YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL THE THREE REFORMATIONS: LUTHERAN-EOMAN-ANGLICAN. BY WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D. VICAR OF LEEDS. v ^ e '•Vou can easily conceive, that, when any one standa on a. middle point between two others, who are, with respect to him, strictly equidistant, he must, from the inevitable laws of perspective, appear to both, not to be in the middle, but comparatively near the opposite party."— Alexander Knox. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY REV. WE SHELTON, D.D. Hector of St. Paul's Church Buffalo. ^ >x BUFFALO : GEO. H. DERBY AND CO. ADVERTISEMENT. The following Lecture was delivered at the Church of England Library ait Rochdale, on the 8th of December, 1846"; and on the 15th of the same month at the Church Institution of Leeds. The subject of this Lecture has been further illustrated by the Author, in five sermons preached before the University of Oxford in 1837, and in " A Call to Union on the Principles of the English Reformation," published in 1838. PREFACE. To the Parishoners of St. Paul's Church: — The following address, delivered by the distinguished Vicar of Leeds, in England, I beg leave to present to your attention, bclievino- that it contains information which should be familiar to every one. The subject is the three principles, adopted by the three great divisions of the Christian world in arriving at the truth of re vealed religion. A gifted and venerable fellow Churchman* who had given much time, thought, and study to these and kindred sub- subjects, commended the pamphlet to my attention, with a request that it might be published, claiming that it contained within the least com pass, the full expose of the three method's which have been adopted by existing Christians to enable them to understand the communica tions of God to man. I now feel the more urged to carry out the suggestions, as he has since laid aside his mortal habiliments, and has gone, (we humbly trust,) where truth sparkles at every step, and the labor of investigation is not required. The Council of Trent, that last great assemblage of the represen tatives of the Church of Rome, adopted the principle of development. That is, it sanctioned the usages and doctrines which had obtained countenance in the progress of ages, as truths ; and thus perpetuated whatever had been previously adopted. The Reformers, under the leading of Luther and Calvin, and those who followed their guidance, whether in England or upon the Conti nent, adopted the opinion which has its fruit in the multitude of sects which now spread themselves out over large portions of the world, viz : that of individual interpretation of the holy scriptures ; or, that the Bible, standing alone, is of itself capable of being understood — if not by each individual, yet by each body of men binding themselves together for religious purposes — the claims being that the "Bible, and jj the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." * Major Douglass. With this taking and specious declaration, every man is declared to be at liberty to interpret the high things of God for himself, but always, it is to be understood, under the control of his sect, or of his pastor, or of a commended commentary. If the existing anarchy among those adopting this sentiment be not a sufficient refutation, nothing that can be said will be. Acting under its influence, the conflicting bodies of Christians are in charity all equally true, because they are (in charity) equally sincere and honest, and no umpire is allowed beyond their recently formed sect, or organi zation, or leader. The third method of interpretation is that adopted by and prac ticed in the primitive Church, and from thence transferred to the Reformed branch of the Catholic Church in England, and trans mitted to her daughter Church in America, which is, that each individual is not able to find out for himself, or herself, from the Bible alone, the great system and plan of redemption by Christ — what the Church is, what her powers are, what her doctrines are, or what her holy sacraments signify. Hence, the Bishops of England who abol ished the errors of the Medieval ages, rested not upon their 'private understanding of the Holy Scriptures, (although they studied their meaning with as intense a desire, and with as much of mental ability as either Calvin or Luther, or any other individuals). They sought aid from what had gone before them, ihey looked into the earliest ages of Christianity, before essential corruptions had crept in. They also examined the earliest Councils, composed (as they were) of the Bishops of Churches from all parts of Christendom, who were con vened to fix the catholic doctrine, the primitive and pure doctrine, such as Christ taught his apostles, such as the aposties taught their converts. They read and studied primitive Christianity, and gath ered from these stores of truth what had been the doctrines, usao-es, rites, government, and principles of the first, purest, and most holy ages. Hence they did not say that it is obvious, merely from our reading of the Holy Scriptures, and from our endeavor to study the Bible, that these doctrines, these principles, these usages, this authority, and this three fold ministry, are the truths taught in Holy Scripture, but they chose a higher criterion of judgment, an umpire of authority, and the only one that ever can be brought to settle controversies upon disputed points in Theology. They said it is obvious to all men dili gently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient authors (meaning thereby the primitive Church,) that from the beginning there have been these PREFACE. three orders of the ministry, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; th.ese various doctrines, these wholesome usages and observances ; prayers by a composed form — in short, the doctrines of the Prayer Book. They left this priceless legacy to their brethren, claiming for it, that it was, according to all the light vouchsafed to them, in all essentials, such as had been in use, and that its doctrines and views upon every subject were the same as had been believed, prior to the innovations, additions and falsehoods of the middle ages. There is not space here to allow me to pass upon these holy men the eulogy which they deserve, both for their learning, their piety, their zeal, and unwearied labors. They were each, in turn, burned at the stake, for having dissevered from error the gems of truth, which they placed in their s--icred bequest, and second best book which this earth holds — Our wrought out system of Christian theology, devotion and truth, the Book of Common Prayer. Perfect, they were not; no man liveth and sinneth not! Ckanmkr feared, when he saw the fires, heard the roar of the flames — saw the dread array of fierce men, more cruel than the flames, heard their dread denunciations, and still more fatal blandishments — and he recan ted/ But when time was given him — when he had reflected ; when he realized what he had done, his holy heroism returned, and he endured all. He embraced the stake with his scorched and seared hand, which, as the instrument of his recantation, he had voluntarily burned — and thus, in the eye of charity, and to all humane and right minded men, made all the expiation in his power. What covld he more ? Ye who have no pity, who demand of others perfection, show to us your faultless and stainless lives; let us look upon your unclouded path, shining at all times with the splendor of perfection ! It should never be out of mind, that Arch Bishop Ckanmer, Bish ops Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper, died at the stake, by the hands of Romanists, for the part they each took in framing our Book of Common Prayer, and that the great principle upon which it is framed is, that it contains (according to its martyred framers) the sense of the Church, in the first ages. It should also be borne in mind, that centuries hate past away since its promulgation, and thou sands and tens of thousands of the most learned, penetrating and judicious minds, and pious spirits which the world has ever seen, have confirmed, by their own investigations, [for the sources of truth are VI PREFACE. not concealed, they are open to all) the truths which were then laid down. We might here ask, if this principle of appeal to original sources- be not true ; why have the councils of this nation ordered to be published the works of the distinguished authors of our national con stitution, and appointed a high judicial court to interpret the sense of the constitution? If every man can fully understand the structure and meaning of each sentence in that important paper, why such procedures? Not surely for the purpose of perfecting, or in any manner altering the constitution of the country, but simply, as the best possible means of aiding the mind to understand it. The church and religion of Christ were, as are all the works of GOD, perfect from the first — perfect as was the sun, as were the trees and animals, when they adorned the first garden. And it was the high effort of the church in England, to discover what the church of the first periods was. If they did not discover what was sought, it was not because they did not use all the means in their power. It was not because there was not brought to the investigation, as much learning as the case demand ed, and as pure a zeal for truth as has glowed in the breasts of any men, and as much sincerity and truth of character as have belonged to any christians. In commending the accompanying learned and masterly treatise to your careful reading, I lay before you, in a short compass, the great principles by which the three principal divisions of christians have arrived at their distinguishing doctrines and usages. Which of the three addresses itself most effectually to the common sense of unbiassed minds, I leave to your cousideration, And am, affectionately, your friend and Servant, Buffalo, Dec. 1849. W. S. THE THREE REFORMATIONS LUTHE RAN — ROMAN —ANGLICAN. Gentlemen: — The institution which I have the honor to address has an object in common with many other institutions, which have of late years sprung up in this country, that object being, to supply the industrial classes of society with the means of enjoying those pleasures which result from an acquaintance with the elegancies of literature, the philosophy of history, and the discoveries of science. Whatever has a tendency to attract man from sensual indulgences to the cultivation of the mind has a tendency also to promote civilization ; and although there are sins of the intellect as well as sins of the body, for which we shall have hereafter to give an account, and although, therefore, mental culture does not of necessity imply moral excellence, yet it is upon the civilized mind that Christianity is brought to bear : — " Prowess and arts did tame And tune men's hearts before the Gospel came ; Strength levell'd grounds ; art made a garden there ; Then shower'd religion, and made all to bear ;" and consequently such institutions as these must be regarded with interest by all who have the promotion 8 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: of "God's glory and the welfare of their fellow-crea tures at heart. Man consists of body, mind, and soul (c/w/acc, fyoxi], 7Tv&vy.a.y. there are food and exercise for the body; there is grace for the soul; let there be the pursuits of literature and science for the mind. For the corporeal part of our nature let us do what in us lies to prevent the people from being overworked ; let us adopt those sanatary measures which are needful, hi order that our noble Saxon race may not degenerate into pigmies ; and while we value the commercial interests of our country, let us never forget that the object of the true patriot will be to promote not merely the wealth of the few but the welfare of the millions ; for the souls of our brethren let us go on erecting sanctuaries and providing the means of grace ; let us build schools, train school masters, and multiply such institutions as this, that men may improve their minds, and in the intervals of labor taste the delights of mental recreation. But in many institutions, professing the same objects as yours, one branch of literature and science is excluded, namely, theology. And yet among the sciences theology is the most important; and if we exclude from our library the works of our theologians, we exclude a large portion of the philosophy, metaphysics, the eloquence, and the poetry of our country. There seems to be no ground in reason for acting thus. The ambition of form ing one large association is very attractive, but surely it is not an object for which it is worth our while to make a sacrifice so great as that to which I have alluded. It is far better to attempt the formation of many smaller insti tutions, all constituted on definite principles, but encou raging friendly intercourse ; and we may be sure that whenever the fine of demarcation is clearly drawn, inter- LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 9 course between disagreeing parties becomes practicable and easy : it is not by conceahng differences, but by stating them candidly, and knowing clearly the points upon which we must agree to differ, that we further the cause of charity as well as of truth. Each separate society would be a gainer, for better lectures would be obtained. The restraint under which a lecturer is placed when his subject trenches upon theology, and he is afraid to give utterance to the sentiment which suggests itself to his mind, lest he should seem to encroach upon the religious neutrality professed by the society he addresses, must do damage to his own soul, while it deteriorates the character of his lecture. And the lecture given at one in stitution might be open to the members of all similar insti tutions, who would attend with a knowledge beforehand of the bias of the lecturer's mind, and would have, in consequence, no ground of complaint when the lecturer expresses himself freely according to principles not incul cated by inuendo, but openly avowed. But however this may appear to others, I feel it to be a satisfaction that I am now addressing a literary and scientific association, where I may speak freely as a theo logian. It is indeed, only as a theologian that you can have requested me to address you this evening ; for you must know enough of the duties of a working clergyman in a manufacturing district to be aware that he can have but little time for any literary and scientific pursuits, except those which bear upon his immediate duties. A clergyman is, indeed, pledged to this. Although he may have a general acquaintance with many subjects, since this is needful in order to know any one subject perfectly, yet it is only on one subject that ordinary minds can be really learned so as to be able to instruct others ; that subject 10 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: being the one to which their powers, such as they are, have been especially directed. It is from a forgetfulness of this, that there is truth in the fine which has become proverbial: "A little learning is a dangerous thing." It is dangerous, because the conceited sciolist mistakes his little for much. Take your own profession, trade, or call ing in life, and deliver to us a discourse upon it, or upon some subject connected with it, and whatever it may be, or however ungrammatical your expression, you will be heard whith respectful attention We should listen with satisfaction to a shoemaker discoursing on the art of making shoes, and expatiating on his discoveries in the cordwainer's department of science; but if that person, from the perusal of a few books upon astronomy, were to open a lecture-room at Cambridge, and to pretend to throw fresh light upon the solar system, we could protect him neither from the silent contempt of the professors, nor from the noisy mirth of the undergraduates. A wise man knows when to be silent as well as when to speak ; and a little learning on many subjects is not dangerous, if, mindful that it is but little we know, we approach them as a relaxation and amusement, and give our mind in its vigor to that one subject to which, by the Providence of God, we are called to devote ourselves. It is on this ne sutor ultra crepidam* principle that I intend to select for my lecture this evening a subject which could not, with propriety, be handled in a sermon, or, at all events, not in sufficient detail; but which, never theless, is one of such importance that no apology can be necessary for bringing it under the notice of those who, being members of a Church Institution, ought to be * " Let not the shoemaker go beyond his last.'' LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 11 reminded of the singular advantages they possess in being members of that pure and apostohcal branch of the Church wich is the bulwark not of the Reformation only, but of Catholicism itseE What may be the office assigned in the secret counsels of God to that pure and reformed branch of the Church to which we have the happiness to belong, we, of course, know not : that our Church may be destined to be the preserver and restorer of the faith, when Antichrist shall have appeared, and when the predicted falling away shall have occurred — this may be only a dream, though it be a dream in which the dutiful children of our dear and holy mother may be permitted to indulge without giving offence ; but be that as it may, this is quite certain, that we, whether ministers or people, clergy or laity, can only do God's work in this Church of England by adhering firmly and consistently to the principles of our Church, as laid down at the glorious and blessed epoch of the Reform ation. This I have said to Ultra-Protestants,* and this I will continue to say to Romanizers ; and, in despite of the cavils of either extreme, honest Church-of-England men must march straight onward in the via media, that straight and narrow path, between miscalled Evangelical ism and miscalled Catholicism, which leadeth unto truth. (Note A.) It is to the era of the Reformation that all parties must refer, not because to the Reformers, erring and sinful men, any peculiar deference is due, but because at that time were settled the principles which have developed them selves in Ultra-Protestantism, Romanism, and Anglican- * See author's " Call to Union on the Principles of the Engl:sh Reformation ;" and his "Five Sermons before the University of Oxford." 12 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: ism. I include Romanism, for the present Church of Rome was reformed at the Council of Trent; and our real dispute with Rome is simply this— whether her refor mation or ours was conducted on the proper principle. To the three Reformations, therefore, the Lutheran, the Roman, and the Anglican, after a few preliminary obser vations, I propose to call your attention. Long before the Reformation took place, a reformation of the Church was demanded by the moral sense of man kind, as every one will admit who is even moderately acquainted with the history of the middle ages. Much pains have been taken within the last few years to vindi cate the character of the middle ages from the unmitigated censures of the historians of the last century, who wrote without sufficiently examining the subject. By no one has this been done so efficiently as by the learned Mr. Mait- land : it would have been well if those who have followed him had always been guided by that good common sense which is as remarkable in him as his learning. But some persons have appeared among us who have concluded that, because the middle ages were not so dark as they were regarded by our immediate ancestors, they must have been one blaze of light. When we look at the magnifi cent minsters and the gorgeous cathedrals by which not only our own country but ah Europe is adorned, we shall not think scorn of the artists whose skill we have hitherto been unable to equal : but when we discover the misery, splendid or sordid, in which the mass of the people lived, our admiration of those "good old times" is considerably diminished. We permit our imagination to gaze with delight on the gentle knight in his panoply, "pricking on the plain," but the very fact of his having to go forth armed cap-a-pie as the redresser of wrongs, bears silent LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 13 testimony to the disturbed state of the country, and the miseries resulting from the want of a police. When the student opens the volumes of the schoolmen, he admires the acuteness of intellect which prevailed among them, and the care with which the mind was cultivated; but when he reads in Bossuet what comes with double force from him, because it comes in the light of an admission, that "they preferred for the most part to proceed on philosophical reasonings of the worst description rather than consult the fathers,"* his respect for them as theolo gians is not very great. And this becomes still more the case when he learns from Eleury that " it was the misfor tune of the doctors of the thirteenth and fourteenth cen turies to know very little of the works of the fathers, especially the more ancient; to be deficient in the aids necessary for well understanding them ;" that " the gene rality of students, even of divines, limited themselves to few books, chiefly to those of modern authors, whom they understood better than the ancients :"| nor will he forget what the Abbe Goujet observes, that " they did not en gage in the study of Scripture, even in the schools of theology, except with lukewarmness ; and they often contented themselves with imperfect extracts from it, found in the writings of some theologian of little solidity, which they put in the hands of those they wish to apply to theological science." " The theologians who preceded the fourteenth century, and were after the time of St. Bernard or St. Thomas, had deprived themselves of an advantage in abandoning, or, at least, neglecting, so much the study of the fathers, both Greek and Latin."J * Bossuet, Defensio Declar. Cler. Gallic. Lib. viii. cxi. t Fleury, Cinquieme Discours stir 1'Histoire Ecclesiastique. $ Goujet in "Fleury's Discourses on Eccles. His. See Palmer's " Essay on the Church." 14 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: I request you to bear in mind what is here said by Roman Catholic writers — an admission on their part of the inefficiency of the theologians of the middle ages ; for the importance of this admission will be presently apparent. But religion, it will be said, sound morals, reverence, devotion, these were characteristic of the middle ages. Let us see what those who lived in those ages thought upon this subject. We admit " That many hooded Cenobites there were Who in their private cells had yet a care Of public quiet, unambitious men, Counsellors for the world, of piercing ken ; Whose fervent exhortations from afar Moved princes to their duty, peace or war ; And oft-times in the most forbidding den Of solitude, with love of science strong, Most patiently the yoke of thought they bare." Such men were Bradwardine, Bishop Pecock, William of Wykeham, and Waynflete. Undoubtedly there were many such; but to what great object were the most fervent exhortations of these great men addressed ? It was to the reformation of the Church. The dissolution of morals, the irreverence in all that pertained to religion, the venal ity of the prelates, the immorality of the clergy, were such that the hearts of the righteous were afflicted, and their exertions paralyzed: "Oh! that I might see the Church," says St. Bernard, writing to his friend and for mer pupil, Eugenius III., now on the papal throne — "Oh! that I might see the Church, before I die, as it was in the days of the apostles, who made it their business to win, not silver and gold, but souls! How earnestly do I desire to hear from you the apostle's sentence: 'Thy money perish with thee !' Oh ! word of thunder ! at which all the enemies of Zion should arise and flee away. And this LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 15 doth your mother the Church require of you. For this doth her children, small and great, continually sigh; namely, that you would root out every plant which your heavenly Father hath not planted ; for you are set over nations and kingdoms" (he had exaggerated ideas of ppaTpower)' "te root, out and to destroy, and to build up and to plant. Yet, in all your undertakings, remember that you are but a man ; and let the fear of Him that taketh away the breath of princes be ever before your eyes."* What, indeed, was the moral state of society at that time may be gathered from a single fact,, that Heloisa expressed her disinclination to marry Abelard, because, as his mistress, she would every where be received with honor; whereas he, as a married ecclesiastic, would be treated with scorn, and excluded from preferment.f The constrained celibacy of the clergy had, indeed, not only corrupted the whole clerical order, but had demoralised the world. A reformation of the Church, in its head and its members, became a cry throughout Europe. It origi nated with a cardinal — it was repeated by the Emperor ; it was reiterated by kings and princes — it was re-echoed by serfs and peasants, "To reform the Church, in its head and its members," the Councils of Pisa and of Con stance were convoked ; and in order more fully to impress upon your minds the error of those who refer us to the middle ages, as to ages of peculiar excellence in morality and religion, I shall present you with an account of the * Bern. Epist. 257. ad Eugen. t A marrried clerk was in all respects reputed as a layman, saving that if he kept his habit and tonsure he could be examined, according to the canon law, before no secular judgo ; and if any one laid violent hands on him, he was excommunicated ipso facto. See Johnson's EccUs..: Canons, 141S. 16 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: moral and religious condition of the people, as given by persons of high ecclesiastical rank and dignity, selected to preach before the assembled fathers of the Council of Con stance, by whom their assertions were neither refuted nor censured. The Council was opened on the 5th, and the first session was held on the 13th of November, ±414. 1 will not refer to John Huss, whose cruel 4eath, under an act of unexampled injustice, is itself a testimony against the age, because he might be considered as an exceptionable witness ; but I will refer to the sermon of Matthew Roe- der, Professor of Divinity in the CoUege of Navarre, at Paris, which was delivered before the Council on the 30th of December. He expresses his astonishment that so many wise and understanding men had been supported in such horrible licentiousness as he expresses in two verses, which are characteristic of the taste of the age. Every noun of the first verse is the nominative to the verb under it in the second : — Virtus, Ecclesia, Populus, Daemon Simonia, Cessat, turbatur, errat, regnat, dominatur. Virtue, the Church, the People, the Devil, Simony, Is fled, is disturbed, erreth, reigneth, governeth.* " The truth is," said Paul l'Anglois, a school-doctor of those times, " that the whole court of Rome, from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, is blinded with manifest and public error. It has made almost all the parts of the world drunk with the poison of its errors, as if it thought to measure out the divine Almighty Power after its own fancy. Every body murmurs at it, though nobody openly complains."! * Lenfant, i. lv. t Quoted by Lenfant, book iii. LUTHERAN — ROMAN —ANGLICAN. 17 The eighteenth session of the Council was held on the 17th of August, 1415 ; and the day after, Bertrand "Vasher preached a sermon on the necessity of the refor mation of the Church, exhorting the Council to make use of the most speedy and effectual means to correct abuses, " especially the insatiable avarice, the untameable ambition, the shameful laziness, and the execrable pride of the clergy." On the 8th of September, the preacher, after inveighing against the corruptions of the clergy, complains that "the sacraments used to be piously administered, whereas they had now fallen into contempt, and were profaned." In the same month another preacher remarks, " When a prelate is consecrated, they ask him if he knows the Old and New Testament ? I'll be judged by most of them whether they can affirm it with a safe conscience." He urges the necessity of a reformation, and quotes large ly from St. Bernard, who, in his commentary on the Song of Songs, was particularly severe upon the corrup tion of the times. On the 25th of October, we find the Bishop of Lodi representing the clergy as so plunged in excessive luxury, and such disgraceful incontinency, that he thinks if Diogenes were to seek for a man among them, he would find none but black cattle and swine. He men tions a circumstance which had occurred a few days before, when a priest of Constance, who had just been saying vespers, was assassinated in the open street by a citizen on horseback, who, when he had struck the blow, rode off at full speed. " It was but too natural for such accidents to happen in so great a crowd of people, and at a time when the clergy, by their ill example," as he observes, " gave full toleration to the laity, of whom they fell not short in acts of violence, any more than in all other enor mities." Equally strong on the necessity of a reformation B 18 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: was Hottric Abendon, an Englishman, Professor of Divi nity at Oxford, who preached before the Council on the following Sunday. On the 16th of February, 1416, Theo- doric of Minster preached in full council, when he accused the clergy of neglecting the study of the Holy Scriptures for the sake of applying only to the canon law and the decretals, because there they learn how to get money. In these days, said the preacher, " the positive laws (the canon law, the decretals, and the constitutions of the popes) are advanced above the law of God, and the com mandments of Jesus Christ." The preacher only said in prose what Dante says in verse. After alluding to the love of money which had driven from the fold both sheep and lambs, the poet exclaims : — " For this the Gospel now is laid aside, The Fathers too ; and the Decretals sought Alone, as by their margins is descried. To these both Pope and Cardinals are given ; Nor wanders e'er to Nazareth a thought, Where spread his wings the Messenger from Heaven."' Paradiso ix. C Wriglii's translation*] Upon the day of Epiphany, 1417, the preacher de nounced the sins of the clergy and the people, and, among other things, accused them of neglecting the study of the Sacred Scriptures, and the preaching of the Gospel.- On the 17 th of January, the celebrated Gerson preached ; and being unable to compress all his matter within the limits of a sermon, he pubhshed what he intended to say, as a pamphlet, in which, without despising the decretals, he expresses his regret that they should be preferred to the word of God ; and he remarks, " among those people who are called religious by way of eminence, you will see the transgression of certain constitutions, which are some times very frivolous, punished with much more severity LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 19 than the transgression of the law of God, Himself, as murder or perjury." In June of this year, Stephen of Prague, a professor of divinity, alluding to the way in which preferments were disposed of, asks, " Is it just for fools to preside, and for wise men to obey ? that boys should command, and grey beards be their lackeys ? that ignoramuses should have the charge of the most delicate affairs, and scholars not dare to open their lips ? that grooms should be preferred to doctors and preachers of God's word? There," he exclaimed, " is the fruit of simony !" In August, a French Abbot, called Bernard the Bap tized, thus describes the state of society: — "I am sorry to say it, that in our days the Catholic faith is reduced to nothing ; hope is turned into rash presumption, and the law of God and our neighbor is quite extinct. In the laity falsehood bears the chief sway, and avarice is; the rule of the clergy. In the Church the flock is divided. In the prelates there is nothing but malice, iniquity, negli gence, ignorance, vanity, pride, covetousness, simony, la- sciviousness, pomp and hypocrisj^. At the pope's court there is no sanctity ; law-suits and quarrels being the hap piness of that court, and imposture its delight. Tyranny, rapaciousness, and simony are practised in every part of it. It is a diabolical court." This person preached evidently under the impulse of excited feehngs ; but admitting some exaggeration, what must have been the real state of things when this was an approximation to the truth ? Another doctor, whose name was Theobald, delivered a sermon a few days after on the same subject : this discourse was in a milder strain, but this only gives the sharper point to his invectives. He reproaches the clergy for not administering the sacraments 20 the three reformations: •except for money, and for letting people die without the viaticum, if they had not wherewithal to pay the priest, "As to their expenses, they would rather spend their money in fools, harlequins, harlots, fiddlers, flatterers, 4ogs, and birds, than give to the poor. Contrary to the sacred canons, they frequent taverns and houses of ill fame : they openly keep concubines in their houses ; and,. notwithstanding the most gross vice, make no scruple to celebrate the holy communion." " It has become a proverb," he says, " that the prelates keep as many mistresses as they have domestics ; and do not suppose," he adds, " that your shame can be conceal ed, for your mistresses publicly boast of it." " The con vents of women, which, according to the canons, ought absolutely to be shut up from the men, are public places, and theatres and receptacles for vanity. If any great men are scrupulous of going into them, they send presents, dishes of meat, letters, and invitations to the nuns- to come to their houses. What passes there it were a shame to tell, but it is a greater shame to do. The most deplorable case of all is, that the court of Rome, which ought to set an example, commits all these abominations ; and even in this place, where an assembly is held for the reformation of morals."* If it be said that these must have been hyperbolical expressions, let me remind you that they were uttered by dignitaries of the Church before a general Council. Could any one of our bishops, at the present day, make any accusation against the Church of England approaching to this, before the House of Lords, without being silenced at once ? Every one would be a witness that such is not * Vastier Hnrt, torn, i, p. 898. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 21 the state of society in England ; and therefore, when we find that preacher after preacher thus described the state of things in the middle ages uncontradicted and unre- buked, our admiration of the middle ages, and the wonder ful effects which medieval religion produced, must greatly decrease, if it be not entirely annihilated. Peter D'Aillt, Cardinal of Cambray, one of the great luminaries of the fifteenth century, who wrote with more moderation than most of his contemporaries, declares that it was the com mon saying at that time, " that the Church was come to such a pass that the government of it was only fit for reprobates."* Well, indeed, might Dante sing :— " To you St. John referred, O shepherds vile, When She, who sat on many waters, had Been seen with kings her person to defile ; (The same who with seven heads arose on earth, And bore ten horns to prove that power was hers, Long as her husband had delight in worth ;) Your gods ye make of silver and of gold ; And wherein differ from idolaters, Save that their gods are one, but yours an hundred-fold ? Ah ! Constantino ! what evils caused to flow, Not thy conversion, but those fair domains Thou on the first rich Father didst bestow !" Isferno, xix. ("^rigM's translation.) It is pleasant to find the practical mind of an English man brought to bear upon the subject ; and, while the others were making their complaints, suggesting the re medy. In a treatise by Richard Allerston, a doctor of Oxford, dedicated to the Bishop of Sahsbury, after uniting with others in censuring the iniquity of the age, the * Adeo ut jam horrendum quorundam proverbium sit, ad hunc statum venisse ecclesiam, ut non sit digna regi nisi per reprobos. — Alliac. Canon. Reform, ap. V d . Hardt. torn. i. p. 424. 22 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: author concludes with saying, "Things being thus dis posed in their natural order, and all those abuses taken away, the Pope, according to the duty of his office, will make it his business to procure peace among the Chris tians; to preach the Gospel himself, and to send out sound preachers to all parts, who, by their preaching and example, may teach both prelates and people their several duties, and make a holy war against their passions, which, according to St. James, are the source of divisions and wars in church and state." I may be pardoned for a short digression, interesting to Englishmen, which shows that geographical knowledge was certainly not among the accomplishments of the mid dle ages. An attempt was made by the French, at the Council of Constance, to refuse to the English the rank of a nation: it was contended that they were, though an independent kingdom, to vote as part of the German nation. This impertinence on the part of our jealous neighbors, who, unable to compete with us in the field, tried to outwit us in diplomacy, was duly resented by our ancestors. They proclaimed England to be inferior in no respect to the kingdom of France, either as to extent, dignity, or antiquity. As to extent, they computed that, "taking England from north to south, it extends eight hundred English miles — that is to say, forty days' jour ney — which France does not, according to common esti mation. Besides, the English nation has eight kingdoms; namely, England, Scotland, and Wales, all which together make Great Britain; Ireland, and four other kingdoms which be near England ; the Orkney Islands, which are sixty in number, and which are as large, if not larger, than the kingdom of France ; thirty-two counties ; fifty- two thousand parish churches, besides cathedral and colle- LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 23 giate churches, priories, hospitals ; whereas in France there are not above six thousand parochial churches, and only four or five counties. It is true," they continue, "that the French reckon eleven provinces and one hundred and thirty-five dioceses in their nation ; but, admitting their calculation to be just, if so small a difference authorises them to deprive England of the right of making a nation in the Council, the Italians have much more reason to con trovert the right of France to make such a nation, because Italy has three hundred and thirteen dioceses." The right of the English to be regarded as a nation was con ceded ; and we cannot but admit that if their skill at the long bow bested them at Agincourt, they were equally skillful in the use of it at Constance.* So strong was the feeling at Constance with reference to the need of a reformation, that the Council did not separate before it had passed a decree that " the frequent holding of these councils being the best way to prevent heresies and schisms, to correct enormities, to reform abu ses, and to maintain the Church in a flourishing condition, General Councils ought to be held often ; that there should be one in five years, then one in seven, and afterwards one every ten years." If the ambition and wickedness of popes had not frus trated the designs of the Council, it is impossible to con jecture what might have been the result of the decree, or to calculate on the blessing of which a simultaneous and unanimous movement in the cause of reformation might have brought upon the Churches of the West. * See Lenfant, lib. iv. 19. See Lenfant also for the authorities before quoted, lib. i. 55., iv. 11. 27. 30. 36. 46. 64., v. 4. 5. 47. 60., vii. passim. See also Her man Vander Hart, Acta Concil. Const. 24 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: It has not been because it was necessary to prove that a reformation had long been demanded in Europe that I have suffered myself to be led into these details ; but it has been to show you that the earth was not that Paradise in the middle ages which some who are not firm friends to the Church of England would represent it to have been, and which others, in dreamy ignorance, take for granted. This is a fiction of modern times — the effect of that re-action of the mind to which I have alluded upon the discovery that those ages were not such ages of ignorance as some historians had supposed, and that, amidst the gloom of immorahty, some persons were conspicuous for their saintly virtues — virtues which shone forth the more conspicuously as the stars shine brightest when the sky is most dark. A translation of the Colloquies of Erasmus would be a useful and interesting work to enlighten the public mind upon this subject; a subject upon which all who are acquainted with the history of the ages which preceded the Reformation, are agreed. What, indeed, are the very first words of the most popular book of the most subtle of Roman Catholic controversiahsts, Bossuet? "A re formation," he says, " of ecclesiastical discipline had been desired several ages since." Alluding to the strong desire of St. Bernard to see a reformation effected, he says, " If this holy man had any thing to regret at his death it was, that he had not witnessed so happy a change. During his whole life he bewailed the evils of the Church ; he never ceased to admonish the people, the clergy, the bish ops, the popes, of them. Nor did he conceal his senti ments on the subject from his own religious, who partook of his affliction in their solitude, and extolled the Divine goodness, in having drawn them to it, so much the more LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 25 gratefully as the world was more universally corrupted. Disorders still increased since that time." After alluding to the Council of Pisa and that of Constance, of which you have heard so much, the great prelate of Meaux pro ceeds : — "What happened at the Council of Basil, where a reformation was unfortunately eluded, and the Church re-involved in new divisions, is well known. The disor ders of the clergy, chiefly those of Germany, were pre sented forcibly in this manner to Eugenius IV. by Cardi nal Julian. ' These disorders,' he said, ' excite the hatred of the people against the whole ecclesiastical order, and, should they not be corrected, it is to be feared that the laity, like the Hussites, should rise against the clergy, as they loudly threaten us.' If the clergy of Germany were not quickly reformed, he predicted that after the heresy of Bohemia, and when it would be extinct, another, still more dangerous would succeed ; ' for it will be said,' proceeded he 'that the clergy are incorrigible, and will apply no remedy to their disorders. When they shall have no longer hopes of amendment,' said this great cardinal, 'then will they fall upon us. The minds of men are pregnant with expectation of what measures will be adopt ed, and are ready for the birth of something tragic. The rancor they have imbibed against us becomes manifest ; they will soon think it an agreeable sacrifice to God to abuse and rob ecclesiastics, as abandoned to extreme dis orders, and hateful to God and man. The little respect now remaining for the ecclesiastical orders will soon be extinguished. Men will cast the blame of these abuses on the courts of Rome, which will be considered the cause of them, because it had neglected to apply the necessary remedy.' He afterwards spoke more emphatically. 'I see,' said he, ' the axe is at the root : the tree begins to 26 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: bend ; and, instead of propping it whilst in our power, we accelerate its fall.' He foresees a speedy desolation on the German clergy. The desire of depriving them of their temporal goods would form the first spring of motion. 'Bodies and souls,' said he, 'will perish together. God hides from us the prospect of our dangers, as he is accus tomed to do with those whom he destines for punishment: we run into the fire which we see lighted before us.' "* Oh ! awful picture of a profligate clergy dreading the vengeance of a people they had demorahzed ! Oh ! vain boasting of Romanists, when they themselves admit these to be the fruit of Romanism unchecked ! Oh ! ignorance of Romanizers, when they attribute to the Reformation those schisms and heresies of which the want of timely reformation was the real cause ! I have given you a description of the ante-reformation Church in the words of a Roman cardinal, as quoted by the most eminent of Roman Catholic controversialists. Hope delayed maketh the heart sick. The churches of the West being enslaved by the usurpations of the court of Rome, for many years notorious for pre-eminence in wickedness, and the policy of that court being to oppose all attempts at reformation, what ought to have been legally and systematically accomplished was, at last, when the abuses became perfectly intolerable, attempted by a German monk, whose moral sense had been insulted by the nefarious sale of indulgences, authorised by the cupi dity of a luxurious and infidel pontiff. When Martin Luther commenced the German Reform ation, he appeared simply as an opposer of abuses. He had no system, no plan: whatever may have been his * Bossuet, lib. i. 1. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 27 subsequent conduct, or whatever the deficiencies of his character, he made a noble stand, for which all the world must be grateful, against wickedness in high places, and against a system which, in the name of Heaven, was doing the work of hell. It is a page of history which every one must read with thrilling interest, that which tells of one poor monk daring the fulminations of the Vatican, when those fulminations were not, as now, like thunder unat tended with lightning, but, though innocuous to the soul of the upright, were as sounds preceding the destruction of the poor victim at whom they were aimed. His was not a malignant feeling, such as too often animates those who, without danger to their persons but rather with much to gratify their vanity, declaim, in these days, on platforms, against Popery, of the real nature of which they are too often ignorant : his was a stand against exist ing and acknowledged and practical evils, made at the peril of his life. I am no apologist for Martin Luther ; his character deteriorated as he advanced in his career, and his conduct was sometimes as reprehensible as that of his opponents. But still he was a magnanimous man ; and I will defy the student of ecclesiastical history who has proceeded from the primitive through the medieval historians, not to be excited, even to enthusiasm, when his heart, made sorrowful by the record of the Church's gra dual corruption, is cheered by the exhibition of one mind representing the mind of millions, but distinguished from others by its own resolution, saying to the waters of cor ruption, "You may overwhelm me, but further ye shall not go." As a destructive movement, Luther's was most impor tant ; but when he was led by the force of circumstances to constructive measures, he was found to fail. He had 28 the three reformations: not the patience, the meekness, the learning, the devout- ness of mind necessary for such a work. And yet, con sidering all things, we can scarcely see how he could have acted otherwise. He married his own mind, as it were, to the mind of one who possessed the qualifications in which he must have been conscious that he was himself deficient. The chief fault of Philip Melancthon was, that he suffer ed himself to be overborne too often by the impetuosity of Martin Luther, and that his judgment sometimes quailed before the proud will, not always reasonable, of the elder reformer. By the school of theologians thus formed, a system of divinity was produced ; and Luther demanded its accep tance by all who were driven, like himself, out of the Church of Rome ; and now it was that the self-will and strong temper which excited our sympathy when resisting abuses became intolerant, so that the vehemence of Luther against all who refused to be Lutherans exceeded that which he had displayed against the Romanists. His ad mirers attempt to slur over this last portion of his history"; and we must certainly admit that his contemporary Pro testants bore his infirmities with kindness, though some times, as was natural, with impatience. The infpartial Christian who cares not for Luther, but regards him only as an instrument in the hands of Him who orders all human events, is as free to censure Luther as Luther himself was to censure others, and may think it important to do so, lest to the name of an uninspired individual too much importance should be attached. When Martin Luther endeavored to force his theologi cal system upon mankind, the question was fairly asked, Why are we to receive this system, and this system only? And the only answer was, That this system commends LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 2 9 itself as scriptural to those great minds whom I have asso ciated with my own. Luther knew that truth is one; that there cannot be two opposing interpretations of Scrip ture, both of them correct. He said, " Here is the Bible, and here is the right interpretation of the Bible, or scrip tural doctrines drawn up systematically by learned men, who, emancipated from Romish prejudices, have been able impartially to investigate the subject." He seems to have been not only exasperated but surprised, when Zuinglius and the Swiss reformers, considering themselves, whether justly or not, the equals of Luther and Melancthon, in learning, produced a system differing from theirs upon points which they had regarded as indisputable, and even controverting their view of the sacraments. It is evident that nothing was further from the mind of Luther and Melancthon than to admit the doctrine of private judgment ; by which I mean the notion that not only the Scripture is to be taken as the rule of faith, but that each man, whether learned or unlearned, is to place his own construction upon it, and to act according to the opinions so formed. And yet, though he would be among the foremost to denounce such a notion, he is the real author of this the principle of modern ultra-protestantism. He did not perceive the vice of his own principle ; but, as a practical man, he could not be blind to the evil conse quences of dividing the reformers ; and, as is usually the case, while he could not deny the right of the Swiss reformers to do as he had done himself, he became impas sioned, and rendered himself, as I have just said, an object of pity from his impotent intolerance. The evil in his principle did not fully .develop itself until he was removed from the arena of controversy in which his hfe had been passed. He had asserted the supremacy of the Bible ; 30 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: but insisted that on essential points, and especially on the doctrine of the sacraments, the Bible should be received in the sense attached to it by himself and his compeers. He did not perceive that men had a right to ask, ivhy are we to defer to you and the theologians of your school ? And when the question was indirectly asked, he answered the querist by a torrent of abuse. The Swiss reformers con tended that they were as competent as the reformers of Germany to interpret Scripture ; but even with them the doctrine of private judgment, as held now, was scarcely recognized, if at all. The question was one between sys tem and system ; and the appeal was made not to the common mind but to the learned. What was done by Luther and Melancthon, Zuinglius and Calvin had clear ly a right to do ; and when Socinus proceeded in an attempt to demonstrate, from Scripture, that the God of the Christian church is not the God of revelation ; when, by the presumed authority of Scripture, he introduced into the world another Gospel and another God, in what spirit was he met ? Let the flames which consumed the body of Ser.vetus give the answer. But persecution was never yet successful in preventing conscientious men from carrying out a recognized principle to its legitimate consequences. If the principle of Calvin was right, Socinus and Servetus were justifiable, however intellectually erroneous, in the course they pursued. Al though Calvin did not discover the vice of his principle, his acute mind must have suspected it of unsoundness, or he would not have resorted to the bloody argument by which he silenced Servetus, or have written previously to Socinus thus : " Let me beg of you seriously, as I have LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 31 often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble."* It was clear to impartial men that Calvin had a right to do what was acknowledged to be right on the part of Luther, and that the same privilege which was exercised by Calvin was allowable to Socinus. They said to their followers, Here is the Bible, and the Bible only, for our guide; but you must receive the Bible as we interpret it. Why ? Because we are learned men. Thus they saved themselves from the perplexities in which they would have been involved if they had conceded to all others the right they claimed for themselves : they silenced the multitude by reminding them that a few only could be learned, and that to the decisions of the learned they ought to defer. This was the principle upon which the Protestant confessions of faith were grounded — the Bible, and the opinion of learned Protestants. But there are always men of considerable powers of mind, and even of genius, who have not patience to acquire a sufficiency of learning to render them competent to decide upon questions upon which, nevertheless, they form a judgment, while they have ability to defend with eloquence, if not by argument, the opinions they have adopted. These were not, as education advanced and brought the minds of men nearer to an equality, to be silenced ; but individual preachers arose, who claimed for themselves that right of judgment which had been as sumed by Luther and Calvin. Were they met by the assertion, that these and their associates were learned men, the opponent was silenced by an assumption of divine illumination. They prayed to God, and by God » Da Pin, 32 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: they affirmed that they were taught; forgetting, or not heeding, that the illumination promised in Scripture is a moral illumination, not an intellectual, or only so far intel lectual as the intellect is improved as the soul becomes sanctified. Moral tempers and dispositions will be granted to us in answer to our prayers, but not an intellectual power to decide between two opposing schemes of doc trine, which is and which is not scriptural. (Note B.) This distinction, however, being lost sight of, the principle of Luther's Reformation has been gradually developed into that theory which makes the Bible say any thing or nothing — the theory, that the Bible is to be received by each individual, and is then to be interpreted according to the caprice of his private judgment ; a theory by which we can educe from one and the same passage of Scripture the most contradictory assertions. Such is the development of the principle of the Luthe ran Reformation, which having commenced with all the high doctrines of Catholicism, especially in what relates to the sacraments, when legitimately carried out, subsides into Rationalism. The school of theology which has resulted from this reformation is the ultra-Protestant, embracing the Puritan extreme on the one side, and the Rationalist extreme on the other. The Puritan holds the dogmas of Calvin, and many Catholic truths, because these commend themselves to his private judgment ; and Rationalists, for the same reason, reject all but the Bible itself, yea even sometimes the Bible too as an inspired book. They diverge to opposite extremes, but they com mence on the same principle, and combine to raise a moral persecution against all who venture to discredit the princi ple, or to think that a deference to authority is required in all who seek the truth. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 33 And here I cannot but remark in passing upon the ex treme wretchedness of that person who holds the right of private judgment, and yet ventures to call another a here tic. This "accuser of the brethren" uses an* obnoxious word, merely to indulge the mahgnity of his heart against an opponent. If you recognize the principle of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture, you can have no possible right to accuse another of heresy because his private judgment differs from your own, whether it be on the side of Rome or on the side of Socinus. Whenever the word heresy is used by such a one it betrays a malig nant spirit, such as has been too often exhibited by ultra- Protestantism, from the day when Calvin murdered Ser vetus, down to the present age of religious newspapers — the most irreligious of all publications. The word aipevts signifies choice or election. Of the varied systems of opinion brought before a Greek by the philosophers, one was chosen : he exercised his choice upon one, and this was his heresy. When the word passed into the Church it was used by the primitive Christians to dis tinguish those who, upon points of doctrine on which doubts had been raised, considered the various interpreta tions of Scripture which had had been suggested, and adopted that which commended itself to their private judgment — from Catholics or orthodox Christians, who, instead of making choice amidst many interpretations, accepted that which had been handed down hy tradition from the apostles through the fathers. He was considered orthodox who in the study of Scriptures took the Church for his guide, and in humility renounced his private judg ment when it was shown to him that it did not accord with her teaching. He, on the other hand, was accounted as a heretic who, receiving the Bible, put upon it his own 34 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: interpretation, and obstinately maintained it by argument, even though his conclusions were such as the Church con demned. The term became odious, because it was consid ered to be disgraceful not to be in communion with the Church; but an odious term will only be applied by Chris tians when a strong necessity compels them. I must beg you to bear this little digression in mind, as it will eluci date what I shall have presently to say with reference to the English reformers. ' In the meantime I must/advert to the Church of Rome. How great were the corruptions acknowledged by Roman ists to exist in the middle ages, and down to the time of the Reformation, you have already heard. You have also heard how unwilling the popes of Rome were to meet the evil or to correct the abuses, the existence of which they could not deny.. But they were at length obliged to yield: the emperor, and other princes who still adhered to the Roman obedience, were so urgent in demanding a council, in order that the Church might be reformed, that at last grudgingly and of necessity, that assembly was held at Trent, which, though called a Council, does not deserve the name * It was convoked to effect a reformation ; and the result of that reformation is what is now denominated Romanism. It is the boast of Bossuet, that, by those celebrated "* The Gallican bishops, with many of the Spaniards and Italians, insisted that the words "representing the universal Church" should be added to the title of the Council of Trent. This, however, the papal legates refused, remembering that such had been the form in the Councils of Constance at Basle ; and fearing lest, if this addition were made, the rest of the form of Constance and Basle might follow, viz., "which derives its power immediately from Jesus Christ, and to which every person of whatever dignity, not excepting the Pope, is bound to yield obedience." This is remarkable as a fact. The student will find " Landon's Manual of Councils " a valuable work. LUTHERAN— ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 35 doctors who mlled most vehemently for a reformation in the middle ages, no one ever thought of " changing the faith of the Church, or of correcting her worship?' As an argument, this assertion is not of much weight. Luther had no thought of interfering with the established doc trines of the Church when he commenced his career. His virtuous indignation was first aroused by a palpable abuse in the mode of granting indulgences. This led him to the consideration of the whole question of indulgences, and .thence to the root of the evil — the gainful doctrine of purgatory, whioh he found to be a doctrine unknown in the primitive ages,' and clearly unscriptural. It was thus ¦that he -proceeded Avith respect to other doctrines : per- 'ceiving the evil fruit, he traced it to an evil root. And we may fairly suppose that the medieval reformers would have been thus led- on to an examination of the doctrine and worship of the Roman Church, had not their endea vors to' commence a Reformation been frustrated by the .artifices of the court of Rome. ¦ But the assertion of Bossuet is correct as relating to the work -attempted at the Council of Trent. A reform ation of discipline was there effected ; but as to doctrine, ¦the simple question was, not what ought to be, but what is, the doctrine received in the Church. The Trentine doctors only attempted to reduce to form the doctrines 'then .current, and either asserted or assented to by the -Roman pontiff and councils convened by him in the mid dle ages. They were obliged, on their principles, to such a course. They confounded the Church of Rome with •the Church Catholic, and so predicated of Rome infalli- -bility. They could not correct, therefore, the medieval theology either by primitive doctrine or by Scripture ; for, .though they regarded the primitive Church as infallible, 36 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: they regarded the medieval Church as equally infallible : the doctrine of the primitive Church was therefore to be explained away, in order that it might be rendered con formable with medieval theology ; because, of course, the later revelation throws light on the earlier. They did not say, The faith was once, and once for all, delivered to the saints ; and therefore those who lived nearest to the apos tolic age must have known the mind of the Spirit, on dis putable points, better than later theologians : but they held that Christianity is a continuous revelation to the Catholic^ that is, in their sense, to the Roman, Church. They com menced their proceedings with a declaration of this funda mental error : they declared that the Christian faith is contained partly in Holy Scripture, partly in the traditions of the Church ; while existing usages were classed under the head of traditions, which latter word is thus used by them in an ambiguous sense. It is easy to see how it thus came to pass that neither Scripture nor the primitive Church, but medieval theology, became their guide. Not Scripture ; for if the Scripture were silent upon any existing doctrine, or if any existing practice seemed repugnant to the plain langurge of Holy Writ, the silence of Scripture was counted for nothing ; it was asserted, but not proved, that the germ of the doc trine or practice was discoverable in the sacred volume ; the later revelation, from which, in part, the Christian faith was supposed to be derived, having developed it more fully. Thus to reform the Chruch on scriptural prin ciples was impossible ; and the Fathers fared no better. We have an instance of the manner in which the testi mony of the primitive Church was set aside in the discus sion which took place, in one of the congregations of the Council of Trent, with reference to the Book of Baruch. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 37 The question was, whether this book should be received as canonical. What said the primitive Church ? It was not in the fist of sacred books drawn up in the Council of Carthage ; that is to say, no authority for it could be pro duced from the primitive Church. This was admitted ; but what then ? The existing Church used it as canon ical in the offices for Easter.eve and the eve of Pentecost ; and the existing Church being infallible, the silence of the primitive Church went for nothing. You perceive from this — which is one instance out of many which might be produced — how the authority of the primitive Church was rendered null and void ; how the existing theology — the product, in its corruptions, of the middle ages — was received without examination : in other words, how medi eval theology was established so as to supersede both Scripture and the primitive Church. There were many great and pious men in the Romish churches at that time, some even at the Council of Trent, who would have pursued a different course, but by the managers of the council they were overruled ; for with them the one care which overwhelmed every other thought and consideration was, that the papal authority should suffer no damage. The papal power was the offspring of medieval theology ; touch one stone of that theology, and the throne of the pope would have been brought to a level with every other episcopal throne, and the triple crown would have become an ordinary mitre. Therefore, not an attempt was made to compare the existing theology with the theology of the Fathers or with Holy Scripture ; the deference to Scripture and the Fathers in the Church of Rome is merely verbal ; and the business of the Trentine doctors was to systematise the doctrines of the middle ages. As Mosheim justly observes, " Not only was every 38 THE THREE" REFORMATIONS: doctrine that had been established by medieval councils received, but many of the opinions of the scholastic doc tors on intricate subjects, which had been formerly left undecided, and' had been wisely permitted as subjects of free debate, were by this council absurdly adopted as arti cles of faith, and recommended as such, nay imposed with violence on the consciences of men under pain of excom munication." The standard of Romish doctrine has remained unaltered from the time of the great assembly of Trent. Churches in connexion with Rome which at first demurred to the reception of the Trentine definitions have now tacitly if not avowedly adopted them. The Church of Rome, therefore, is the representative, not of Scriptural and primitive Christianity, but of medi- eval corruptions ; and on the Bible and medieval tradition her doctors based their reformation. A little before this, the Church of England had also been reformed. She had sympathised- with the reform ation movement in Germany, but adopted the Lutheran system of reform only in part ; while she guarded against that development of it, which, through Calvinism, and Puritanism, has resulted, in strong, powerful, and indepen dent minds, in Rationalism. The reformers of the Church of England agreed so far with both Luther, and the Church of Rome, that they insisted upon the necessity of a definite system of theolo-. gy, to be received on authority by the unlearned and beginners : they foresaw that if each individual were sent to his Bible as to a quarry, to dig out a religion for him self, the result would be infidelity. ,, But they differed from Luther by adopting an authority by which to be guided in the interpretation of Scripture^ LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 3 9 which they themselves adopted, instead of relying upon argument ; while they differed from the Church of Rome by refusing to receive as authoritative the novel definitions and modern practices of the Western Church. With Luther they took the Bible, and the Bible only, for their foundation ; but when, in relation to any doctrine or prac tice of the Church, the precise meaning of Scripture was not indisputably apparent ; when Luther argued one way and Zuinglius another, and both contended that their opposite conclusions were scriptural, our practical fore fathers ceased to argue, and deferred to authority : the question with them was, how was the Scripture understood with reference to the doctrine or practice under considera tion, by Christians of the primitive church ; by those who received their instruction from the apostles, or apostolic men, and at a period when, through the correspondence of the metropolitans of an united Church, as well as by fre quent councils, the depositum and tradition were watched with the most jealous care ? * Their rule was the Bible, and it was the only rule, where all parties are agreed as to what the Bible says ; and the Bible with the primitive Church when by the cavils of men the voice of Scripture is indistinct. If, then, we may say of the Lutheran principle of reformation, when fully developed, that it is the Bible and each man's private judgment ; if we may describe the Romish princi ple as that of the Bible and the middle ages, we may state the distinguishing principle of the English reformation to be, the Bible and the primitive Church. Our reformers received the doctrines of the Church as they found them, * See the author's Sermon on " Tradition," in his " Five Sermons before the University of Oxford." 40 the three reformations: assuming that their existence was a prima facie evidence in their favor. They did not reject any thing because it was medieval ; but where any thing medieval was of a questionable character, they then sought for guidance from Scripture ; and if the Scripture was not clear, if two par ties at variance, both of them claimed Scripture as being on their side, they then yielded to the decisions of the primitive councils or to the evidence of the primitive writers. They did not do as the Romanists, who pro fessed to yield to the authorities of the Fathers, but inter preted the Fathers by the tenets and practices of the existing Church ; but when they found the existing the ology contrary to the patristic theology, then they made an alteration, the modern yielded to the ancient. They fully understood " that antiquity ought to attend as the handmaid of Scripture, to wait upon her as her mistress, and to observe her ; to keep off intruders from making too bold with her, and to discourage strangers from misre presenting her." For, as Dr. Waterland observes, -'Those that that lived in or near to the apostolic times might retain in memory what the apostles themselves, or their immediate successors, thought or said upon such and such points ; and though there is no trusting in such case to oral tradition as distinct from Scripture, nor to written disagreeing with Scripture, yet written accounts, consonant to Scripture, are of use to confirm and strengthen Scrip ture, and to ascertain its true meaning." They held that if " what appears but probably to be taught in Scripture itself appears certainly to have been taught by the primitive and Catholic Church, such probability so confirmed and strengthened carries with it the force of demonstration."* * Waterland's Works, v. 261., ii. 8. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 41 You see their principle and you see the reason for the adoption of it. Our Reformers, like Luther and Melanc thon, required assent to a definite scheme of doctrine. When asked why to that scheme assent was required, Luther and Melancthon replied, because it has commend ed itself as scriptural to us and other learned men ; and then they were open to attack from other learned men, who had a right to argue with them, since it was by argu ment only that Luther and Melancthon sought to estab lish their positions. With us the case is different ; our Church was reformed by learned men, but they formed their scheme not upon argument but upon authority; they deferred to the authority of the primitive Church, and on any given point the question with them related to a fact : what was the doctrine received in the primitive Church ? this was a matter of historical investigation. Transub- stantiation was repudiated, not from any argumentative notion of its being absurd, for some of the most erudite and acute minds have accepted it, but simply because it was not primitive : this, in the case of Dr. Cranmer and Dr. Ridley, is an historical fact. It is very possible that our Reformers may have been mistaken in some particular details : they may have omitted something that is primi tive, or they may have received something that is novel : and if a convocation to reform the Church shall again be called, these mistakes may rectified. But their mistakes, supposing them to exist, are nothing to the point : the question is, what was their principle, and were they hon est as well as learned men, who, in all essentials, would apply the principle properly ? Their honest is proved to us by their having died, many of them, for their princi ples, and of their learning there has never been a question. That their principle was the Bible and the primitive 42 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: Church no man can doubt who is acquainted with then- writings, or who has even looked into our formularies. Let the last words of Dr. Cranmer bear testimony to their principles. I am not an admirer of Dr. Cranmer, though God used him as an instrument of good to the Church of England : though an amiable, he was a weak, worldly, vacillating man, the flatterer of a tyrant, and one, too, who certainly did not always act consistently with the principle he professed. But this only renders him the less exceptionable as a witness. When he, after having pusil- lanimously endeavored to save his life by an act for which he may be pitied, but which it would be disgraceful to defend, fell a victim to Romish treachery and the princi ples of the Inquisition, he expressed himself thus : — " Touching my doctrine of the sacrament and other my doctrine of what kind soever it be, I protest that it was never my mind to write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to the most Holy Word of God, or else against the Holy Catholic Church of Christ ; but purely and simply to imitate and teach those things only which I had learned of the Sacred Scripture and of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ from the beginning, and according to the exposition of the most holy and learned fathers and mar tyrs of the Church ; and if any thing hath peradventure chanced otherwise than I thought, I may err, but heretic I cannot be, forasmuch as I am ready in all things to fol low the judgment of the most Sacred Word of God and of the Holy Catholic Church, desiring none other thing than meekly and gently to be taught, if any where, which God forbid, I have swerved from the truth. " And I protest and openly confess that in all my doc trine and preaching, both of the sacrament and of other my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 43 those things as the Catholic Church and most holy fathers of old, with one accord, have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use the same words that they used, and not use any other words, but to set my hand to all and singular their speeches, phrases, ways, and forms of speech, which they do use in then: treatises upon the sacrament, and to keep still their interpretation. But in this thing only I am accused for an heretic, because I allow not the doctrine lately brought in of the sacrament, and because I consent not to words not accustomed in Scripture, and unknown to the ancient fathers, but newly invented and brought in by men, and belonging to the destruction of souls, and overthrowing of the pure and old religion." * " Touching the substance of religion," says Bishop Jewell, in defence of our Reformation, " we believe that which the ancient, Catholic, learned fathers believed ; we do what they did, we say what they said; and marvel not, on what side soever ye see them, if ye see us join unto the same. It is our comfort that we see their faith and our faith agree in one." " We have approached, as much as possibly we could, the Church of the apostles, and ancient Catholic bishops and fathers, which we know was yet a perfect, and, as Tertulltan saith, an unspotted virgin, and not contaminated with idolatry or any great public error. Neither have we only reformed the doctrine of our Church and made it like theirs in all things ; but we have also brought the celebration of the sacraments and forms of our public rites and prayers to an exact resemblance to their institutions and customs ; and so we have onlv done that which we know Christ and all pious * Cranmer's Works, iv. 126. 44 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: and godly men have in all ages ever done ; for we have brought back rehgion, which was foully neglected and depraved by them, to her original and first state ; for we considered that the reformation of religion was to be made by that which ivas the first pattern of it ; for this rule will ever hold good against all heretics, saith the most ancient father, Tertullian, that which is true is first, and that is adulterated and corrupted which is later. iRENiEus doth often appeal to the most ancient churches which are nearest to Christ, and which therefore are not at all likely to have erred ? And why should not that course be taken now also ? Why should we not return to a conformity with the most ancient churches ? Why should not that now be heard among us which was pronounced at the Council of Nice, without the least contradiction or opposi tion from so many bishops and Catholic fathers; %6r] apycua uparsho, let the old customs stand firm ?"* I do not quote Dr. Cranmer or Dr. Jewell as persons having any authority so far as their private opinions are concerned, but as witnesses to the fact that the Bible and the primitive Church was the principle upon which our Reformers attempted to reform the Church, in opposition to the principle of the Romish Church, which made anti quity defer to modern innovations. To Dr. Cranmer or Dr. Jewell no more of deference is in any other respect due, than there is to those of our modern bishops who endeavor to compel their clergy to receive not the teach ing of the Church, but their own construction of our for mularies, a course of conduct which the clergy and laity must respectfully resist. We do not require a bishop to * Jewell's Answer to Harding, ad fin. Apology, vi. § 15. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 45 give us his private opinion, but we do expect him to act on the principles of the Church, be his private opinions what they may. What says the Church of which the Reformers were sons and servants, not founders ? this is our question ; and the Church we will hear. Let us hear the Church speaking of the manner in which her ancient ritual was performed. " There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised," it is said in the Prayer Book, "or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted ; as among other things may plainly appear by the Common Prayers in the Church, commonly called Divine Service. The first original or ground whereof, if a man would search out by the ancient fathers, he will find that the same was not ordained but of a good purpose, and for a great advancement in godli ness. . . . Here you have an order of prayer, and for the reading of the Scripture, much agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old fathers." * It is said that in the ritual "of this Church of England," the same Church which had existed before the Reformation, the " godly and decent order of the ancient fathers having been altered, broken and neglected," the reformed Liturgy was " compiled " from the offices before in use, " so as to be agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old fathers."! Does the Church assert the doctrine of apostohcal succes sion ? She does it in these words: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons." J (Note C.) * "Concerning the Service of the Church," in the book of Common Praj-er. t Preface to Prayer Book, 1548. t Preface to the Ordination Office. 46 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: So has it always continued to be the rule of the Church of England to defer to the authority of the primitive Church ; for our formularies, as we have them at present, are not the work of the first Reformers, but of reforming convocations down to the reign of Charles II. In 1603 we find the use of the sign of the cross defended by the convocation, " following the steps of the King, because he therein followed the rules of the Scripture, and the practice of the primitive Church ;" because the use of this sign in baptism was held by " the primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one consent and great applause. . . . This continual and general use of the cross is evident by testimonies of the ancient fathers. . . . It must be confessed that, in process of time, the sign of the cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome . . . but the abuse of a thing doth not take away its lawful use." * Why were the Ember days appointed for prayer and fasting ? It was in imitation of " the holy and religious example" of " the ancient fathers of the Church."f The office of deacon is described "as a step or degree to the ministry, according to the judgment of the ancient fathers, and the practice of the primitive Church."! The convo cation of 1640, in the seventh canon, says, "We declare that that this situation of the holy table (at the east end of the chancel) doth not imply that it is, or ought to be, esteemed a true and proper altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed ; but it is and may be called an altar by us, in that sense in which the primitive Church called it an altar, and in no other ,-" and alittle after, " We think it * Canon xxx. . t Canon xx-xi. % Canon xxxii. LUTHERAN ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 47 very meet and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence and obeisance, both at then: coming in and going out of the said churches, chancels or chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times." When the commission was issued for the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661, the commissioners were directed to compare the same " with the most ancient litur gies which have been used in the Church in the primitive and purest times!' * And at the Savoy Conference " to that part of the proposal that prayers may consist of nothing doubtful or questioned by pious, learned, and orthodox persons," the episcopal divines reply, that "since it is not defined and ascertained who those orthodox per sons are, they must either take all those for orthodox per sons who have the assurance to affirm themselves such, and if so, the demand is unreasonable ; (for some who deny the divinity of the Son of God will style themselves orthodox ; and yet there is no reason we should part with an article of the creed for their satisfaction : besides, the proposal requires an impossibility, for there never was nor ever will be any prayers couched in such a manner as not to be questioned by some people, who call themselves pious, learned, and orthodox :) but if by orthodox is meant only those who adhere to Scripture and the Catholic con sent of antiquity, they are not of opinion that any part of the English Liturgy hath been questioned by such." f * Collier, ii. 877. t Collier, ii. 880. The reader who wishes to see how consistently this principle has been held by the great divines of the Church of England, is referred to Rus sell's " Judgment ol the Anglican Church." 48 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: I shall produce, lastly, the well-known canon of 1571 : — " Preachers shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preachings which they would have their people reli giously observe and believe but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old Testament and New, and that which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have gath ered from the same doctrine."* Such is the principle of the English reformation : it is distinct from the principle of ultra-Protestantism, the Bible, and each man's private judgment : it is distinct from the principle upon which the Church of Rome was reformed, by which the Bible and primitive tradition were superce ded, and the errors of the middle ages were systematised : it is the Bible and the primitive Church. Now this principle was accepted by some of those res pectable but unfortunate individuals who have been of late years perverted to Romanism. Justly offended with the puritanism which, at the close of the last century and the beginning of this, obtained an ascendancy in the Church of England, when a Catholic ritual, administered by a lati- tudinarian clergy, seemed to be full of contradictions ; when baptismal regeneration, asserted at the font in an office, to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by which the clergy give their unfeigned assent and con sent, was, nevertheless, too often, by those very clergy, denied in the pulpit ; where ceremonies were enjoined in the Liturgy, but too often reviled as popery by those who were compelled to observe them : offended, as I say, by puritanism in the Church, attended as it was by these demoralising inconsistencies, many who at one time were prejudiced against church principles adhered to them, * Sparrow's Collection. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 49 without ascertaining precisely what church principles are. They had recourse to the study of the fathers and of the primitive Church, and for a time all was well. The friends of the Church rejoiced in these new allies. The study of the fathers commenced, but, alas ! wherever we encourage the fertility of the soil we encourage the luxuriance which displays itself also in the produce of weeds : while we rejoiced in the increase of church principles, a tendency to Romanism (gradually, and before we were aware) devel oped itself. Men went into the study of the medieval writers ; and the consequence was, that those who, while reading the fathers, were devoted admirers of the Church of England, became at first depravers of their own Church, and at last victims of the Church of Rome. You must perceive from this, that in order to guard against this great error, the question presents itself, who are the primitive writers whom our Church consults, and to whom she would direct her divines ? what are the councils to which we are to refer ? This difficulty did not escape our Reformers : they saw that the line must be drawn somewhere, in order to distinguish primitive' from medieval Christianity ; and of course, as medieval is the perversion and corruption of primitive Christianity,, a per version and corruption gradually and imperceptibly intro duced, not by design, not through ignorance, it was clearly impossible to draw the line very accurately. " Where holy ground begins, unhallow'd ends, Is mark'd by no distinguishable line." We can tell night from day ; but we find it- difficult to decide upon the precise moment when twilight begins or ends. An approximation was all that was attempted ; and this was done, and so we possess a general rule. I have before remarked on the absurdity as well as 50 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: uncharitableness into which those persons are hurried by their evil passions, who, holding the right of private judg ment, call another a heretic because his private judgment differs from theirs. I have also hinted that a rule to judge of heresy is necessary in a Church which regards as a heretic any one who refuses to hear the Church on points upon which the Church has once decided. Accordingly, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was obtained, by which it is enacted, that no persons, howsoever appointed, shall "have authority or power to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as have heretofore been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures,* or by the first four general councils, or any of them." At the commencement of the same reign, when the English Reformers declared their willing ness to refer the whole controversy between themselves and the Romanists to the Holy Scriptures and the Catho lic Church, thay affirmed that they meant, by the Word of God, the canonical Scriptures only ; and by the cus tom of the primitive Church, the general practice of the Catholics for the first five centuries.f In the rules laid down for the Conference with the priests and Jesuits in 1582, it said, " If they, the Papists, show any ground of Scripture, and wrest it to their sense, let it be showed by interpretation of the old doctors, such as were before Gregory I. ... If they can show no doctor that agreed with them in their said opinion before that time, then to conclude that they have no succession in that doctrine from the apostles, and above four hundred years after, when doctrine and religion were most pure ; for that * Gibson's Codex, vol i. p. 424. t Collier, ii. 416. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 51 they can show no predecessor whom they might succeed in the same. Quod primum verum."* In the convocation of 1640 it is decreed in the fourth canon : " Whereas much mischief is already done in the Church of God by the spreading of the damnable and cursed heresy of Socinianism, as being a complication of many ancient heresies, condemned by the first councils, and contrariant to the articles of religion established in the Church of England . . . it is therefore decreed." | Here, then, we have a general direction, which, in these days, when so many persons are unconsciously Roman izing, it is especially important to observe. The line of demarcation between primitive and medieval Christianity having been, as I have said, overlooked by some persons, they have, while supposing themselves to be acting on the principle of the English Church, made shipwreck of their faith on the rocks and shoals of Romanism. And they who have done so, the Romanizers, unite with the ultra- Protestants, and, with a sneer, accuse the faithful sons of the Church of England of maintaining the absurd propo sition that we would have every man to study the fathers as well as the Scriptures, in order that they may arrive at the truth. Of such an absurdity no one was ever guilty ; but they are guilty of transgressing the ninth command ment who bring such a railing accusation against English churchmen. We agree with the Romanists in calling upon people to defer to the existing Church : they refer them to the scheme of theology finally settled for their church at the Council of Trent; we to the scheme of theology settled in various convocations of the Church since the time of Henry VIII. At the assembly of Trent the Romish * Strype's Life of Wbitgift, i. 196. t Sparrow's Collection. 52 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: Church accepted the theology which had come to them through the middle ages ; while our Reformers corrected the medieval theology by reference to Scripture and the primitive Church. The question is a simple one, viz., What was the principle upon which each party formed that system of theology which remains unaltered on both sides since the period of their respective Reformations ? No one is so weak in intellect that he cannot understand this ; and I am sure that if he be not blinded by the pride of sect and the subtleties of system, he will see that the course adopted by our Reformers was the wise one. We do not tell the unlearned man to study the fathers, but we tell him what the principle of our reformation was;- that our Reformers studied the fathers, and deferred to the- primitive Church ; that when Scripture was doubtful, they ascertained how the early Church, during the first five centuries, understood it ; and we give them, as the result of these investigations, corroborated by the subsequent investigations of learned men who acted on the same prin ciple, the Book of Common Prayer. The Prayer Book is as a glass in which are collected the scattered rays of primitive tradition. This the most unlearned man can- understand ; and in accepting our formularies as the testi mony of the primitive Church to guide him in his inter pretation of Scripture, he has only to suppose, what it would be want of charity to doubt, that the succession of divines in the Church of England has consisted of honest men. If the principle of our reformation was the Bible and the primitive Church, then the prayer Book is ex pro- fesso, both scriptural and primitive : and learned men who have studied primitive Christianity during the last three centuries have added the weight of their testimony to the fact, that it is what it professes to be. What is more, our LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 53 enemies have never been able to. prove that our Prayer Book is contrary to primitive Christianity. Ultra-Protes tants who, consistently with their principles, have left the Church, have contended that is unscriptural ; but by unscriptural they merely mean that it is opposed to their private judgment of Scripture ; and when Romanists and Romanizers have accused it of deficiencies, the deficiencies have been found to be of very minor importance, and the complaint has generally originated with those who, in igno rance, if not wilfully, have confounded primitive with medieval doctrines. The practical question before men at the present time is a short and simple one, viz., which was the right prin ciple of reformation ? That of Luther, that of Rome, or that of the Church of England ? On this point we must make up our minds* But when our minds are made up, when we have decided on the principle to which our pri vate opinions ought to be conformed, let us act upon it consistently. Against those who, having been trained in admiration of the medieval principles, are leading godly lives in the Church of Rome, in which medieval theology has been systematized ; or against those ultra-Protestants, whether Puritans or Rationalists, whether Sabellians or Socinians, who take a position external to the Church, I utter not one word of censure. They act consistently on their prin ciples. Were we in controversy with them, our business would be to suggest to them that the principle from which they started was erroneous, and to point out the end to which it logically tends. But further than this we do not proceed : to their own Master they must stand or fall, and what have we to do with judging them that are without ? Be liberal in this respect, as the most liberal latitudinarian 54 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: or Gallio could desire. Let us hope even against hope ; even when prejudice against truth is most bitter, and rail ing accusations are brought against us, let us trust that it may be traced to an ignorance which is invincible : — " if the rude waste of human error bear One flower of hope, oh ! pass, and leave it there." But surely there is nothing illiberal in requiring of those who remain in the Church of England to abide by the doctrines of that Church, and to take for their guide in the exposition of her doctrines the principle of her Reform ation. For this is only to call upon them to act as honest men; Even here there is room for true liberality ; for a latitude of opinion must be tolerated, when that opinion is professedly in accordance with fundamental principles : the controversy between parties in the Church onght to be confined to this one point, whether certain private opinions are or are not consistent with our formularies, not only in the letter but in the spirit, the controversiahsts assuming as their data that our Church was reformed on the right principle, and that the exposition of that principle, as con tained in the Prayer Book, including the Articles and not excluding the Canons, is hx essentials scriptural and primitive. But if men reject the principle of our Reformation, and adopt either the ultra-Protestant principle or the Romish principle, it certainly does appear to me that we are acting in a mere sectarian spirit, when we endeavour to persuade them to conform to or remain in the Church of England; their continuance among us must be injurious to their own souls, at the same time that it causes confusion in the Church. The acceptance of Calvinistic theology, and so unconsciously, at first, of the ultra-Protestant prin- LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 55 ciple, made Puritans within the Church, who, judging the Church by a principle which she repudiates, became dis contented with her offices, and then, when there was an honest and independent spirit, after a while forsook her, and established Protestant nonconformity. And just so it must be with those who of late years have adopted, at first unconsciously, but now very often avowedly, medieval tastes and feelings : they make comparisons between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and draw conclusions in favor of the latter — why? because they judge the Church of England by a principle she rejects, and they judge the Church of Rome by the principle she professes. It follows, as a matter of course, that if you have respect to medieval theology, you must, in the ordi nary process of your mental operations, become Romanists in spirit and in principle; this is as certain as that the motion of a point makes a fine, and the addition of nunl- bers a sum. I may be wrong, but I certainly have more sympathy with those honest though mistaken men, who, having renounced the principle of our Reformation, on either side, leave the Church, than with those who, knowing that they cannot adhere to the principle of the English Church, endeavour to explain away her doctrines, or to make her practice conformable to the principle, either ultra-Protestant or medieval, which they have adopted. It must be inju rious to a man's moral and religious character to use our baptismal office at the font, and to preach against baptis mal regeneration in the pulpit; it must be equally detri mental, with regard to the other sacrament, so to state the doctrine of the real presence as to insinuate the medieval and very fundamental error of transubstantiation, or to confound the primitive doctrine of a spiritual sacrifice with 56 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: the repudiated figment of Rome with respect to the sacri fice of the mass. It is not the act of a strictly candid mind to add to the Liturgy, in order to make it conforma ble to ultra-Protestant tastes, by introducing hymns from the meeting-house; but if hymns be taken from the Breviary to meet the cravings of a mind fed upon the husks of medieval theology, there is the same want of candor which consists in attempting to teach, through the Church of England, what forms, in fact, no part of her teaching. That we want authorised hymns, hymns autho rised by convocation (for no other authority can be admit ted), may be true, and true it also is that there is as much right to adopt hymns in the one extreme as there is in the other — as much right, that is, no right at all : but the evil resulting from the assumption of this right is apparent ; though my object in alluding to the subject at the present time is only to show how injurious it must be to character when this right is assumed by ultra-Protestants or by Romanizers, in order that they may make the Church of England appear to say what, in fact, she does not. The same observations are applicable to that sore point, the ceremonies of the Church; the narrowness of mind of ultra-Protestants remaining in the Church which leads them to condemn the ceremonies retained in the Church of England, and to revile those more scriptural as well as wiser persons who, knowing the value of ceremonial reh gion, are determined to observe them, is highly reprehen sible : but if their desire to make the Church of England conformable to the prejudices of ultra-Protestants be cen surable, equally censurable, equally dishonest, equally detri mental to character, must be the introduction of ceremonies not sanctioned by the Church of England, on the part of those whose hearts are evidently in the mass-house. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 57 I need not at the present time dwell on the errors of those who err on the ultra-Protestant side, and who endea vor to introduce clandestinely into the Church of England modes of thought directly adverse to her principles, for this has been already done by Mr. Gresley with his usual ability, and with more than his accustomed eloquence. But I feel it incumbent upon me to warn an opposite ex treme against acting on the same wrong principle, though applied in a different direction. To all parties I would say, Obsta principiis. For my own part it has always been my humble endeavor to abide by the principles of the Church of England ; and I have ever professed myself ready to renounce, detest, and ab jure any opinion which could be proved contrary to the principles laid down by her in her formularies, as reformed and established in her various convocations assembled for the purposes of compihng or revising her Liturgy during the last three hundred years ; that is to say, I have re ceived the principle of the English Reformation, and I presume that convocations of honest Church-of-England men, acting on this principle, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, whose aid they invoked, have so applied the principle which commends itself to my judgment, that they have not erred in essentials. Conscious of this hon est Anglicanism, I have disregarded attacks on all sides ; and I feel that I have a right, in addressing members of the Church of England, to say, Look to your principle, the principle of your Reformation, abide by it, and so will you be safe.- Is it said that we thus make our formularies infallible ? I know that this is said, but then it cannot be proved. We may admit that our formularies are capable of, or even that they require improvement ; we may admit that re- 58 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: form is necessary ; it may be, as some assert, that there is some ambiguity in some of our formularies ; that our car nonical regulations are obsolete, and our discipline relaxed ; it may be, as Mr. Bennett informs us, that the Church of England is alienating from her communion millions of souls by her negligence ; that her powers are paralysed by " the carnal lives of her clergy, the Erastianism of her prelates, and the ungodliness of her laity."* Yes, we may admit that our laity are irreverent, that in many par ishes the clergy are neglectful of their duty, and that our prelates are proud, time-serving, and despotic : I will not assert it ; I have no sympathy with those who say these things, not in sorrow but in scorn ; I will, moreover, con tend, that if these charges can be established against us, they are in the same proportion true of all other communi ties, composed as they are of sinful and fallible men ; but for the sake of argument we will admit it. In making the admission, we only admit that it is possible to make out a case for the assembly of another convocation, to carry out and apply yet further that principle which, adopted at the commencement of our Reformation, has been acted upon ever since. If any mistakes can be shown to have been made, any practices, not medieval, but really primitive and * See " Crime and Education. By the Rev. W. E. J. Bennett" The public are deeply indebted to this gentleman, as in so many other respects, so also for this pamphlet. Whether his plan of education is practicable is a question not easily decided : it must be approved by those who, under a conviction of the necessity of the adoption of some great educational movement, would make even greater con cessions. The greater number of plans which private persons can suggest to our superiors the better. To Mr. Bennett the friends of education are indebted for the clear, decided, energetic manner in which he demands for the operatives of Eng land an increase in the means of education, and shows how inadequate are those hitherto adopted to meet our educational wants. The manner in which he speaks of the virtues and the wrongs of the working classes must obtain the sympathy of all who labor among them. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 59 scriptural, omitted, let a convocation be held to amend the error, and correct the abuse. All that we say, is, that to our principle we must adhere, and that we are content to receive the application of that principle, as we find it ap plied in our formularies, until it be proved to the satisfac tion of those who have authority to pronounce upon the subject, that is, to our divines assembled in convocation, that, according to our admitted principle, an alteration is requisite. And here we may interpose a caution against listening to what is said by single divines, however learned, as to what is or is not primitive truth, when the truth they call primitive is not recognized by our formularies. We are not to defer to the opinion of an individual, merely because he says that he is influenced by the principle of the Bible and the primitive Church ; we are not thus to have respect to persons. If he make an assertion contrary to the doc trine of our formularies, and call it primitive, is it not safer to suppose that they who drew up our formularies, being many learned men, are more likely to have been right than any single individual who makes a statement counter to that on which they have acted ? It is, on the other hand, no doubt, true, that they may have been prejudiced by contemporary opinions, and that they may have sometimes unintentionally deviated from their principle ; and, conse quently, if you are a learned man, you are at liberty to ascertain, on any mooted point, whether our Reformers have or have not adhered to the principle upon which they professed to act. And if you find that they have, in any minor detail, fallen into error, you may, with modesty, state yonr conviction, and hope that the subject will be fairly discussed at a future convocation, if such should as semble ; but even then the subject will have to be dis- 60 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: cussed by men as learned as yourself, and after all, it may be discovered that you are in error. It is not much to require a little modesty and humility in judging of the Church ; and learned men are to be warned against sup posing that, by the canon of 1571, more latitude is allowed them than is consistent with a due regard to our formula ries. " This canon," says Dr. Waterland, " does not order that preachers shall teach whatever hath been taught by the fathers. No ; that would be setting up a new rule of faith ; neither doth it say that they shall teach whatsoever the fathers had collected from Scripture. No ; that would be making them infallible interpreters or infallible rea- soners : the doctrine must be found first in Scripture ; only, to be more secure that we have found it there, the fathers are to be called in, to be, as it were, constant checks upon the presumption and wantonness of private interpretation ; but then, again, as to private interpretation, there is liberty enough allowed to it. Preachers are not forbidden to interpret this or that text, or hundreds of texts, differently faom what the fathers have done, provi ded still they keep within the analogy of faith, and pre sume not to raise any new doctrine. Neither are they altogether restrained from teaching any thing new, provi ded it be offered as an opinion only, or an inferior truth, and not pressed, as necessary, upon the people. For it was thought that there could be no necessary article of faith or doctrine now drawn from Scripture, but what the ancients had drawn out before from the same Scripture ; to say otherwise, would imply that the ancients had failed universally in necessaries, which is morally absurd. From this account it may appear that the Church of England is exactly in the same sentiments which I have been pleading for ; and, indeed, if there be any Church now in the world LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 61 which truly reverences antiquity, and pays a proper regard to it, it is this Church. The Romanists talk of antiquity, while we observe and follow it."* If caution be thus necessary, even in the case of an individual who professes to be under the guidance of the principle of our Reformation, when he ventures to find fault with our formularies, it becomes still more important that we should not at any time yield our minds to the guidance of an author who is known to be under the influence of a principle which we regard as erroneous. As the leaf determines the character of the future tree, and as the bud presents the rudiments of the yet unfolded flower, even so you may be sure of the tendency of an author's work when you have ascertained what his princi ple is. He may be inconsistent, and thus not always come professedly to a wrong conclusion ; but the tendency of his instruction must be in a direction contrary to that which you believe to be right. There is no bigotry, therefore, in our refusing to seek instruction from a book written by a Puritan, a Rationalist, or a Roman Catholic. We only act by our own souls as we should act in the case of our chil dren. Before we send our child to school, we inquire into the principles of the master ; and although we know him to be a clever man, and may occasionally find pleasure in his conversation, if his principles be in our opinion errone- ousj we refuse to commit our child to his training. In like manner, we may have recourse to a book written by one whose principles we condemn, for information on a given point, or for amusement; but when it is offered to us as what is called a religious book, we should refuse it, lest, being led by the blind, we fall into the ditch. Such a *~ On the Holy Trinity, cvii. p. 442. 62 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: work we shouki approach, not as a learner, but as a critic — for amusement, not for spiritual edification. However inferior we may be to the writer in intellect, or however excellent his moral character may have been, we are to assume a superiority, because we have been trained on a superior principle, and on a better system. We do not prohibit the use of opium or other drugs, deleterious in themselves, but in some cases beneficially administered ; but when the conscientious druggist permits a bottle of laudanum to be taken from his counter, he has the pre caution to write " Poison " on its label, and to warn the purchaser not to leave it in the way of the careless. So ought we clearly to designate the work of authors who have written under the influence of an erroneous princi ple, lest the unwary should be injured* Even good * in the reprints of Roman Catholic books of devotion by Dr. Pusey, there is not sufficient caution in this respect. Notwithstanding the care of the excellent editor to extract the peculiarities of Roman doctrine, they tend evidently to encou rage a Roman-Catholic style of devotion, The author took the liberty of express ing his sentiments upon the subject to Dr. Pusey after his first publication. Dr. Pusey's notion of the liberty given him by the canon of 1571 is at variance with that common-sense view of the question taken by Dr. Waterland, and quoted in this lecture. We may not go to the Fathers, exercise our own judgment as regards their teaching, and th^i pass judgment upon the Church of England, or constrain her formularies to consonance with our own notions of primitive theology ; relying thus, in fact, on our private judgment. We should start with our formularies : we should suppose that they are right, and in studying the Fathers, take them for our guide, upon the ground that they are based on the decision, not of one learned or pious man, but of many. It is clear that phrases used by the Fathers before the Nicene Council, though quite capable of an orthodox meaning, which is their right meaning, because they were used by orthodox men, would, nevertheless, be inex pedient at at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity had been more clearly defined. Before heresies exist, our expressions are lax, because they cannot be misunderstood : when terms have been applied to express a sense which we repu diate, we become more circumspect in the use of them. Terms used by the Fathers with reference to the eucharist could not be used with propriety at a period subsequent to the introduction of the medieval error of transubstantiation. The question is not as to words, but as to the fact, whether the Fathers believed as we LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 63 works, coming from a suspected quarter, are to be viewed with suspicion. Nor is it safe, since there are both Puri tans and Romanizers in the Church of England, to adopt as our guide the work of one holding office among us, if he is known to be under the influence of any other principle than that of the English Reformation. People do act with this precaution almost by a moral instinct. A true-hearted member of the Church of England would scruple to receive a tract either from the Religious Tract Society, or from the so-called Catholic Institute ; and I maintain that your caution in so doing is justifiable, and no sign of an illiberal spirit : you refuse to receive what is circulated by persons who openly profess to be under the guidance of a principle different from that which you have adopted : you do not wish to have your ideas confounded. At the same time, by both societies, works may be circulated which you read, when received from some one in whom you have confidence, because, though written by persons whose general principle was erroneous, they have been examined by Anglicans, and have been by them pronounced to be consistent with the doctrines of our formularies. We may instance, on the one hand, some of the works of Baxter, and on the other, Thomas a Kempis. I must, before, I conclude, touch upon two other sub- do. If that be granted, then it is surely more safe to adhere to the terms adopted by our Reformers when repudiating the medieval error, than to terms orthodox at the time, but misunderstood and misapplied by Romanists. These observations are applicable to the use of Romish phraseology in other respects ; instead of seeking to adopt it, we should prefer what is Anglican. Jeremy Taylor, like Dr. Pusey, made use of Roman Catholic books of devotion. But he corrected them by our formularies, and so Anglicanised them ; Dr. Pusey corrects them by what he calls the primitive church ; meaning thereby what Dr. Pusey regards as such. The process is entirely different, and the result can hardly be the same. 64 the three reformations: jects, on which it appears necessary to say something, though, in saying it offence may be taken by some of those who deserve our esteem and respect. It is impossible not to perceive that by those who are zealously employed in restoring old churches and erecting new ones at the pre sent time, an impulse is given to the encouragement of medieval tastes; medieval tastes may lead to medieval studies; and medieval studies to Romanism. Surely, then, those good and zealous men who are thus honorably employed should pause in the midst of their work, and reconsider their ways. You will not, I am sure, have any sympathy with those who speak of Gothic architecture as peculiarly or exclusively ecclesiastical. We may admire Gothic architecture ; we may think that, on the whole, it is best adapted to ecclesiastical purposes ; but there were splendid churches in existence before the first Gothic archi tect was born. Gothic architecture is not connected, in our minds, with the purest ages of Christianity. The stu dent of ecclesiastical history must be well acquainted with the description given by Eusebius of the churches erected at Tyre, at Jerusalem, and at Constantinople.* Magnifi cent churches they were ; sumptuously ornamented, as was proper, being dedicated by the first Christian empe ror to the service of the King of kings. For magnificent and sumptuous churches, you have primitive precedent as well as scriptural authority. But these were not Gothic churches. In various particulars and details they differed from the churches of the middle ages : and why ? The rituals of the primitive and medieval churches differed; and the primitive Christians considered that a church was * Euseb. lib. x. c. 4, ; De Vit. Const, lib. iii. c. 33., and lib. iv. c. 50. 53. LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 6 5 to be built for the ritual, not the ritual adapted to the church. Their churches were erected to meet the exigen cies of the Greek ritual and the customs of the people. And, surely, this is the principle upon which new churches ought to be erected in England. Is it not manifestly incongruous to erect a church on the model for the four teenth century, when we want a church for the ritual of the nineteenth century ? In the fourteenth century the Litany was sung or said in procession, and there were fre quent processions in churches ; in the nineteenth century the Litany is sung or said kneeling, and processions are of rare occurrence : in the fourteenth century the sermon seldom formed part of divine service, and was often de livered in another part of the church ; * whereas now the sermon forms part of the Communion Service. Not to instance other particulars, it is quite clear, that for rituals differing so widely, another arrangement of the Church is necessary. We all admit that our forefathers were in error when they sought to assimilate the Church to the Conventicle, in order that Dissenters might not per ceive what an honest man wishes to have perceptible, the difference between the principles professed in a church and * The account which we have in Dante of medieval preaching does not impress us with the notion of there being more of reverence at that time than there is now : — " Christ said not to his earliest congregation, ' Go and with lies the people lead astray,' But 'Testify the truth to every nation.' And this injunction they so well obeyed, Fighting the Battle of the Faith, that they Their shields and lances of the Gospel made. Now goes the Preacher forth with quibbles, and Buffooneries ; and if the laugh he raise, He swells his cowl, and makes no more demand." Paradieo, xxix. ( WrigM's translation. ) E 66 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: in a meeting-house : they were led to this by their ultra- Protestantism. Let 'us take warning from their example, and, instead of rushing into the opposite extreme, take care that our admiration of Gothic churches does not lead to medieval tastes, which will end in Romanism. Why are our architects to be mere servile imitators of their pre decessors ? Why are they to have no scope for genius ? Surely we ought, acting on primitive principles, to encou rage their inventive powers ; we ought to say to them, " As Gothic architecture was at its excellence in the four teenth century, you ought to master the principles of your art from the ancient models ; and then, having studied your Prayer Book, you ought to apply those principles to the production of an edifice in which the services of the existing Church of England may be performed in the beauty of holiness." Even with respect to galleries, they are unsightly objects, but they are sometimes necessary. In the fourteenth century, when the ritual was in a dead language, the people assisted, but took no part in the service. The ritual has now been translated into the vul gar tongue, that all the congregation may hear, and bear their part in the services : while, in medieval churches, ample space was required for processions, we, on the con trary, require to have many people accommodated in the smallest possible space. Where this can be done without galleries, every one will desire to dispense with them ; but practical men will be unwilling to remove them entirely until our architects have seriously considered whether they cannot be made ornamental as well as useful. I need scarcely remark, that it was on this practical and primitive principle that the parish church of Leeds was built. We impressed upon the mind of our architect that our object was not to exhibit an imitation of medieval art, LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 6? but to have an edifice erected in which the services of the existing Church of England, the ritual of the nineteenth ¦century, might be performed with solemnity and grandeur, I know how much fault is found with this structure by medieval pedants ; but I have never yet seen a church so ¦admirably adapted for the services of the Church of Eng land ; and when it is criticised by those who say, with a sneer, that " It is truly Anglican," I take the sneer for a compliment, and rejoice to find that it is what it assumes to be. It is, indeed, a representation of the Church of England, reviled by one extreme as Popish, and by the other extreme as Protestant ; and long may its consecrated walls witness the teaching of that good old Church-of- England theology, removed on the one hand from ultra- Protestantism, and on the other from Romanism, which would train us in the via media, and call upon us to " stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, that ye may walk therein, and so find rest to your souls." * What has been said with reference to church architec ture is applicable also to church music. If a man says that he adopts the Gregorian music, because it is the best that he can provide, or because he thinks it peculiarly de votional, his conduct is intelligible, though his taste may be questionable. The occasional use of the Gregorian chants is a pleasing variety in our services. But when an attempt is made to bring them into use, as being peculiarly or ex clusively ecclesiastical, I, for one, shall continue to resist it How are they peculiarly ecclesiastical? They certainly formed the music of the middle ages, but that is a prima * Jeremiah, vi» 16. 68 THE THREE REFORMATIONS: fade objection to them ; a taste for what was used in the middle ages being precisely that which we of the Church of England are unwilling to encourage. The primitive principle was this, that whenever Gon blesses our labors,. and permits us to discover a new art, or to make progress- in a science, we should dedicate to his service the art or science in which the advancement has been made. It may be contrary to medieval taste to light our churches with gas, or warm them with hot air ; but primitive principles would lead us to consecrate these discoveries, by intro ducing them into God's house. And if in musical science men have improved, on these grounds, there ought to be an attempt to improve the music of the Church. And hence the Church of England has a music of her own, based upon the old Gregorian music, but harmonized ac cording to the rules of science, which Gregory the Great would, doubtless, have adopted had they been known to him ; for he was a reformer of church music on this very principle. It is true that what is thought by some to be an improvement is regarded by others as- the reverse. About tastes there can be no dispute ; if a minister and his con gregation prefer Gregorian to other music, we have no right to find fault with their adoption of it. But when an attempt is made to force it into general use, we resist it, because this implies the prevalence of that medieval taste, which, unchecked, must lead to Romanism. The careless ness of the last century led to a manner of performing our services by which they are unmeaning. We rejoice in the improvement which, in spite of controversy, is in progress ; and we rejoice the more because a stricter observance of the rubric, and the bringing forward portions of our offices hitherto kept designedly in the back ground, has a ten dency to annihilate the ultra-Protestant spirit, which has LUTHERAN — ROMAN — ANGLICAN. 69 checked the advancement of true rehgion and virtue in our Zion. But ultra-Protestantism is to be replaced not by Medievalism, but according to the blessed principles of the Enghsh Reformation, by primitive Christianity as embodied in our book of Common Prayer. I have detained you unreasonably, but I trust not unpar- donably long. Having had to enter into details, I could not compress what I had to say within a shorter compass. I thank you for the attention with which you have heard me ; and I hope that what I have said may be serviceable to some who, in the midst of controversial strife, are anx ious for a rule by which to be guided. The miserable Latitudinarians who, careless of doctrine, are in practice more careless still ; who think of their dignity and ease when souls are perishing around them whom they are sala ried to feed ; who hate nothing so much as earnestness in rehgion, and vent their selfish spleen by discovering Puri tanism in every act of self-denial, and Popery in every act of devotion ; who censure and sneer at all who are laboring in the vineyard, while they themselves are like drones in the bee-hive : these are not the men who represent the via media principle of the Church of England, as our ene mies would assert. To them, with their closed churches and full tithe barns, the men of the via media are reso lutely opposed : nay, we can revere zeal, and Christian love, and enthusiastic devotion to the service of our adora ble Saviour wherever they may be found : we can gaze with admiration on the fruits of the Spirit wheresoever produced, whether in the Roman convent or the Methodist class-room ; but we say, in the quaint but strong language of an old poet : — " In my religion I dare entertain No fancies hatched in my own weak braiu, 70 THE THREE REFORMATIONS : Nor private spirits ; but am ruled by The Seriptures, and that church authority, Which with the ancient faith doth best agree-;. But new opinions will not down with me. When I would learn I never greatly care, So- truth they teach me, who my teachers are r In points of faith I look not on the man ; Nor Beza, Calvin, neither Luther can More things, without just proof, persuade me to, Than any honest parish clerk can do.. The ancient fathers (where consent I find) Do make me, without doubting, of their mind : But where, in bis opinion, any one Of those great pillars I shall find alone, (Except in questions which indifferent are. And such until his name unmoved were,) I shun his doctrine ; for this swayeth me, 'No man alone on points of faith can be.'" Withers. APPENDIX Note A. — Page 11. One of the artifices on the part of Romanizers, of which we have to complain is, that they place Catholicism as the opposite to Protestant ism. Popery and Protestantism are opposed, and so also are Popery and Catholicism. Catholicism is opposed to heresy. There are undoubtedly Protestant heresie?, but heresy is not peculiar to Pro testantism ; there are Popish heresies also. It is absolutely necessary to use these old-fashioned terms, in order to make the distinction which it is attempted in some quarters to confound. The author submits to the reader the following article from his " Church Diction ary," on the word Protestant. At the time of its first publication, the article was attacked in the "British Magazine," but he saw no reason to make any alteration in it : — "Protestant. — The designation of Protestant is used in Ens-land as a general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such, however, was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor is it the sense in which it is still applied, on the Continent. It was originally given to those who protested against a certain decree issued by the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529. "On the Continent it is applied as a term to distinguish the Luther an communions. The Lutherans are called Protestants; the Calvin- ists the Reformed. It is evident that in our application of the word, it is a mere term of negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant, he only tells us that he is not a Romanist; at the same time he may be what is worse — a Socinian, or even an infidel, for these are all united under the common principle of protesting against Popery. The appellation is not given to us, as far as the writer knows, in any of our formularies, and has chiefly been employed in poliiical warfare as a watchword to rally in one band all who, whatever may be their 72 APPENDIX. religious differences, are prepared to act politically against the aggres sions of the Romanists. In this respect it was particularly useful at the Revolution; and as politics intrude themselves into all the consid erations of an Englishman, either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a powerful and influential party in the state. But on the very ground that it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ, many of our divines object to the use of the word. Thev con tend, with good reason, that it is quite absurd to speak of the Prot estant religion, since a religion must, of course, be distinguished, not by what it renounces, but by what it professes : they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of sceptical habit, of inquiring, not how much we ought to believe, but how much we may refuse to believe; of look ing at what is negative instead of what is positive in our religion; of fearing to inquire after truth, lest it should lead to something which is held by the Papists, in common with ourselves; and which, therefore, as some persons seem to argue, no sound Protestant can hold ; forget ting, that on this principle we ought to renounce the Liturgy, the sacraments, the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity and atonement of Christ, nay, the very Bible itself. It is on these grounds that some writers have scrupled to use the word. But although it is certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant religion, i. e., a negative religion, yet there is no absurdity in speaking of the Church of Eno-land, or the Church of America, as a Protestant Church: the word Church conveys a positive idea, and there can be no reason why we should not have also a negative appellation. If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true, though a corrupt Church, it is well to have a term by which we may always declare that, while we hold in common with her all that she has which is Catholic, scriptural and pure, we protest for ever, against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word, whether correctly or not, is in general use, and is, in a certain sense, applicable to the Church of England; it is, surely, therefore, better to retain it, only with this understanding, that when we call ourselves Protestants, we mean no more to profess that we hold communion with all parties ,vho are so styled, than the Church of England when, in her creeds and formularie.-', she designates herself, net as the ProU esiant, but as the Catholic Church of this country, i.itends to hold communion with those Catholic Churches abroad, which have infused into (their system the principles of the Council of Trent. Protestant is APPENDIX. 73 our negative, Catholic our definitive name. We tell the Papist that with respect to him we are Protestant; we tell the Proteslant Dissen ter that with respect to him we are Catholics; and we may be called Protestant or Protesting Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us, Anglo-Catholics." Note B.— Page 32. On this subject the following observations of Mr. Stanley Faber, in his work on the doctrine of Election, are worthy of notice : — "Two persons, we will say, each with perfect, though mistaken sincerity, supplicate the throne of grace, that the true interpretation of those texts, which speak of election and predestination, may, by the Holy Spirit, be conveyed to their divinely illuminated intellect. " The prayer is by each party duly put up ; and the incongruous result is, that the one person becomes a decided Calvinist, and that the other person rises up from his devotions a steadfast Arnjinian. Now, clearly, the interpretations which they henceforth confidently recommend as answers, severally vouchsafed to their prayers for intel lectual illumination, cannot both be correct. " How, then, if we admit the fitness of the practice, are we to deter mine between the two opposing expositions? Which interpretation are we bound in conscience to receive as the unerring communication of the infallible Spirit of unmixed truth ? " Without the very extremity of arrogant assumption, neither indi vidual, I apprehend, can presume to say that his interpretation is the genuine dictate of the Spirit, and that the interpretation of his oppo nent is advanced purely under the influence of strong delusion. I put not any mere imaginary case ; the unseemly incongruity here pointed out, has actually occurred, as the result of the unauthorized prayers of two very good, though very mistaken men. " Mr. Whitfield says, 'I never read any thing that Calvin wrote — my doctrines I had from Christ and his apostles — I was taught them of God.' And he further somewhat more distinctly states, in I- I 74 APPENDIX. regard to the particular doctrine specially alluded to — " Election is a doctrine which I thought, and do now believe, was taught me of God.' " Yet Mr. Wesley broadly declares, that he has an immediate call from God, to preach and publish to the world that Mr. Whitfield's doctrine is highly injurious to Christ. " From the very purport of these jarring allegations, I venture to conclude, that Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley had alike prayed to God for a right understanding of the texts which are litigated between Calvinists and Arminians; for neither of them could have well imag ined "that he was taught of God,' or 'that he had an immediate call from God,' without the antecedent preparation of much thought on the subject, mingled with prayer. Yet, what is the result of such utterly unscriptural applications to the Deity ? Combining the two together, we portentously learn, from the conjoined declarations of Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley, that 'the former was taught of God the doctrine of election, as expounded by Augustine and Calvin;' while ' the latter had an immediate call from God to publish to the whole world that this identical doctrine of election thus expounded, is totally false, and highly injurious to Christ.' The truth of the matter was, that each, by his own private reasoning and judging upon Scripture, had firmly persuaded himself that his own view of election was undoubtedly correct; and an erroneous estimate of the nature and office of prayer, associated with a strong imagination, readily effected the remainder. " But the mischief of such presumptuous petitions will appear even in a yet more striking point of view, when it is stated that they have ¦ actually been preferred both by an infidel and (in the language of the early Church) by a God-denying apostate, and that the wretched result was a full confidence on the part of each that his own system had received the special sanction of Heaven. " When Lord Herbert of Cherbury had finished his favorite infidel work, he prayed that he might be instructed by some sign from Hea ven, whether it were for the honor of God to suppress it or publish it. The answer to his prayer, he tells us, was a divine sign, which author ised him to print and circulate the work. " The prayers of Socinus were, to himself at least, of an equally satisfactory description: he claimed to have received God's instruction and assistance in the interpretations which he has put upon the vari ous passages of Scripture litigated between his own followers and the Catholic Church.'' APPENDIX. 75 Note C. — Page 45. To the preface of the ordinal, as well as to the ordinal itself, and to all that is contained therein and prescribed thereby, all clergymen, bishops as well as priests and deacons, declare their unfeigned assent and consent; it is somewhat remarkable, therefore, that some prelates, whom it would be invidious to name, should denounce the doctrine of the apostolical succession to their clergy, as if it were a doctrine not held by the Church of England. If this be not the doctrine of the Church of England, why are there bishops at all? Except for this doctrine, we could dispense with bishops, and conduct the discipline of the Church more efficiently by Presbyterian synods. In the preface to the ordinal, the question is, what did the ancient authors, whose authority is quoted and whose example is followed, mean by the word bishops? No one can deny that they meant ecclesiastical rulers, hav ing power to ordain, they having themselves been ordained by others. This cannot be denied. The assertion then of the Church is this: that from the apostles' time this order existed, the order of bishops as distinguished from the two other orders. She also states that, more over, even in the apostles' time, the bishops, as well as other clergy, were admitted to their office by public prayer and imposition of hands. It is admitted that ordination is an office which has always belonged exclusively'to the episcopal order, wherever episcopacy has existed; and the Church of England affirms that this order has existed from the apostles' time. Therefore as our present bishops were ordained by bishops, so were their predecessors consecrated by bishops up to what period ? The Church answers, Up to the apostles' time. The apos tles being themselves appointed by Christ, ordained the first genera tion of bishops, and bishops from that time to this have ordained others to the episcopal office, as from time to time there was a vacancy ; and this is what is called the Apostolical Succession. At the same time, we are to remember that the real question is not whether the Church of England asserts this doctrine in any particular formulary, but whether she denies it. She admitted it, as no one can deny, before the Reformation ; and if she has not denied it subse quently, it must be her doctrine still. The Church of England does not date from the Reformation ; if she did, she would be no church at all The Catholic Church was at the Reformation not destroyed in 76 APPENDIX. this country, but reformed on the principle shown in the text. Medie val corruptions and innovations were repudiated, but the Church remained as she was — Naaman cleansed indeed of his leprosy, but Naaman still ; Naaman with his leprous spots, but with his hands and feet, the same body and the same soul. As in ecclesiastical courts; because the Church is unchanged, the canons which existed before the Reformation are in force, except where contradicted by subsequent enactments ; so is it also with doctrine, and the regulation of our ser vices. It is thus that in some churches the custom prevails of turning to the East when the Creed is rehearsed : a sectarian churchman asks, Where is it appointed ? The answer is, It was the custom of the Church: where is it prohibited? It is on the same ground that we justify the saying or chanting antiphonally, or the minister saying one verse, the people the other. The suspension of the Church during the great rebellion led to the disuse of many observances which we find to have existed in our Church long after the Reformation. Slcam Prcsa of Jcwett, Thomas &. Uo. Buffalo.