argument's sake the Bishop of Rome to be that successor,) exclu
sively of the rest ? If the Author had said that though all were equal in
power yet one was superior in order to the rest, he would have spoken
intelligibly, though not to the advantage of his cause.
It is a just and beautiful thought of St. Cyprian, in his treatise on
the Unity of the Church, and in the very place but just referred to,
that o'ur Lord, in constituting His Church, though He conferred equal •
power on all His apostles, yet, to manifest His regard to unity. He
took His rise from one, and settled the whole upon that foundation.
" The other apostles," he says, " were, in truth, what Peter was, en
titled ¦ to an equal share with him of dignity and power ; but," he
adds, " the process began with one, that the Church might be consi
dered as one." How little reason the Protestant Church has to
abstain from this pious reflection, because the Romanists have sought
to turn it into an argument for their supremacy, will sufficiently ap,
pear from the calm note on the passage of Cyprian by his learned
translator. Dr. Marshall, A. D., 1717:—
" It will be pretty difficult for the Church of Rome to confirm the
pretensions of her bishop, by an argument rather designed for illustra-

131
tion than for strict reasoning ; in which sort of discourse we know
'tis not unusu^ to take a liberty of alluding to diverse passages, from.
which no concmsive proof is ever intended. Our author's argument
here is plainly of this sort ; and he proceeds in it upon an allusion to-
Christ's choice of Peter to feed his sheep, and to found his Church in
the singular number. But yet even upon this very arguijient he
plainly enough declares, that in strictness of reckoning the other
apostles were what Peter was. And in his 33d epistle he expressly ,
asserts, "that the Church -is founded upon bishops in the plural ; and
indeed his whole management with Cornelius, and with Steven, bishops
of Rome, shows he esteemed his episcopal chair in no degree inferior to
theirs. Origen hath put a question, which, if he now were living,
would greatly expose him to the danger of the inquisition ; if you-
think (saith he) that the whole Church is founded singly upon the per
son of Peter, what will become of John, that son of thunder, and in
deed of all the other apostles ? He plainly makes there the confes
sion of Peter, the rock upon which Christ would build his Church, and
saith, that we may all have our parts in the honour of thus founding it, if
we will make the same confession which Peter did. See him in tract
1, on St. Matthew, xvi., where he likewise observes, that other
bishops claimed and exercised the sams authority with Peter, and
had a right to do so, if they would but endeavour to inherit his vir
tues, as well as his power. Irenaeus indeed hath given the true
reason of all the precedency which the Roman see hath enjoyed, and
he speaks for it in terms as high as most of the ante-Nicene fathers ;
ad hanc ecclesiam (viz. Romanam) propter potentiorem principalita-
tem, necesse est omnem cOuvenire ecclesiam. — in qua semper ab his-
qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.
(Haeres, lib. iii., cap. 3.) Now it is no wonder that a Church, which
was fixed in the imperial seat, and which happened to preserve at
that time an uncorrupted purity of doctrine, should have a regard
paid to it superior to any other single Church. It had indeed better
means and helps for preserving the purity of its doctrine, from the
circumstance of its being so near the iniperial seat ; where the great
est numbers of good and able men might naturally be expected ;
and from whence the . records of what had been delivered by the
apos'tles might more faithfully and fully be transmitted, i-han they
could be from any other Church. We could wish it were so now ;.
and then we should be less apt to dispute with her bishop any pre
cedences which he could reasonably claim." — Marshall's Cyprian,.
Part i., p. 97.

132
P. S. I have said nothing of the claim to the obedience of the
British churches, sometimes set up for the Bishop oftRome on the
ground of his being " the Patriarch of the Western Church," because
the question of a patriarchate founded on human right is entirely
foreign to the real question at issue ; which respects a -supremacy, .&s
universal bishop, founded on divine right. It may, however, be well
enough to remark, that " Patriarch of the Western Church," though a
very sonorous title, has nothing more to recommend it than its sound ;
the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome, while it lasted, laving com
prised only a part of Italy and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia and
Corsica. In fact, there is not a shadow of proof that any such
patriarchal power was recognized in the British churches during the
first six centuries, but clear proof to the contrary. What the ancient
Church would have thought of the claim of the Roman Patriarch to
jurisdiction in Britain, if it had ever been made, may be seen from
the eighth canonof the Council of Ephesus, quoted pp. 53, 54, of this
Appendix. About the year 600, the Saxons were converted under
the great and good Pope Gregory. A very few years afterwards the
Pope of Rome began to usurp, under the grant of an usurping em
peror, the title of Universal Bishop, which is totally inconsistent with
that of patriarch ; so that in truth " the Patriarchate of the Western
Church" is a figment. Whoever wishes to examine the subject may
consult the brief treatise of the learned Cave, on the Ancient Church
Government,* and particularly the fifth chapter, on the bounds of the
Roman Patriarchate ; and Bramhall's Just Vindication, chapter ninth.
Bishop Bilson, who wrote in the IGth century, has summed up the
merits of the case in a few words : " As for his [the Bishop of '
Rome's] Patriarchate, by God's law he hath none ; in this realm for
six hundred years after Christ he had none ; for the last six hundred
years, looking after greater matters, he would have none ; above, or
against, the prince's sword he can have none ; to the subversion of
the faith or oppression of his brethren, he ought to have none : you
must seek further for subjection to his tribunal ; this land oweth him
none." ¦* In Carey's edition of Cave's Works, the Dissertation on Church Government
is appended to the " Primitive Christianity."

133

T.—Page 39.
There is scarcely a nation in Europe which has not been embroiled
in contests with the See of Rome in consequence of its intolerable
oppression and extortion ; and the history of e'very contest has
proved the wisdom of the Church of England in utterly renouncing
the supremacy which other churches have vainly endeavoured to
limit. The Gallican Church is a remarkable instance. It once en
joyed rights and liberties similar to those which the Church of Eng
land, in the sixteenth century, claimed as her ancient inheritance,
and has at times courageously asserted those rights and liberties in
opposition to the Court of Rome. Witness the declaration of the
Gallican clergy, A. D. 1682, and the proceedings of the Parliament
of Paris in 1687 ; in which they say, among other things to the same
effect : " The king is most religious in nominating to the prelacies
ecclesiastics of an exemplary integrity, and of conspicuous merit ;
and because that these ecclesiastics do not believe that the Pope is
infallible ; that they do not, like^the Italian doctors, attribute to him
the title of universal monarch ; that they are persuaded he has no
power either direct or indirect over the temporality of kings ; and
that he is to all intents inferior to the councils, that have a right to
correct him and reform his decisions ; the Pope, upon this imaginary
pretence, refuses these Bulls, and leaves the third part of the churches
of the kingdom destitute of pastors. Is this imitating the care and
lenity of the apostles in the government of the Church?" They
add, however, notwithstanding their complaints and grievances :
" We shall ever remain inseparably united to the Holy See ; we will
acknowledge St. Peter's successor as the first and. chief of the
bishops ; we will most religiously maintain the communion and cor
respondence with the Church of Rome, and will defend ourselves
with as much moderation as vigor against the insults, invasions and
innovations contrary to the king's rights, to the dignity of his crown,
to the decrees of the councils, to the general policy of our Church, and'
to our liberties."
It was soon after this struggle, in which Rome gained the victory,
that Leslie, an English divine, addressed the following words to
Bossuet :
" I am inclinable to believe, that if your lordship in particular,
and other bishops in the Gallican Church, were at liberty, each in his
own district, to regulate s\ich matters as you might do with a good

134
conscience, things might be brought to bear so, from such '.a happy
beginning of refoj'mation, as that though men might difl^er in some
particular opinions, as they always will, yet that terms of communion
might be adjusted between us, upon Catholic principles, to the honour
of GlDd, and peace of His Church. And ifCsuch a communion were
begun, though but with a few bishops, who would exert their just
power, it might bring the Church to that state, in time, in which all
good men wish to see her. And if a Catholic communion were re
stored,- we should see again the primitive face of the Church. But
no step .can be .made towards this while the Pope's supremacy ties
up the power of all other bishops in their own respective churches ;
and we hardly expect that he will give way to any thing that will in
the least infringe the plenitude of his supremacy. You have made
an experiment of it in your general assembly of 1G82. And if he
will not suffer his supremacy to be limited and reduced to the stand
ard of the ancient. canons, we can see no remedy, my lord, but that it
must be taken away. Why should we have any hesitation to take
that out of the way, which is tlje visible remora to the uniting of all
Christian churches, and the restoring of Catholic communion all the
world over ? to take that out of the way, which your bishops of
France, as well as those of the Greek Church, and ours in England,
are fully convinced is an usurpation ? against which you have often
struggled, and still do complain ; but we have thrown it off, seeing
no other way possible to get from under its usurpation."
But the supremacy was not renounced in France ; and the Court
of Rome, watching its opportunities, has contrived, in every change
of piiblio affairs, to extort further concessi.ons, and to forge new links
in the chain that binds the French Church to a foreign ruler. The
following, from the London Times (which I find in the New- York
Times of April 27th), will show how the case stands under Na
poleon III.
" The Court of Rome seems to have demanded as the price of
uiidertaking the consecration of such a sovereign as Louis Napoleon,
several important concessions, such as the surrender of certain of the
organic articles touching the Church, which were annexed to the Con
cordat of 1801 by Napoleon L, though never recognized by the Vati
can, and, more especially, a change in the present provisions of the
French law of marriage, which renders it necessary that "the legal
contract should be completed before the solemnization of the religious
ceremony. The High Catholic party demand, on the contrary, that
the sacrament (as they consider marriage to be) should precede the
civil contract. These questions have added fuel to the flame already
kindled by the pretensions of the Ultramontane writers and prelates
of France, and by the evident design of the whole Romish clergy to
.assert a degree of power in the State which it never obtained, even
an the latter years of Charles X. For instance, the other day a young
tman was put upon his trial at Rouen, convicted, and sentenced to

135
fourteen days' imprisonment, for the offence of receiving the holy
communion before he had been confirmed by the bishop. It is a
revival of the spirit that dictated the Law of Sacrilege, and the most
unpopular and intolerant measures of the Restoration. The Romish
clergy are endeavouring to artti their spiritual authority with the
terrors of civil justice, and to place the State, in all its public func
tions, in closer dependency on the Church. These pretensions of a
part of the clergy, who are at once arrogant towards their own civil
rulers and servile to a foreign power, are supported by Cardinal
Gousset, Archbishop of Rheims, who endeavoured, ten years ago, to
bring all the liturgies of France to the standard of the Romish
breviary, the Bishop of Moulins, the Archbishop of Avignon, and
many others. For it is to be feared that the majority of the French
clergy are more disposed than they have ever been before to sacrifice
those principles of their national Church which were asserted by Bos
suet in the celebrated articles of 1682, and maintained without com
promise in all the mors glorious epochs of French history. The
Bishops of Montpeller, of Evereux, and, perhaps, of Orleans, are
considered at this time the only true Gallican prelates of the French
Church, tiiough the Archbishops of Besan9pn and Paris incline in the
sarne direction. But the sound principles of French ecclesiastical
independence find their ablest representatives in the magistrature,
and M. Dupin has lately resumed his pen to defend those traditions
which he has already asserted under so many diflTerent forms of
government. Louis Napoleon has hitherto seemed to favpur the
Ultramontane doctrines, but .this policy was dictated chiefly by his
desire to get -the Pope to Paris; and as that hope fades away, the
Moniteur'has been instructed to contradict the, intention attributed to
the government for a' change in the law of civil marriage, in terms
which will be bit.terly resented by the High Church party."
Philip IV. of Spain, A. D. 1633, called a general assembly of all
the estates of the kingdom of Castile to consider and take means to
remedy the grievances to which that people were subjected by their
connection with the See pf Rome. The assembly met and drew up a
meitiorial, consisting of ten articles, in which they allege the same
abuses, innovations and extortions that had been infiicted on the
people ofEngland.' Among other scatidalous abuses, they complain
of the extortions of the Roman Court in the case of dispensations ; that
a great price supplied the want of a good cause ; and that for a matri
monial dispensation under the second degree, they took of great per
sons 8,000, or 12,000, or 14,000 ducats. They complain that the
Pope took upon him to dispose of all the rights of all ecclesiastical
persons, and that he preferred not their bishops to enjoy their own
patronage and jurisdiction ; and they tell the Pope (Urban VIIL) in
the words of Bernard, that the Roman Church was the mother of

136
other churches, but not their lady or mistress ; and that he himself
was not the lord or master of other bishops, but one of them.
" They complained that the Pope did challenge and usurp to him
self, as his own, at their deaths, all clergymen's estates, that were
gained or vested out of the revenue of the Church ; that a rich clergy
man could no sooner fall sick, but the Pope's collectors were gaping
about him for his goods, and guards set presently about his house ;
that by this means bishops have been deserted on their death-beds,
and famished for want of meat to eat ; that they had not had, before
they were dead, a cup left to drink in, nor so much as a candlestick
of all their goods (it is their own expression) ; that by this means
creditors were defrauded, processes in law were multiplied, and great
estates wasted to nothing.
" They complained that the Popes did usurp as their own all the
revenues of bishoprics during their vacancies,, sometimes for divers
years together, all which time the churches were unrepaired, the poor
unrelieved, not so much as one alms given, and the wealtR of Spain
exported into a foreign land, which was richer than itself They wish ¦
the Pope to take it as an argument of their respect to the See of
Rome, that they do not go abojit forthwith to reform these abuses by
their awn authority, in imitation of other provinces."
Instead, however, of taking this decisive step, Spain accepted some
concessions, and remained under what they called " a most grievous
yoke;" and what advantage has Spain since reaped by its submis
sion? England did that which Spain only asserted its right to do,
renounced the papal jurisdiction, and reformed abuses by its own
authority ; and "by means of this alteration of religion," says Cam
den, (Eliz. p. 31,) ''England (as the politicians have observed) became
of all the kingdoms of Christendom the most free, the sceptre, as it
were, manumitted from the foreign servitude of the Bishop of Rome ;
and more wealthy than in former ages, an infinite mass of ntoney
being stayed at home which was woht to be exported daily to
Rome (the commonwealth being incredibly exhausted thereby) for
first-fruits, pardons, appeals, dispensations, palls, and other siich likej'
. Sicily was another instance of an open rupture with, the See of
Rome for grievances of the same sort. " Upon pretence of apostoli
cal authority," says Baronius, the Roman historian, "a grievous
offence is committed against the Apostolic See  the power where
of is weakened in the kingdom of Sicily, the authority thereof abro
gated, the jurisdiction wronged, the ecclesiastical laws violated, and
the rights of the Church dissipated." But cardinal though he were,

137
the king (Philip IIL of Spain) for this and like passages, ordered his
books to be publicly burned.
Portugal, too, has had the same struggle. The " Lusitanias
Gemitus," or " Groar.s of Portugal," tells us that the Portuguese
claimed, as among their ancient customs and essential rights of the
crown, (and the rights of a crown in a monarchy' are the rights of the
people in a republic,) the nomination of their own bishops, without
which condition they tell the Pope plainly (this was in the 17th
century) that they neither can nor ought to receive them. And after
a full statement of grievances, and of the affronts and repulses they
had Efiet in seeking redress at Rome, they remind the Pope that Por-_
tugal, and all the provinces that belong to it in Europe, Asia, Africa,
and America, " is more than one single sheep," and that " St. .Peter's
ship, which hath been often in danger in a calm sea, ought not to
be opposed to the violent course of just complainers."
. We find the States of Portugal also, during these contests, submit
ting several questions, touching the relation of the Church of Portugal
with the Pope of Rome, to the University of Lisbon ; and among
them the following : whether in case there were no recourse to the
Pope, the king of Portugal might permit the consecration of bishops-
without the Pope in his kingdom? to which the university answered
in the affirmative, giving this reason for its decisioti, that " episco
pacy was of divine right, but the reservation of the Pope's approba
tion was of human right, which doth not bind in extreme nor in very
great necessity."
But the country of Europe which followed most nearly in the
steps of England was Venice, in the 17th century. That republic
had made several laws ; as first, that no ecclesiastical person should"
lay claim to a certain description of lands possessed by the laity ;
that no person within their dominion should found any Chuj'ch,
monastery, hospital, or other religious house, without the special
license of the State, upon pain of imprisonment and banishment, and
confiscation of the soil and buildings ; that none of their subjects
should alienate any lands to the Church or in favor of any ecclesiasti
cal persons, without the "special license of the Senate ; they had, more
over, imprisoned certain ecclesiastical persons for crimes of which they
had been convicted. The Pope (PaulV.) commahded the Venetians
to abrogate these. laws and set their prisoners at liberty ; threatening
them if they disobeyed with an interdict and excommunication, and the
forfeitune of goods held of the Church, and enjoined the ecclesiastics
to publish his Bull and suspend divine offices.

138
But the Venetians stood their ground; they protested publicly
against the Pope's Bull ; commanded the clergy to celebrate divine
offices daily in spite of the Pope's interdict ; banished from their
city the few who disobeyed ; and caused works to be written and
published against the jurisdiction of the Roman Court; some of
which were condemned by the Inquisition, and forbidden to be read
under pain of excommunication.* And though at length, through the
mediation of other parties, the dispute was settled, yet the Venetians
refused to abrogate their laws ; nay, " they refused (though the Pope
did press it most instantly, and the Cardinal Joyeuse did assure them
that it. would be more acceptable to his holiness than the conquest of
a kingdom) to readmit the banished persons into their city. They
refused to take an absolution from Rome ; yea, they were so far from
it, that, when the ambass'ador intreated that the duke might receive
a benediction from him publicly in the Church, both the Duke and
Senate did resolutely oppose it, because it had some appearance of an
absolution. '"•(¦
As long as the supremacy of the Pope is acknowledged, and the
churches of various countries, instead of managing their own affairs at
home, look to a foreign jurisdiction for the appointment of their
officers, and the ultimate hearing of appeals and determination of
causes, it is to be expected that collisions of this sort will occur ; and
as almost every Catholic Church in Europe has felt the evil, and come
at one time or another very near to the remedy, so we may reason
ably expect that some of them will yet acknowledge and apply that
remedy ; assert their perfect right and ultimate authority to redress
grievances and reform abuses ; and follow the example of the Catholic
Church of England, in the imperishable declaration that the Bishop
of Rome should be reduced within his just limits, and have no juris-
dietion beyond what the canoixs of the Universal Church have assign
ed him.
It is evident from these movements that there is nothing in the
constitution of the Catholic Church to restrain the bishops of any
* Very remarkable are the words of -Bellarmine, one of the most moderate Of
the papal party in this dispute : " That to restrain obedience due to the Pope
unto tnatters appertaining only to the soul was to .reduce it to nothing ; that St.
Paul appealed unto Csesar, who was not his judge, and not to St. Peter, was
because he would not make himself in those days ridiculous. That the ancient
Popes professed subjection to the Emperors, was lo comply with the humour and
affection of those times." See Rycaut's continuation of Platina, life of Paul V.
who gives a synopsis of the arguments on both sides.
+ See Brathhall's Just Vindication, Part I. c. 7.

139
country, acting in concert with their clergy and laity, from asserting
the true rights and liberties of the Church, and effecting the reforma
tion of those notorious abuses which it has long been the interest
and policy of the Roman See to perpetuate. A general movement
of this nature, without disturbing the existing relations of archbishops,
metropolitans, and patriarchs, but regarding them as human appoint
ments for the preservation of order, and as responsible to tho Church
in its divinely constituted .character of the perpetual witness and
guardian of heavenly truth, and the dispenser of the faith and
sacraments of. Christ, would carry us back to the ancient basis of
co-ordinate communion ; the true and safe channel, marked out on
the chart of divine inspiration, between the Scylla and Charybdis of
Papal tyranny and infidel anarchy.
Of the necessity of such a reformation on the part of the numerous
Catholic Churches in communion with the See of Rome, and of the
immense benefits that would result frorn it, no question can be made,
except by those whose reason is warped by interest, or buried in the
clouds of prejudice and passion. That reasonable men may be firmly
¦ convinced that the evils of the present Roman system are less than
those which would be consequent on a change, or an attempt at refor
mation, is probable enough; but, apart from this consideration, who
can deny that it is siniply better to have the divine offices of the
Church celebrated (agreeably to the ninth canon of the fourth council
of Lateran*) in a living than a dead language ? to expunge myths
and fables from the holy services of the Church than to retain them ?
to direct the religious worship of Christ's faithful people exclusively
to the blessed and adorable Trinity, than to expose them to manifest
peril of idolatry, and ' to accustom them to usages of which, it may
be safely said, without attempting to settle the formal notion of
idolatry, that they cannot be distinguished from the idolatrous rites
of ancient Greece and Rome ? to inculcate simply, and without quali
fication, honor and obedieiice to the civil authority, and to spiritual
pastors chosen and appointed in the country of one's birth, and
responsible only to the Church and government of that country, than
* The fourth council of Lateran was held A. D. 1215, and the canon referred
to, and which requires the Divine Offices to be administered in a language un
derstood by the people, reads as follows :
"Because in most parts there are within the same state or diocese people of
different languages mixed together, having under one faith various rites and
customs ; We distinctly charge that the bishops of these states or dioceses provide
proper persons to celebrate the divine offices, and administer the sacraments of
the Church, according to the differences of rites and languages, instructing them
both by word and example."

140
to entwine the thoughts and affections of men around the government
and institutions of a foreign land?
That these and many like abuses will eventually awaken a sober
¦and resolute spirit of reform in the heart of some or all of the
Catholic churches now in communion with the See of Rome, can
hardly be doubted.-
Of the temper of the Catholic churches in Europe, at the present
day, and of their suppressed hatred of the subtle and intensely
selfish policy of the Roman Court, a remarkable proof has been lately
furnished in the work of Dr. Hirscher, Dean of the Metropolitan
Church in Freiburg, Breisgau, and Professor of Theology in the
Roman Catholic University of that city ; a work which distinctly
advocates reforms similar to those made in England in the sixteenth
century, and which has gone rapidly through three editions iii Ger
many, and been translated into French, with strong commendations, by
a Belgian layman. This interesting and significant treatise has been
translated into English by the Rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, of Hartford,
who has prefixed to it an introduction of his own, from which I make
the following extract :
" But while the Gallican Church, as no longer Gallican, but existing,
as Hirscher testifies, outside the nation,* in its ecclesiastics only, has
undoubtedly become thoroughly ultramontane, it cannot be doubted
that a widely diffused leaven of Hirscherism, if I may be parddned
the word, is at work throughout Europe. What Robertson chooses
to call Febronianism.,] as if it -were the. mere remainder of the, last
century's work, and of the Synod of Ems, is still, by hife own confes
sion, alive in Austria. Indeed, if report says true, the bishops of
Austria have been on the eve of dissolving with the Pope, and estab
lishing their own patriarchal independence, during the present ponti-
ficate.J But this movement is not Febronianism, it is not-Hirscher-
ism, it is a general, an earnest, arid a holy action of the better class
of minds throughout the Roman churches, resulting from the revived
study of the primitive fathers, the decay of the papal power, and the
monstrous attempt to make an article of faith of the blasphemous
fable of the immaculate conception !§ Like all movements in the
* See also De L'Etatet des besoins Religieux et Moraux des populations et
B*rance: par M. L'Abbe J. Bonnttat. Paris, 1845. For an extract, see Black
wood, May, 1849.
t In his introduction to Moehler's Symbolism.
X Bee Blackwood, June, 1848. ,
i) Hirscher, in his Antwort, while .he quotes St. Bernard's famous letter on this
subject, with evident willingness to attack the figment, only cites it professedly, .
to justify his own bold remonstrances. A translation of this letter was contri
buted by the writer lo the (American) Church Review, July, 1849. A quotation
from Demoulin, on the same subject, will be found in the present work.

141
Church, of which the Holy Spirit is the author, it appears to be un-
concerted and universal. The Church of England is 'only sharing
with all Christendom its mighty action and its feeble reaction. The
latter is numbering its victims here and there^ but the former is
sublimely and steadily making head towards the thorough resuscita
tion of the Church, and to the propagation of the faith throughout .the
British Empire.
" The movement of Nuytz, in Piedmont, has attracted some atten
tion, as being Italian ; but it cannot be doubted, that if all Italy were
as free as Sardinia, similar developments would be seen everywhere.
No reference is intended here to the .politico-religious and democratic
spirit of the new Italian tribunes, although the popular sympathy
with them, and the universal hatred of the Church and its clergy,* is
a dreadful proof of Hirscher's general statements. There is a better
and a deeper spirit, like that of our author, working in the hearts and
minds of many. Amongst many similar publications, the writer
found at Turin a work addressed ' To the conscience of Pius the
Ninth,'f by a devout Romanist, in which the pontiff is besought to
imitate the first bishops of Rome ; to divest himself of sovereignty,
and to become a bishop indeed ; and in which the matter of lay-
rights and diocesan-synods is discussed as by our author, and with
the citation of the same primitive authorities.! In the same spirit
writes Bordas Demoulin, in France ;§ and the late mandement of the
-* In Turin and Genoa, the Pope and theWergy are the subjects of innumerable
caricatures and pasquinades, which are opetily displayed in the public streets.
Addio al Papa is the title of a red-hot Protestant publication, which looks
strangely on large placards, about the Capital of Sardinia, staring a population of
professed papists in the face.
t The temporal power of the Pope is most eloquently attacked' in this work,
andthe primitive idea of a bishop forcibly presented in contrast. Take the fol
lowing noble passage: " Ma il fatto sta che nonhanno luogo prescrizioni ; e la
chiesa co' gemiti de suoi santi, I'uminita con gli scritli de' suoi aifensori, i popbli
con isgomentevoli clamorio con siienzio pui isgomentevole ancora, con querele o
preghiere, con lacrime e con sangue hanno le mille volte protestato. Protestarg!
Qaesta voce ricorda la terribile testimonianza di Bossuet, confessante che I'odio del
potere temporale fa quello che in Alamagna spiano le vie alia Riforma, e che per
conseguenza dall' una e dall' altra parte rose piu gravi le sciagure." As to the
special plea, that the temporal power is requisite to the independence of the pon
tiff, he answrers, in a strain of irony not usual with him : " So, then, Gregory XVI.
was more independent than St. Paul, and Pius I. led to martyrdom a poor slave,
compared with Clement VII. waiting upon Charles V! If so, the Popes must
reign by the grace of  Paixhan guns, and the symbol of thu Dove should give
place to a bombshell." In this last there is more truth than poetry, as one may
see, at Rome ; where there are many recent rains, as well as ancient ones, by
virtue of which Pius IX. still sits in the chair of St. Clement. No wonder, then,
that, as this Writer further testifies, " il nome di chierico e abovito e- vituperate
negli stati papali."
t Roma e il Mondo, di N. Tommaseo. Turin, 1851. A work which is, in
some respects, as interesting as Hirscher's.
^ Lettre a M. L'Archeveque de Paris, sur son mandemeut centre les droits des
laiques et despretres dans D'Eglise, par Bordas Demoulin. This writer is also
authorof many other works.

142
Archbishop of Paris has called out other writers in a similar vein ;*
showing that St. Bernard and St. Louisf have yet their representa
tives in that unhappy country, to which poor Bossuet ventured to call
attention, as so fortunate in saving herself from revolutions by reject
ing reformation ! The immediate translation of Hirscher into French,^
with comments of his own, by Adolphe Stappaerts, a layman of Ant
werp, must also be mentioned ; and, as further indicative of a general
movement, the writer may mention, that under the Damnatio, affixed
to the gates of the Quirinal and Vatican, he saw last autumn, in addi
tion to the works of Nuytz,§ and others of a similar character,|| the
title of a Spanish treatise,^ apparently reviving the position taken by
the Spanish doctors at the Council of Trent.
" Hirscher must be regarded, therefore, as the foremost in a general
and spontaneous movement throughout the Roman communion, which
the Pope will hardly be able to overcome in his present decayed and
impotent position."**
To these intelligent observations of Mr. Coxe, I will add the fol
lowing definite statement of Dr. Hirscher, of the reforms which are,
as he tells us, extensively desired in Germany, which are now openly
contended for in Belgium, and an under current in favor of which
probably exists in every Church in communion with the Church of
Rome :
" A third point to which tl» Church must direct its immediate
attention is, the satisfaction of that general desire which is prevalent
for certain reforms. This desire is of long standing, and very familiar
to us.ff What is wanted is, for example, an improvement in the
" Lettre a Monseigneur L'Archeveque de Paris. Par x.x. In some respects,
this anonymous writer, though he writes in a different tone, is superior to De
moulin. "t Depuis le donzieme siecle, L'Europe travaille a s' emanciper de la' domination
s^erdotale et papale  et les premiers grands promoteurs de I'entreprise
ont ete St. Bernard et St. Louis. — Demoulin.
X L'etat Actuel de L'Bglise, par S. B. Hirscher, traduit de 1' AUemand, sur la
Illme. edition, par Adolphe Stappaerts, Anvers, 1851. To this work the pre
sent writer is primarily indebted for all he knows of Hirscher, and for much
assistance in making an English translation from the German.
ij Juris Ecclesiastici Institutiones, Joannis Nepomuceni Nuytz, in Regie Tauri-
nensi Athenaeo professoris. etc.
II Manuale Compendium Juris Canonici, ad usum Seminariorum, justa tempo-
rum circumstantias accommodatam. Auctore J. F. M. Lequeux.
IT Defensa de la autoridad de los Gobiernos y de los Obispos contra les preten-
ciones de ]a Curia Romana, por Francisco de Paula, etc.
** So a French Romanist speaks of the peaceful-regeneration of the Church as
a thing — " qui a eie tenie, il est vrai, si souvent et si vainemeut, mais dans des
temps differents des notres ! !'' Lettre de xx.
tt " So the letter to the Archbishop of Paris, ' J'exprime un voeu, que je crois
etre conforme an, vceu general . . et je pense encore q'une sage reforme, qui
cette fois, au lieu de nous divisor, pourrait, au contraire, nous reunir, serait fre-
ferable a une revolution.' "

143
worship of the Church ; a revision of its liturgical formularies ; the
translation of the liturgy into the vulgar tongue ; communion in both
kinds ; the reform of the confessional ; the simplification of ceremo
nies ; and such like changes. So,\oo, we need an amelioration of
. ecclesiastical discipline ; the abolition of the forced celibacy of priests ;
afld the revision of certain ecclesiastical observations. We need fur
ther improvements, for example, in the Table of Lessons, and a greater
variety in the selections from the Gospels and Epistles. We need
emancipation from that tyranny which imposes upon the faithful,
as Catholic doctrine, matters which have never been settled by the
Church. Finally, we require reforms in the constitution of the
Church ; the revival of Synodal iastitutions ; and the proportionate
participation of clergy and laity m the affairs of the Church.'* —
Pp. 181, 182.
The time for such a movement is in God's hand ; we have only to
remain quietly in the station in which His providence has placed us,
and pray and labor for the coming of His kingdom. To human ob
servation the chief lets and hindrances to the desired Reformation
appear to be these :
1. The insignificance and practical nullity of the Episcopate in
the Roman communion.
Our Lord Jesus Christ foresaw, and did all that was needful on
His part to avert the evils which have happened to His Church. He
appointed an order of men to succeed the apostles in the government
of His Church. To these He committed the care and oversight of
His flock. These He made the imrnediate depositaries pf His author
ity, that they might be directly accountable to Him for its exercise.
The supervision or episcopate, thus divinely instituted, was, in the
memorable words of St. Cyprian, single ; was one, of which each
¦ bishop held his part, with the privilege and duty of being interested
in the whole. The partners in this episcopacy were the Popes or
Fathers of the Church, and the Vicars of Christ.* In the churches
of the Roman communion, this divine provision of Jesus Christ, for
* The title vicarius Christi (vicar of Christ) was in the early Church given to
all bishops. The author of the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, contained in
the works of St. Ambrose, says, at v. 10, ch. xi., 1 Cor. . " Episcopus habet per
sonam Christi. Quasi ergo ante judicem, sic ante episoopura, quia vicarius Do.
mini est."
So St. Cyprian, in his 59th Epistle (Fell's edition>to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome :
" Neque enim aliunde haereses abortae sunt, aat nata sunt schismata quam inde
quod sacerdos Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in Ecclesia ad terapus sacerdos,
et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur," (p. 2610 Again to Horentius, (Ep.
66, p. 285) : " Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos,. ac per hoc ad omnes prEepositos,

144
the protection and comfort of His Church, has been for several hun
dred years subverted. The bishops of that Church are bishops only
in name. The deep and awful consciousness of a power of super
vision entrusted to them immediately by Christ, and for which they are
directly responsible to him, they have not, and in their present posi
tion cannot have. On their present system, the followers of Christ
how numerous soever and how widely soever dispersed, have but one
true bishop, one Pope, one vicar of Christ. Both the titles and the au
thority which they express, which were once diffused among all bishops,
are now concentrated in one. ThSit one has all episcopal jurisdiction
at his disposal. From him, and not from Christ by means of their
consecration, must other bishops receive such degrees and measures
of jurisdiction as he may see fit to bestow. He may parcel it out as
he pleases ; give it to deacons and presbyters, and, under the name
of Cardinals, set them over all the bishops upon earth ; and limit it
or revoke it from bishops at his will. Thus the institution of Christ,
for the propagation of His gospel and the purity of His Church, is
abolished. He provided that there should be in every country an
order of men to represent His person, and to govern the Church on
their responsibility to Him ; whereas the Roman system, in the very
teeth of Christ's ordinance, provides that there shall be no such per
sons in any country on earth, but that they, .in every country, who
ought to fill this office, shall take their authority from the Bishop of
Rome, and account to him for its exercise. Instead of being the
direct representatives of Christ, the bishops of churches in communion
qui Apostolis vicaria ordinalione saccedunt, qui audit vos, me audit, et qui me
audit, audit eum qui me misit.
Anciently the title Papa (Pope) was given to every Bishop. The Presbyters
and deacons thus address their letter to St. Cyprian, (Ep. 30,) Cypriano Papa,
and at the close they style him, " beatissime et gloriosissime Papa." In the eighth
epistle written to the clergy of Carthage during his absence, they speak of him
as the blessed Pope Cyprian — " benedictum Papam." St. Jerome frequently
gives the same title to St. Augustin, (Ep. 39, 68, 72, &c, Migne's ed. of St. Au".
¦Works,) and also to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, (St. Jerome's Works, '
Ep. 99 ed. Migne.) St. Augustin addresses Aurelius, a brother bishop, in the
same style, (Opera Ep. 41 and 60.) Eigaltius, (a Romanist,) iu a note on the
eighth epistle in St. Cyprian's works above mentioned, observes, that " then the
Roman Pontiff had titles.in common with most bishops of other cities ; but that at
last Gregory VII., in a Roman Synod, ordained that the name of Pope should
belong to one alone in Christendom." It might be shown, in like manner, that
the titles of Summus Sacerdos, Pontifex Maximus, and Princeps Sacerdotum,
were anciently applied to all bishops. Pseudo-Ambros, Com. in Ephes IV., v.
1 and 12 ; St. Jerome Ep. ad Asellam, (No. 45 Migne.)

145
with Rome are the mere factors, dependents, or vassals of the Roman
see. If any man^oubt this, let him read their oath of office ; an
oath which it is matter of astonishment that any mortal should either
make to another, or suffer to be made to himself:
"I, N., elect of the Church of N., from henceforward will be faith
ful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman
Church, and to our lord, the lord N. Pope N. and to his successPrs,
canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent, or do any
thing that they may lose life or member, or that their persons may
be seized, or hands anywise laid upon them, or any injuries offered
to them, under any pretence whatsoever. The counsel which they
shall intrust me withal, by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I
will not knowingly reveal tetany to their prejudice. I will help them
to defend and keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter,
saving my order, against all men. The legate of the Apostolic See,
going and coming, 1 will honourably treat and help in his necessities.
The rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman
Church, of our lord the Pope, and his aforesaid successors, I will en
deavour to preserve, defend, increase, and advance. I will not be in
any counsel, action, or treaty, in v.'hich shall be plotted against our
said lord, and the said Roman Church, any thing to the hurt or pre
judice of their persons, right, honour, state, or power ; and if I shall
know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I
will hinder it to my power ; and as soon as I can, will signify it to
our said lord, or to some other", by whom it may come to his know
ledge. The rules of the holy Fathers, the apostolic decrees, ordi
nances, or disposals, reservations, provisions,. and mandates, I will
observe with all my might, and cause to be observed by others.
Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord, or his foresaid suc
cessors, I will to my power persecute and oppose. I will come to a
council when I am called, unless I be hindered by a earionical irnpe-
diment. I will by myself in person visit the threshold of the apostlfes
every three years ; and give an account to our lord and his foresaid
successors of all my pastoral office, and of all things anywise belong
ing to the state of my Church, to the discipline of my clergy an4
people, and lastly to the salvation of souls committed to riiy trust ;
and will in like manner humbly receive and diligently exechte the
apostolic commands. And if I be detained by a lawful impediment,
I will perform all the things aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto
specially inipowered, a member of my chapter, or some other iu
ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage; or in default of
these, by a priest of the diocese ; or in default of one of the cleT'gy,
[of the diocese] by some other secular or regular priest of approved
integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above-mentioned.
And such impediment I will make out by lawful proofs to be trans
mitted by the foresaid*messenger to the cardinal proponent of the
holy Roman Church in the congregation of the sacred council. The
possessions belonging to my table I will neither sell, nor give away,
10

146
nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not
even with the consent of the chapter of my Church, without consult-
ino- the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make afty alienation, I will
thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain constitution put
forth about this matter. So help me God and these holv Gospels of
God." Thus the appointed guardians and governors of the Church of
Christ have betrayed their trust, and sold themselves to the Court of
Rome to be the tools of a worldly policy. It is impossible that reli
gious or civil liberty should flourish in any country in which this
system prevails, or that abuses, corruptions, and superstitions, should
be eradicated, while the maintenance of them subserves the interest
of the Roman Court. It was by this means that the Popes of Rome
were enabled to defeat the movement for reformation in the sixteenth
¦century ; openly opposing it as long as they could ; yielding at
length from necessity to the call for a general council ; and then
managing, by means of their Italian bishops, many, if not most of
them, mere titulars, to put down by a vote of almost three to one
whatever reforms the French and Spanish diocesans honestly but
timidly proposed. Thus the roots of all abuses were left ; only the
tops for appearance sake were lopped off; and the Reformation on
the Continent, which should have been promoted on principle and
with sobriety within the Church, was brought into contempt by being
turned over to the Protestants, to be pursued with passion and blind
zeal without the Church.
2. This obstacle is the greater frpm the fact that the theology
commonly taught in the churches in communion with the See of
'Rome, has been skilfully contrived and adapted to the very purpose
of elevating the papacy by depressing the episcopacy. Before the
reformation, the canonists and the schoolmen wrought together for
the elevation of the Roman see. The former carried matters to the
highest pitch, flattering the Popes with the conceit, that as the vice
gerents of Christ, who was the Lord of the whole earth, they had
dominion over all nations, and could alone bestow a just and valid title
to kings and princes over the countries which they governed. That
remarkable work, " The Convocation Book, of A. D. 1606," commonly
called Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, by its profound and elab
orate refutation of the theories which the canonists had constructed
for concentrating all temporal as well as spiritual power in the Popes
of Rome, is a monument of the hold which these theories once had
over the minds of the learned. The English Reformation has con-

147
signed this class of writers to oblivion. The subtleties of the school
men, though less ambitious, have been more enduring, and are still
of avail to- divert the governing power of the Church from the epis
copacy, where Christ placed, and where the ancient Church pre
served it, and fix it in the papacy. The power of creating the true
body of Christ, is superior to the power of governing the mystical
body, and consequently the latter rriust be subordinate to the former.
Hence the common opinion in the Roman schools that bishop and
priest are one order ; that ordination to the priesthood, indeed, fixes
a man in an immutable station, and confers on him an irrevocable
power, (in technical language, imprints an indelible character ;) but
that consecration to the episcopate does nothing of the sort ; that it
raises the presbyter to no higher order than he had before, but merely
confers on him an office, the powers of which are mutable and revo'
cable.* Thus the bishops are placed at the disposal of the Pope as
clay in the hands of the potter. They are much or nothing, as he
pleases to maka them.
In effect, the divine institution of episcopacy, cr the doctrine that
bishops received their power of government immediately from Christ
* This fanciful doctrine — fanciful in its origin, though only too practical in its
results — is thus clearly stated by a divine of our Church, in the reign of Elizabeth,
Bishop Downham. See more on the same subject in Dr. Marshall's Constitution
of the Church, A. D. 1716.
" It is true that some popish writers make bishops and presljyters liut one
order; but you must withal take the reason of Ihat popish conceit. They hold,
the sacrament (jf the altar, as they call it, is the sacrament of sacraments, where-
nnto the sacrament of order is subordinate, all their orders of clerks being or
dained to the ministry of the altar : And that every one of their several orders
(all which they call sacraments) is only to be accounted a sacrament, as it hath
reference to the Eucharist-: To which purpose Thomas Aquinas did somewhat
ridiculously distinguish their seyeral orders, (Secunda SecundtB, q. 44, and in his
Supplement, q. 37, 2 c.,) accordingly as their divers ofiices referred to that
sacrament : And inasmuch as by that whole power of order, this is the supreme
act, by pronouncing the words of consecration, to make the very body of Christ,
v^hich is as well performed by a priest as by a bishop,; therefore they teach, that
the bishops and priests are both of one order; and that the order, as it is a sacra
ment, is not superibr to that of presbyters, but only as it is an ofiSce in respect of
sacred actions: And, in this sense, Thomas says,. that the bishop having power
in sacred and hierarchical actions, in respect of Christ's mystical body, above the
priest, the office of a bishop is an order : For you must understand that they
make all ecclesiastical power to have reference to the body of Christ ; either
verum, his true body, in the sacrament of the altar, which they call the power of
order; or mysticum, mystical, (that is, the true Church, and members thereof,)
which they call the power of jurisdiction."

148
by their consecration, has long since been exploded from the Roman
schools, and is as much decried by Romanists as it is by Presbyte
rians and Independents. Indeed, there is scarcely an argument pro
duced by the latter against Episcopacy, for fear it might lead to the
papacy, which had not before been used by Bellarmine and other
Jesuits against the same Episcopacy, for fear it would subvert the
papacy.* In the Council of Trent, the French and Spanish bishops,'
made an honest effort for the truth, but they were defeated by the
Italians, who well understood that to acknowledge the divine institu
tion of Episcopacy would be destructive of the papal supremacy.f
3. Another obsljacle to reform is the passionate and indiscriminate
way in which the Church of Rome is generally assailed. Instead of
regarding Popery as consisting of additions made to the Catholic faith
in corrupt and ignorant times, the origin and growth of which are to be
traced historically with a view to their removal, the assailants, for
the most part, Jook upon the abuses as logical developments, which
can be most effectually dealt with by denying the principles from
which they are supposed to flow. Hence the common opinion that the
Church of England contains all the elements of Popery, only that she
does not, like the Church of Rome, consistently act them out ! Besides,
the assailants, for the most part, have np idea of the Christian Faith as
* For a comparative view of the opinions of Romanists and Presbyterians on
this subject, with full quotations from authors ou both sides, see Bishop Sage's
Vindication of Principles of the Cyprianic Age, chap. ix„ sec. 24, to the end of
the chapter.
t Richerius, as quoted by Lawrence Howel in his History of the Popes, gives
a valuable letter, illustrative of this point, of Claudius Sanctius, a doctor of the
Sorbonne, (who attended the council in company with Cardinal Lotheranus,) to
Bspensajus, his brother Sorbonnist : " You never were more fortunate than in
not coming hither. For had you seen the vile practices here to check the Refor
mation, it would have broken youi' heart. The French were more sincere and
industrious in it than others, who now laugh at us for the misfortunes France
labours under, as if the civil wars were a just judgment on her. We arrived
here when the argument in hand was about Holy Orders. The Spanish bishops
solicited earnestly that the synod would declare Episcopacy au institution of
Cheist ; and that bishops were by divine right superior to priests. In which the
French heartily concurred with them. But to prevent the consequence of this
honest proposition, the Italians propose and carry several canons in favour of the
Pope, iu opposition to what the Spanish bishops urged ; by which they pretend
the Pope to be the Bishop immediately ordained of Christ, and that all other
bishops have no power but what is dependent of the power of the Pope, or of
the Pope himself. It is impossible for me to tell you particularly what I have
seen and heard in this council. I wish, though at the peril of my life, I were in
the Sorbonne. — Trent, June Ihth, 1563."

149
an objective reality, or of the Christian Church as a divine institution ;
faith with them being no more than their own inward persuasion, the
Church a thing of their own creation, and both evanescent, shifting,
ephemeral. Hence they dash forward with intemperate zeal,' and
think they are cutting up Popery by the roots, when they strike
at the apostolical succession, the sacraments, forms, every thing
indeed which gives fixedness and permane§cy to religipn. The
consequence is, that Romanists cling to their errors and abuses for
the sake of the truth, from which they are thus taught to think them
inseparable, and cling to them with a, tenacity proportioned to the
vehemence with which they are assailed ; while dispassionate but
uninstructed Protestants, seeing the issue thus virtually made between
Romanism and infidelity, are naturally led to prefer a system which
has many faults to one which has no virtues.
4. Another obstacle is the divisions of Protestants, who count well
nigh as many " churches" as opinions ; every man, whom the lust
of power and popularity moves to be a leader, making his favourite
crotchet the foundation of a " church." The Romanists cpntrast this
state of things with their own, and make it an argument for their
centre of unity. Really there is no force in the argument ; for if the
papal supremacy be not, and if Episcopacy be a divine institution,
there is neither reaspn nor faith in relying on the former ; it is a
human prop, and must finally break ; for whatever Cardinal Pallavi-
cini and other Italians may have thought, or may think to the con
trary, Christ will live longer than Aristotle. Besides, there are two
facts which are an effectual offset against Protestant divisions : first,
that the oriental churches, under their metropolitans and patriarchs,
maintain as firm a union as the Latin churches under their Pope ;
and, secondly, that the Anglican and its derived churches, do not, at
the present day, in the fourth century of their deliverance from the
Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction, present a single instance of schism. I
mean that in Great Britain, in her extensive colonies, " on which the
sun never sets," and in the United States, there is no Church deriving
its orders from the Anglican Church which is not in communion with
the Anglican Church. The divisions of Protestants are, indeed, a
startling fact, and tell ppwerfully on the imagination ; but in respect
to the comparative efficacy of co-ordinate or republican communion,
as maintained in the Greek and Anglican churches, and of monarchical
union as upheld by the papal chur'ches, they are utterly irrelevant
and beside the mark.

150

v.— Page, 40.
I was not surprised at the defection of Bishop Ives, but I was sur
prised to learn from his valedictory letter to his diocese, that he had
entertained doubts about the validity of his orders. Annexed is the
letter as it appeared|jn the Churchman of 19th of February last :
" Rome, Wednesday, Dec. 22, 1852.
" Dear Brethren : — Some of you, at least, are aware that for years
d'oubts of the validity of my office as Bishop have at times harassed
my mind and greatly enfeebled my action. At other times, it is
true, circumstances have arisen to overrule these doubts, and to bring
to my mind temporary relief. But it has been only temporary ; for,
in spite of resolutions to abandon the reading and the use of Catholic
books ; in spite of earnest prayers and entreaties that God would
protect my mind against the distressing influence of Catholic Truth ;
and in spite of public and private professions and declarations, which
in times' of suspended doubt I sincerely made to shield myself from
suspicion, and win back the confidence of my diocese, which had been
well nigh lost — in spite of all this, and of many other considerations
which would rise up before me, as the necessary consequence of suf
fering my mind to be carried forward in the direction in which my
doubts pointed, these doubts would again return with increased and
almost overwhelming vigour, goading me at times to the very bor
ders of derangement. ,
" Under these doubts, I desired temporary relief from duties that
had become so disquieting to me, and determined to accompany Mrs.
Ives, whose health demanded a change of climate, in a short absence
abroad. But absence has brought no relief to my mind. Indeed,
the doubts that disturbed it have grown into clear and settled con
victions ; so clear and settled, that, without a violation of conscience
and honour, and every obligation of duty to God and His Church, I
can no longer remain in my position.
" I am called upon, therefore, to do an act of self sacrifice, in view
of which all other self-sacrificing acts of my life are less than nothing ;
called upon to sever the ties which have been strengthened by long
years of love and forbearance, which have bound my heart to many
of you, as was David's to that of Jonathan, and make my heart bleed
as my hand traces the sentence which separates all pastoral relation
between us, and conveys to you the knowledge that I hereby resign
into your hands my office as Bishop of North Carolina; and, further,
that I am determined to make my submission to the Catholic Church.
" In addition, (my feelings will allow me only to say,) as this act
is earlier than any perception of my own, and antedates, by some
months, the expiration of the time for which I so promptly received
from members of your body an advance of salary, I hereby renounce
all claim upon the same, and acknowledge myself bound, on an inti-

151
mation of your wish, to return whatever you may have advanced to
me beyond this 22d day of December.
" With continued affection and esteem, I pray you to allow me
still to subscribe myself, " Your faithful friend, etc.,
" L. Silliman Ives."
What was in the mind of Bishop Ives when he penned this letter
can only be known to us from the letter itself; and from this
it appears that before his fall he had entertained doubts about the
validity of his office as bishop ; by which I, of course, understand
hiia to mean the validity of his orders. Not a word about heresy,
or schism, or the unlawfulness of his episcopal ministrations ; his
doubts respected the validity of his episcopal orders ; a mere ques
tion of fact, which any man fit to serve on a jury might, with compe
tent sources of information, have determined in less time than it
takes to try half the questions of fact in our common courts. " These
doubts," however, had " harassed" the mind of the learned bishop
" for years." After an occasional respite, " these doubts"' abput the
validity pf his prders " wpuld return with increased and overwhelm
ing vigour,- goading him at times to the very borders of derange
ment." Under the pressure of " these doubts," Bishop Ives went
abrpad ; but Patri 88 quis exul,
Se quoque fugit 1
"these doubts" had become' a second nature and part of himself, and
of course " absence" from his native country " brought no relief to
his mind." He tells us, indeed, that " after- a' change of climate'"
" these doubts," whether or no he had ever been validly ordained,
" have grown into clear and settled convictions" that he had not been.
But how long " these doubts" -and " clear convictions" alternated
before the latter became " settled," we are left to conjecture ; what
is certain is, that at Rome, on the 22d of December, he relinquished
all legal claim to the salary that he had received in advance, which
may be taken as proof, that on that day, thanks to an Italian sky !
the " doubts" disappeared, and the " clear convictions" shone forth
with a lustre which was " settled" and " disturbed" by no further
"doubts" until the hour of his writing the letter. '
The same number of the Chiirchman which contains the letter of
Bishop Ives, contains also the following definite statement from
X' Univers, a Romanist paper published in France, which has not, tP
my knpwledge, been contradicted by Bishcp Ives or his friends :

152
" Dr. Ives left America some weeks ago, to go and make his
solemn abjuration of the errors of Protestantism at the feet of the
Sovereign Pontiff. Before his departure he gave his retraction into
the hands of the Archbishop of New-York, and participated in the
sacraments of the Church ; but the venerable convert wished this act
to be kept secret in order to procure from Pius IX. the sweet conso
lation of himself receiving him into his flock. However, considering
the possibility that he might be lost on his voyage, Dr. Ives gave to
Archbishop Hughes his abjuration in writing, furnished with the most
incontestible characters of authenticity, in order that this document
might be made public in case of accident."
I leave it to the charity of others to shield Bishop Ives from the
guilt of duplicity by the misfortune of insanity. I am concerned with
neither. In truth, (for I have yet a hope that the statement in the
Romanist paper may be denied or qualified,) I believe in neither ;
but I believe Bishop Ives to possess a mind over the surface of which
(and it is all surface) clear convictions and distressing doubts about
a simple matter of fact may chase each other for years in the quick
succession of clouds and sunshine on an April day. I believe this,
beca-use his letter proves it ; and all my concern is to show that the
validity of his orders, respecting which (as he himself tells us) his
doubts and convictions have kept him on the rack for years, is a mere
question of fact, which a man of common sense and honest purpose
might determine, without losing his health and losing his wits, and
then taking a voyage to Europe for the recovery (I hope) of the one,
but in the vain pursuit of the other.
1 had not supposed, indeed, that any man, who, with honest pur
pose and competent means of information, had looked into the ques
tion of the Anglican orders, could entertain a doubt of their validity ;
and' that a man of learning and piety, who had been prpmoted to the
highest rank in the Church, and called to preside over one of our
largest dioceses, should be perplexed on the subject, and driven " to
the very borders of derangement," I cannot but regard as an instance
i of idiosyncracy more fit for the study of the physician than the
divine. In themselves, and fpr any effect they may have pn us, the
Romish objections to our orders are contemptible-; but there is
one point of view in which they are deserving of attention, and that
is, as they illustrate the temper and spirit of the Romish Church, and
have been the occasion of involving it in the deepest guilt ; and this
must be my apology for a more extended note on the subject thail I
should otherwise have made.
To understand the matter, the reader will be pleased to call to

153
mind the distinction already noted between Orders and Jurisdiction.
Ordination, or, as it is commonly termed among us. Consecration, is
all that is necessary to make a man a bishop. In order, however, to
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction, it is further necessary that he be
confirmed, i. e., settled or established in the exercise of his functions
under certain limitations needful to the preservatien of unity. In
the English and American churches, bishops are confirmed in the
dioceses to which they are respectively chosen, by the highest spirit
ual authority reeogtiized by these churches ; and Romanists, even if
they admitted the validity of our orders, would still deny our juris
diction, and consequently the lawfulness of our ministrations, on the
ground of our Bishops not having received confirmation from the
Bishop of Rome ; who, as they fancy, is entitled to supreme jurisdic
tion in Great Britain and the United States, and indeed throughout
all the earth, as well as in Italy. A claim so extravagant refutes
itself; and hence the necessity of denying, not only the lawfulness
of our ministrations, but the validity of our orders : by which is meant
that they deny the fact that our bishops have ever received orders,
and affirm that the orders to which they pretend, have no existence,
but are null and void.
Catching at everything upon which they can raise the semblance
of an argument to help their cause, Ronaanists deny that the form
used in the ordinal of Edward VI. was sufficient to confer the epis
copal office. The form was, " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember
that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of
hands ; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power,
and love, and of soberness." It must be confessed, that words which
express the specific office intended to be conferred would be better ;
and hence, in 1662, the words were altered, and the form now in use
was adopted : " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a
bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the impo
sition of our hands ; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost, Amen. And remSmber," &c., as above. Pro.
bably the only reason of our Church having at first used so brief and
general a form, is, that she had then but just begun her reformation
from Popery ; and certainly the fact of her now using a more ex
pressive form, is owing to her having continued and proceeded in
that reformation. For the form which accompanies the imposition
of hands in the Roman Pontifical for the consecration of a bishop, is
simply, "Take the Holy Ghost," Acc^e Spiritum Sanctum; and to
the objection now brought by Romanists against the sufficiency of

154
the form in the. Ordinal of Edward VI., we give the same answer
which Vasquez,* one of themselves, has given to the same objection
against the sufficiency of their own form ; viz., that though the words
do not express the power intended to be conferred, yet the circum
stances which accompany the words do express it ; the whole office
for the consecration of bishops ; showing formally and expressly the
power or gift conferred by the words which accompany the imposi
tion of hands.
But in order to cut up our ordinations by the roots, the Romanists
tell us that Archbishop Parker, through whom we derive our suc
cession of orders, had not even the benefit of any serious form ; that
his consecration was a jest and a mockery, dispatched at a tavern.
The reader may think that this story is credited only by the more
vulgar of the Romanists. No; it has been received and endorsed at
Rome, and is the precise ground on which the Bishop of Rome and
his conclave have ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders. It
is well, therefore, briefly to review the facts connected with Parker's
consecration. During the reign of Queen Mary, Reginald Pole was de facto
Archbishop of Canterbury, having been schismatically intruded by
the Pope of Rome. Pole died on the same day with Queen Mary,
so that on the accession of Elizabeth, the See of Canterbury was va
cant. Matthew Parker was the next incumbent of that See. The
Romanists say that he was not lawfully in possession, and had no
right to the See. This assertion we care nothing about; it rests
on their assumption, that all spiritual jurisdiction on earth j5ro-
ceeds from the Pope of Rome ; and we dismiss it, with the counter
assertion, that Parker was'the true and lawful successor to Cranmer,
as was Cranmer to Warham ;• and that Pole, being a mere intruder,
is not. to be named, except as having had possession in fact. But the
Romanists have also labored to create a doubt about Parker's con
secration; and this, indeed, is a point of consequence, and that to
which I would direct attention. Parker, in fact, succeeded Pole in
the See of Canterbury, and continued in possession to the time of
his death. This is not denied; the only question is, whether he
was consecrated to the office of bishop. Or entered on the duties of
his office without consecration. I propose first to show the sense of
the English nation and Church at that time, as to the necessity t)f

* Disp. 240. c. 5. n. 60. I give the reference after Burnet, in his " Vindication
of the Ordinations," &c.

155
consecration before a man could be accounted a bishop, and then
to give a synopsis of the testimony which proves the fact of conse-
oration in the case of Parker.
1. The sense of the English nation and Church may be best known
from the laws of Parliament, and the official and synodical acts of
the clergy.
The 25 Henry VIII.; cap. 20., sect. 5., enacts that, whenever a
presentment or nomination is made by the king, " Then every
archbishop and bishop, into whose hands any such presentment and
nomination shall be directed, shall, with all speed and celerity, invest
and consecrate the person nominated and presented by the king's
highness, his heirs or successors, to the office and dignity that such
person shall be so presented unto, and give and use unto him palb
and all other benedictions, ceremonies, and things requisite for the
same, without suing, procuring, or obtaining hereafter any bulls, or
other things at the See of Rome for any such office or dignity in that
behalf. And then after he hath made such oath and fealty duly to
the king's majesty, his heirs and successors, as shall be limited for
the same, the king's highness, by his letters patent under his great
seal, shall signify the said election to one archbishop and two other
bishops, or else to four bishops within this realm, or within any
other the king's dominions, to be assigned by the king's highness,
his heirs or successors, requiring and commanding the said arch
bishop and bishops with all speed and celerity, to confirm the said
election, and to invest and consecrate the said person so elected, to
the office and dignity that he is elected unto, and to give and use to
him such pall, benedictions, ceremonies, and all other things requi
site for the same, without suing, procuring or obtaining any bulls,
briefs, or other things at the said See of Rome, or by the authority
thereof in any -behalf." And after some further matter in regard to
the temporalities, it is enacted, in conclusion, that every person
" doing contrary to this act, shall run- in the dangers, pains and
penalties of the statute of Provision and Premunire, made in the five-
and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward IIL, and in the six
teenth year of King Richard II."
In 1 Edward VL, c. 2., (1547) certain modifications, with a view
to prevent delay, and to lessen costs and charges, are made in the
election of bishops and collation to their sees. It is then enacted :
" And, thereupon, the said person to whom the archbishopric, or
bishopric, or suffraganship is so conferred, collated or given, may be
consecrated, and sue his livery, or ouster les mains, and do other

156
things as well as if the said ceremonies and elections had been done
and made."
The 3 Edward VI.,c. 2., (1549) enacts, that "Such form and man
ner of making and consecrating of archbishops, bishops, priests and
deacons, and other ministers of the Church, as by six prelates and
six other men of this realm learned in God's law, by the king to be
appointed and assigned, or by the most number of them, shall be de
vised for that purpose, and set forth under the great seal before the
first of April next coming, shall be lawfully exercised and used, and
none other."
In 1553, an act was passed in Parliament, establishing the revised
Book of Common Prayer ; and " Adding also a form and manner of
making and consecrating of archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons,
to be of like force, authority and value as the same like aforesaid
book, entitled. The Book of Common Prayer was before, and to be
accepted, received, used and esteemed in like sort and manner.
The Book of Common Prayer had been established in 1549, and by
this act of 1552, the Ordinal, or form of consecrating bishops and
ordering priests and deacons, is annexed to it, and the use of it, to
the exclusion of all other forms, is made pbligatpry.
The preceding acts were repealed under Mary ; but in the first
year of Elizabeth, the statute of repeal was abrogated, so far as re
spected "The Book of Cemmon Prayer, and Administration of the
Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies in the Church ofEngland ;"
and it was enacted, " That the said Book, with the order of service,
and of the administration of the sacraments, rites and cerempnies,
with the alterations and additiens therein added and appointed by
this estatute, shall stand and be, from and after the said Feast of the
Nativity of St. John the Baptist, in full force and effect, according tt>
the tenor and effect of this estatute, any thing in the aforesaid estatute
of repeal to the contrary notwithstanding." The " alterations and
additions" respected the Sunday Lessons, the Litany, and the sen
tences in the delivery of the elements to communicants, and had no
reference to the Ordinal.
These acts prove the sense of the nation, and in regard to the
sense of the clergy suffice it to state: 1. That the twelve comriiis-
sioners who drew up the Ordinal were all taken from the clergy.
Six of them, Cranmer, Goodrich, Holbeck, Skyp, Thirleby and Ridley
were all bishops ; and the other six were Coxe, afterwards Bishop of
Ely ; Taylor, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln ; May, Dean of St. Paul's ;
Heyns, Dean of Exeter ; Robertson, Archdeacon of Leicester ; and

157
Redmayne, Archdeacon of Taunton. 2. That in 1552, the Articles of
Religion were agreed upon in Convocation, in which these forms of
consecrating and ordaining are sanctioned as very pious, and agreeable
to the wholesome doctrine of the gospel. To this may be added, that
in ] 562 the Convocation adopted this very article, in substance, but
put it in a much stronger form ; the 36th article then agreed upon,
the title of which is, " Of consecration of Bishops and Ministers,"
being that " The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops,
and ordering of Priests and Deacons lately set forth in the time of
Edward VL, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parli
ament, doth contain all things necessary for such consecration and
ordering ; neither hath it any thing that is of itself superstitious and
ungodly, and, .therefore, whosoever are consecrated and ordered
according to the rites of that Book, since the second year of the afore
mentioned , King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be con
secrated or' ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such
to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered." For
albeit this article was adopted some two years after the consecration
of Parker, it may yet be taken as an indio'atipn pf the sense pf the
Church at the time pf his cpnsecraticn ; and indeed its bearing on
the case is strengthened by the fact that. Archbishop Parker himself
sat at the head of that very Convocation which sanctioned by its
synodical act the impressive form of Consecration prescribed in the
Ordinal. These acts show very plainly the sense of the Church and nation
as to the necessity of consecration ; and they prove, I apprehend,
that no man could, in ihose times, have been recognized as a bishop
in the Church of England who had nPt been splemnly cpnsecrated tp
his pffice by bishpps, agreeably tp the fprm prpvided for that, purpose
in the Ordinal. This was the law of the Church and the land ; and
under this law a man could no more steal intp the office of bishop
then than now ; nor could any man not solemnly consecrated to the
episcopal office by bishops agreeably to the Ordinal, have any more
been then made Archbishop of Canterbury, than under our present
laws a woman or a Roman Cardinal can be made President of the
United States.
2. I come now to give a brief synopsis of the direct proofs pf the
fact of Parker's consecration.
On the 18th of July, 1559, which was soon after the accession of
Elizabeth, the conge d'elire was issued to the Chapter of Canterbury,
and on August 1st of the same year, Matthew Parker was elected to

158
that See. Both instruriients are extant, and given in the works treat
ing on the subject.
On the 6th of December of the same year, (the bishops of Queen
Mary having been all deprived of their sees, except Kitchen,
Bishop of Llandaff,) a commission was issued to seven bishops, em
powering them, or a majority of their number, to confirm Parker's
election, and to consecrate him to the office of bishop. The names
pf the bishops included in this commission, were Kitchen, Barlow,
Scorye, Coverdale, Hodgkins, Salesbury and Bale. Kitchen was at
the time Bishop of Llandaff. Barlow, Scorye and Coverdale had
been bishops respectively of Bath, Chichester and Exeter, in King
Edward's time, but had been deprived of their sees under Mary.
Hodgkins and Salesbury were suffragan bishops of Bedford and
Thetford ; and Bale was Bishop of Ossory. The commission is ex
tant, and published in the bcpks treating on this subject*
On the 9th of December of the same year, Barlow, Scorye, Cover-
dale and Hodgkins confirmed the election of Parker ; and the certi
ficate of the fact may be seen in the books treating on the subject.
On December 17th, of the same year, the four bishops above
* In the conclusion of the Letters-Patent creating this commision, is a clause sup
plying by royal authority defects which the exigency of the times might require
to be s.upplied in carrying out the commission. Romanists are fond of nibbling
at this clause, as if it were intended to supply that very power of ordination or
consecration which by Divine Institution is vested exclusively in the bishops of
the Church, and which, because of its being so limited by divine institution, no par
liamentary statutes nor ecclesiastical laws, nor any human authority, can possibly
supply. The statesmen of that day, however, knew their province too well to
be guilty of any such egregious and presumptuous folly, and hence the defects
to be supplied are limited, by express words, to those which might arise from the
statute or ecclesiastical laws of the realm ; supplentes, &c., si quid * * * desit
aut deerit eorum, quae per statuta hujus regni, aut per leges ecclesiasticas in
hac parte requiruntuT. The explanation is found in the fact that some of the
bishops to whom the commission is addressed had been deprived of their sees
under Mary, and had either not been elected to, or not put in possession of, other
sees at the time the commission was issued, The clause is indeed peciiliar to
this commission, and is in a manner required by its opening sentence, which
directs the commission, not as is usual to diocesan Jbishops, but to bishops,
some of whom had, at the time, no dioceses under their charge ; as for Instance,
to Barlow, formerly Bishop of Bath, now Bishop Elect of Chichester, and to
Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter. " Regina, &c., Reverendis, in Christo
Patribus Antonio Landav. Episcopo, Willielmo Barloo quondam Bathon. Epis-
copo, nunc Cicest. electo, Johanni Scorye, quondam Cicest. episcopo, nunc Here-
fordensi '[electo] Mil. Coverdale quondam Exoniensi episcopo, Ricardo Bedfor-
densi, &c.

159
named, viz.. Barlow, Scorye, Coverdale and Hodgkins, consecrated
Matthew Parker in the Chapel of the Archiepiscopal Palace at Lam
beth, using the form which had been set forth in the reign of Edward
VI. The record of the consecration was entered in the Archbishop's
register, and the original copy pf the act is still preserved in Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge. It may be seen in most of the books on
Anglican Orders.
The fact of the consecration is mentioned in contemporary histo
ries ; in Hollingshead's Chronicle and Camden's Elizabeth; by the
latter in these words : " Matthew Parker, a religious and learned man,
and of most modest manners, who, being chaplain to King Henry
VIIL, had been Dean of the Collegiate Church of Stoke-Clare ; he
was solemnly elected to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and con
secrated at Lambeth, after a sermon and invocation of the Holy
Ghost, and celebration of the Eucharist, by the laying on of the hands
of three Bishops, William Barlowe, formerly Bishop of Bath ; John
Scorye, formerly Bishop of Chichester ; Miles Coverdale, formerly
Bishop of Exeter, and of John, suffragan of Bedford."
Archbishop Parker afterwards consecrated and confirmed Grindall,
Cox, Sands, Merrick, Young, Bullingham, Jewell, Davis, Guest, Bark-
ley, Bentham, Alley, Parkhurst, Home, Cheney, and Scambler ; and
he confirmed Barlowe in the See of Chichester, and Scorye in the See
of Hereford. These men afterwards took possession of their sees,
and enjoyed them during their lives ; and, of course, (Browne's
Nag's Head Fable, p. 168,) the fact of their being duly confirmed
and consecrated must have been certified to the government before
they could be admitted to do homage, and be installed in their epis
copal chairs, and have a writ to be put in possession of their tem.
poralities. I will only add, that seven years afterwards, i. e., in the year 1566,
an act of Parliament was passed, in which it is declared that the
queen had " caused divers and sundry grave and well-learned men
to be duly elected, made and consecrated archbishops and bishops
of divers archbishopricks and bishopricks within this realm, and other
her majesty's dominions and countries, according to such order and
form with such ceremonies in and about their consecration," as are
prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer ; and enacting " that all
persons that* have been, or shall be made, ordered or consecrated
archbishops, priests, ministers of God's Holy Word and sacraments,
or deacons, after the form and order prescribed in the said order and
form,, how archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and ministers should

160
be consecrated, made and ordered, be in yery deed, and also by au
thority hereof, declared and enacted to be, and shall be archbishopsj
bishops, priests, ministers and deacons, and rightly made, ordered
and consecrated ; any statute, law, canon, or other thing to the con
trary notwithstanding." The manifest purpose of the statute is to
bring the bishops, whose consecration it acknowledges, under the pro
tection of the State, to guard them in their legal privileges, and to
shield 'them from cavil and prosecution in the temporal courts ; and
the Romanists show stark ignorance, or something worse than igno
rance, when they represent it as intended to supply the want of con
secration. The statute is alone and of itself a sufficient proof of
Parker's consecration.
Not so much for proof (though proof it is) as to enliven these dry
details with a breath of the devout and heavenly spirit of the good
and great man who has thus been set up as a mark for papistical
scoffers and revilers, I give the following extract (which has been
often before published) from a parchment roll ^reserved in Christ
Church College, Cambridge, and containing, in the form of a diary
the principal events of Archbishop Parker's life, all written in his
own hand :
1559, 17. — Decembr. Ann. 1559. — Consecratus sum in Archiepis.
copum cantuarien.
Heu ! Heu ! Domine Deus in quse tempera servasti me ? Jam
veni in profundum aquarum, & tempestas demersit me.
O ! Domine vim patior, responde pro me, & spiritu tuo principali
confirma me. Homo enim sum, & exigui temporis, & minor, &c.
Da mihi fidiu-m tuarum, &c.
Such is an outline of the evidence in favour of Parker's consecra
tion. The Church and the nation, as proved by their synpdical and
parliamentary acts, believing that ne man could be made bishop
without being consecrated, and after a solemn form, by bishops,
creating an invincible necessity that he should be consecrated before
he could take possession, as no pne has ever denied that' he did take
pessession, of the See of Canterbury. The fact of his consecration,
attested by public records and contemporary history ; received, with
out a doubt, 'by a communion, the fundamental principle of which is
the fact of an unbroken succession in the order of bishops, and a
large proportion, not to say a majority, of whose clergy have believed
in the necessity of that succession to the very being of -a Christian
Church ; never questioned by Puritans, the bitter enemies of the
doctrine of apostolical succession, and of the claim made to it by

161
the Anglican Church ; and admitted, as we shall presently see, by
Romanists of great name, in opposition to the stream of their own
communion, and constrained by .the mere force of truth.
And now what has the Church of Rome, speaking at Rome and
through the mouth of her " Sovereign Pontiff," to offer in disproof of
Archbishop Parker's consecration 1 The herd of writers who are
subject to the Bishop of Rome, impugn Parker's consecration, as we
have seen, both on ritual and historical grounds, denying the suffi
ciency of the form used ip the consecration, and setting up a counter
statement in opposition to that attested by the public records of the
Church and nation. But the Church of Rome itself, as I shall now
show, wis debarred from the former ground, and therefore driven of
necessity on the latter.
On the accession of Mary, Pope Julius III. appointed Cardinal Pole
Legate de Latere from the Roman see, with full power and authority
to reconcile Englatid to the Church of Rome. Of the English clergy
then living, some had received orders under Henry VIIL, and others
under Edward VI. ; the former, both bishops and clergy, having
been ordained according to the Roman forms, and the latter accord
ing to the ordinal of Edward VL This Bull of Julius IIL to Cardinal
Pole, (which is given by Burnet, vol. iii. foi. ed., p. 215 of the records,)
mentions expressly the bishops and archbishops who had received
their livings from the hand of Henry VIIL and Edward VI ; puts no
distinction between Jthe ordinations performed according to the Roman
Pontifical, and those performed according to the ritual of the English
Church ; but provides that both, when reconciled to th§ Roman see
and re-iiabilitated, shall be admitted, if worthy and fit in other respects,
to preside .as bishops and archbishops over the Cathedrals and Metro
politan sees, to rule and govern the same in spirituals and temporals,
and to exercise the functions of their episcopal office. To remove
all difficulti£s, however, a dispensation is granted, under favour of
which Presbyters, even though irregularlyordained, (evidently refer
ring to those ordained by the English ordinal,,) might be rein
stated, and serve in their order and receive episcopal consecration,
without receiving the priesthood anew ; a plain recognition of the
validity of their orders ; since, had their orders been accounted null,
a dispensation, which extends only to human, and never to divine
laws, could not have supplied the defect.
This Bull to Cardinal Pole, virtually acknowleging the validity of
the orders conferred according to the ordinal of Edward VL, was
dated at Rome, A. D. 1554 : five years afterwards, Parker was con-
11

162
secrated by the same ordinal ; and when the question of the validity
of Parker's consecration, and of the bishops deriving from him, was
distinctly submitted to the judgment of the Roman see, it came np
and was determined, not on ritual, but on historical grounds. In
other words, the fact of Parker's consecration, attested. as it is by
all the proofs of which a fact is capable, was denied. And on what
grounds was it denied ? WhafT was the counter statement, and by
what festimony supported, which availed in the judgment of the
Poman Church to invalidate and overthrow the authentic statement ?
The reader shall have the stpry in the words in which it was first
published, A. D. 1604, or just forty-five years after Parker's conse
cration, by the Jesuit Holywood :
" In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the bishops of the
sectaries were to be made. They that wanted ordination (candidati)
met at London, at an inn in the street called Cheapside, at the sign
of the Nag's Head, and together with them came the old simple
Bishpp pf Landaff, (Landasensis, as it is the Latin all along,) to
give them orders. Which, as soon as Bonner, (Bonnerus,) then Dean
of the bishops in England, came to understand, he sent his chaplain
from the Tower, (where he was imprisoned for his religion,) to com
mand Landaff, under pain of excommunication, not to ordain the new
bishops. By which menace, Landaff, being frightened, drew back,
and ma"king use of many pretences, avoided the sacrilegious ordina
tion. Hereupon the persons waiting for orders (candidati) began to
be in a great rage, to abuse Landaff, and to consider of taking new
measures. To say no more, Scory, the monk, afterwards the mock.
Bishop of Hereford, imposes hands upon the rest, and some of them
impose hands upon Scory, and so the children are born without a
father, and the father is begotten by the children, a thing never heard
of in any age before. This Thomas Neale, reader of the Hebrew-
tongue at Oxford, who was present, related to the old confessors for
religion, and they to me. And the story is confirmed by its being
afterwards enacted in Parliament that these, parliamentary prelates
should be esteemed lawful bishops."*
Neal was Bonner's chaplain ; and Bonner was indicted at the
King's Bench for refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of Home,
(who was consecrated by Parker,) and had two of the greatest lawyers
in the kingdom to manage his defence ; but neither then nor ever after,
wards have we a word of this ridiculous story from Bonner. Harding,
* See Browne's Story of the Ordination, &e., p. 9.

163
Stapleton and Sanders flourished at the time, butnot a syllable of the
story is found in them or any 6ther Romish author before its publi
cation by Holywood ; and though afterwards several of these authors
repeat the story on the authority of the same Thomas Neal, yet they
all report it with different and even contradictory particulars. A
story like this, which has vulgarity and falsehood stamped on its face ;
which was attested at the time of its publication by no living witness,'
but was exhaled and blown about on the hearsays of hearsays, (for
Holywood had it from the " old confessors," and the " old confessors"
had it from Thomas Neal) ; which .sought, but sought in vain, to
get some semblance of truth from the impudent charge of forgery
which its partisans have brpught against the most solemn records of a
nation ; a story like this, every man, I apprehend, who had no' sinis
ter end to answer by its propagation, would dismiss at once as "a
silly fable and abominable scandal."
But the reader will require proof that this absurd fable has been
formally adopted by the Church of Rome, and he shall have it ; only
let us first do that justice to the Romanists as to confess that some
of them have risen above the spirit of cavil and gossip which their
leaders have shown in this matter.
Cudsemius, who travelled in England during the reign of Elizabeth,
and wrote a treatise De Desp. Calvin. Causa, printed A. D. 1609, has
this remarkable passa'ge :*
" As respects the state of the Calvinisticf sect in England, it is so
constituted that it may either last a long, time or be suddenly and'
rapidly dissolved ; and the reason is, that they have there the Catholic
order in the perpetual series of their bishops, and a lawful succession
of pastors ; in honour of which we are wont to call the English Cal
vinists schismatics, instead of applying to them the harsher term of
heretics." * I have merely translated the passage from Cudsemius as I find it in Dr. El-
rington, (to whom also I am indebted for the extracts from Peter Walsh,), and
subjoin the original :
" Quod Calvinianae sectae in Anglia statum attinet, ille ita comparalus est ut vel
admodum longo tempore dnrare posset, vel etiam subito & repente mutari,
propter Cathplicum ibidem in perpetua Bpiscoporum suorum serie, legitimaque
pastorum successione, ab efeclesia accepta ordinem, ob cujus honorem Anglos
Calvinistas mitiore vocaTjulo non hereticos, sed schismaticos appellare solemus."
t " 12mb. MaguntisB, 1609, c. xi., p. 121. We know that Calvin was not the
founder of the English Reformation, but the classing all the Reformed Churchea
together is no uncommon mistake." — Dr. Elrington.

164
The celebrated Peter Walsh, in an intreductory discourse to his
History of the Irish Remonstrance, makes the following remarks :
" In that place where I seem somewhat too severe on Matthew
Parker, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, under Queen
Elizabeth, ypu must not persuade yourself I do at all reflect upon
his ordination, as if indeed that had been not only uncanonical pr
unlawful, but really void and null, or (as the schoolmen speak) in
valid : were I to deliver my opinion of this matter, or were it my
purpose to speak thereof, I would certainly hold myself obliged in
conscience (for any thing I know yet) to concur with them who doubt'
mot the ordination of bishpps, priests, and deacens, in the Prptestant
Chur^i of England, to be (at least) valid. And yet I have read all
whatever hath been tP the cpntrary pbjected by Roman Catholic
writers, whether against the matter or form, or want of power in the
first consecrators, by reason of their schism and heresy, or of their'
being deposed formerly from the sees, &c. But I have withal ob
served nothing of truth alleged by the objectors, which might in the
least persuade any man who is acquainted with the known divinity, or
doctrine of the present schools,. (besides what Richardus Amarchanus
long since writ, and with the annals of our Roman Church ;) unless,
peradventure, he would turn so frantic at the same, as to question
even the validity also of our own ordination in the said Roinan
Church, on pretence, forsooth, either of the form of the Sacrament
altered at the pleasure of men, or succession of Bishops interrupted
.by so many schisms," &g.
And the same able and learned writer afterwards, on occasion of
some remarks made respecting his letter to the Bishop of Lincoln,
repeats this opinion, saying, that " The ordination in the Prdtestant
'Church of England is valid, according both to the public doctrines of
the Roman Catholic schqols themselves, and the ancient rituals of
all the Catholic Churches, Latin and Greek."
Le Courayer, a learned divine of the Gallican Church, is remark.
.able as having written a set treatise in favor of the validity, of the
Anglican Ordinations. To these, says Dr. Elrington, may be added
the names of Davenport, (Santa Clara,) Pere A'rnaud, Doctor Snel-
laerts. Professor of History at Louvain in the latter end of the 17th
¦century ; of the Abbd Longuerue referred to by Courayer, and Bos
suet, Bishop of Meaux.
In our own times. Dr. Lingard, the celebrated author of a work
-entitled " A History of England," having stated vol. vii., note I, that

165
Parker was consecrated December 17, 1559, by Barlow, Scorey, Co
verdale, and Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bedford, adds:
"The ceremony was performed, though >with a little variation,
according to the ordina^l of Edward VI. Two of the consecrators.
Barlow and Hodgkins, had been ordained bishops according to the
Roman Pontifical, the other two according to the reformed ordinal.
(Wilkins' Concil, iv., 198.) Of this consecratiMi on the '17th of
December, there can be no doubt; perhaps in the interval, between
the refusal of the Catholic prelates and the performance of the cere
mony, some meeting may have taken place at the Nag's Head which
gave rise to the story."
, I adduce these not as the testimony, whether ¦willing or reluctant,
of adversaries (for we need nothing of this sort), but as instances of
ihdividual fairness that appear in favorable contrast with the general
temper of the Roman Church. It is of the proceedings of that Church
that I am now to speak.
On Thursday, 17th of April, 1704, John Clement Gordon,- who
had been Archbishop of Glasgow, in the Episcopal Church of Soot-
land, (which Church, as well as ours, has derived its orders from the
Church of England since the Reformation,) and was afterwards known
as Abbot Gordon, having become a convert to the Roman Church,
presented himself at Rome, and petitioned the Pope, Clement XL, to
confer on him holy orders anew, on the ground that the orders which
he had received in the Scotch Episcopal Church wei^ null and void.
The petition of Gordon, together with the action on it at Rome, is
piiblished by Le Quien Piieces Justificatives, p. Ixix., and thence
transferred by Dr. Elrington to his Appendix, Ixxyii. As I am not
aware that the document has ever appeared in English, I shall trans
late it entire :
Memorial presented to Pope Clement XL, by the Congregation of the
Holy Office, on behalf of John Clement Gordon, who had been Bishop
of Glasgow, and was desirous of being re ordained.
Most Blessed Father :
John Clement Gordon, a Scotchn?an, lately converted to the faith
at Rome, most humbly throwing himself at the feet of your Holiness,
sets forth, that he obtained in his country the grade of the Episcopate,
consecrated, however, by the rite of heretics. But inasmuch as he
thinks- consecration of this sort to be null, for the reason annexed
to this petition, and earnestly desires to be admitted, from this doubt
ful and suspended grade, to a certain ecclesiastical state, and to serve
God and the Catholic Church ; therefore,

166
Your Petitioner reverently supplicates that your Holiness vouch
safe to declare that ordination of this sortis unlawful and null ; and
to dispense with him, that he may be able to receive holy orders by
the Catholic rite. And God, &c.
Reason why your Petitioner thinks, with the most part of Catholics,
and even of the heterodox, that the ordinations of the Anglican heterodox
can by no means be declared valid.
For that they may be declared valid, it ought, to be held, not
doubtfully but certainly, that the pretended bishops have the true
character of Episcopacy ; that they have, by some succession, re
ceived lawful ordination and consecration from the Catholic Church ;
and finally, that the essential form, matter and intention, have been,
and are yet, applied by these pseudo-bishops in their consecrations.
For, indeed, if any of these three — to wit, character, lawful consecra
tion and form, or intention, be wanting, it must needs be confessed,
with all theologians, that the consecration be declared null and in
valid. Now, as respects the first, the heretics, the most learned of that
country (as if convinced by the light of truth) confess that there is
among them no power of ordination which has not been derived upon
them from the Roman Catholic Church. Bridges, the Pseudo-
Bishop of Oxford, in Defence of the Government, &c., p. 278,
frankly confesses this. These are his words : " If our brethren will
have papists to be mere laymen, we tioo, and all our ministers, will
be mere laymen. For who ordained us ministers, but they who
were of their ministry 1 Unless, perchance, they will have it that
ministers are made by the people," which last the pretended minister
(Ministellus) daiied. He is not to be believed, however, when he
asserts for his party that they had their ministry frpm the Catholics,
inasmuch as he alleges no proof of successive ordination. But this
being taken away, no traces of consecration remain among the here
tics, except a ministry received from the people, or from a lay prince.
And if no lawful ordination and consecration, sacerdotal or episcopal,
has been derived upon them from orthodox Roman Catholic bishops,
they consequently possess no character, no consecration, and are
therefore unable, validly, to confer this on others. But that your
Petitioner may not seem in this matter (which is the source of his
doubt) to rely only on the assertions of heretics, he invi<!cibly proves
the invalidity of their consecrations by these arguments taken from
history. It is certain that, in the schisia and abjuration of the true faith in
England, no bishop went over to the side of the heretics, except one,
Anthony Kitchin by name. Bishop of Llandaff, a comparatively weak
man in doctrine and knowledge ; who, however. Being deputed by
Queen Elizabeth to the execrable office of ordaining, -was so far from
complying that he feigned himself blind, and so, unequal to the task
imposed on him ; and, detesting the deed, could be prevailed on by
no threats to perform it. (So Harding in Confuta. Apolog. Partll.
c. 2.) The same thing was known to Stowe, the English chronolo-

167
gist-^although, as we are assured by Constable, an English noble
man, in his manuscript work, p. 13, he did not dare, for fear of the
government, to insert it in his Annals'. •
There was also, about this time, in the Tower of London, a certain
Irish archbishop, whom the heretics i)esoughtf with the promise of
liberty and rewards, to take pity on the destitution of their Church,
and ordain for it ministers. Biit the good man, (says Sanders,) De
Schismate, p. 400,- could by no means be induced to lay holy hands on
the heretics, or partake of the sins of others. When, however, the
heretics saw themselves baulked of their hope, they come together,
by a preconcerted pl'an, on an appointed day, in the year 1559, to the
Tavern of the Horse's Head, in Cheapside-street, London, and resolve
what is to be done. At length, amidst the tumult of those present,
(for there were many there,) they choose John Scory, an apostate
monk, not a bishop, to go through a show of ordination. He had
read in the Second Book on the Church by Junius, (misprinted Tunii,)
one of the reformed, chap. 4, "that imposition of hands in the Church
was ¦ anciently nothing else than a joining of hand to hand in, token
of friendship. Accordingly he orders the bye-standers to fallen their
knees, and taking one Parker, a layman, by the right hand, " Up,"
says he, " 'fhy Lord Bishop of Canterbury, rise!"
He, in like manner, ordained some of those who were present by
this rite. That this so happened was attested by Thomas Neal, an
eye-witness, professor of the Hebrew tongue at Oxford, to one Ha-
berley, a friend of his, when both were living, in Belgium, in exile
from their country, on account of religion. There was published in
deed at London, in the year 1613, that is, fifty-four years after the
afore-mentioned occurrence, the book of a certain Aliglican, by the
name of Francis Mason ; he pretended that he had found in ascertain.
record a succession of bishops ordained by Catholics. But this is
exploded by all, and no wonder, for he brings no proof of his asser
tion. It is, therefore, certain, that they have received no valid ordi
nation from the true Church, and so iio character, and consequently
that their ordinations are invalid and null.
Add, that although any heretic had received a certain episcopal
ordination and consecration by. a lawful succession, (which, however,
is proved by no argument,) yet still their ordinations ought to be
pronounced invalid for defect of matter, form and due intention.
For they use no matter, except, perhaps, the delivery of Bibles ; —
no lawful form — nay, they have rejected the Catholic form find
changed it into this : Take thou authority to preach the Word of God,
and administer His holy Sacraments ; which essentially differs, from
the orthodox forms. And then, what intention can possibly be fo^-med
by those who deny that Christ, or the first Churchy instituted any
unbloody sacrifice''? . And the sacrifice being removed, the priest is
rempved ; the pries't being removed, the bishop is removed ; both
being removed, there 'are taken away, as saith St. Jerome in his Dial.
sgainst the Luciferians, the Church, the Faith, and the Gospel.
Finally, it has' ever b'een the constant use in England, that if an
heretical minister returned to the bosom of the Chi^ch,^he should be

168
accpunted as a layman. Whence if he be in the marriage bend, he
may remain in the same ; but if he be free, and desirous to enter the
ecclesiastical statj, he may be ordained after the manner of othei»
Catholics ; or, if he please, he may marry, &c. Therefore, &c.
Thursday, Apj-il l7th, 1704, in the general congregation of the
Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, held in the Apostolic Palace
at St. Peter's, before the most holy lord, our Lord Clement, by
Divine Providence the eleventh Pope [of that name,] and in presence
of the most eminent and most reverend lords cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church, specially deputed by the Holy Apostolic See Inquisi
tors-General in the whole Christian commonwealth again'st heretical
pravity :
The above-cited memorial being read, pur most holy lord, the Pope
aforesaid, having heard the suffrages of the same Most Eminent
[persons,] decreed that the aforesaid John Clement Gordon', the
petitioner, be promoted anew to all the orders, even the holy, and of
the priesthood ; and inasmuch as he has never been fortified by the
sacrament of confirmation, that he be confirmed.
Joseph Bartolus, S. R.,
Et Universalis Inquisitionis Notarius.
, Locus f Sisilli.
All that I wish to say on this petition I may express in the words
of- Dr. Elrington, merely putting his quotations frorfi. Gordon in
English :
" The first request made by Gordon is, that the Pope should declare
ordination of this sort (that conferred in the Episcopal Church of
Scotland) to be unlawful and void. This proves beyond the pos
sibility of doubt that no deterfnination had previously been made
upon the question of re-ordination, and establishes this petition and
the investigation which it gave rise to, as the sole ground upon which
the resolution, declaring our ordination to be invalid, was made; thus
supplying us with the means of judging whether that determination
was- well or ill-founded.
" The next sentence contains a statement notoriously false, asserting
that the greater part of the English Protestants themselves deemed our
'orders Ip be invalid. Your petitioner, with the most part of tlie
Catholics and even of the heretics, thinks that the ordinations of the
heterodox Anglicans can by no means be declared valid. To say that a
large proportion of Protestants deemed our orders «n valid, musfhave
had great weight with the Pope, who unquestionably was led to con.
sider that opinion to be a decisive proof that the Nag's Head story was
believed among ourselves. There is no man acquainted with tHI
Presbyterian controversy who does not know this a^sertipn tP be to-

169
tally destitute of foundation ; who does not know that no Presbyte
rian writer ever defended the Nag's Head story,. or made any objec
tion to our orders except their being too popish. ?
" It should not escape observation, that this sentence expressly ad
mits the denial of our orders not to have been universal among
Roman Catholics; this the words, with the most part of the Catholics,
plainly prove.
" The petition next states that our ordinations must be invalid, un
less we h^ve preserved the essential matter, form and intention.
This is perfectly correct ; but when Gordon comes to explain what
he allows to be the matter used at oar consecration, he chooses to for
get the Imposition of Hands, the onl^ essential matter of ordination,
and asserts that we use no matter except perhaps the delivery of the
Bible : Here" is a false statement pf a fact sp important, that if the
Pppe believed it, he cpuld npt but have decided against cur prders ;
and it appears by the cpnclusipn pf the account given by Le Quien,-
that he did believe it and every other fact stated by Gordon, for the
decision was made without any other evidence haj/ing been gone into,
except the mere reading his petition. • ,
" Gordon next asserts that the only form used was : Take thou
authority to pre&ch the word of God, and administer his holy sacra
ments. He had omitted to state the Impositipn of Hands, and
he here omits the words used with that solemn action, which con
stitute a most important part of the form of ordination. His state
ment as to the form being admitted,- the determination' of the Pope
must have been against our orders ; but that statement we know was
false, and so did Gordon also know when he made it. ^
"He then notices the defect of intention, arising from our denial pf
the Sacrifice of the Mass, and here indeed his fact is true, but the
reaspning frpm it we have already seen, pn the authprity of Bellar
mine and of the Synod of Evreaux, to be totally erroneous ; the in
tention to ordain to the office for which Christ had ordained, even
though accompanied with an explicit, nay an heretical error as to the
nature of that office, being sufficient.
"I have followed this subject of the matter, form and intention,
through the whole of the petition, that I might not separate the parts
of so .important a»discussion. I now return to where it was first
mentioned, and there I find it noticed that we can have no ordination
but what was derived to us through Roman Catholic bishops ; biit to .
this truth is subjoined ji statement, contrived with such Jesuitical art,
that though the assertion taken literally is not false, yet it inevitably

170
excites an idea which is decidedly false. Kitchen; of IJandaff, is
named by Gordon as the only Roman Catholic bishop who came
over to thf Protestants in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign ; and
then he proceeds with his story, tacitly assuming that he was the
only bishop from whom Parker, etc., could have obtained consecra
tion, and relating his refusal, and then giving the story of the appli
cation to the Irish "Archbishop in the Tower, he describes the Nag's
Head consecration as the resource to which, of necessity, they were
driven. •
" It being believed that there was no bishop who could consecrate
except Kitchen, his refusal necessarily proved that there had been no
real consecration ; and we see clearly tliat Gordon's assertion, true,
indeed, if we understand it of bishops in possession of their sees, but
untrue if we take it to include all English bishops actually consecra
ted, was never examined into, but admitted in that sense in which it
led to the determination he wished for. It is unnecessary to detain
the reader by repeating what has been already said as to the number
of Protestant bishops who had been rescued by Providenbe from t'he
persecution of Mary, to continue the hierarchy of the Church of Eng
land — as unnecessary is it to refute the story of the Irish Archbishop.*
" As to Scorye, Gordon makes no ceremony with him, but says
boldly that he was an apostate monk, not a bishop : the falsehood of
which assertion a little inquiry would have disclosed ; but the Pope
made no inquiry.
" For the Nag's Head story Gordon gives Haberley as his author
ity, on the faith of Neal (misprinted Keal), but he chooses to give
Neal credit with the Pope, by stating him to have been in exile on
account of his religion, of which exile nobody but Gordon ever heard.
Indeed the account of Neal, as given by Wood, in his Antiquities of
-* This too, as well as the story which it is brought to embellish, is a pure fic
tion. The first mention of it was in a posthumous publication of Sanders, who
referred to an Irish Archbishop, without giving his name. A subsequent writer,
Fitz-Simons, in order to invest the fiction with an air of particularity, affirmed
that his name was Creagh, which a still later writer improved into Richard
Creagh. It has been clearly proved, however, that there was no Irish Arch-
bishdp living at that time who could have acted the part assigned to him. See
Elrington, p. 62, Browne's Story of the Ordination, p. 42, and the Roman Catho
lic Le Courayer, vol. ii,,p. 157, &c., who has clearly shovvn the impossibility of the
alleged fact, and who indeed has so completely exhausted the argument in favor
of the Anglican Ordinations, that the English divines who have lived since his
time (Mason, Bramhall, and Burnet had written on the same subject before him_)
have done little more than repeat*what he has said.

171
Oxford, is inconsist'ent with his ever having been the author of the
Nag's Head story, either at home or abroad ; for he was appointed
Hebrew Lecturer in 1558 or 1559, by Elizabeth, and held the office
for many years ; he took a distinguished part in the reception of Eliza
beth at Oxford, in 1566, and was particularly noticed by her ; and in
1590, he erected a monument for hinieelf in Cassington Church, near
which he lived after retiring from Oxford, continuing to go some
times to Church, though not entirely a Protestant ; and there is reason
to believe that he died in tliip course of the year in which this monu
ment was erected. We have hej-e no interval of time in which
Neal could have been an exile, nor any sufficient cause for his leaving
England; and his receptipn in 1566 by Elizabeth, is utteriy incon
sistent with his having been employed to prevent the consecration of
Parker. " Gprdpn relates the form used in the Nag's Head consecration from
the account given by Fitzsimon; and, that nothing might be wanting
to the story, he confidently asserts Parker to have been a layman,
though he must have known that he. had been ordained a priest in
1527, according to the Romish ritual.
" This circumstance alone is sufficient to show how little'regard was
paid to truth, even in a solemn application to the Pope,- and that too
of such a nature, that to deceive was to incur the guilt pf sacrilege, for
such the crime of reiterating orders already given is deemed to be
by those who esteem orders to be a sacrament.
" Gordon proceeds to state, that in 1613 there came out a book
by Franci? Mason, in which he pretends to have found a record of
our bishops having been ordained 'by Catholics ; but that this story
was rejected by all, as he adduced no proof of his assertion.
" Now, we know that Mason never made the assertion here impu
ted to him, for the bishops he names as consecrators of Parker were '
Protestants ; and we also know that he did adduce proof of his narra
tive, for he stated where the record which he referred tP- W9,s tP be
fpund, and Gordon knew that it had been examined by his own party ^
and no mark of forgery discovered in it.
" The memorial concludes by stating, that it had always been the
practice in England to re-ordain , any of our clergy who became con
verts to the .Church of Rome. How little truth there was in this
statement, we have seen already in examining the Bull of Pope Julius ,
and the proceedings in the beginning of the reign of Mary.
" Upon no other evidence whatsoever, except this memorial. Pope

172
Clement the Eleventh, and his consistory, ordered Gordon tp be pr-
dained, thus pronouncing the orders he had received to be invalid.
" Had we known only the decision, without any information as to
the grounds upon which it was made, it would hardly be considered
justifiable by Roman Catholics to set up their own opinion against
that of the Pope and Cardinals ; but, as infallibility does not extend
to matter of fact, they will, I hope, think it not unwarrantable to ques
tion a decree founded upon such statements as those contained in Gor
don's petition." ^
It appears then that this pretty, romance (I may use the word with
etymological propriety) is the ground on which the successors of
Paul III. and Pius V. have decreed the nullity of the English Ordina
tions. To us the decision is of no moment ; since all that has Jjeen
written and said against our orders is not enough to create in any
candid mind even a doubt or suspicion of their validity. For the Ro
manists, however, the decision has been unfprtunate ; inasmuch as it
has led to the iteration of prders in the case pf those clergymen who
have been perverted from us and taken to fninister at their altars,
and thus polluted their communion at its fountain head with the
awful guilt of sacrilege, or sin against the Holt Ghost.

V. — Preface, Page vi. «
Speaking of the separatipn pf the Puritans from the Church of
England, Bishpp Stillingfleet ebserves :
" But if we trace the footsteps of this separation as far as we can,
we may find strong probabilities that the Jesuitical party had a great
influence on the very first beginnings of it. For which we must cpn-
sider that, when the Church ofEngland was restored in Queen Eliza
beth's reign, there was no open separation from the communion of it
for several years, neither by Papists nor Non-Conformists. At last,
the more zealous party of the foreign priests and Jesuits, finding this
compliaiKje would, in the end, utterly destroy the popish interest in
England, they \)egan to draw off the secret papists from all con
formity with our Church, which the old Queen Mary's priests allowed
them in :. this raised some heat among themselves, but at last the
way of separation prevailed, as the more pure and perfect way. But
this was not thought sufficient by these busy factors for the Church
pf Rome, unless they could, under the same pretence pf purity and
perfection, draw off Protestants from the communion of this Church,

173
too. To this purpose persons were employed, under the disguise of
more zealous Protestants,, to set'up the way of more spiritual prayer
and greater purity of worship than was observed in the Church of
England : that so the people, under these pretences, might be drawn
into separate meetings. Of this we have a considerable evidence
lately offered to the world, in the examination of a priest so employed
at the Council Table, A. D., 1567, being the ninth of Queen Eliza
beth, which is published from the Lord Burleigh's Papers, which were
in the hands of Archbishop Usher, and from him came to Sir James
VVare, whose son brought them into'England, and I'ately caused them
to be printed. Two years after, one Heath, a Jesuit, was summoned
before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account for disparaging the
prayers of the Church, and setting up spiritual prayers above them ;
and he declared to the bishops ' that he had been six years in England,
and that he had labored to refine the Protestants, and to take off all
smacks of ceremonies, and to make the Church purer.' When he
was seized on, a letter was- found about him from a Jesuit in Spain,
wherein he takes notice how he was admired by his flock, and tells
him they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most
effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome ; and in his
chamber they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the instructions of
the Society for Dividing the Protestants in England, and the license
from his fraternity. (Foxes and Fir^rands : 1680.) There is one
thing in the Jesuit's letter deserves our fafther consideration, which
the publishers of it did not -understand — which is, that Hallingham,
Coleirfan, and Benson, are there mentioned as persons employed to
gow a faction among the German heretics ; which he takes to be
spoken of the sects in Germany ; but by the German heretics the
English Protestants are meant, i. e., "Lutherans : and these very men
are mentioned by our historians, without knowing of this letter, as
the most active and busy in the beginning of the separation. Of
these (saith Fuller) Coleman, Button, Hallingham, and Benson, were
the chief At which time (saith Heylin) Benson, Button, Hallingham
and Coleman, and others, taking upon them to be of more ardent zeal
than others, &c. That time is 1568, which agrees exactly with the date
of that letter at Madrid, October 26th, 1568. And both these had it
from a much better author than either of them, Camden, I mean, who
saith : That while Harding, Sanders, and others, attacked our Church
on one side ; Coleman, Button, Hallingham, Benson and others,
were busy on the other ; who, under pretence of a purer reformation,
opposed the discipline, liturgy, and calling of our bishops, as approach
ing too near to the Church of Rome. And he makes these the begin
ners of those quarrels which afterwards brake out with great violence.
Now, that there is no improbability in the thing, will appear by the
suitableness of these pretences about spiritual prayer, to the doctrine
and -practices of the Jesuits. For they are professed despisers of the
Cathedral Service, and are excused from their attendance on it by
the constitutions of their order ; and are as great admirers of spirit
ual prayer and an enthusiastic way- of preaching, as appears by the
history of the first institution of their order, by Orlandi'nus and Maf-

174
feius. They who are acquainted with their doctrine of spiritual
prayer, will find that which is admired and set up here, as so rriuch
above set forms, to be one of. the lowest of the three sorts among
them. That gift of prayer which rnen have, but requires the exercise
of their own gifts to stir it up, they call oratio acquisita, acquired
prayer ; although they say the principle of it is infused. The second
is, by a a special immediate infiuence of the Holy Ghost upon the mind,
with the concurrence of infused habits, ' The third is far above either
of these, which they call the prayer of contemplation, and is never
given- by way of habit to any, buc lies in immediate and unexpressible
unions. All these I could easily show to be the doctrine received
and magnified by the Roman Church, especially by those who pre
tend to greater purity and spirituality than others. But this is suffi
cient for my purpose, to prove that there is no improbability that
they should be the first setters up of this way in England." — Stilling-_
fleet's Unreasonableness of Separation — Preface, pp. 11-14.

FINIS.

ERRATA.
Page 26, for D, read MM.
Page 19, for I, read J.

0577

¦Jfcl- J""

¦ir- X TP -^

¦- "MSI

ldiiij43fi— =^ -Fajji il ij «»w-^sE»^rf>^ i'1*4a-aP5t-'^ [ ^1