Skip to main content

Full text of "A treatise on the church of Christ : designed chiefly for the use of students in theology."

See other formats 


SX' 


^  ^m 


tiitt 


^ 


#^**^;^ 


T  R  E  A  T  I  S  H.,^ 


CHURCH    OF 


I  LIBRARY.  I 


DESIGNED  CHIEFLY 


FOR  THE  USE  OF  STUDENTS  IN  THEOLOGY. 


REV.  WILLIAM  PALMER,  M.A. 


OF  WORCESTER  COLLEGE,  OXFORD. 


IN    TWO    VOLUMES. 

VOL.  II. 


LONDON: 
PRINTED  FOR  J.  G.  &  F.  RIVINGTON, 

ST.   PAUL'S  CHURCH  YARD, 
AND  WATERLOO  PLACE,  PALL   MALL. 

1838. 


London  -. 

Gii-nF.:iT  &  lliviNGTON,  Printers, 

St.  John's-Square. 


n\ 


b 


CORRIGENDA. 


VOL.  I. 


Page  1 14,  line  35,  note,  for  Bossuet,  t.  i.  p.  58,  read  Bossuet,  GaUia  Orthodoxa, 

-200,  —  3,  for  are  read  even.                                                             [s.  xvii. 

261,  —  22,  for  more  read  men. 

282,    —  11. /o''  probable  rend  possible. 

312,  —  26,  for  eight  read  nine. 

330,  —  14, /or  cliart^ed  rcac/ changed. 

332,  —  17, '/or  circumspection  ?-fw/ circumscription. 


VOL.   II. 

Page    26,  —  10,  cAitrc/j  dele  to  o-race. 

37,  —  24, /or  too  rertrf  to. 

61,  —  34,  note,  for  True  read  Free. 

171,  —  12,/or680rtw/630. 

— 259,  —  32,  note,  for  ecclesia  read  ecclesia?. 

439,  —  20,  for  immediate  read  intermediate. 


By  the  same  Author, 

ORIGINES  LITURGIC^: 

Or,  Antiquities  of  the  English  Ritual,  and  a  Dissertation  on 

Primitive  Liturgies. 

In  two  Volumes.     Second  Edition. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 


PART  III. 

ON    SCRIPTURE    AND    TRADITION. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I.     On  the  Perfection  of  Scripture 3 

Objections 22 

CHAPTER  n.  On  Deductions  from  Scripture  ....  .33 
Objections 42 

CHAPTER  HI.     On  the  Doctrinal  Tradition  of  the  Church    ...     44 

CHAPTER  IV.     On  Traditions  of  Rites  and  Discipline      ....     64 

Sect.  i.     The  Mode  in  which  all  things  lawful  are  contained  in 

Scripture ibid. 

Sect.  ii.     On  the  Means  of  discriminating  variable  from  invari- 
able Rites 70 

Objections 73 

CHAPTER  V.     On  the  Office  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  Faith     .     76 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  alleged  Necessity   of  Examination  as   a 

Foundation  of  Faith 88 

Objections 89 

a2 


IV  CONTENTS. 

PART  IV. 

ON    TUE    AUTHOUITY     OF    THE    CHURCH    IN    MATTEKS    OV    FAITH     AND 
DISCIPLINE. 

PAGK 

Introduction 95 

CHAPTER  I.     The  Church  is  a  Judge  in  ReUgious  Controversies  .     96 

CHAPTER  II.     On  the  Modes  of  EcclesiasticalJudgments   .     .     .102 

CHAPTER  III.     On  the  Conditions  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments    .   106 

CHAPTER  IV.     On  the  Authority  of  Judgments  of  the  Universal 

Church 109 

Objections 125 

CHAPTER  V.     On  the  Notion  of  a  perpetual  Tribunal  in  the  Church  1 33 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  Distinction   between  Ecclesiastical  Judg- 
ments and  Traditions,  and  mere  common  Opinions     .     .     .13^^ 

Objections 147 

CHAPTER  VII.      On   the  Nature  and  Authority  of  (Ecumenical 

Synods 150 

Sect.  i.  The  infallibility  of  a  general  Synod,  lawfully  celebrated, 
and  confirmed  by  the  Roman  Pontiff  alone,  is  only  a  matter 
of  opinion  in  the  Roman  Churches 152 

Sect.  ii.  A  general  Synod  confirmed  by  the  Roman  Pontiff",  has 
not,  without  the  consent  of  the  universal  Church,  any  irre- 
fragable Authority     156 

Objections 158 

CHAPTER  VIII.     General  Remarks  on  the  Decrees  of  Synods  .     .   166 

CHAPTER  IX.     On  the  six  (Ecumenical  Synods 171 

Sect.  I.     The  Synod  of  Nice 173 

Sect.  II.     The  first  Synod  of  Constantinople 177 

Sect.  III.     The  Synod  of  Ephesus 180 

Sect.  iv.     The  Synod  of  Chalcedon 184 

Sect.  v.     The  second  Synod  of  Constantinople 186 

Sect.  VI.     The  third  Synod  of  Constantinople 187 

CHAPTER  X.     Councils  improperly  styled  oecumenical,  held  before 

A.  D.  1054 180 


CONTENTS.  V 

PAGli 

Sect.  i.     The  Synod  of  Sardica ibid. 

Sect.  II.     The  Synod  of  Ariminum,  and  Arianism 190 

Objections 197 

Sect.  III.     The  Latrocinium  of  Ephesus 199 

Sect.  iv.   The  Synods  of  Constantinople  and  Nice  in  the  question 

of  Images 200 

Sect.  v.     The  Synods  of  Constantinople  in  the  cause  of  Photius  214 

CHAPTER  XI.     Councils  of  the  Western  Church  after  a.d.  1054, 

improperly  termed  oecumenical 216 

Sect.  i.     The  first,  second,  and  third  Lateran  Synods  .     .     .     .ibid. 

Sect.  ii.     The  fourth  Lateran  Synod 219 

Sect.  hi.     The  Synods  at  Lyons  and  Vienne 226 

Sect.  iv.     The  Synods  of  Pisa  and  Constance 229 

Sect.  v.     The  Synods  of  Basle,  Florence,  and  Lateran  ....  234 
CHAPTER  XII.     The  Synod  of  Trent 237 

CHAPTER  XIII.     On  the  authority  of  particular  Synods,  and  of 

the  Roman  Pontiffs  in  Controversies 250 

Sect.  I.     Of  particular  Synods ibid. 

Sect.  II.     The  authority  of  Papal  and  Patriarchal  Decrees      .     .  257 

CHAFFER  XIV.     On  the  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  London,  1562     .258 

Sect.  I.     On  the  nature  of  the  Articles 261 

Sect.  ii.    On  the  right  of  the  Church  to  demand  adhesion  to  the 

Articles 264 

Sect.  III.     On  the  Interpretation  of  the  Articles 281 

Sect.  IV.     On  Subscription  to  the  Articles 285 

CHAFPER  XV.     On  the  Authority  of  the  Church  concerning  Dis- 
cipline and  Rites 290 

CHAPTER  XVI.     On  the  Exercise  and  Sanctions  of  Ecclesiastical 

Discipline 294 

Sect.  I.     On  Ecclesiastical  Tribunals ibid. 

Sect.  ii.     On  Ecclesiastical  Censures 297 

Sect.  hi.     On  Penitence  and  Absolution 300 

Sect.  iv.     On  Censures  of  Churches  by  other  Churches  .     .     .  302 
Objections 303 

CHAPTER  XVII.     On  the  powers  of  Universities  in  Theological 

Questions 304 

10 


VI  CONTENTS. 

PART  V. 

ON    THE    RELATIONS    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

PAGE 

Introduction 311 

CHAPTER  I.     On  the  original  Independence  of  Church  and  State  .  314 

CHAPTER  II.     The  Right  and  Duty  of  the  State  to  protect  the  true 

ReUgion 317 

CHAPTER  III.     On  the  Extent  and  Nature  of  the  Protection  af- 
forded by  the  Ci\al  Magistrate  to  the  Church 323 

CHAPTER  IV.     On  the  Temporal  EstabUshment  of  the  Church     .  327 

CHAPTER  V,     On  the  duty  of  the  Sovereign  to  defend  the  Chris- 
tian Faith  and  Discipline 331 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  Ecclesiastical  Supremacy  of  the  Christian 

Sovereign 340 

Appendix  i.     On  the  Expulsion  of  Bishops  by  the  Temporal 

Power 347 

II.     On  Nomination  to  Bishoprics,  and  on  Synods  and 

Convocations 352 

CHAPTER  VII.     Certain  Difficulties  solved 361 

CHAPTER  VIII.     On  Toleration 363 

Objections 366 


PART  VI. 


ON    THE    SACRED    MINISTRY. 


CHAPTER  I.     On  the  Episcopate 373 

Objections 392 

CHAPTER  II.     On  the  Presbyterate 396 

CHAPTER  III.     On  the  Diaconate 404 

Appendix     On  the  minor  Orders 409 

CHAPTER  IV.     On  the  Minister  of  Ordination 410 

Objections 417 

CHAPTER  V.     On  the  number  of  Bishops  requisite  to  ordain     .     .  422 

Objections 425 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  Reordinations 429 

CHAPTER  Vn.     On  the  Subjects  of  Ordination 437 

CHAPTER  Vni.     On  the  Sacrament  of  Ordination 440 

CHAPTER  IX.     On  the  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy 444 

Objections 448 

CHAPTER  X.     On  the  Vahdity  of  the  English  Ordinations  .     .     .450 

Objections 459 

CHAPTER  XI.     On  Romish  Ordinations 468 


PART  VII. 

ON    THE    ROMAN    PONTIFF. 

CHAPITER  I.     On  the  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter 477 

Objections 492 

CHAPTER  II.     On  the  Duration  of  St.  Peter's  Pre-eminence     .     .493 

CHAPTER  III.     On  the  origin  of  the  Pre-eminence  of  the  Roman 

church 497 

CHAPTER  IV.     The  Roman  Pontiff  has  not,  jure  divino,  any  ordi- 
nary Jurisdiction  over  the  Universal  Church 506 

Sect.  I.     The  Roman  Bishop  has  not,  y«re  c^mwo,  any  ordinary 

Jurisdiction  over  the  Clergy  and  People  of  other  Bishops    .  ibid. 
Sect.  ii.     The  Roman  Bishop  has  not,  jure  divino,  any  ordinary 

Jurisdiction  over  other  Bishops 508 

Objections 518 

CHAPTER  V.     On  other  pretended  Privileges  of  the  Roman  See     .  521 

Sect.  I.     On  the  doctrine  of  the  Papal  Infallibility 525 

Objections 527 

Sect.  ii.     On  the  Roman  Centre  of  Unity 528 

Objections 533 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  legitimate  Authority  of  the  Roman  See      .  535 

CHAPTER  VII.     On  the  Patriarchate  of  Rome 538 

Objections 543 

CHAPTER  VIII.     On  the   Progress  of  the  Power  of  the  Roman 

Pontiff 547 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  III. 


ON  SCRIITURE  AND  TRADITION. 


VOL.  II.' 


'■'  "-    .i-     i...  "i,  .:'' 


A    TREATISE 


THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


COI..COLL. 

LIBRARY. 

PART  III.-CII^PTEB^I.^.^j^j^^ 

ON    THE    PERFECTION    OF    ^^^^-"^^^^ 


In  the  preceding  portion  of  this  work,  I  have  endea- 
voured to  establish  and  to  apply  briefly,  the  general 
principles  which  enable  us  to  discriminate  the  true 
church  of  Christ  from  all  other  societies  calling  them- 
selves Christian.  I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  rules 
by  which  the  doctrines  of  Revelation  may  be  ascer- 
tained, and  to  this  end,  shall  treat  in  this  Part  on  the 
perfection  of  holy  scripture,  on  the  use  of  tradition, 
and  on  the  office  of  the  church  in  relation  to  both ; 
reserving  for  the  next  Part,  the  consideration  of  another 
and  a  briefer  mode  of  proving  Christian  doctrine, 
from  the  authoritative  judgments  of  the  church  uni- 
versal. 

The  genuineness,  authenticity,  and  inspiration  of 
scripture,  are  proved  by  the  same  arguments  against 
infidels  and  deists  by  all  believers :  but  when  we  pro- 
ceed further  to  establish  the  perfection  of  scripture, 
and  its  adaptation  to  the   determination   of  Christian 

B  2 


4  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

doctrine,  we  are  at  once  involved  in  controversy  with 
various  sects.  Tlie  doctrine  which  I  am  about  to  main- 
tain, is  that  of  the  sixth  Article  approved  by  the 
English  synods  in  1562  and  1571. 

"  Holy  scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation  :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any 
man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the 
Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  sal- 
vation." 

The  first  assertion  of  this  Article  is,  that  holy  scrip- 
ture containeth  "  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,"  or, 
as  the  context  explains  it,  "  all  things  which  are  to  be 
believed  as  articles  of  faith,  or  thought  necessary  to 
salvation" — i.  e.  all  the  Revelation  of  God  to  us,  con- 
cerning faith  and  morality.  This  will  be  proved  in  the 
present  chapter.  We  may  also  infer  from  the  M'ording 
of  the  Article,  that  what  is  "  proved  by"  holy  scripture, 
may  be  as  much  an  article  of  faith  as  what  is  expressly 
"  read  therein."  This  will  form  the  subject  of  the  next 
chapter.  It  should  be  observed  further,  that  the  Article 
does  not  affirm  that  scripture  contains  all  that  is  true, 
and  Imiful,  as  well  as  every  "  article  of  faith"  or  every 
doctrine  "  necessary  to  salvation."  Nor  does  it  affirm, 
that  men  ought  not  tobe  required  to  acknowledge  certain 
truths  which  are  not  matters  of  faith,  if  such  truths  are 
not  required  as  matters  of  faith,  but  as  truths  simply. 
Hence  the  church  of  England  may,  quite  consistently 
with  the  doctrine  of  this  Article,  for  good  reasons  oblige 
her  ministers  to  profess,  not  merely  doctrines'  of  the 
faith,  but  historical  truths,  theological  verities,  pious 
and  probable  opinions. 

To  the  doctrine  that  scripture  contains  all  articles 
of  faith,   which   we  maintain   against  Roman    theolo- 


CHAP.  1.3  Inspiration  of  Scripture.  5 

gians%  it  has  been  objected  in  limine,  that  one  at 
least  of  the  most  important  articles  of  faith,  namely, 
the  inspiration  and  canonicity  of  several  books  of  scrip- 
ture, is  not  proved  to  us  by  scripture  itself,  but  by  the 
tradition  of  the  church  ^  It  may  be  alleged,  that  our 
own  theologians  confess  this.  Hooker  says  :  "  Of  things 
necessary,  the  very  chiefest  is  to  know  what  books  we 
are  to  esteem  holy,  which  point  is  confessed  impossible 
for  the  scripture  itself  to  teach.  ...  It  is  not  the  word 
of  God  which  doth  or  possibly  can  assure  us  that  we 
do  well  to  think  it  is  his  word,"  &c.  He  attributes  to 
the  church  the  first  proof  of  the  canonicity  of  scripture ". 
Whitaker  acknowledges  it  is  proved  by  the  ecclesi- 
astical tradition  '^.  Laud  ^  Field  \  Chillingworth  ^,  and 
several  other  theologians  acknowledge  the  same. 
Hence  it  is  argued  by  our  adversaries,  that  the  assertion 
of  the  Article  is  at  once  overthrown,  because  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  there  is  at  least  one  essential  article  of 
faith  which  is  not  to  be  proved  from  scripture. 

I  reply,  that  the  Article  only  means  to  assert  that  all 
doctrines  actually  revealed  by  God  are  to  be  found  in 
scripture,  but  there  is  no  necessity  to  suppose  that  the  in- 
spiration of  any  particular  book  was  the  subject  of  actual 

^  Stapleton,  Principiorum  Fid.  de  Eccl.  torn.  i.  p.  299  ;   De  la 

Demonstr,    Methodica,    Controv.  Luzerne,  Dissert,  sur  les  Eglises 

vii.  lib.xii ;  Bellarmin.  De  Verbo  Cath.  et  Prot.  t.  i.  p.  15  ;  Milner, 

Dei  scripto  et  non  scripto  ;  Mel-  end  of  Controversy,   p.   G9,  &c. 

cliior  Canus,  Loci  Theologici,  lib.  106. 

iii ;   De  la  Luzerne,  Dissert,  sur  "^  Hooker's   Works,   vol.   i.    p. 

les  Eglises  Cath.  et  Prot.  t.  i.  p.  335.  475.  Ed.  Keble. 

321  ;  Delahogue,  Tract.  De  Ec-  ^  Whitakerus   adv.    Stapleton, 

clesia,  Appendix  de  Tradit.  lib.  ii.  c.  4,  5. 

"  Collet,  Institut.  Theol.  Scho-  '  Conference  with  Fisher,  s.  16. 

last.    t.    i.    p.    29,    30 ;     Dela-  p.  75. 

hogue,  De  Ecclesia,  Appendix  de  ^  Field,   Of  the  Church,  book 

Traditione;  Bouvier,Tract.devera  iv.  c.  20. 

Eccl.  p.  15  ;  Trevern,  Discussion  ^  Chillingworth,  Relig.  of  Prot. 

Amic.  t.  i.  let.  iv  ;  Bailly,  Tract,  chap.  ii.  sect.  25. 


6  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

revelation,  because  it  would  have  been  sufficiently  evi- 
dent when  the  inspiration  of  its  Author  wsl^  proved  \ 
What  the  apostles  and  evangelists  wrote,  cannot  but  be 
the  word  of  Him  who  invested  them  with  miraculous 
powers.  Hence  the  inspiration  of  each  book  of  scrip- 
ture follows  on  its  genuineness  being  established,  and 
we  need  not  suppose  that  any  special  revelation  was 
necessary  to  prove  that  inspiration,  any  more  than  to 
prove  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  scripture, 
the  truth  of  the  miracles,  the  integrity  and  freedom 
from  imposture  of  our  Saviour  and  the  apostles. 

I.  There  are  four  customary  modes  of  proving  that 
scripture  "  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation." 
From  the  nature  and  end  of  scripture  ;  from  the  ge- 
neral sentiment  of  Christians  ;  from  the  inadequacy  of 
oral  tradition ;  and  from  the  scripture  itself.  These  I 
shall  consider  successively. 

It  has  been  contended  by  the  majority  of  Roman 
theologians  in  modern  times,  that  only  a  part  of  the 
word  of  God  is  contained  in  scripture,  and  that  the  re- 
mainder has  been  handed  down  by  unwritten  tradition  ; 
whence  they  conclude  that  it  is  lawful  to  require  the 
belief  in  certain  doctrines  as  articles  of  faith,  which  are 
not  mentioned  in  scripture.  In  opposition  to  this 
principle  I  argue  thus,  from  theological  reasons : — 

1.  It  is  an  article  of  faith  even  in  the  Roman  obe- 
dience, that  scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  it 
was  written  by  His  authority.  The  Synod  of  Trent 
"  receives  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, because  one  God   is  the  author  of  both '."     To 


''  Van  Mildert,  Boyle  Lectures,  perspiciensque  hanc  veritatem  et 

vol.  ii.  p.  400,  401.  disciplinam  (evangelii)   contineri 

'  "  Sacrosancta,  oecumenica,  et  in  libris  scriptis,  et  sine  scripto 

•Tcneralis  Tritlentina  S ynodus  ..  .  traditionibus,quoeabipsiusChristi 


CHAP.  I.]  Perfection  of  Scripture,  7 

suppose,  indeed,  that  the  scriptures  could  have  been 
written  without  the  will  of  God,  and  yet  that  the  church 
in  all  ages  should  regard  them  as  standards  of  faith, 
would  be  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  promise  of 
Christ  to  be  always  with  his  church,  and  to  send  it  the 
Spirit  of  truth  for  ever.  A  circumstance  so  deeply  af- 
fecting the  whole  people  of  God,  could  not  have  oc- 
curred without  the  Divine  will.  Scripture  then  was 
written  not  casually  or  by  the  momentary  impulse  of 
the  apostles  and  evangelists,  however  apparently  it  may 
have  been  so :  it  was  really  the  decree  of  God  which 
caused  it  to  be  written.  This  should  be  remembered 
by  those  who  are  so  rash  as  to  argue  from  the  appa- 
rently casual  origin  of  some  books  of  scripture,  that  it 
was  not  designed  to  be  a  standard  of  faith  K 

Now,  I  would  ask  of  our  opponents,  for  what  conceiv- 
able end  could  scripture  have  been  written  by  the  will 
of  God,  except  for  that  of  preserving  those  doctrines  of 
Revelation  which  were  to  be  in  all  future  ages  believed 
by  men  ?  They  prove  that  scripture  was  not  designed 
to  be  a  judge  in  controversy,  that  it  was  not  calculated 
to  teach  the  Gospel  ^  They  show  abundantly  that  he- 
ore  ab  apostolis  acceptae,  aut  ab  '  Trevern,  Discussion  Amicale, 
ipsis  apostolis,  Spiritu  Sancto  die-  t.  i.  p.  180,  &c.  Milner,  End 
tante,  quasi  per  manus  traditae  ad  of  Controversy,  p.  56.  82.  These 
nos  usque  pervenerunt ;  ortho-  and  other  writers  assert  that 
doxorum  patrum  exempla  secuta,  Christ  gave  no  command  to  his 
omnes  libros  tarn  Veteris  quam  apostles  to  write  the  Gospel  .  .  . 
Novi  Testamenti,  cum  utriusque  a  proposition  which,  in  a  sense 
unus  Deus  sit  auctor,  nee  non  very  derivable  from  their  use  of 
traditiones  ipsas,  turn  ad  fidem  it,  is  heretical.  The  irreverent 
turn  ad  mores  pertinentes,  tan-  mode  of  argument  occasionally 
quam  vel  oretenus  a  Christo  vel  employed  by  Romanists  in  op- 
a  Spiritu  Sancto  dictatas,  et  con-  posing  the  exaggerated  views  of 
tinua  successione  in  ecclesia  ca-  some  of  their  opponents  as  to  the 
tholica  conservatas,  pari  pietatis  sufficiency  of  Scripture,  cannot 
afFectu  ac  reverentia  suscipit  et  be  too  strongly  censured, 
veneratur." — Sess.  iv.  See  Perce-  "^  Tournely,  Prselect.  Theol. 
val  on  the  Roman  Schism,  p.  159.      de  Eccl.  Christi,  t.  i.  p.  28],  &c.  ; 


8  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

retics  have  made  an  evil  use  of  it,  and  pretended  to 
confirm  their  errors  by  its  vrords '.  The  question  then 
recurs  with  still  greater  force :  Why  did  God  cause  the 
scripture  to  be  written  ?  It  was  evidently  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preserving  an  authentic  record  of  his  Reve- 
lation. But  if  so,  the  whole  Revelation  of  God  must  be 
contained  in  scripture,  because  otherwise  it  would  ac- 
complish only  partially  and  imperfectly  the  end  of  its 
creation.  If  a  legislator  desires  to  commit  his  laws  to 
writing,  in  order  that  an  authentic  record  of  them  may 
remain  to  all  future  times,  it  is  not  to  be  suj^posed  that 
he  will  omit  a  portion  of  them.  He  will  indeed  pro- 
vide some  mode  of  interpreting  and  executing  those 
laws :  but  he  will  not  designedly  leave  any  portion  of 
them  out  of  the  record, 

2.  If  tradition  alone  is  supj)osed  to  convey  some  ar- 
ticles of  the  Christian  faith,  I  ask,  why  does  it  not 
convey  allf  Why  were  not  the  inconveniences,  which 
you  allege  to  arise  from  the  existence  of  scripture, 
avoided  ?  If  you  reply  that  scripture  was  designed  to 
afford  a  greater  evidence  to  Christian  truths,  then  you 
admit  that  doctrines  supported  by  scripture  as  well  as 
tradition  have  more  evidence,  are  more  certain,  than 
those  supported  by  tradition  only;  and  therefore  that 
God  meant  to  establish  a  distinction  between  the  ne- 
cessity of  those  doctrines.  For  surely  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable,  that  doctrines  equally  ne- 
cessary should  be  left  with  totally  unequal  evidence, 
that  some  articles   of  the  faith  should  be  delivered  by 


Bailly,  Tract,  de  Eccl.  Chr.  t.  i.  '  Milner,  End  of  Controv.  let. 

p.  294,  &c.  ;  De  la  Luzerne,  Dis-  viii  ;  De  la  Luzerne,  Dissert,  sur 

sert.    sur   les    Eglises    Cath.    et  les  Eglises  Cath.  et  Prot.  i.  20 — 

Prot.   t.  i.   p.  25;    Collet,  Theo-  25  ;  Delahogiie,  p.  90.— Melchior 

logia  Scholast.  t.  ii.  p.  499.  Canus,  De  Loc.  Theol.  1.  iii.  c.  2. 


CHAP.  I.]  Perfection  of  Scripture.  9 

scripture  as  well  as  tradition,  and  others  by  tradition 
only.  Such  a  mode  of  proceeding  M'ould  seem  incon- 
sistent witli  the  order,  the  uniformity,  the  harmony, 
nay,  the  equity  of  the  Divine  proceedings.  If  indeed 
it  could  be  proved  directly  that  God  had  so  ordered  his 
Revelation,  we  should  firmly  believe  that  He  had  secret 
purposes,  to  the  accomplishment  of  which  these  appa- 
rent irregularities  were  all  conducive :  but  in  the  ab- 
sence of  such  direct  proof,  we  must  conclude  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth  Article,  which  asserts  the 
completeness  of  scripture  for  the  very  end  for  which 
it  was  written,  and  which  supposes  the  whole  of  re- 
vealed truth  to  be  supported  by  an  uniform  and  equal 
authority.  All  articles  of  faith,  according  to  the  Anglo- 
catholic  doctrine,  are  proved  by  scripture,  and  by  a 
universal  tradition  establishing  the  right  interpretation, 
and  corroborating  the  testimony  of  scripture.  This  is 
certainly  a  much  more  reasonable  system,  and  much 
more  probable  in  the  abstract,  than  that  which  imagines 
that  God  would  have  left  some  of  his  Revelation  to  be 
proved  from  tradition  only. 

3.  If  tradition  alone  had  been  perfectly  sufficient  for 
the  conveyance  of  Christian  doctrine  in  all  ages  ™,  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  scripture  would  have  been 
written  at  all;  because  there  is  no  superfluity  in  the 
works  of  God.  His  means  are  always  adequate  to  their 
ends,  but  they  are  never  expended  unnecessarily. 
Hence,  from  the  existence  of  scripture,  we  may  infer 
that  tradition  alone  was  insufl[icient  for  the  preservation 
of  Christian  doctrine  in  the  catholic  church  in  all  ages. 

™  "  The  Christian  doctrine  and  church,  though  the  Scriptures  had 
discipline  might  have  been  pro-  not  been  composed;  however  pro- 
pagated and  preserved  by  the  fitable  these  most  certainly  are," 
unwritten  word,  or  tradition,  &c. — Milner,  End  of  Controv. 
joined  with    the  authority  of  the  let.  x. 


10  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

Nor  can  this  argument  be  retorted  on  us,  because  we 
admit  the  necessity  of  both  scripture  and  tradition  to 
prove  every  article  of  faith,  and  therefore  tradition  is 
not  superfluous. 

4.  Scripture  comprises  some  things  that  are  not  es- 
sentials of  religion.  It  mentions  several  rites  and  regu- 
lations such  as  washing  of  feet,  the  kiss  of  peace,  the 
prohibition  of  long  hair,  &c.  which  are  acknowledged 
now  to  be  non-essential.  How  improbable  is  it  that 
God  should  permit  such  things  to  be  introduced  in  his 
word,  while  he  willed  that  some  articles  of  the  faith 
should  not  be  found  there. 

II.  From  the  general  persuasion  of  Christians. 
I  claim  the  whole  weight  of  authority  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  sixth  Article.  That  doctrine  was  gene- 
rally held  by  the  fathers  and  the  schoolmen,  and  it  is 
even  more  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
church,  than  the  opinion  to  which  it  is  opposed. 

It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Egyptian  churches  that  the 
scripture  contains  all  the  articles  of  the  faith.  Origen 
says  :  "  In  the  two  testaments  every  word  that  ap- 
pertaineth  unto  God  may  be  sought  and  discussed,  and 
out  of  them  all  knowledge  of  things  may  be  under- 
stood. And  if  any  thing  remains  which  holy  scripture 
does  not  determine,  no  other  third  scripture  ought  to 
be  received  to  authorize  any  knowledge,  but  we  must 
commit  to  the  fire  what  remains,  that  is,  reserve  it  unto 
God "."     Athanasius :  "  The  holy  and  divinely  inspired 

"  "  In  hoc  biduo  puto  duo  tes-  quod    non    divina    scriptura    de- 

tamenta  posse  intelligi,  in  quibus  cernat,     nullam     aliam     tertiam 

liceat  omne  verbum  quod  ad  De-  scripturam  deberead  auctoritatem 

urn  pertinet  (hoc  enim  est  sacri-  scientise  suscipi  .  .  .  sed  igni  tra- 

ficium)  requiri   et  discuti,  atque  damus  quod  superest,  id  est  Deo 

ex  ipsis  omnem  rerum  scientiam  reservemus." — Orig.  Horn.   v.  in 

capi.     Si  quidautem  superfuerit,  Levit.  t.  ii.  p.  212.  ed.  Bened. 


CHAP.   I.]     Perfection  of  Scripture  taught  by  the  Church.         1 1 

scriptures  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  the  discovery 
of  truth  °."  Theophilus  of  Alexandria :  "  It  is  an  instinct 
of  the  Devil  to  follow  the  sophisms  of  human  minds, 
and  to  think  any  thing  divine  without  the  authority  of 
the  scriptures  p."  Cyril  of  Alexandria  :  "  That  which 
the  holy  scripture  hath  not  said,  by  what  means  should 
we  receive  and  account  it  among  those  things  that  be 
true ""  ?" 

The  doctrine  of  the  Oriental  churches  was  the  same. 
Basil  says :  "  Believe  those  things  which  are  written  ; 
the  things  which  are  not  written  seek  not  ^"  "  It  is  a 
manifest  falling  from  the  faith,  and  an  argument  of  ar- 
rogancy,  either  to  reject  any  point  of  those  things  that 
are  written,  or  to  bring  in  any  of  those  things  that  are 
not  written  '."  Gregory  Nyssene  :  "  Forasmuch  as  this 
is  upholden  with  no  testimony  of  the  scripture,  we  will 
reject  it  as  false  ^"  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  :  "  Nothing  at 
all  ought  to  be  delivered  concerning  the  Divine  and 
holy  mysteries  of  faith  without  the  holy  scriptures ".'' 
Chrysostom  :    "  The  scripture,  like  unto  a  safe   door, 

°    AvrapKEiQ  fxky  yap   tiaiv     al  fit)  jEypafifiiva   jj,))  ^iitel. — Horn, 

ctytai  Kui  di()TzvtvaTOL  ypncbai  npog  adv.  Calumn.  S.  Trinit. — Oper,  t. 

Tijv   TrJQ  aXridtlag  uTrayyeXiay. —  ii,  p.  611.    ed.  Ben. 
Athanas.  Adv.  Gent.  t.  i.  op.  p.  1.  ^  (^areph  'iicirTUJfng  Triarewc    /cat 

P  "  Ignorans  (Origenes)  quod  vTrfpr/^avtac  Kar-qyopia,  y  adere'ty 

dsemoniaci      spiritus      esset      in-  n  tCjv  ytypafxfiivwv,  i)  eTreiaayeiy 

stinctus,  sophismata  humanarum  rwv  fxt)  yeypafinivuv. — Basil.  De 

mentium  sequi,   et  aliquid  extra  Fide,  c.  1.  t.  ii.  p.  222. 
scripturarum     autlioritatem     pu-  '•"  Cum  id  nullo  scripturse  tes- 

tare   divinum." — Theoph.    Alex,  timonio  fultum  sit,  ut  falsum  im- 

Epist.  Pasch.  ii.  Bibl.  Patr.  1G18.  probabimus." — Lib.    de    Cognit. 

t.  iv.  p.  716.  Dei  cit.  ab  Euthymio  in  Panoplia, 

''"O  yap  ovK  eipr]Ker  j;  dtlaypa-  pars  i.  tit.  viii.  n.  4. 
(j>t),  riva  Ct)  rpoTroy  'Kapu.lti,6jxtQa,  "  Att    yap   irtpX    rwy    dtiwy   Kai 

Kal  iv  Toiq  a\i]dwQ  t-^ovcri  kutciXo-  ayiwy  TiJQ  iricrTewc  fxvcrrripiwy,  firjSe 

ytoujU£0a; — Cyril.  Alex.  Glaphyr.  to    rv^^oy  iiyev  rwy  deiwy  Trapaci- 

in  Gen.  lib.  ii.  p.  29.  t.  i.  Oper.  coaBaiypacptLy. — Cyril.  Hierosol. 

ed.  1638.  Cat.  iv.  s.  56.  ed.  Milles. 

■"  ToTc  yeypnfifxlyoiQ  TTtareve,  ra 


12 


Perfection  of  Scripture. 


[part  III. 


doth  bar  an  entrance  unto  heretics,  placing  us  in  se- 
curity concerning  all  we  desire,  and  not  suffering  us  to 
be  deceived ''.  .  .  Whosoever  useth  not  the  scriptures, 
but  cometh  in  otherwise,  that  is,  betaketh  himself  .to 
another  and  an  unlawful  way,  he  is  a  thief '\" 

The  doctrine  of  the  Western  churches  was  the  same. 
Irenseus  says :  "  Read  diligently  the  Gospel  given  unto 
us  by  the  apostles,  and  read  diligently  the  prophets, 
and  you  shall  find  every  action  and  the  whole  doctrine, 
and  the  whole  passion  of  our  Lord  preached  in  them "." 
Tertullian :  "  Whether  all  things  were  made  of  any 
subject  matter,  I  have,  as  yet,  read  no  where.  Let 
those  of  Hermogenes'  school  show  that  it  is  written. 
If  it  be  not  written,  let  them  fear  that  woe  which  is 
allotted  to  such  as  add  or  take  away  ^."  Ambrose : 
"  I  read  that  he  is  the  first,  I  read  that  he  is  not  the 
second ;  they  who  say  he  is  the  second,  let  them  show 
it  by  reading  ^"  Jerome  :  "  As  we  deny  not  those 
things  that  are  written,  so  we  refuse  those  things  that 


^  KaSctTTEp  ydp  nq  dvpa  dcrfa- 
Xfjs,  OVTWQ  cnroKXeieiTolc  alpeTiKoTg 
Tr}v  eicrocoy,  iv  acr^a\£(\t  KaOiaruxra 
r)}iaQ  TcepL  wv  etc  fiovKwfitda  Trciy- 
Twy,  Kai  ovK  fui(ro  TzXavaadai. — 
Chrysost.  Horn.  lix.  al.  Iviii.  in 
Joh.  t.  viii.  p.  346.  ed.  Ben. 

"^  'O  yap  /x/j  7-o7c  ypn^atc  XP*^" 
fxtvoc,  aXXa  arajja'irwv  aWaj^o- 
Oiv'  rnvTifxriv  eTspav  tavT<^  kol  fir) 
yei'O^KTiUEprji'  TEfxywv  vEoy'  ovtoq 
(cXtTrrjjc  iariy. — Ibid. 

"  "  Legite  diligentius  id  quod 
ab  apostolis  est  evangelium  nobis 
datum,  et  legite  diligentius  Pro- 
phetas,  et  invenietis  universam 
actionem,  et  omnem  doctrinam, 
et  omnem  passionem  Domini 
nostri  prsedictum  in  ipsis." — Ire- 
naeus,  Adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iv.  c.  34. 


ed.  Ben. 

y  "  Adoro  Scripturag  plenitu- 
dinem  qua  mihi  et  factorem  raani- 
festat  et  facta.  In  evangelio  vero 
amplius  et  niinistrum  atque  ar- 
bitrum  factoris  invenio  sermonem. 
An  autera  de  aliqua  subjacent! 
materia  facta  sint  omnia,  nusquam 
adhuc  legi.  Scriptum  esse  doceat 
Hermogenis  officina.  Si  non  est 
Scriptum,  timeat  Vae  illud,  adji- 
cientibus  aut  detrahentibus  desti- 
natum." — Tertull.  adv.  Hermo- 
gen.  c.  xxii. 

^  "  Lego  quia  primus  est,  lego 
quia  non  est  secundus.  Illi  qui 
secundum  aiunt,  doceant  lec- 
tione  " — Ambros.  De  Instit.  Virg. 
c.  ii.  t,  ii.  p.  265.  ed.  Ben. 


ciiAP.  I.]     Perfection  of  Scripture  tcniglit  hy  the  Church.         13 

are  not  written.  That  God  was  born  of  a  virgin,  we 
believe,  because  we  read  it :  tbat  Mary  did  marry  after 
she  was  delivered,  we  do  not  believe,  because  we  read 
it  not  \"  Augustine  :  "  Whatsoever  ye  hear  (from  the 
holy  scriptures)  let  that  savour  well  unto  you :  what- 
soever is  without  them  refuse  ^"  It  would  be  super- 
fluous to  cite  additional  testimonies  to  the  same  truth 
from  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Hippolytus,  Cyprian, 
Optatus,  Hilary,  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  Anastasius, 
Prosper,  Theodoret,  Hilary,  Antony,  Benedict,  Damas- 
cenus,  Theophylact,  &c.  which  have  been  collected  by 
our  writers  ^ 

Nor  was  this  merely  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
church.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  most  eminent  theo- 
logians in  the  middle  ages.  The  learned  Gerson  says, 
that  "  the  scripture  is  delivered  to  us  as  a  sufficient 
and  infallible  rule  for  the  government  of  the  whole  ec- 
clesiastical body  and  its  members  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  So  that  it  is  such  an  art,  such  a  rule  or  ex- 
emplar, that  any  other  doctrine  which  is  not  conform- 
able to  it,  is  to  be  renounced  as  heretical,  or  to  be 
accounted  suspicious,  or  not  at  all  appertaining  to  re- 
ligion'^."    Gregorius  Ariminensis,   speaking  of  "those 


"  "  Ut  haec  quae  scripta  sunt  <=  See  Usher's  Answer  to  a  Je- 
non  negamus,  ita  ea  quag  non  suit,  ch.  ii ;  Jer.  Taylor's  Dissua- 
sunt  scripta,  renuimus.  Natum  sive,  p.  ii.  b.  i.  s.  ii  ;  Beverido-e 
Deum  esse  de  Virgine  credimus,  on  XXXIX  Articles  ;  Tillotson, 
quia  legimus.  Mariam  nupsisse  Rule  of  Faith,  at  the  end  ;  New- 
post  partum,  non  credimus,  quia  man  on  Romanism,  lect.  xiii ; 
non  legimus."  —  Hieron.  adv.  Gary,  Testimonies  of  the  Fathers 
Helvid.  Oper.  t.  iv.  parsii.  p.  141.  to  the  XXXIX  Articles  (Art.  vi.) 
ed-  Ken.  ^  "  Attendendum  in  examina- 

^  "  Quicquid    inde    audieritis,  tione  doctrinarum  primo  et  prin- 

hoc  vobis  bene  sapiat :  quicquid  cipaliter,  si  doctrina  sit  conformis 

extra   est  respuite.  "  —  August.  Sacrae     Scripturoe  ....  quoniam 

Sermo    de    Pastor,    c.    xi.    t.   v.  Scriptura  nobis   tradita  est  tan- 

P-  238.  quam  regula  sufEciens  et  infalli- 


14  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

things  whereby  the  most  wholesome  faith  that  leadeth 
to  true  happiness  is  begotten,  nourished,  defended,  and 
strengthened,"  says :  "  it  is  evident  every  such  thing  is 
either  expressly  and  in  precise  terms  contained  in  holy 
scripture,  or  is  deduced  from  things  so  contained  in  it : 
for  otherwise  the  scripture  should  not  be  sufficient  to 
our  salvation,  and  the  defence  of  our  faith,  which  is 
contrary  to  S.  Augustine,"  &c. "  Scotus  argues  that 
the  scripture  teaches  what  is  the  end  of  man,  deter- 
mines what  is  essential  to  that  end,  and  explains  the 
nature  of  spiritual  substances  as  far  as  is  possible  for 
us.  Hence  "  it  is  plain  that  holy  scripture  contains 
sufficiently  the  doctrine  necessary  to  a  traveller  through 
this  life  V'  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  by  Rupertus 
Tuitensis,  Ockham,  Caraeracensis,  Waldensis,  the  author 
of  the  Destructorium  vitiorum,  Grosteste,  Odo,  De 
Lyra,  &;c.  as  our  authors  have  proved  ^.  But  I  not  only 
claim  the  weight  of  traditional  authority  in  confirmation 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth  Article,  I  claim  the  au- 
thority of  the  synod  of  Trent  in  our  favour.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  church  of  England  in  this  Article  is  more 
conformable  to  the  decree  of  that  council,  than  is  the 
opposite  opinion  of  Romish  theologians.     The  synod 

bilis,  pro  regimine  totius  ecclesi-  lutem  et  nostrae  defensionem  fidei, 

astici    corporis    et    membrorum,  &c.  quod  est  contra  August." — 

usque  in  finem  sseculi.      Est  igi-  Greg.  Arim.  in  Sent.  Dist.  i.  qu. 

tur  talis  ars,  talis  regula,  vel  ex-  i.  art.  ii. 

emplar,   cui    se   non   conformans  ^  "  Patet  quod  Sacra  Scriptura 

alia  doctrina,    vel  abjicienda  est  sufficienter    continet    doctrinam 

ut  liaereticalis,  aut  suspecta,   aut  neeessariam    viatori." — Scotus, 

impertinensad  religionem  prorsus  Prolog.  1.  sent,  qu,  2.  Oper.  t.  v. 

est  habenda." — Gerson,  De  Ex-  p.  1. 

am.  Doctrin.  pars  ii.  con.  i.  8  See  Taylor's  Dissuasive,  p. 

*  "  Constat  quia  quidlibet  tale  ii.  b.  i.  s.ii.  Field,  Of  the  Church, 

vel  expresse  secundum  se  conti-  Appendix  to  book   III.   chapter 

netur  in  sacra  scriptura  vel  ex  con-  2.     Tillotson,  Rule  of  Faith,  at 

tentis    in  ea    deducitur,  alioquin  the  end. 
non  ipsa  sufRceret  ad  nostram  sa- 

10 


CHAP.  I.]      Perfection  of  Scripture  tavght  hy  Romanists.  15 

declares  that  the  Christian  "  truth  and  discipline  are 
contained  in  written  books,  and  unwritten  traditions  *"." 
They  were  well  aware  that  the  controversy  then  was, 
whether  the  Christian  doctrine  was  only  in  part  con- 
tained in  scripture.  But  they  did  not  dare  to  frame 
their  decree  openly  in  accordance  with  the  modern 
Romish  view:  they  did  not  venture  to  affirm,  as  they 
might  easily  have  done,  that  the  Christian  verity  "  was 
QoniMne^  partly  in  written  books,  and  partly  in  un- 
written traditions."  Their  decree  maintains  our  doc- 
trine. "  The  Christian  truth  and  discipline  are  con- 
tained in  written  books."  We  admit  it.  "  They  are 
contained  in  unwritten  traditions  also."  We  admit  it : 
these  traditions  confirm,  and  are  identically  the  same 
with  the  doctrines  of  scripture.  Thus,  to  say  the  least, 
our  doctrine  has  just  as  much  support  from  the  council 
of  Trent  as  that  of  our  opponents.  And  accordingly  we 
find  even  Roman  theologians  admitting  the  perfection 
of  scripture. 

Cassander  regards  scripture  and  tradition  as  only 
different  forms  of  the  same  doctrine.  "  In  what  con- 
cerns questions  of  faith,  there  is  nothing  which  is  not 
in  some  manner  contained  in  scriftture,  since  this  tra- 
dition is  nothing  else  but  the  explanation  and  interpre- 
tation of  scripture  itself,  so  that  it  might  be  not  im- 
properly said,  that  scripture  is  a  sort  of  tradition  folded 
and  sealed,  and  tradition  is  scrij^ture  unfolded  and  un- 
sealed '." 

Cardinal  Du  Perron  says,  "  To  affirm  that  scripture 
is  sufficient  to  bring  us  to  salvation,  if  it  be  understood 


h  II  Perspiciensque    banc   veri-  Sess.  iv. 
tatem  et  disciplinam  (Evangelii)         '  Cassander,     De    officio    pii 

contineri    in    libris    scriptis,     et  viri,  in  principio. —  Goldast.  Po- 

sine  scripto  traditionibus,"  &c. —  litica  Tmperialia,  p.  1292. 


16  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  in. 

mediately,  that  is,  with  the  addition  of  the  means  or- 
dained for  its  explanation  and  application,  i.  e.  the 
ministry  of  the  church  ;  this  proposition  is  true  and  ca- 
tholicK''  Veron  in  his  Rule  of  Faith  says,  that  "  two 
things  must  he  united  in  order  that  any  doctrine  should 
be  an  article  of  the  catholic  faith :  one,  that  it  be  re- 
vealed of  God  by  the  prophets,  apostles,  or  canonical 
authors  (evidently  referring  to  scripture) ;  the  other  that 
it  be  j)roposed  by  the  church."  And  lest  his  meaning 
should  be  mistaken,  he  says  shortly  after,  of  a  certain 
doctrine,  "  that  it  is  neither  found  expressed  in  Scrip- 
ture, nor  in  the  General  Councils,  and  therefore  theolo- 
gians freely  hold  a  different  doctrine,"  &c.  ^  Bossuet 
argues  against  the  temporal  supremacy  of  the  Roman 
bishop  from  its  not  being  mentioned  in  scripture  '.  The 
Jesuit  White  says :  "  It  is  not  the  catholic  position  that 
all  its  doctrines  are  not  contained  in  the  scriptures  "\" 
Bailly  in  replying  to  a  passage  from  S.  Cyril  on  this 
subject  admits,  that  "  not  the  smallest  thing  should  be 
taught  without  the  scriptures,  whose  interpretation  be- 
longs to  the  church.  ...  It  is  true  indeed  that  the 
whole  Christian  faith  has  its  force  from  demonstration 
of  the  divine  scriptures,  or  that  the  scriptures  are  the 
foundation  of  our  faith,  because  the  doctrines  of  the 
faith  are  proved  by  the  scriptures,  and  because  the  au- 
thority of  the  church,  and  necessity  and  truth  of  tradi- 


j  Du  Perron,  Lettre  a  M.  de  ritable  et  catholique." 

Cherelles,  p.  843.  (Euvres,  Paris,  ''  Veronii  Regula  Ficlei,  cap.  i. 

1622.       "  Et    partant    afFermer  set.  2. 

que  I'oscriture  est  suffisante  pour  '    Bossuet,    Defensio     Declar. 

nous    conduire   a    salut,    si   cela  Cler.   Gall.  lib.   i.    sect.  i.  c.  6. 

s'entend  mediatement, c'est  adire,  CEuvres,    t.    xxxi.   p.    223.  ed. 

avec  I'imposition   du  moyen  or-  1817. 

donne  pour   I'expliquer  et  appli-  "^  White,  Apology  for  Tradi- 

quer,   a  s9avoir  le  ministere  de  tion.  p.   171.  cited  by  Tillotson, 

I'Eglise,  cette  proposition  est  ve-  Rule  of  Faith,  part  i.  sec.  3. 


CHAP.  1.]      Perfection  of  Scripture  held  hy  Romanists.  17 

tions  are  founded  on  scripture "."  In  another  place  he 
says:  "Catholics  indeed  acknowledge  scripture  to  be 
the  rule  of  faith  and  morals,  but  affirm  the  authority  of 
the  church  to  be  necessary  to  determine  controversies, 
and  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  scripture  °,"  &c.  La 
Mennais,  in  his  Essai  sur  I'lndifference,  written  while 
he  was  of  high  reputation  in  the  Roman  church,  says 
that  the  laws  and  truths  of  revelation  are  comprised  in 
scripture,  though  tradition  and  the  church  explain  their 
meaning  p. 

And  in  fine,  all  the  theologians  of  the  Roman  obe- 
dience testify  involuntarily  their  persuasion  that,  after 
all,  scriptural  proof  is  necessary,  by  attempting  to  prove 
for  themselves  from  scripture,  every  point  of  doctrine 
or  discipline,  which  they  assure  us  is  only  to  be  proved 
from  tradition.  According  to  Trevern,  Delahogue,  &c. 
infant  baptism,  and  baptism  by  sprinkling  are  only 
proved  by  tradition  '^.  Bellarmine,  Tournely,  &c.  prove 
them  from  scripture  '.  According  to  Milner  and  Mel- 
chior  Canus,  the  lawfulness  of  praying  to  saints,  and 
vtorshipping  their  images  and  relics,  rests  only  on  tra- 
dition ^  'Milner  himself  and  the  Wallemburgs  find  it 
in  scripture  \  So  it  is  with  the  other  doctrines  and 
practices  which  they  pretend  to  be  founded  on  tradition 
only,  and  therefore  I  claim  the  inconsistencies  of  the 
Roman  theologians  on  the  subject  of  tradition,  as  a 
proof  of  the  error  of  their  system.     I  assert  without 

"  Bailly,  Tract,   de  Eccl.  t.  i.  c.  8,  9.     Tournely,  Tractatus  de 

p.  337.  Baptismo,  p.  306. 

°  Ibid.  p.  294.  "  Melchior  Canus,  Loci   The- 

P  La  Mennais,  Essai  sur  Tin-  olog.  lib.  iii.   c.  3.     Milner,   end 

difference,  t.  iv.  p.  210.  of  Controv.  p.  109. 

^  Trevern,  Discuss.  Amic.t.  i.  '  Milner,  p.  251.  Wallen- 
p.  176.  Delahogue,  de  Ecclesia,  burch.  Tract.  Generales  de  Con- 
Append,  de  Traditione.  trov.  Fidei,  t.  i.  p.  444.  447. 

*■  Bellarminus,  Lib.  de   Bapt. 

VOL.  II.  C 


18  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

fear  of  effectual  contradiction,  that  the  opinion  that 
scripture  contains  only  a  portion  of  revelation,  is  not  a 
doctrine  which  the  Roman  church  has  ever  proposed  as 
de  fide,  or  even  declared  to  be  true  ;  and  that  it  is  no- 
thing but  a  mere  theological  opinion,  which  happens  to 
be  supported  by  the  majority  of  their  modern  theo- 
logians. And  I  may  add,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth 
Article  may  be  held  free  from  all  censure  in  the  Roman 
church.  How  utterly  absurd  therefore  is  it  in  M.  Tre- 
vern "  and  other  Roman  controversialists,  to  pretend 
that  our  catholic  and  apostolic  churches  have  fallen  into 
any  doctrinal  error  in  this  Article.  Such  an  assertion 
can  only  arise  from  ignorance  of  the  genuine  sentiments 
of  the  catholic  church,  or  from  mere  prejudice  and  un  • 
charitable  feeling. 

III.  Arguments  from  Scripture. 

Some  of  our  writers  argue  from  scripture  itself  in 
proof  that  all  articles  of  faith  are  contained  in  it.  But 
it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  an  argument  which  might  be 
omitted  with  advantage  to  the  truth,  since  the  texts 
which  are  adduced,  admit  of  a  very  different  interpre- 
tation. 

The  following  texts  are  alleged.  "  Ye  shall  not  add 
unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye 
diminish  aught  from  if."  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is 
perfect,  converting  the  soul '"."  The  first  text  seems 
merely  to  enjoin  obedience  to  God's  word  or  com- 
mandments in  general,  whether  they  be  written  or  un- 


"  Trevern,  Discussion  Amicale,  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  were 

t.  i.  p.  174,  5.  pretends  that  the  better  known   to   those  who  pro- 

principle  of  the  sixth  Article  was  moted  the  Reformation  than   to 

adopted   from    our   ignorance   of  those  who  opposed  it. 
antiquity.     We  might  with  more         '  Deut.  iv.  2. 
reason  say,  that  the  opposite  prin-         "'  Ps.  xix.  7. 
ciple  was.     It  is  well  known  that 


CHAP.  I.]  Perfection  of  Scripture.  19 

written.  The  second  acknowledges  the  law  of  God  to 
be  a  great  blessing,  but  does  not  intimate  that  it  is  all 
contained  in  scripture  only.  "  It  seemed  good  to  me 
also  ....  to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent 
Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of 
those  things  wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed  \" 
"  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life 
through  his  name  ^."  "  Moreover,  I  will  endeavour 
that  ye  may  be  able  after  my  decease  to  have  these 
things  in  remembrance  ^"  "  If  any  man  shall  add  unto 
these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that 
are  written  in  this  book,"  &c.  ^  These  four  passages  at 
most  only  assert  the  authority  of  the  particular  books 
in  which  they  appear.  The  three  first  cannot  prove 
that  all  revealed  truth  is  contained  in  scripture  only, 
because  they  would  equally  prove  that  it  was  contained 
severally  in  the  particular  gospels  of  Luke  and  John, 
and  in  the  epistles  of  Peter,  which  no  one  will  contend. 
The  last  passage  relates  entirely  to  the  uncorrupted 
preservation  of  the  text  of  the  book  of  Revelations. 

"  Search  the  scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye 
have  eternal  life :  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of 
me  ^"  Admitting,  merely  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  this  translation  is  strictly  correct,  the  Jews  are 
here  directed  to  examine  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  testified  to  the  divine  mission  of 
Jesus.  But  surely  there  is  no  reference  to  the  question 
of  tradition.  The  Old  Testament  might  testify  of 
Christ,  and  yet  there  might  be  also  divine  unwritten 


*  Luke  i.  3,  4.  *  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 

'  John  XX.  31.  ^  John  v.  39. 

"  2  Pet.  i.  15. 

c2 


20  Perjedioii  of  Scripture.  [paut  hi. 

traditions,  which  though  they  did  not  testify  of  Christ, 
testified  of  other  truths  or  duties. 

"  Though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any 
other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  anathema''."  This  pas- 
sage merely  speaks  of  the  gospel  in  the  abstract,  leaving 
entirely  untouched  the  question  of  the  mode  of  its 
transmission.  "  From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the 
holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto 
salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction 
in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
throughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works  ^.''  St.  Paul 
here,  apparently,  refers  to  the  Old  Testament,  which 
alone  Timothy  knew  "  from  a  child,"  and  which,  in 
order  to  dispel  the  notion  that  he  contradicted  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  he  here  pronounces  to  be  inspired 
and  profitable  to  all  teachers '.  Yet  the  Old  Testament 
did  not  then  contain  all  revealed  truth.  Therefore  the 
Bible  generally  may  be  inspired  and  "profitable  for 
doctrine,"  &c.  and  yet  some  revealed  truths  may  have 
been  handed  down  by  tradition  only. 

"  Why  do  ye  also  transgress  the  commandment  of 
God  by  your  tradition  ?" — "  In  vain  do  they  w^orship 
me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men  V 
Our  Saviour  here  condemns  the  Jews  for  upholding 
traditions  opposed  to  God's  commandments,  and  as 
teaching  such  traditions  principally,  to  the  exclusion  of 
God's  laws,  or  as  matters  of  equal  or  superior  obligation. 
But  this  only  refers  to  human  traditions :   it  does  not 

'^  Gal.  i.  8.  Whitby,  Macknight,   and   Slade, 

''  2Tirn.iii.  15 — 17.  in  loc. 

*    It    is    thus    understood   by         '  Matt.  xv.  4.  9. 


CHAP.  I.]  Perfection  of  Scripture.  *2l 

refer  to  unwritten  divine   traditions,  if  there  be  any 
such. 

It  appears  to  me  that  these  various  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, adduced  to  prove  that  no  part  of  Christian  truth 
can  be  conveyed  by  unwritten  tradition  only,  are  in- 
sufficient for  the  purpose.  In  the  Objections  I  shall 
prove  that  the  opposite  doctrine  is  equally  without 
proof  from  Scripture. 

IV.  From  the  insufficiency  of  Tradition. 

It  is  sometimes  contended  that  unwritten  tradition 
is  liable  to  be  corrupted,  and  that  it  would  be  impro- 
bable that  God  should  consign  his  Revelation  to  so  un- 
certain a  mode  of  conveyance.  If  Christian  tradition 
were  indeed  entirely  unwritten,  that  is,  if  uninspired 
writings  did  not  remain,  which  attest  sufficiently  the 
universal  belief  of  Christians  from  the  apostolic  age  :  it 
might  readily  be  admitted,  that  tradition  only  would  be 
an  uncertain  proof  of  Christian  doctrine.  But  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  impossibility,  from  the  nature 
of  tradition,  that  some  truths  of  Revelation  might  be 
handed  down  by  it,  with  the  assistance  of  Divine  grace. 
In  fact,  if  we  urge  the  uncertainty  of  tradition  ge^ie- 
rally,  it  may  cause  very  serious  inconveniences,  for  the 
authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  books  of  Scrij^ture 
rest  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  on  the  testimony  of 
primitive  tradition.  This  is  affirmed  by  Hooker, 
Whitaker,  Field,  Laud,  Chillingworth,  Lardner,  Paley, 
Marsh,  &c.  But  though  tradition  might  possibly  suf- 
fice for  the  delivery  of  a  creed  containing  very  Jew 
articles,  like  that  of  the  patriarchs  till  the  time  of 
Moses,  it  does  not  by  any  means  follow,  that  it  would 
be  sufficient  to  convey  a  widely-extended  revelation 
like  Christianitv. 


22  Perfection  of  Scripture,  [p.  hi.  c.  i. 

From  what  has  been  alleged  above  from  theological 
reasons,  and  the  general  persuasion  of  Christians,  and 
on  the  assumption  that  our  opponents  cannot  prove 
their  position  (w^hicli  v\^ill  be  shown  in  replying  to  Ob- 
jections), I  conclude  that  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth 
Article,  which  affirms  all  matters  of  faith  to  be  con- 
tained in  scripture,  is  true. 

I  also  conclude  that  the  contrary  assertion  of  Roman 
theologians  is  a  serious  error,  because  it  is  apparently 
inconsistent  with  the  Divine  attributes,  and  is  calcu- 
lated to  cause  unnecessary  difficulties.  But  as  it  does 
not  actually  subvert  revelation,  and  is  not  directly  op- 
posed to  Scripture,  it  need  not  be  regarded^  as  abso- 
lutely contrary  to  faith. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Religion  was  preserved  among  the  patriarchs  till 
the  time  of  Moses  by  unwritten  tradition  only,  and 
tradition  alone  conveyed  Christian  doctrine  at  first,  till 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written.  There- 
fore it  is  sufficient  for  the  conveyance  of  Christian 
doctrine.  (Delahogue,  Milner,  &c.) 

Answer.  (1.)  Religion  was  preserved  in  the  time  of 
the  patriarchs  not  only  by  tradition  but  by  repeated 
revelations  to  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
Job,  &c.  (2.)  I  admit  that  oral  tradition  alone  was 
sufficient  to  teach  Christian  doctrine  to  the  first  con- 
verts, but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  sufficient  to 
carry  it  down  for  1800  years.  (3.)  If  it  be  meant  that 
the  whole  Christian  faith  might  have  been  j^reserved 
with  sufficient  security  without  scripture,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  scripture  was  given  in  vain,  which  w^ould  be 
an  impious  and  detestable  assertion.     If  it  be  meant 


OBJECT.]  Tradition  the  Oi'iginal  Rule.  23 

that  a  part  of  the  Christian  faith  might  have  been  con- 
veyed by  tradition,  then  I  deny  the  analogy  of  cases  in 
which  there  were  no  scriptures,  to  that  in  which  the 
scrii^ture  exists. 

II.  Tradition  was  the  original  rule  of  faith  in  the 
Christian  church.  Yet  this  original  rule  you  suppose 
to  have  become  useless  as  soon  as  God  deigned  to  add 
a  second.     (Trevern,  Bossuet.) 

Answer.  We  teach  that  Scripture  and  tradition  to- 
gether were  designed  by  God  to  sustain  the  truth. 
Our  opponents  regard  tradition  alone  as  sufficient : 
therefore  they  detract  from  the  value  and  necessity  of 
scripture. 

III.  Christ  only  commanded  his  apostles  to  preach 
the  gospel ;  he  did  not  command  the  Scriptures  to  be 
written.  The  apostles  before  their  separation  made  no 
arrangements  for  committing  the  gospel  to  writing.  The 
gospels  and  epistles  were  written  fortuitously,  under 
the  pressure  of  circumstances,  and  not  generally  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  preserving  the  Christian  faith. 
Some  apostles  wrote  nothing  at  all ;  and  in  fine,  had 
the  sacred  writers  designed  to  commit  all  Christian 
doctrines  to  writing,  they  would  have  composed  some 
one  book  systematically  arranged,  (Trevern,  Milner, 
Delahogue.) 

Answer.  It  is  an  article  of  the  catholic  faith  that 
scripture  was  written  by  the  will  and  inspiration  of 
God.  Therefore  however  apparently  fortuitous  the 
immediate  origin  of  its  books  may  have  been,  it  is  de 
fide  that  they  were  not  written  merely  by  the  will  of 
man,  or  fortuitously,  or  without  a  profound  counsel. 
Hence  all  the  above  objections  are  worthy  of  censure, 
as  manifestly  erroneous,  and  tending  to  infidelity,  be- 
cause they  all  lead  to  a  denial  of  the  divine  inspiration 


24 


Perfection  of  Scripture. 


[p.  III.  CH.   I. 


of  scripture.  In  fine,  it  is  rash  and  presumptuous  to 
affirm  that  systematic  arrangement  was  necessary,  in 
case  God  had  designed  to  convey  the  whole  of  his 
revelation  in  scripture ;  for  we  see  no  system  in  the 
discourses  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  whatever  course  God 
adopts  in  making  his  revelation,  must  be  the  best  for 
his  divine  purposes. 

IV.  The  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  scripture 
rest  entirely  on  the  infallible  authority  of  the  existing 
catholic  church,  therefore  you  are  bound  to  receive  her 
testimony  to  all  doctrines,  even  without  scriptural  proof. 

Ansiver.  We  positively  refuse  to  make  any  answer 
to  this  argument,  until  those  who  advance  it  shall 
affirm  that  all  the  arguments  by  which  Bellarmine, 
Bossuet,  Huet,  Bergier,  Duvoisin,  Hooke,  Fraysinnous, 
Bouvier,  La  Mennais,  and  all  their  own  theologians^ 


§  Bellarmine  himself  proves 
scripture  to  be  the  word  of  God 
not  by  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  church,  but  by  testimony,  De 
Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.  c.  2.  Driedo 
also  proves  the  scriptures  from 
the  succession  of  the  fathers,  and 
not  from  the  testimony  of  the  ex- 
isting church. — De  Eccl.  Script, 
et  Dogmat.  c.  i.  Lovanii,  1556. 
See  also  Bossuet,  Histoire  Uni- 
verselle,  part.  ii.  chap.  27.  Huetii 
Demonstratio  Evangelica  ;  Ber- 
gier, Certitude  des  Preuves  du 
Christianisme ;  Hooke,  Relig. 
Nat.  et  Rev.  Principia,  t.  ii ; 
Fraysinnous,  Defense  du  Chris- 
tianisme, t.  ii. — That  the  books 
of  Scripture  are  only  proved 
genuine  and  authentic  by  un- 
written tradition,  which  we  are 
therefore  bound  to  receive  even 
without  scripture  in  proof  of 
catholic  doctrine,  is  asserted  by 
Eckius,  Enchiridion, p.  7;  Hosius, 


Oper.  t.  i.  p.  22  ;  Peresius  de 
Divin.Trad.p.  14—21 ;  Alphons. 
a  Castro,  Advers.  Haeres.  lib.  i. 
c.  5.  p.  25  ;  Petrus  Canisius, 
Opus  Catecheticum,  De  Pras- 
cept.  Eccl.  qu.  16.  p.  161  ;  Lin- 
danus,  Panoplia  Evangelica,  Col. 
Agrip.  1575,  p.  3,  34,  70,  72,  79, 
81,480,488;  Cardillus,Disputat. 
adv.  Protestat.  xxxiv.  Haeret. 
fol.  149,  Venet.  1564;  Rutlan- 
dus.  Loci  communes,  fol.  18 ; 
Pighius,  Hierarch.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c. 
2.  The  first  part  of  their  argu- 
ment (which  is  styled  by  Eckius 
"  Achilles  pro  Catholicis")  could 
not  have  been  objected  to,  if  it 
merely  went  to  show  that  the 
tradition  of  all  ages  should  not 
be  rejected  by  Christians,  and 
that  the  existing  tradition,  so  far 
as  it  agreed  with  the  universal 
tradition,  was  binding;  but  it  does 
not  thence  follow  that  such  a 
tradition  is  to  be  received  without 


OBJECT.]  Variations  of  Texts  and  Versions.  25 

jjrove  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  Scripture 
against  infidels,  and  which  are  our  arguments,  are  in- 
valid. If  they  affirm  this,  we  shall  know  the  principles 
of  our  opponents :  if  they  refuse  to  aflfirm  it,  their  argu- 
ment is  at  an  end. 

V.  The  variations  of  texts  and  versions  of  scripture 
render  it  necessary  to  rely  entirely  on  the  existing 
church  for  the  meaning  of  scripture,  therefore  its  doc- 
trines must  be  implicitly  received  without  any  proof 
from'^cripture. 

Aiiswer.  Bossuet  replies  to  this  objection  as  em- 
ployed by  infidels :  "  Qu'on  me  dise  s'il  n'est  pas  con- 
stant que  de  toutes  les  versions,  et  de  tout  le  texte 
quelqiCil  soit,  il  en  reviendra  toujours  les  memes  lois, 
les  memes  miracles,  les  memes  predictions,  la  meme 
suite  d'histoire,  le  meme  corps  de  doctrine,  et  enfin  la 
meme  substance.  En  quoi  nuisent  apres  cela  les  diver- 
sites  des  textes  ?  Que  nous  falloit-il  davantage  que 
ce  fond  inalterable  des  livres  sacrees,  et  que  pouvions- 
nous  demander  de  plus  a  la  Divine  Providence  ^  ?" 

VI.  There  is  nothing  but  the  unwritten  tradition  to 
prove  several  doctrines  and  practices  which  the  British 
churches  admit,  such  as  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  the  Divinity  and  the  Procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  perpetual 
virginity  of  the  Mother  of  "  God  manifested  in  the 
flesh,"  the  validity  of  infant  baptism,  and  of  baptism 
by  heretics,  and  baptism  by  sprinkling,  the  non-obliga- 
tion of  the  precept  concerning  blood  and  things  stran- 
gled, the  observation  of  the  Lord's  day  instead  of  the 
Jewish  sabbath. 

Scripture  as  a  proof  of  Christian  proof  also. 

doctrine,   because  we  deny   that         ^  Bossuet,  Histoire  Universelle, 

any  doctrine,    so    universally  re-  t.  ii.  p.  193. 

ceived  can  be  without  scriptural 


26 


Perfection  of  Scripture. 


[p.  III.  CH.  I. 


Answer.  The  fathers  and  the  theologians  of  the  Roman 
church  prove  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and 
the  Divinity  and  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from 
scripture '.  The  perpetual  virginity  is  gathered  from 
scripture  by  some  writers  J.  The  validity  of  infant 
baptism,  and  by  sprinkling,  is  deduced  from  scripture 
by  Bellarmine,  Tournely,  and  other  Roman  theologians \ 
The  validity  of  all  heretical  baptism  has  never  been  de- 
cided by  the  church ',  and  it  is  admitted  at  all  events 
by  those  who  maintain  its  validity,  that  it  does  not  con- 
fer grace.  It  is  a  very  different  thing  to  allow  that  the 
church  need  not  repeat  this  rite  administered  in  heresy, 
on  the  conversion  of  heretics  ;  and  to  affirm  that  when 
conferred  by  heretics  with  the  usual  form  it  must  neces- 
sarily be  acknowledged™.  With  regard  to  the  precept  con- 


'  Athanasius,  Epiphanius,  Gre- 
gory Nyssene,  and  others  proved 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Trinity,  from 
scripture.  Athanasius  asserts 
that  it  aifords  sufficient  evidence 
against  the  Arians,  Oper.  t.  iii. 
p.  720.  The  Roman  theologians 
themselves  always  argue  from 
scripture  in  their  controversies 
with  heretics.  Therefore  we  deny 
their  right  to  make  this  objection. 
The  heretics  who  deny  these  arti- 
cles of  the  catholic  faith,  have  no 
resource  except  to  corrupt  and  to 
mutilate  the  text  of  scripture. 

J  Jerome,  Epiphanius,  Am- 
brose, Augustine,  adduced  scrip- 
ture in  proof  of  the  perpetual 
virginity.  See  Bp.  Taylor's  Dis- 
suasive, part  ii.  b.  i.  s.  2.  p.  211. 
Oxford  ed.  See  also  Fearson  on 
the  Creed,  Article  III. 

^  Bellarminus,  Lib.  de  Bap- 
tismo,  c.  8,  9  ;  Tournely,  Tractat. 
de  Baptismo,  p.  306,  &:c. 


'  The  authority  on  which  mo- 
dern writers  allege  that  the  church 
condemned  the  re-baptizing  of 
heretics  is  that  of  St.  Augustine, 
who  affirms  that  it  was  condemn- 
ed by  a  general  council ;  but  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  exactly 
what  council  St.  Augustine  means. 
See  Tournely  de  Sacramentis  in 
genere,  463,  &c. 

"^  Heretical  baptism  was  dis- 
allowed in  the  churches  of  Africa, 
Alexandria,  and  the  East,  by  St. 
Cyprian,  Firmilian,  Basil,  Athana- 
sius, Optatus,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
and  by  the  apostolic  canons  and 
the  canonical  epistle  of  Basil, 
which  are  still  received  by  the 
whole  Oriental  church.  On  the 
other  side  is  the  tradition  of  the 
Roman  church,  of  St.  Augustine 
and  other  fathers.  The  general 
councils  of  Nice  and  Constan- 
tinople admitted  the  baptism  of 
some  heretics  and  rejected  that  of 
others.     Altogether  it  seems  that 


OBJECT.]      Infant  Baptism — Precept  concerning  Blood.  *27 

cerning  blood  and  things  strangled,  it  would  seem  that 
the  tradition  of  the  catholic  church  is  rather  in  favour 
of  its  continual  obligation.  Certain  it  is,  that  Tertul- 
lian,  Origen,  and  the  early  fathers  generally,  accounted 
it  binding.  The  canons  of  the  Eastern  and  Western 
councils  for  many  ages  enforced  it ;  the  Oriental  church 
observes  it  strictly  to  the  present  day ;  and  if  the  West 
seems  to  have  not  adherred  generally  to  it,  there  has 
been  no  definition  of  the  church  abroofatinff  it.  The 
contrary  custom  may  have  arisen  from  abuse  °.  With 
regard  to  the  sabbath  it  may  be  observed,  that  though 
all  Gentile  Christians  from  the  beginning  have  agreed 
in  regarding  the  religious  observation  of  the  Lord's 
day  as  obligatory,  and  the  Jewish  sabbath  as  not  obli- 
gatory, there  have  been  disputes  as  to  the  authority  on 
which  the  former  rests.  Roman  theologians  them- 
selves  are  divided  on  the  question  whether  the  obser- 
vation of  the  Lord's  day  is  by  divine  or  canonical 
right ".  Some  hold  that  the  Lord's  day  succeeded  the 
sabbath,  others  hold  that  the  Lord's  day  was  entirely 
of  apostolical  institution.  But  these  disputes  cannot 
affect  the  obligation  of  the  Lord's  day,  which  we  learn 
from  scripture  was  constituted  a  feast  by  the  apostles  ^ 
and  which  the  whole  church  received  from  them  :  and 
this  is  sufficient  to  prove  it  binding  on  all  Christians, 
as  will  be  shown  in  Chapter  IV. 

VII.  Scripture  is  extremely  difficult,  obscure,   and 

the  catholic  church  is  free  to  con-  mere  custom    cannot  abrogate  a 

firm    or  disallow  the  baptism  of  law. 

heretics  as  she  judges  most  for         °    See     Jo.     Azorii     Institut. 

the  interest  of  religion.  Moral,   pars    ii.  lib.  i.   c.    1,   2; 

"  See  Grotius,  quoted  in  Pole's  A.  M.  de  Ligorio,  Theol.  Moral. 

Synopsis  on  Acts  xv  ;   Taylor's  lib.  iii.  tract  iii.  n.   265  ;   Dens, 

Ductor  Dubitantium,  b.  i.  chap.  Theologia,  t.  ii.  p.  371. 
ii.  ruleii. ;   see  also  b.  iii.  chap.  p  Acts  xx.  7;    1  Cor.  xvi.   1, 

vi.  rule  vi,  where  he  proves  that  2  ;  Rev.  i.  10. 


28  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [p.  hi.  ch.  i. 

liable  to  be  misunderstood  ^     Therefore  tradition   is 
requisite  to  determine  its  meaning. 

I  answer  (1)  that  scripture  plainly  teaches  the 
Catholic  faith,  as  the  holy  fathers  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  believed. 
(See  Bishop  Taylor's  Dissuasive,  p.  ii.  b.  1.  s.  2.)  And 
as  we  have  seen  above  (p.  11,  12,)  S.  Athanasius, 
and  S.  Chrysostom  held  that  scripture  alone,  was,  in 
itself,  sufficient  for  the  discovery  and  protection  of  the 
truth.  Romanists  themselves  are  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge that  the  scripture  plainly  establishes  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  tlie  real  presence,  &c.  In 
fine,  those  who  deny  the  Catholic  faith  are  generally 
obliged  to  mutilate  and  corrupt  the  scripture,  in  order 
to  defend  themselves.  But  (2)  we  do  not  deny  that 
tradition  is  requisite  to  confirm  the  plain  meanmc/  of 
scripture  against  the  perversions  of  heretics.  We  only 
deny  that  it  conveys  articles  of  faith  not  contained  in 
scripture. 

VIII.  It  is  argued  from  scripture  itself  that  the 
whole  of  revelation  is  not  contained  in  it,  but  that  part 
is  taught  by  unwritten  tradition  only'.  (1.)  "There- 
fore, bretliren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which 


1  The   difficulties   and  obscu-  Pighius,  finding  this  detrimental 

rities  of  Scripture  are  detailed  at  to  his  cause,  invented  the  mode 

great  length  by  Michael  Medina,  of  arguing  on   the  insufficiency, 

De  Rect.  in  Deum  Fide,  lib.  vii ;  obscurity,     and      ambiguity     of 

Bellarmine,  De   Verbo  Dei,    lib.  scripture,    and    the    necessity  of 

iii ;  de  Verbo  Dei  Interpretatione,  unwritten  tradition,   in  which  he 

c.   i  ;     and    others    innumerable,  was  followed  by  all   the  Roman 

Milner,   End  of   Contr.   let.   ix.  theologians.  —  Examen   Concilii 

employs    the    same    arguments.  Trid.  p.   13, 
Chemnitz  says  that  Eckius,  Em-         '  These  texts  are  employed  by 

ser,   and  the  first  writers  against  Delahogue,  Trevern,   De  la  Lu- 

the  Reformatixjn,   did  not  refuse  zerne,  Milner,  &c. 
to    argue    from    scripture  ;     but 


OBJECT.]  Scriptural  argument  of  Romanists.  29 

ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle*." 
Anstver.  It  is  evident  there  are  many  revealed  truths 
not  contained  in  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians ;  but 
those  truths  ma?/  have  been  written  in  other  books  of 
scripture  before  or  after  those  epistles  were  composed. 
Therefore  there  is  no  proof  from  this  passage  that 
all  the  truths  of  revelation  were  not  written.  (2.) 
"O  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy 
trust" — "Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words  which 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  *."  Answer.  In  these  passages 
the  apostle  exhorts  Timothy  to  preserve  the  doctrines 
he  had  learned,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  those 
doctrines  were  not  also  written  in  scripture.  The 
creed  is  taught  to  catechumens,  yet  all  its  articles 
are  in  scripture  also.  (3.)  Christ  "showed  himself 
alive  after  his  passion  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being 
seen  of  them  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the  things 
pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God  "."  It  is  improbable 
that  all  the  things  he  then  spoke  of  were  afterwards 
written ;  and  St.  John  says,  "  there  are  also  many  other 
things  which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should  be 
written  every  one,  I  suppose  the  world  itself  could  not 
contain  the  books  that  should  be  written."  Atiswer. 
Admitting,  what  cannot  be  proved,  that  Christ  did  then 
or  at  any  time  teach  truths  which  were  not  afterwards 
vmtten,  those  truths  may  not  have  been  necessary  for 
the  church  generally,  but  designed  only  for  some  tem- 
porary or  particular  use.  Therefore  there  is  no  sort  of 
proof  from  this,  that  the  whole  of  revealed  truth  de- 
signed to  be  believed  by  men  in  all  ages,  was  not 
written  afterwards. 


"  2  Thess.  ii.  15.  ii.  2. 

'  1  Tim.  vi.  20 ;  2  Tim.  i.  13  ;  "  Acts  i.  3. 


30  Perfection  of  Scripture.  [p.  in.  ch.  t. 

IX.  Various  passages  of  the  fathers  prove  that  scrip- 
ture does  not  contain  the  whole  of  revelation. 

(1.)  S.  Irenaeus  :  "Nothing  is  more  easy  to  those 
who  seek  for  the  truth,  than  to  remark  in  every  church 
the  tradition  which  the  apostles  liave  manifested  to  all 
the  world"" — "The  tongues  of  nations  vary,  but  the 
virtue  of  tradition  is  every  where  one  and  the  same: 
nor  do  the  churches  in  Germany  believe  or  teach  dif- 
ferently from  those  in  Spain,  Gaul,"  &c. — "  Supposing 
the  apostles  had  not  left  us  the  scriptures,  ought  we 
not  still  to  have  followed  the  ordinance  of  tradition," 
&c." 

Answer.  All  these  passages  merely  establish  the 
authority  of  tradition,  which  our  catholic  churches  ad- 
mit :  they  do  not  afford  a  shadow  of  proof  that  scrip- 
ture does  not  contain  the  whole  of  revealed  truth. 

(2.)  Tertullian  :  "  To  the  scriptures  no  appeal  must 
be  made,  on  them  no  contest  should  be  instituted, 
where  victory  is  uncertain. .  .  .  the  question  is :  to  ivhom 
was  that  doctrine  committed  by  which  we  are  made 
Christians?  For  where  this  doctrine  and  this  faith 
shall  be  found,  there  will  be  the  truth  of  the  scripture, 
and  of  the  interpretation  of  it,  and  of  all  Christian 
traditions  "." — "  Of  these  and  other  usages,  if  you  ask 
for  the  written  authority  of  the  scriptures,  none  will 
be  found.  They  spring  from  tradition,  are  confirmed 
by  custom,  and  ratified  by  beliefs." 

Aiisiver.  In  the  first  passage  Tertullian,  in  order  to 
refute  the  perverse  interpretations  of  heretics,  esta- 
blishes our  doctrine,  that  the  church's  tradition  is  the 

"  Irenseus  adv.  Haeres,  1.  iii.  xix. 
CO.  ^  Tertullian,  De  Corona  Militis, 

"  Lib.  i.  c.  3.     Lib.  iii.  c.  4.  c.  iv. 
"  Tertullian,  De  Praescript.,  c. 

15 


OBJECT.]  Rumish  argument  from  the  Fathers.  31 

true  interpretation  of  scripture.  He  does  not  allude  to 
the  question  whether  tradition  conveys  any  truths  of  re- 
velation which  are  not  also  in  scripture.  In  the  second 
passage,  he  establishes  the  lawfulness  of  certain  prac- 
tices from  apostolic  tradition  as  we  do  :  but  these 
practices  or  rites  were  not  part  of  the  revelation  made 
by  God. 

(3.)  S.  Basil :  "  Among  the  points  of  belief  and  prac- 
tice in  the  church,  some  were  delivered  in  writing, 
while  others  were  received  by  apostolic  tradition  in 
mystery,  that  is  in  a  hidden  manner ;  but  both  have  an 
equal  efficacy  in  the  promotion  of  piety ;  nor  are  they 
opposed  by  any  one  who  is  but  slightly  versed  in  eccle- 
siastical rites,"  &c.  ^ 

A)iswer.  S.  Basil  held  our  opinion,  as  we  have  seen 
(page  11).  He  is  here  arguing  with  those  who  ob- 
jected to  the  Jbrm  of  ascribing  glory  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
used  in  the  church,  because  it  was  not  ewpressly  written 
in  scripture  :  against  such  he  argues  that  tradition  alone 
is  sufficient  to  justify /orwz^  and  rites;  for  that  this 
is  his  meaning  appears,  by  his  referring  to  a  number  of 
rites  and  forms  which  were  only  derived  from  tradition. 
If  this  eminent  writer  meant  to  go  further,  we  must 
only  say  with  the  Romanist  Delahogue :  "  Non  semper 
ad  vivum  urgenda  sunt  Patrum  verba,  et  speciatim  ubi 
adversus  hsereticos  disputant:  vehemens  enim  cum 
adversariis  contentio,  inquit  Theodoretus  Dialogo  3", 
quandoque  facit  ut  modum  excedant,"  &c.  '^  And  as 
Vincentius  Lirinensis  says,  "  Whatever  any  one  may 
think  beyond  all  or  against  all,  though  he  may  be  holy 

'  Basil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  c.  »  Delahogue,      De      Ecclesia 

27.     See  also   c.  29.  t.  iii.  oper.     Christi,  p.  436. 
Ben. 


32  Perfection  of  Scripture,  [p.  iii.  c.  i. 

and  learned,  a  bishop,  a  confessor  or  a  martyr,  should 
be  placed  among  peculiar,  secret,  private  opinions,  apart 
from  the  authority  of  the  common,  public  and  general 
doctrine  *"."  Now  the  whole  weight  of  tradition  is  in 
favour  of  the  perfection  of  scripture. 

(4.)  S.  Epiphanius :  "  We  must  look  also  to  tra- 
dition, for  all  things  cannot  be  learned  from  scripture 
For  which  reason  the  holy  apostles  left  some  things  in 
writing  and  others  not,"  &c.  *" 

S.  John  Chrysostom  :  "  Hence  it  is  plain  that  they 
did  not  deliver  all  things  by  epistle,  but  many  without 
writing:  yet  the  latter  are  worthy  of  faith  like  the 
former.  Wherefore  let  us  hold  the  traditions  of  the 
church  to  be  worthy  of  faith.  It  is  a  tradition :  seek 
nothing  more ''." 

Ausiver.  S.  Epiphanius  alludes  to  matters  of  disci- 
pline, which  we  admit  were  not  all  written.  Chrysos- 
tom, as  we  have  seen  (p.  12)  maintained  the  perfec- 
tion of  scripture.  He  here  piously  urges  the  credi- 
bility of  the  church  in  general  ;  but  if  his  words  be 
strictly  taken  to  mean  that  any  part  of  the  catholic 
faith  was  handed  down  without  scriptural  proof, 
we  must  consider  it  as  an  inaccuracy,  which  cannot 
have  any  weight  against  the  general  sentiment  of  the 
church. 

(5.)  The  synod  of  Nice  determined  the  consub- 
stantiality  of  the  Son  both  by  scripture  and  tra- 
dition, therefore  the  principle  of  the  sixth  Article  is 
wrong  ^ 


''    Vincentii    Lirinens.     Com-  ^  Chrysostom.^llom.  iv.  in  2 

monitor,  c.  28.  Thess,  c.  iii.  Oper.  p.  532.  t.  xi. 

•^  Epiphanii  Haeres.  Ixi.  Oper.  *  Trevern,  Discussion  Amicale, 

t.  i.  p.  511.  t.  i.  p.  185. 


CHAP,  II.]  On  Deductions  from  Scripture.  33 

Answer.  Tlie  Article  does  not  deny  that  Christian 
doctrine  should  be  proved  both  by  scripture  and  tra- 
dition, which  is  the  doctrine  of  our  churches.  Our  op- 
ponents hold  that  tradition  onli/  is  sufficient,  therefore 
they,  and  not  we,  contradict  the  synod  of  Nice. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON    DEDUCTIONS    FROM    SCRIPTURE. 

Having  established  the  first  truth  of  the  sixth  Article, 
I  now  proceed  to  another  which  is  of  even  greater  im- 
portance ;  namely,  that  not  only  what  is  "  read"  in  scrip- 
ture, but  what  is  "  proved  thereby,"  may  be  an  article 
of  faith.  It  has  been  alleged  that  the  Article  merely 
implies  that  if  a  point  camiot  be  proved  out  of  scrip- 
ture, it  is  no  truth  of  revelation ;  but  that  it  does  not 
follow  that  what  can  be  proved  out  of  scripture  must 
therefore  be  a  truth  of  revelation  ^  This  objection  is 
equally  applicable  to  the  other  assertion  of  the  Article, 
and  would  prove  that  what  is  "  read"  in  scripture,  may 
not  be  a  truth  of  revelation.  The  simple  question  is, 
whether  the  Article  does  not  admit  "  scriptural  proof" 
as  much  as  the  express  words  of  scripture,  to  be  suffi- 
cient to  establish  articles  of  faith  :  and  that  it  does  so 
is  evident  from  the  disjunction  "  whatsoever  is  not  read 
therein,  nor  may  he  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required 
of  any  man,"  &c. 

The  doctrine  now  under  consideration  involves  two 
questions : 

"  Hampden,  Observations  on  Religious  Dissent,  p.  9.  2d.  ed. 
VOL.  II.  D 


34  Deductions  from  Scripture.  [part  ti. 

First,  whether  any  deductions  from  scripture,  in  the 
sense  of  i?iterpretatious,  are  matters  of  revelation  and 
articles  of  faith  ? 

Secondly,  whether  all  deductions  from  scripture  in- 
terpretations are  merely  matters  of  opinion  and  human 
speculation  ? 

On  the  determination  of  these  questions  the  whole 
fabric  of  Christian  doctrine,  nay  the  truth  of  revelation 
itself  depends.  If  the  latter  be  determined  in  the  af- 
firmative, it  is  most  true,  as  it  has  been  alleged,  that 
the  differences  between  the  various  societies  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  are  unimportant  ^  Socinians,  Pe- 
lagians, &c.  cannot  be  regarded  as  heretics  %  for  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  real  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  Original  Sin,  &c.  being  only  "proved"  by  scrip- 
ture, are  of  course  to  be  regarded  as  human  specu- 
lations. On  the  same  principle  the  doctrinal  state- 
ments of  the  Articles  and  Creeds  in  general  are  merely 
*'  pious  opinions '',''  which  it  must  be  uncharitable  to 
urge  as  matters  of  faith,  or  as  a  mark  of  discrimination 
between  Christian  and  Christian  \  Thus  the  necessity 
of  believing  the  most  vital  truths  of  Christianity  is  sub- 
verted. 

If  the  former  question  be  determined  in  the  nega- 
tive, that  is,  if  no  "  interpretations"  of  scripture  be 
matters  of  faith  \  then  the  same  consequences  as  before 
follow  in  a  still  greater  degree,  because  ever^/  doctrine 


^  Hampd.  p.  4,5.    "  If  I  prove  the  Creation,  p.  121. 

my  point,"  said  Tindal  the  deist,  "   Ibid.  p.  19,  20,  21.  26,  27. 

"  I   shall,  it  may  be  hoped,   in  '^  Ibid.  p.  14. 

some  measure  put  an  end  to  those  *  Ibid.  p.  5    compared  with  p. 

otherwise  endless  disputes  which  14.  21,  22. 

divide  and  distract  the  Christian  *  Ibid,  p.  4.  7. 
world." — Christianity  as  old  as 


CHAP.  II.]  Interpretation  of  Scripture.  3.5 

and  duty  of  religion  rests  on  the  interpretation  or  mean- 
ing of  scripture,  and  if  no  particular  interpretation  is 
necessary  to  salvation,  no  particular  belief  or  practice 
can  be  requisite  to  salvation. 

This  is  a  conclusion  in  which  the  mind  cannot  rest. 
Either  it  is  false ;  or  Christianity  is  a  delusion. 

I.  If  the  scripture  be  a  revelation  from  God  to  man 
for  his  salvation,  it  must  have  a  fixed  meaning  im- 
pressed on  it  by  God  himself.  For  the  object  of  the 
All-merciful  and  All-wise  Creator  in  presenting  to  us 
the  scripture,  could  not  have  been  merely  that  we 
might  possess  a  book  without  meaning.  On  the  con- 
trary it  is  manifest,  that  the  sole  immediate  object  which 
God  could  have  had  in  view,  in  clothing  his  revelation 
in  language,  was,  that  it  might  convey  to  us  a  certain 
meaning  which  we  call  the  interpretation.  Language 
would  be  entirely  worthless  in  a  revelation,  except  as  a 
medium  for  conveying  the  Divine  meaning.  Those 
therefore  who  maintain  that  all  interpretations  of  the 
language  of  scripture  are  merely  human,  and  that  no 
one  interpretation  is  necessary  to  be  held,  must  advance 
another  step,  and  either  admit  that  the  scriiDtures  do 
not  contain  any  Divine  revelation  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved ^  or  else  blasphemously  assert  that  God  made  a 


^  Morgan  the  infidel  argues,  tisfaction,  &c.  in  different  senses, 
that  after  the  most  honest  en-  they  really  believe  different  doc- 
quiries,  men  understand  the  same  trines  about  the  same  thing  :  but 
verbal  propositions  of  Scripture  is  it  not  strange  that  God  should 
in  different  senses,  and  that  "  the  reveal  a  religion -as  of  any  ne- 
doctrines  doubtless  consist  of  the  cessity  or  use  to  mankind,  which 
sense,  and  not  in  the  verbal  pro-  is  not  to  be  understood  in  any 
positions  abstracted  from  their  one  certain  determinate  sense, 
meaning  ;  and  therefore  if  two  but  may  be  taken  in  as  many  dif- 
men  believe  the  doctrines  of  the  ferent  senses,"  &c. — Moral  Phi- 
Trinity,  Incarnation,  Christ's  sa-  losopher,  p.  18. 

D  2 


36  Deductions  from  Scrijjtitre.  [part  hi. 

revelation  consisting  of  language  without  meaning,  or  at 
least  without  any  meaning  discernible  by  the  very 
creatures  to  whose  belief  it  was  proposed. 

It  is  true  indeed,  that  arguments  from  the  mere 
terms  of  scripture  used  to  designate  the  Divine  nature, 
when  taken  in  any  sense  founded  on  merely  human 
reason  or  experience,  can  add  nothing  to  the  sum  of 
Christian  knowledge ;  may  even  lead  to  dangerous 
errors :  but  deductions  from  scripture  in  the  sense  of 
interpretations  of  propositions,  constitute  the  very  sub- 
stance and  reality  of  the  Gospel,  of  which  the  words 
are  only  signs.  I  need  scarcely  dwell  further  on  this 
point :  for  it  involves  so  directly  the  question  of  the 
necessity  of  belief  in  any  Christian  doctrine,  and  there- 
fore the  necessity  and  truth  of  the  whole  Christian  re- 
velation, that  a  believer  cannot  hesitate  in  deciding  on 
which  side  Christianity  lies. 

II.  In  maintaining  that  deductions  from  scripture 
rightly  interpreted,  are  sufficient  to  establish  articles  of 
faith,  we  must  state  the  question  clearly.  It  is  not 
meant  that  new  truths  not  taught  hy  revelation,  can  be 
deduced  from  those  that  are,  by  the  force  of  human 
reasoning;  but  that  scripture  may  supply  such  pre- 
mises that  the  conclusion  is  manifestly  taught  by  scrip- 
ture itself.  E.  g.  if  in  one  part  of  scripture  attributes 
are  ascribed  to  a  Being,  which  we  are  elsewhere  told 
belong  to  God  only,  it  follows  necessarily  that  this 
Being  is  God.  The  conclusion  is  irresistible.  If  the 
scripture  teaches  the  premises  it  teaches  this  conclu- 
sion :  and  to  suppose  that  the  conclusion  is  not  true, 
or  that  it  may  be  held  doubtful  or  needless  to  be  be- 
lieved, is  to  suppose  that  scripture  is  calculated  to  lead 
men  into  error. 


CHAP.  II.]  Deductions  from  Scripture.  37 

The  same  may  be  observed  of  conclusions  which 
follow  from  a  truth  revealed  in  scripture,  and  from 
some  other  truth  self-evident,  or  supported  by  the  tes- 
timony of  sense,  and  always  universally  admitted.  E.  g. 
if  scripture  affirms  that  Christ  was  made  perfectly  man, 
it  also  teaches  that  he  is  not  without  those  powers  or 
that  portion  of  human  nature  which  we  call  the  soul, 
and  the  existence  of  which  we  know  intuitively.  The 
reason  is,  because  revelation  is  addressed  to  man  as 
man,  and  therefore  must  presuppose  all  those  prin- 
ciples and  notions  which  are  essential  to  human 
nature. 

It  is  not  meant  that  every  deduction  from  the  divine 
truths  of  scripture  is  a  matter  of  faith,  for  there 
may  be  different  degrees  of  clearness  in  the  argument ; 
but  I  am  now  only  speaking  of  the  abstract  possibility 
of  a  case  in  which  scripture  shall  teach  a  truth,  by 
teaching  what  necessarily  infers  it. 

There  is  no  impossibility  that  God  should  choose  to 
reveal  some  scriptural  truths  in  this  manner,  and  not 
in  express  terms,  because  even  if  he  intended  them  to 
be  believed  explicitly  by  all  his  people,  he  might  pro- 
vide in  his  church,  means  by  which  those  conclusions 
might  be  taught  and  proved  too  all  from  scripture.  He 
might  design  by  this  method  to  excite  men  to  the 
study  of  scripture,  and  to  impose  an  important  duty  on 
his  ministers. 

If  the  apostles,  if  Christ  himself,  acting  as  we  believe 
under  Divine  inspiration,  taught  either  by  word  or  writ- 
ing certain  truths,  from  which  others  inevitably  follow 
according  to  all  the  rules  of  reason  and  common  sense; 
then,  unless  there  was  some  most  clear  and  unquestion- 
able declaration  made  by  the  same  authority,  that  the 
former  truths  alone  were  binding  on  Christians  as  articles 


38  Deductions  f rum  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

(tf  faith,  it  must  have  been  the  intention  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles  that  both  kinds  of  truth  shouki  be  believed 
equally ;  for  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  have  de- 
signed to  oblige  men  to  believe  what  was  unnecessary, 
and  equally  impossible  that  they  sliould  have  deceived 
them  through  inadvertence,  or  neglect.  Consequently 
we  have  a  right  to  demand  from  those  who  assert  that 
conclusions  which  follow  necessarily  from  the  doctrine 
of  scripture  are  not  binding,  some  distinct  unquestion- 
able proof  of  this  assertion  delivered  in  express  terms  in 
scripture.  If  it  be  maintained  without  any  such  proof, 
then  the  integrity,  the  equity,  the  inspiration  of  the 
sacred  writers,  are  denied. 

I  will  not  urge  the  practice  of  our  Lord  and  the 
apostles  in  arguing  with  Jews  and  unbelievers  by  means 
of  deductions  made  from  scri})ture ''.  A  practice  which 
was  adopted  uniformly  by  all  the  Christian  church  in  all 
subsequent  ages ',  which  was  even  employed  by  sects ^ 
which  pretended  to  deny  its  validity  when  convincingly 
directed  by  the  church  against  their  heresies '',  has  so 
great  a  weight  of  authority  and  probability  attached  to 
it,  that  the  strongest  evidence  alone  could  demonstrate 
its  inefficiency.  It  is  surely  to  the  last  degree  impro- 
bable, even  humanly  speaking,  that  the  whole  body  of 
Christians  from  the  beginning,  should  have  mistaken 
altogether  the  mode  of  argument  in  proof  of  the  articles 
of  their  faith. 

In  supposing  that  what  is  necessarily,  by  all  the  rules 
of  reason,  deduced  from  scriptural  doctrine,  w  as  designed 
to  be  believed  by  those  to  whom  scripture  is  addressed. 


''  Thomas'    Tracts    on    Scrip.  Thomas'  Tracts,  p.  02,  63. 

Consequences,  p.  58.92.  J  Ibid.  p.  82,  83. 

'  Spanhemii    Disjjutat.    Theol.  ^  Ibid.  62 — 64. 
pars   ii.    disp.    xxvi.      See    Mr. 


CHAP.  II.]  Deductions  from  Scripture.  39 

we  make  no  imjirobable  assumption.  We  merely  as- 
sume that  the  scriptures  were  not  designed  to  deceive 
us,  that  they  were  addressed  to  man  as  he  is  by  nature, 
a  rational  being  capable  of  perceiving  certain  conclu- 
sions. We  do  not  assume  here  that  there  are  actually 
in  scripture  doctrines  from  which  others  inevitably 
follow :  we  only  affirm  that  if  there  are  such,  the  con- 
clusions are  bindino-. 

The  denial  of  this  without  clear  proof  from  revelation 
is  not  merely  an  error.  It  is  a  presumptuous  and  per- 
nicious error,  because  it  decides  the  particular  mode  in 
which  God's  revelation  must  be  made,  and  thus  would 
permit  man  to  disbelieve  whatever  has  not  been  re- 
vealed in  the  way  he  judges  fit.  On  tliis  principle 
infidels  reject  Christianity  as  only  a  partial  revelation, 
or  as  not  brought  home  to  every  man's  mind  l)y  special 
illumination. 

This  has  always  been  the  mode  in  which  the  oj^- 
ponents  of  the  truth,  when  hard  pressed  by  scriptural 
arguments,  have  endeavoured  to  defend  themselves. 
The  Arians  demanded  the  express  words  of  scripture  in 
proof  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Consubstantiality 
of  the  Son  \  The  Macedonians  required  the  same  in 
proof  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost ".  The  Apol- 
linarians,  the  Monophysites ",  the  Anabaptists,  Fami- 
lists,  Antinomians,  modern  Arians,  Socinians,  and 
Rationalists",  have  all  in  their  turn   sheltered  their 


'    Vigilii     Tapsensis     Dialog.  •  Ibid.  p.  49,  100,   127,  204. 

contr.  Arrium,  lib.  i.  oper.  p.  93.  The     Rationalist    Bretschneider 

ed.  1664.  triumphantly  asks  where  in  Scrip- 

"  Gregor.  Nazian.  Orat.  5  de  ture  are  the  words  trinity,  atone- 

Theologia.  ment,    original   sin,   &c. — Rose, 

"    Maximus     Monachus,    see  State  of  Protestantism  in   Ger- 

Mr.  Thomas'  Tracts,  p.  90.  many,  Appendix,  p.  76.     I  take 


40  DcducLiunsfrom  Scripture.  [part  hi. 

errors  from  the  otherwise  irresistible  force  of  scriptural 
argument,  by  insisting  on  the  express  words  of  scrip- 
ture. This  train  is  approjiriately  closed  by  Morgan  the 
infidel,  who  assailed  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  Conse- 
quences, early  in  the  last  century ''.  It  will  be  found 
on  examination,  that  most  if  not  all  the  above  sects, 
themselves  believed  several  points  founded  only  on 
scriptural  argument,  not  on  the  express  words  of 
scripture. 

The  Wallenburghs  in  their  "Methodus  Augustiniana" 
^^a  mode  of  contending  with  the  Lutherans  which  had 
been  first  invented  by  Du  Perron,  Veron,  &c.),  went 
partly  into  this  principle  ^  The  general  outline  of  this 
system  was,  to  show  that  the  onusprobandi  lay  with  the 
Protestants  as  accusers,  reformers,  and  separatists'"; 
that  they  were  bound  by  their  own  principles  and  pro- 
fessions to  furnish  sufficient  proof  of  their  doctrines  on 
matters  of  faith  from  scripture  alone ;  that  this  proof 
ought  to  be  in  express  terms  of  scripture,  as  well  from 
their  own  principle  of  the  sufficiency  of  scripture  only, 
as  from  the  ambiguity  of  consequences,  and  the  incapa- 
city of  the  people  to  follow  them  \  Having  yielded  a 
confession  that  the  questions  in  debate  were  not  decided 


this  occasion  of  expressing  a  deep  ''  Tractatus  Generales  de  Con- 
sense  of  the  value  of  a  work  which  troversiis  Fidei  per  Adrian,  et  Pe- 
cannot  be  too  widely  known  or  trum  de  Walenburch,  t.  i.  p.  15, 
loo  highly  prized.  Christians  can-  &c.  and  p.  229,  &c.  Edit.  Co- 
no  t  fail  to  be  inspired  with  greater  loniae  Agripp.  1670.  It  seems 
zeal  for  the  faith,  and  more  watch-  indeed  as  if  some  of  the  Lutherans 
ful  care  of  that  precious  deposit,  had  spoken  injudiciously  on  this 
by  the  perusal  of  "  the  State  of  subject.  Eckius  argues  against 
Protestantism  in  Germany."  their  mode  ofrequiring  the  express 
''  See  his  Letter  to  the  Rev.  words  of  scripture  in  proof  of 
J.  Gumming,  cited  by  Mr.  Thomas  doctrines.  Enchiridion,  p.  40,  41. 
in  his  "Tracts  on  Scripture  Con-  "■  Walenburch,  p.  16.  246,  &c. 
sequences,''  p.  10.  ^  Ibid.  p.  17.  293,  &c. 


CHAP.  11.]  Deductions  from  Scripture.  41 

by  the  express  words  of  scripture,  the  adversary  was 
next  to  be  required  to  prove  it  by  consequences  de- 
duced from  scripture,  which  were  in  every  instance  to 
be  objected  to  on  some  of  these  grounds*:  1.  Because 
the  proposed  interpretation  was  made  without  any 
authority;  2.  Because,  if  it  be  founded  on  a  com- 
parison of  other  texts,  there  is  no  assertion  in  scripture 
that  they  were  designed  to  explain  that  under  con- 
sideration; 3.  Because  scrijjture  does  not  affirm  the 
goodness  of  the  proposed  interpretation ;  4.  Because 
every  man  may  err,  therefore  the  deduction  may  be 
false ;  5.  Because  none  of  the  fathers  made  this  deduc- 
tion ;  6.  Because  one  of  the  premises  in  the  deduction 
is  derived  from  human  reasoning,  and  therefore  uncer- 
tain ;  7.  Because  scripture  does  not  decide  that  con- 
clusions, deduced  from  premises,  one  of  which  rests  on 
human  reason,  are  matters  of  faith,  &c.  These  objec- 
tions were  to  be  put  in  the  form  of  questions,  and  the 
adversary  was  to  be  obliged,  in  fine,  to  confess  that  the 
Protestants  had  separated  from  the  church  on  points 
which  could  not  be  proved  essential.  The  Lutherans 
were  involved  in  this  net  by  their  own  thoughtless- 
ness. Had  they  not  placed  themselves  in  a  false 
position,  by  pretending  to  be  voluntary  separatists, 
when  their  predecessors  had  not  separated'',  the  onus 
prohandi  could  iiot  have  been  laid  on  them.  Had 
they  preserved  the  respect  for  catholic  tradition  which 
the  Reformation  had  so  often  shown ",  and  not  exag- 
gerated the  uses  of  scripture,  they  could  not  have 
been  limited  to  rigid  scriptural  demonstration.  Had 
they    remembered    that     the    Reformation     declared 


'  Ibid.  p.  18—20.  313,  &c.  sect.  1. 

"  See  above,  Part  I.  chap.  xii.         "  Ibid.  sect.  3. 


42  Deductions  from  Scripture.         [p.  hi.  ch.  ii. 

that  it  did  not  differ  in  articles  of  faith  from  the 
Roman  church '',  they  could  not  have  been  required  to 
prove  the  doctrines  in  dispute  to  have  been  articles  of 
faith.  The  Wallenburghs  themselves  acknowledged 
not  only  that  conclusions  derived  from  two  scriptural 
premises  were  de  fide  \  but  even  that  one  scriptural 
premise,  together  with  an  evident  truth  of  reason,  was 
sufficient  to  establish  a  certain  truth,  even  a  Divine 
truth  ^,  though  not  an  article  of  faith.  This  would  have 
been  sufficient  for  the  Lutheran's  purposes  in  most 
points ;  but  doctrines  which  were  not  actually  matters 
of  faith,  would  not  have  sufficed  to  excuse  the  volu?ita7y 
separation  from  the  church,  of  which  they  chose  to  ac- 
cuse themselves. 

Had  the  Wallenburghs  held  that  articles  of  faith 
could  not  be  deduced,  when  one  of  the  premises 
was  a  merely  speculative  truth,  by  no  means  self- 
evident,  and  in  fact  disputed  among  men,  there 
would  have  been  nothing  to  object  to  in  their  prin- 
ciple. But  they  do  not  seem  to  have  distinguished 
between  such  truths,  and  those  which  were  universally 
admitted. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  All  interpretations  or  deductions  made  by  indivi- 
duals are  uncertain,  and  insufficient  to  serve  as  a  foun- 


"  See  above,  Part  I.  chap.  xii.  altera  prsemissarum  est  scripturas, 

sect.  1.  and  chap.  xi.  sect.  1.  altera  evidens,  et  forma  argumen- 

^  Walenburch,  ut  supra,  p.  354.  tationis  bona  ;  tunc  sequi  conclu- 
"  Convenit  inter  oranes.  .  .  .  non  sionem  theologicam,  prorsus  cer- 
esse  disputandum  de  syllogismis  tarn  et  veram  :  imo  talem  con- 
quorum  utraque  prsemissarum  est  clusionem,  ex  quorundam  sen- 
Scripturae."  tentia,  non  incommodo  aliquando 

>'  Ibid.  p.  334.    "  Pro  instruc-  dici  divinam." 
tione  catholici  notamus,  quando 


OBJECT.]  Deductions  from  Scripture.  43 

dation  for  faith,  because  no  man  is  infallible.  If, 
indeed,  the  true  interpretation  of  scripture  were  cer- 
tainly discernible,  it  would  be  obligatory  on  men ;  but 
the  age  of  inspiration,  and  therefore  of  infallibility,  has 
past  by. 

Answer.  I  reply  that  not  only  is  scripture  so  clear 
on  many  points,  that  an  erroneous  interpretation  can 
scarcely  be  forced  on  it,  and  those  who  wish  to  do  so 
are  at  last  obli«?ed  to  mutilate  it :  but  we  have  an 
unerring  guide  to  the  true  meaning  of  scrii3ture  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  church  in  all  ages,  and  in  the 
formal  and  legitimate  judgments  made  by  that  church 
in  controversies  of  faith.  To  these  I  maintain  that 
every  private  Christian  is  bound  to  submit  his  private 
opinion,  as  to  unerring  and  irrefragable  authority,  e.  g. 
I  know  the  Unitarian  doctrine  to  be  heretical  and  anti- 
Christian,  not  only  by  the  clearest  proofs  from  scrip- 
ture, but  by  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  church  in  all 
ages  ^  and  especially  its  unanimous  legitimate  judg- 
ment in  the  Council  of  Nice.  I  know  that  Unitarian- 
ism  was  from  the  beginning  viewed  and  treated  as  a 
heresy  by  all  Christendom,  therefore  I  cannot  possibly 
err  in  regarding  it  as  such,  and  in  maintaining  the 
catholic  faith.  Nor  am  I  in  the  slightest  degree 
obliged  to  receive  on  the  same  principle,  the  errors  of 
Romanists ;  unless  it  be  proved  that  they  rest  on  the 
same  authority,  which  cannot  be  done. 

II.  The  ignorant  cannot  make  deductions  from  scrip- 
tural truths,  therefore  the  doctrines  so  deduced  cannot 
be  necessary  to  salvation. 

Answer.  Though  they  may  not  be  able  to  make  them 

^  The  weight  of  universal  tra-  even  by  Daille,  and  Whitby  the 
dition  against  heresies  is  not  only  Arian.  See  Waterland's  Works, 
admitted  by  our  theologians,  but     vol.  v.  p.  275 — 8. 


44  Doctrinal  Tradition  of  ike  Church.       [part  hi. 

themselves,  tliey  may  be  able  to  see  the  consequence 
when  proposed  to  them  by  ministers  authorized  by  the 
church,  and  at  all  events  believe  it  when  presented  by 
the  sufficient  and  credible  authority  of  the  catholic 
church. 

III.  Scripture  as  the  will  of  God  must  be  so 
perfect  as  to  need  no  human  commentary  or  rea- 
soning. 

Answer.  There  is  no  proof  that  scri2)ture  was  de- 
signed to  supersede  the  necessity  of  the  Christian 
ministry. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON  THE  DOCTRINAL  TRADITION  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Tradition  sometimes  means  the  doctrine  held  by 
Christians,  as  distinguished  from  the  same  doctrine 
written  in  the  Bible.  It  is  also  used  as  equivalent  to 
"  custom,"  as  in  the  thirty-fourth  Article.  Traditions 
in  the  former  sense  may  be  divided  into  those  which 
have  been  commonly  maintained  in  some  particular  age 
only,  or  which  a  portion  of  the  church  has  maintained 
without  separating  from  the  rest '';  and  those  which  the 
great  body  of  Christians  from  the  beginning  have  al- 

*  Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  andria,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Au- 

Millennium  as  held   by   Papias,  gustine.        Even    Justin    Martyr 

Justin,  Melito,   Irenaeus,  Tertul-  says  that  there  "  were  many  even 

lian,  Nepos,  Adamantius,  Victo-  of  those   whose    sentiments    as 

rinus,    Lactantius,    Apollinarius,  Christians  were  sound  and  pious, 

Sulpicius  Severus  ;  and  rejected  that  did  not  recognize  it." — See 

by  Origen,  probably  by  Clement  of  Mr.    Greswell's    interesting    dis- 

Alexandria,  Dionysius  of  Alex-  quisition  on  this  subject.     Expo- 


CHAP.  III.]     Relations  of  Scripture  and  Tradition.  45 

ways  held  to  be  articles  of  the  faith.  The  former  class 
of  traditions  may  be  certainly  true,  but  the  ecclesiastical 
authority  which  supports  them  can  only  render  them 
probable.  The  latter  sort  of  traditions  afford  an  irre- 
sistible confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  and  a 
certain  test  of  the  correctness  of  scripture  interpre- 
tation. 

It  is  not  here  meant  that  the  real  sense  of  scripture 
is  obscure  in  any  points  of  faith,  or  that  it  is  essential 
for  each  individual,  in  order  to  understand  the  scripture 
aright  in  such  points,  to  consult  previously  the  tra- 
ditions and  judgments  of  the  universal  church.  Even 
the  members  of  the  Roman  Obedience  do  not  univer- 
sally assert  any  such  necessity,  though  it  is  too  com- 
monly taught  by  them  *".  Cardinal  de  la  Luzerne  says 
"  our  assertion  is  not  that  all  the  passages  of  scripture 
are  so  obscure,  that  in  order  to  explain  and  fix  their 
meaning,  it  is  indispensable  to  recur  to  a  judge.  We 
say  that  there  are  some  which  ignorance,  carelessness, 
bad  reasoning,  passion,  party-interest,  may  pervert,  and 
in  fact  have  perverted,  to  a  meaning  contrary  to  sound 
doctrine  \"  The  holy  fathers  St.  Cyril,  St.  Augustine, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  &c.  taught 
that  the  scriptures  were  plain  and  clear  in  many 
things ''.     Scripture  ought  to  be  of  itself  suflScient  for 


sition    of  the    Parables,    vol.    i.  196,  Oxford  ed.   1836;   Crakan 

chap.  xxi.   part  ii.     This  truly  thorp,   De  loco  arguendi  ab  Au 

learned   writer,  who    adopts   the  thoritate.  Logicae,  p.    323.     S 

opinion   of  the   majority  of  the  above  p.  26.  28. 
early  writers,  regards  it  as  a  ques-  "  De  la  Luzerne,   Dissertation 

tion  in  which  "  great  latitude  and  sur  les  Eglises  Cath.  et  Prot.  t. 

diversity  of  sentiment  may  be  in-  i.  p.  59. 

nocently   and  safely    allowed   to         •*  Taylor's  Dissuasive,  p.  217, 

different  minds." — Preface.  &c. 
^  See  Taylor's  Dissuasive,  p. 


ee 


46  Relations  of  Scriptia'e  and  Traditiun.      [part  in. 

the  overthrow  of  all  errors  against  faith  ;  but  since  men 
are  liable  to  be  misled  by  the  evil  interpretations  of 
others  to  misunderstand  the  divine  meaning  of  scrip- 
ture, the  doctrine  or  tradition  of  Christians  in  all  ages, 
i.  e.  of  the  catholic  church,  is  presented  to  us  as  a  con- 
firmation of  the  true  meaning  of  scripture.  It  is  not 
meant  that  this  tradition  conveys  to  us  the  exact  inter- 
pretation of  all  the  particular  texts  in  the  Bible.  Its 
utility  is  of  a  simpler  and  more  general  character.  It 
relates  to  the  interpretation  of  scripture  as  a  whole,  to 
the  doctrine  deduced  from  it  in  general.  That  doctrine 
which  claims  to  be  deduced  from  scripture,  and  which 
all  Christians  believed  from  the  beginning,  must  be 
truly  scriptural.  That  doctrine  which  claims  to  be 
deduced  from  scripture,  and  which  all  the  church  from 
the  beginning  reprobated  and  abhorred,  must  be 
founded  on  a  perversion  and  misrepresentation  of  scrip- 
ture. 

The  difference  between  the  Anglo-catholic  and  the 
popular  Romish  doctrine  of  tradition  is  this.  The 
former  only  admits  tradition  as  confirmatory  of  the  true 
meaning  of  scripture,  the  latter  asserts  that  it  is  also 
supplementwy  to  scripture,  conveying  doctrines  which 
scripture  has  omitted.  "  We  hold,"  says  De  la  Lu- 
zerne, "  that  unwritten  tradition  is  an  irrefragable  rule 
of  faith  in  two  ways :  '■'■first,  by  itself,  because  there  are 
truths  which  have  only  been  given  to  the  church  by  this  way: 
secondly,  because  it  is  the  most  certain  interpreter  of 
the  holy  scripture,  and  the  infallible  means  of  knowing 
its  meaning "." 

That  such  a  universal  tradition,  as  determining-  the 


o 


De  la  Luzerne,  t.  ii.  p.  321 


CHAP,  in.]        Autlwrity  of  Universal  Traditio7i.  47 

meaning  of  scrij)ture,  must  be  true,  is  evident.  I  am 
not  here  arguing  with  infidels ;  and  therefore  may  as- 
sume that  Christianity  was  a  revelation,  that  no  reve- 
lation has  superseded  it,  that  it  was  to  be  proposed  to 
men  in  all  ages  as  the  means  of  salvation ;  in  fine,  that 
some  truth  was  actually  revealed.  If  then  any  given 
doctrine  was  universally  believed  by  those  Christians 
who  had  been  instructed  by  the  apostles,  and  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  apostles  :  if  this  doctrine  was  received 
by  all  succeeding  generations  as  sacred  and  divine,  and 
strictly  conformable  to  those  scriptures  which  were  read 
and  expounded  in  every  church  :  this  belief,  one  and 
uniform,  received  in  all  churches,  delivered  through  all 
ages,  triumphing  over  the  novel  and  contradictory  doc- 
trines which  attempted  to  pollute  it,  guarded  with 
jealous  care,  even  to  the  sacrifice  of  life  in  its  defence, 
and  after  a  lapse  of  eighteen  hundred  years,  believed  as 
firmly  by  the  overwhelming  mass  of  Christians  among 
all  nations,  as  when  it  was  first  promulgated :  such  a 
doctrine  must  be  a  truth  of  revelation.  It  rests  on 
evidence  not  inferior  to  that  which  attests  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  Is  it  possible  that  the  infinite  majority  of 
Christians  in  all  ages  can  have  mistaken,  or  adulterated 
their  own  religion,  a  religion  which  they  held  to  be 
divine,  and  on  which  they  believed  their  salvation  to 
depend  ?  And  this,  while  the  scriptures  were  in  their 
hands,  and  the  care  of  God  was  (as  Christians  believe) 
extended  over  His  church — the  people  whom  He  chose 
for  himself.  If  so,  then  they  may  have  been  equally 
deceived  as  to  the  authenticity  of  scripture,  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  mission  of  our  Saviour;  and  the 
whole  fabric  of  revelation  totters  to  its  base.  Hence 
I  maintain,  that  Christians  cannot  possibly  admit 
that    any    doctrine    established    by    universal    tradi- 


48  Proofs  of  Universal  Tradition.  [part  in. 

tion  can   be  otherwise    than    divinely,    infallibly, 

TRUE. 

The  existence  of  such  a  tradition  from  the  beginning 
is  a  matter  of  fact,  which  is  to  be  established  on  the 
same  sort  of  evidence  as  proves  any  other  historical 
fact.  The  question  is,  what  were  the  tenets  of  the  re- 
ligious community  called  Christian,  from  the  beginning? 
This  is  evidently  to  be  proved  only  by  authentic  docu- 
ments, monuments,  and  facts :  and  we  accordingly  ad- 
duce the  creeds  or  professions  of  faith  acknowledged  by 
the  universal  church,  in  proof  of  her  faith  on  certain 
points  up  to  the  period  when  she  made  them,  the  creeds 
and  liturgies  of  particular  churches,  as  evidence  of  their 
belief  as  far  back  as  those  creeds  and  liturgies  can  be 
traced.  We  produce  the  attestations  of  particular 
fathers  and  councils  of  bishops  to  the  contemporary  and 
former  belief  of  the  church,  either  by  direct  assertions 
to  that  effect,  or  by  the  silent  testimony  to  the  same, 
afforded  by  the  fact  of  their  own  express  belief,  and  the 
approbation  of  that  belief  by  the  church  generally.  We 
adduce  ancient  customs  and  rites  to  the  same  end ;  and 
even  the  objections  of  infidels,  and  of  sectaries,  concur 
in  establishing  what  was  the  real  faith  of  the  catholic 
church  in  all  ages 

If  proofs  like  these  be  rejected  on  the  ground  of  the 
uncertainty  of  all  human  testimony,  then  there  can  be  no 
certainty  of  any  of  the  facts  of  history,  and  we  are  re- 
duced to  believe  only  facts  which  have  come  under  the 
cognizance  of  our  own  senses.  If  the  testimony  of  the 
early  Christian  writers  in  this  question  of  fact  be  re- 
jected, the  external  evidences  of  Christianity  are  sub- 
verted. The  authenticity  of  primitive  tradition  and  its 
records,  of  scripture  and  its  doctrines,  and  of  Christ- 
ianity as  a  revelation,  stand  or  fall  together.     It  is  not 


CHAP.  III.]        Connexion  of  Religion  and  Tradition.  49 

the  defence  of  any  particular  doctrine  which  is  involved 
in  the  question  of  the  credibility  of  tradition  :  the  whole 
fabric  of  Christianity  is  vitally  connected  with  it. 

In  former  ages  infidelity  openly  assailed  the  truth  of 
Christianity :  in  later  times  it  has  assumed  the  name  of 
Christianity  itself,  in  order  to  pursue  with  more  success 
its  plans  for  the  subversion  of  faith  *.  The  English 
deists  were  the  predecessors  from  whom  sprang  the 
Rationalists  and  the  Unitarians  ^.  These  sects  are  in  fact 
and  essentially  infidel ;  for  whatever  relics  of  christian 
doctrine  may  still  linger  among  some  of  them  are 
purely  accidental,  and  are  only  preserved  for  a  time  by 
inability  to  carry  out  the  principles  professed,  and  at  all 
events  are  viewed  as  mere  matters  of  opinion,  and  re- 
ceived only  on  the  authority  of  human  reason  '\  But 
what  is  their  line  of  argument  ?  Tindal  the  deist  com- 
mences his  attack  on  revelation  by  professing  to 
"  build  nothing  on  a  thing  so  uncertain  as  tradition '." 
He  charges  the  primitive  christians  and  their  writers 
with  superstition,  intolerance,  bigotry  \  The  holy  fa- 
thers from  the  earliest  times,  according  to  him,  were  all 
guilty  of  falsehood,  forgery,  fraud,  interpolation  of  scrip- 

''Magee,  on  Atonement,  vol.  ii.  leaders   of  the  former,  confessed 

Append,  p.  71;    and   Rose,  Pro-  that  the  Unitarian  creed  was  the 

testantism  in  Germany,  p.    145.  same  as  that  of  the  French  Theo- 

237 — 240.    Append,    p.   34.   95.  philanthropists  or  Deists,  except 

justly  remark  on  the  dishonesty  in  the   single  point  of  the  mere 

of  the  Socinian    and  Rationalist  fact   of  a    man's   resurrection. — 

infidels,  in  using  the  language  of  Magee  on  Atonement,   vol.  i.    p. 

Christianity  as    if   they  believed  175.      See   also  vol.    ii.   p.   411. 

its  mysteries.  489. 

s  See  Rose's  Protestantism  in  ^  See  Rose,  State  of  Protest- 
Germany  p.  51,  &c.  and  the  re-  antism,  p.  xxiii,  xxiv.  for  some 
marks  of  Dr.  Pusey  there  cited,  valuable  observations  on  this 
See  also  p.   164,  and  Appendix  subject. 

p.    76,    for    the  identity    of  the  '  Tindal,  Christianity  as  old  as 

English   Socinians   and  the   Ra-  the  Creation,  p.  iii. 

tionalists.     Belsham,  one  of  the  J  Ibid.  p.  89,90.  101. 

VOL.  II.  E 


50  Connexion  of  Religion  and  Tradition.       [part  hi. 

ture,  &c.  ^  The  further  back  M^e  go,  the  more  frauds 
we  find  K  Hence  he  conchides  that  e.vternal  evidence 
of  a  revelation  is  of  no  value  :  internal  alone  is  worthy 
of  attention,  and  that  must  be  judged  by  human 
reason  in  opposition  to  all  authority "".  This  reason 
leads  him  to  judge  that  scripture  is  full  of  absurdities 
and  contradictions;  that  it  has  been  corrupted;  that  it  is 
not  a  rule  adapted  to  mankind  generally ;  in  fine,  that 
it  is  not  a  revelation  ".  Morgan  adopts  the  same  prin- 
ciple. The  first  disciples,  according  to  him,  invented 
tales  about  Christ,  interpolated  passages  in  the  scrip- 
tures which  seemed  to  represent  him  as  God,  ascribed 
miracles  to  him,  united  Judaism  and  Christianity  °.  The 
catholic  church  of  the  first  three  centuries  was  perse- 
cuting, idolatrous,  antichristian,  &c.p.  Semler  affirmed 
that  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  were  forged  at 
Rome  by  a  set  of  men  "  who  entered  into  combination 
to  falsify  history  and  corrupt  the  scriptures''."  Of  course 
he  was  bound  to  reject  their  testimony:    and  accord- 

^  Ibid.  p.  158.  161 — 4.  science,  lorded  it  over  God's  lieri- 

1  Ibid.  p.  162.  tage,  and   claimed  and  exercised 

ni  Ibid.  p.  184 — 194,  a    power  absolutely  inconsistent 

°  Ibid.  p.  ^Q>.   158.  195.  216,  with    private  judgment,   rational 

&c.    Tindal  argues  that  the  scrip-  enquiry,  and  free  choice  in  reli- 

tures    must    have   been  corrupt-  gion."  p.  383.     He  observes  that 

ed,  because  of  the  6/go<r?/ of  those  the  truly  primitive  christians  in 

to  whom   in   all   ages    they  were  those   ages  who   constituted  the 

chiefly  committed,  p.  158.    Even  minority,   were    styled   Heretics, 

the  Protestant  writers,  according  Gnostics,   &c.  and  that  the  pro- 

to    him,   are    full    of  calumnies,  teslanls     are    their     successors! 

impostures,  &c.  p.  160.  (380,    381)    as   the  Roman  ca- 

°  Morgan,  Moral  Philosopher,  tholic    church    is   the    true    suc- 

p.  440.  cesser  of  the   catholic  church  of 

P  Ibid.  p.  378—381.  Accord-  the  three  first  centuries,  378,  9. 

ing  to  him,  even  from  the  age  of  Morgan    styles    his     opponents 

the  apostles,  the  hierarchical  bi-  "  Judaizing  clergy,"  p.  357,  8. 

shops    and    clergy,     with     their  '^  Bishop  Kaye  on  Tertullian, 

party  the  catholic  church,  "  as-  p.  71. 

sumed     a     dominion    over    con- 


CHAP.  HI.]        Connexion  of  Religion  and  Tradition.  51 

ingly  the  only  proof  which  he  admitted  of  the  divine 
orig-in  of  the  books  of  scripture  was,  their  "  utility,  or 
tendency  to  promote  virtue '."  On  this  principle  he 
proceeded  to  reject  the  Old  Testament,  and  whatever 
portion  of  the  New  he  pleased  ',  In  the  same  manner 
Schulthess,  the  deistical  professor  of  theology  at  Zurich, 
assails  the  veracity  of  the  early  fathers,  imputes  to 
them  fraud,  ignorance,  errors,  &c.  Hence  he  infers  that 
their  testimony  to  the  genuineness,  authenticity,  and 
canon  of  scripture  is  of  no  weight ;  that  scripture  has  no 
external  evidence  whatever ;  that  it  must  be  subjected 
to  a  judicious  criticism  founded  only  on  reason,  by 
which  it  is  easily  perceived  to  be  interpolated,  and  full 
of  errors ;  and  its  authors  are  convicted  of  gross  and 
intentional  mistakes,  anachronisms,  and  inventions '. 
Hence  he  glories  in  the  hope  that  the  day  will  come 
when  men  will  not  appeal  to  scripture,  but  re- 
ceive doctrines  simply  as  they  approve  themselves  to 
reason ". 

It  may  be  observed  in  general  indeed  of  the  various 
denominations  of  deists,  whether  Freethinkers,  Theo- 
philanthropists,  Socinians,  Rationalists,  or  Unitarians, 
that,  if  they  unite  in  treating  the  body  of  the  early 
christian  writers  of  the  universal  church  with  contempt 
or  abuse ;  the  scripture  itself  meets  no  better  treat- 
ment from  them ''.    The  testimony  of  the  early  christians 

*■  Rose,  State  of  Protestantism  Preefat.  and  ^.  76. 
in  Germany,  p.  82.  2d  ed.  "  Prajfat.   j).  xiv. 

'  Ibid.  p.  83,  &c.    Semler  held  "  Middleton  (Free  Enquiry,  p. 

that  "  the  prophets  may  have  de-  Ixxvi — Ixxxvi.)  accuses  the  early 

livered  the  offspring  of  their  own  fathers  of  recording  and  solemnly 

brains    as     divine    revelations  "  attesting  falsehoods,  charges  them 

See  Magee    on    the  Atonement,  with  forgery,  &c.    The  early  ages 

vol.  i.  p.  174.  of  the  church,  according  to   him, 

*  Symboloe   ad  internam    crit.  were  any  thing  but  pure,  heresy 

Librorum   Canonic.    &c.    ab    Jo.  abounded,  &c.      In  fine,  the  opi- 

Schulthess,    Turici,     1833.    t.    i.  nions  or  practice  of  the   i)rimi- 

E  2 


52  Connexion  of  Religion  and  Tradition.       [part  hi. 

must  be  got  rid  of  by  any  means,  because  it  is  diame- 
trically opposed  to  deism.  When  this  has  been  accom- 
plished, the  field  lies  open.  Reason  emancipated  from 
all  other  contradiction,  is  left  to  deal  with  the  bible  as 
a  human  production,  and  to  reject  or  receive  whatever 
portion  it  pleases.  Hence,  as  the  reasoning-  powers  of 
men  vary,  some  mutilate,  others  add  to  the  canon  of 
scripture.  The  text  is  represented  to  be  full  of  inter- 
polations, errors,  absurdities.  The  sacred  writers  are 
accused  of  ignorance,  contradictions,  and  deceit :  and 
the  leo-itimate  and  irresistible  conclusion  follows,  that 
Christianity  was  not  a  revelation,  that  Christ  was  only 
a  philosopher,  and  that  man  is  left  to  his  own  reason 
and  his  own  merits  for  his  hopes  and  his  salvation. 

But  these  men  forget  their  reason  and  consistency  in 
their  haste  to  subvert  the  authority  of  universal  christ- 
ian tradition.  If  the  early  writers  of  Christianity  were 
all  ignorant,  bigotted,  credulous,  enthusiastic,  design- 
ing, persecuting  ;  if  they  were  guilty  of  fraud,  falsehood, 
foro-ery,  priestcraft,  &c,  it  is  inconceivable  that  all  should 
have  united  in  testifying  to  the  same  doctrine,  unless  it 
had  been  absolutely  and  infallibly  true.  A  multitude  of 
false  witnesses,  writing  at  various  times,  and  in  different 
countries,  could  not  have  borne  united  testimony  to 
falsehood.  Their  testimony  must  have  varied  :  it  must 
have    been   contradictory '".     Besides    this :    the    utter 

tive  fathers  are  to  be  viewed  serted  the  right  of  every  man  to 
with  perfect  indifference.  Mid-  deny  the  doctrines  of  christ- 
dleton,  in  perfect  consistency  ianity.  Blackburn  assailed  the 
with  these  notions,  represented  fathers  (Confessional, chap,  viii.); 
the  fall  of  man  as  a  mere  fable  ;  but  he  asserted  the  right  of  each 
thereby  undermining  the  whole  individual  to  separate  from  all  ex- 
fabric  of  Christianity,  Hoadly  istingreligions,and  disbelieved  the 
also  contemned  the  tradition  of  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
the  universal  church,  but  Hoadly  "  The  apophthegm  of  Tertul- 
declared  that  original  sin  was  a  lian  would  apply  with  still  greater 
contradiction  in   terms,   and   as-  force  in  this  case.     "  Quod  apud 


CHAP.  III.]  Utility  of  Catholic  Tradition.  53 

contradictions  of  deists  show  that  they  are  led  merely 
by  prejudice  and  hatred  to  assail  the  credit  of  the 
christian  MTiters,  and  the  character  of  the  universal 
church.  One  asserts  that  the  writings  of  the  fathers 
are  forged,  another  that  they  are  interpolated,  while  a 
third  assails  them  e7i  masse,  admitting  their  genuineness, 
and  charging  them  with  every  abomination  that  can  be 
invented. 

It  may  be  concluded  on  the  whole,  that  those  who 
believe  in  the  christian  revelation  cannot  reject  the 
universal  tradition  of  christians  :  and  by  such  a  tra- 
dition are  the  doctrines  of  the  real  divinity  and  per- 
sonality of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  incar- 
nation, sufferings,  resurrection,  atonement,  and  medi- 
ation of  Jesus  Christ,  the  necessity  of  divine  grace,  the 
obligation  of  good  works,  together  with  all  the  other 
articles  of  our  faith,  defended  and  supported.  For  as 
to  the  few  heretics  who  have  disputed  them  in  different 
ages,  "  no  more  account  is  to  be  had  of  them  in  religion," 
as  Bishop  Beveridge  says,  "  than  of  monsters  in  nature  \" 
Their  opposition  served  only  to  prove  the  universality 
and  the  immoveable  firmness  of  the  faith  which  they 
contradicted.  Concerning  the  articles  of  the  catholic 
faith  thus  supported  by  universal  tradition,  and  equally 
testified  by  the  holy  scripture,  we  may  reasonably  feel 
so  certain,  that  no  argument,  no  difficulty  should  for  an 
instant  shake  our  conviction,  and  that  if  an  angel  de- 
scended from  heaven  and  denied  any  one  of  them,  we 
should  be  prepared  to  say,  "  Let  him  be  anathema  ^," 

multos  unum  invenitur,  non  est  those  who  despise  the  testimony 
erratum  sedtraditum." — DePrae-  of  the  catholic  church  to  Christ- 
script,  c.  27.  ian  doctrine,  generally  either  for- 

^   Beveregii  Codex  Can.   Eccl.  sake  the  ti'uth  or  have  no  settled 

Prim,  vindicatus,  &c.  Praefat.  belief.     Episcopius   (Oper.    t.    i. 

^  It   may    be    observed   that  part  ii.   p.    127,   128.  132.)  and 


54  Tradition  accessible  to  all  [part  hi. 

An  objection  may  be  raised  to  this  mode  of  confirm- 
ing christian  truth  by  tradition,  as  exacting  too  minute 
and  extensive  examination  into  questions  of  fact,  and 
therefore  unsuited  to  mankind  generally.  But  it  may 
be  replied,  that,  setting  aside  the  case  of  those  who  have 
sufficient  opportunities  to  make  these  researches  for 
themselves,  the  great  mass  of  christians  have  as  much 
evidence  of  the  fact  of  such  a  tradition  as  they  have  of 
the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  scripture,  or  of  the 
antiquity  and  universality  of  the  church.  It  is  only  on 
credible  testimony  that  they  are  assured  that  scripture 
is  now,  and  always  has  been  received  by  christians  as 
the  word  of  God,  and  that  it  has  descended  perfect  and 
uncorrupted  to  the  present  day.  They  are  incapable 
of  instituting  the  critical  researches  which  would  enable 
them  to  dispense  on  these  points  with  the  testimony  of 
their  church,  their  pastors,  their  acquaintances,  and 
every  thing  around  them.  If  it  be  said  that  the  doc- 
trines of  scripture  carry  their  own  evidence  along  with 
them  to  a  heart  influenced  by  divine  grace,  I  reply  that 
the  doctrines  of  catholic  tradition,  which  are  identically 
the  same,  have  exactly  the  same  evidence. 

But  there  is  another  mode  in  which  men  may,  with- 
out any  difficulty  or  research,  distinguish  the  party  in 
whose  favour  tradition  gives  its  testimony.  If  on  the 
one  side  there  be  a  manifest  respect  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  church  in  all  ages ;  if  there  be  a  willingness  to  ap- 
peal to  that  doctrine  in  controversy  ;  if  there  be  a  perpe- 
tual and  confident  appeal  to  it  in  fact ;  if  this  be  so  noto- 

Curcellseu3(0per.p.  32,33,  694.)  Curcel.  Oper.  p.  19.  29.).     The 

disregarded  the  fathers:  but  they  infidel  Rationalists  of  Germany, 

also   held  the    doctrines     of  the  who    also   despise    the    fathers, 

trinity  and  the  divinity  of  Christ  boast  that  they  alter  their  belief 

tobe  mattei's non-essential (Episc,  "os  ojien  asany  new  views  require 

Oper.   t.   i.  part  i.    p.   338,  &c.  it" — Rose,  State  of  Protest.p.  24. 


»^iiAP.   III.]  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  55 

rious,  that  the  opposite  party  judge  these  men  excessive 
in  their  respect  for  tradition  :  if  on  the  other  side  there 
be  an  evident  anxiety  to  refuse  such  an  appeal ;  if  there 
be  perpetual  efforts  to  prevent  it,  by  exciting  prejudice, 
and  by  misrepresenting  the  simple  and  rational  principle 
on  which  it  is  made ;  and  if  the  christian  writers  are 
the  subject  of  continual  abuse  or  contempt;  then  there 
cannot  be  any  rational  doubt  that  tradition  is  in  favour 
of  the  former  party,  and  opposed  to  the  latter.     Such, 
on  the  one  hand,   is  the  position   of  our  catholic  and 
apostolic  churches  ^ :   such,  on  the  other,  is  that  of  the 
sectarians  and  of  those  who  have  been  discontented 
with  the  great  doctrines   and   creeds   of  the  church  ''. 
On  the  one  side  we  find  congregated  the  overwhelming 
mass  of  professing  christians  in  ancient    and  modern 
times,  the  fathers,  the  councils,  the  theologians  of  all 
ages.     On  the  other  we  find  Arians,  Socinians,  Sabel- 
lians.  Anabaptists,  Unitarians,  Deists,  Rationalists,  Pe- 
lagians, Antinomians,  &c.  who,  differing  between  them- 
selves on  every  article  of  religion,  all  agree  in  refusing 
any  appeal  to  the  tradition  of  the  universal  church. 

The  various  methods  which  these  men  employ  in  en- 
deavouring to  prevent  any  appeal  to  the  tradition  of 
the  church,  may  be  classed  under  the  following  heads : 
I.  Systematic  misrepresentation. 
We  do  not  appeal,  in  proof  of  christian  doctrine,  to 
the  ancient  christian  writers  as  in  any  way  infallible. 
Our  sentiments  on  this  head  are  well  known  :  they 
have  been  repeatedly  explained  ^  We  hold  that  the 
doctrine  of  any  father,  however  great  or  learned  he  may 

'  See  above,  Part  II.  Chapter  ^  See  Waterland,  Works,  vol. 

VI.  V.   p.  313,  314,  and  Thorndike 

*  Such  as  Socinus,Biddle,  Tin-  and    Sherlock    referred    to     by 

dal,    Morgan,    Clarke,     Hoadly,  him. 
Middleton, Blackburn, Semler,&c. 


56 


Tradition  accessible  to  all. 


[part  hi. 


have  been,  e.g.  that  of  Augustine,  Athanasius,  Ambrose, 
or  Basil,  is  to  be  rejected  in  any  point  where  it  con- 
tradicts scripture.  We  consider  all  these  writers  as 
uninspired  men,  and  therefore  liable  to  mistakes  and 
errors  like  other  theologians.  Therefore  it  involves  a 
studied  misrepresentation  of  our  meaning  and  prin- 
ciple, when  we  are  met  by  assertions  or  proofs  that 
particular  fathers  have  taught  errors  in  faith  or  mo- 
rality"; that  they  were  credulous;  that  their  writings 
are  in  some  points  obscure  '^ ;  that  their  criticisms  or  in- 
terpretations of  scripture  are  sometimes  mistaken " ; 
that  they  invented  scholastic  doctrines,  and  were  tinged 
with  false  philosophy  *^;  that  the  later  fathers  were  better 
theologians  than  the  earlier  ^ ;  that  there  are  fathers 
against  fathers,  and  councils  against  councils,  on  some 
points  ^.     This  is  all  calculated  merely  to  excite  pre- 


•=  Whitby,  Dissert.  Prsef.  s.  iv. 
p.  15,  &c.  For  replies  to  this, 
and  all  the  succeeding  objections 
against  the  fathers,  see  Water- 
land  on  the  importance  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  chap,  vii, 
Melchior  Canus  de  locis  Theolo- 
gicis,lib.  vii,  and  Scrivenerus  adv. 
Dallaeum,  and  others  cited  by 
Waterland,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  294. 

"  Daille  of  the  Right  Use  of 
the  Fathers. 

^  Whitby,  Dissert,  de  Script. 
Interpret. 

^  Hampden,  Scholast.  Philo- 
sophy, passim.  The  imputation 
of  acholasticism  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  catholic  faith,  is  a  mere 
hackneyed  artifice  of  deists  and 
misbelievers.  Under  this  pre- 
tence Steinbart  the  deist,  pro- 
fessor of  theology  at  Frankfort, 
assailed  the  christian  doctrine 
(Rose,  State  of  Prot,  p.  70).  He 
had  been  preceded   by   the  Soci- 


nian  Dr.  Bury,  who  was  ex- 
pelled from  the  University  of 
Oxford  for  his  heresies  ;  by  Mor- 
gan the  infidel,  &c.  The  same 
pretence  is  common  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Socinians.  —  See  Mr. 
Thomas,  Tracts  on  Script.  Con- 
seq.  p.  6 — 11. 

s  Hampden,  Scholastic  Philo- 
sophy, Lect.  viii. 

^  Chillingworth's  rash  and  un- 
guarded assertion  to  this  effect,  is 
employed  by  the  infidel  Tindal 
to  show  that  there  is  no  certainty 
in  revelation.  —  Christianity  as 
old  as  the  Creation,  p.  291.  It 
would  be  a  matter  of  some  in- 
terest to  ascertain  what  propor- 
tion of  the  heretic  and  sectarian 
writers  have  made  this  statement 
of  Chillingworth's  the  basis  of 
their  attacks  on  the  orthodox 
doctrine.  It  stands  conspicuous 
in  almost  every  writing  of  that 
kind  which  I  have  seen. 


CHAP.  III.]  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  57 

judice  against  an  appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  by 
misrepresenting  onr  design  and  principle  in  making  it. 
Our  answer  to  all  these  arguments  is,  that  we  do  not 
appeal  to  the  fathers  as  inspired  and  authoritative 
writers,  but  as  competent  witnesses  of  the  faith  held 
by  christians  in  their  days.  If  they  are  not  to  be 
trusted  in  this,  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  their  tes- 
timony to  the  facts  of  cliristianity,  and  the  external 
evidence  of  revelation  is  subverted. 

II.  Pretended  respect  for  religion. 

Under  this  head  may  be  classed  that  mode  of  argu- 
ment which  rejects  any  appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
christian  church,  under  pretence  that  the  word  of 
God  alone  ought  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith  in  opposi- 
tion to  all  the  doctrines  of  man ;  that  the  scripture 
constitutes  a  perfect  rule  of  faith,  needing  nothing  else ; 
that  it  must  necessarily  be  plain  in  all  essential  points, 
and  that  it  is  its  own  interpreter '.  The  end  of  all  this 
pretended  reverence  for  scripture  is,  to  obtain  an  un- 
limited liberty  of  interpreting  it  according  to  our  own 
reason  and  judgment,  even  in  opposition  to  the  belief 
of  all  christians  from  the  beginning  ^     But  in  asserting 

'  Whitby,  Dissert,  de  Scriptur.  ion  and  practice  is  to  be  brought 

Interpret.-^,  Praef.  (p.    8,    9,    10,  to  the  test  of  God's  word,''  i.e.  to 

19.     Socinus  boasted  that  he  ac-  the  exclusion  of  councils,  synods, 

knowledged    no    master;    "  Sed  bishops,  presbyters,  &c.  Together 

Deum  tantummodo  praeceptorem  with  this  he  teaches  that  the  true 

habui,  sacrasque    literas."  —  Ep.  doctrine  began   to   be    corrupted 

ad  Squarcialupum,  App.  t.  i.  p.  very  soon  by  heathen  inventions, 

362.  Accordingly  he''strenuously  even  from  the  times  of  the  apos- 

denies  the  authority  of  the  fathers  ties ;  and  that  "  Luther  and  Calvin 

and councils,^theprimitive church,  left  the  dregs"  of  the  Roman  anti- 

&c.  t.  ii.  p.  617,  618.  christ  "behind."     Evanson,  an- 

••  See  Waterland's  just  remarks,  other  Socinian  praised  by  Bel- 
Works,  vol.  V.  p.  282.  Oxford  ed.  sham,  declares,  that  the  gospels 
Lindsay  the  Socinian,  in  his  pub-  "contain  gross  and  irreconcileable 
lication  entitled  the  Catechist,  as-  contradictions."  Priestley  regards 
serts,  that  "  every  religious  opin-  the  Mosaic  narration  of  the  crea- 

15 


58 


Tradition  accessible  to  all. 


[part  III. 


this  liberty  to  all  men,  it  follows  inevitably  that  no 
particular  interpretation  of  scripture  is  necessary  to 
salvation ;  that  scripture  has  no  divine  meaning ;  that  it 
is  not  a  revelation.  In  short,  tradition  is  thrown  aside, 
under  pretence  of  veneration  for  the  scripture,  in  order 
that  men  may  be  enabled  to  distort,  to  misinterpret, 
and  to  destroy  that  very  scripture. 

The  same  may  be  observed  of  that  pretended  zeal  for 
the  defence  of  the  Reformation,  which  infidels,  Unita- 
rians, and  other  enemies  of  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of 
the  church,  allege,  as  a  plea  for  rejecting  all  appeal  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  universal  church \  "The  doctrines  of  the 


tion  and  fall  of  man  as  a  lame 
account.  Belsham  holds  that  the 
gospel  teaches  only  the  Deism 
of  the  French  Theophilan- 
thropists,  except  in  the  single 
fad  of  the  resurrection  of  a  hu- 
man being ;  and  engages  that 
Unitarians  shall  show  that  what- 
ever supports  anything  else  is 
either  "  interpolation,  omission, 
false  reading,  mistranslation,  or 
erroneous  interpretation." — See 
Magee  on  Atonement,  vol.  i.  p. 
174,  175.  ii.  437.  Yet  who  are 
more  loud  than  these  Deists  in 
decrying  catholic  tradition?  The 
same  may  be  observed  of  the  Ra- 
tionalist infidels.  They  all  regard 
scripture  as  interpolated,  treat  the 
gospels  as  spurious  productions, 
&c. — Rose,  p.  100,  &c.  Some 
of  them  hold  that  the  scriptures 
contain  pious  frauds  and  decep- 
tions,— lb.  117.  Some  impute 
to  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  de- 
ceptions for  evil  purposes. — lb. 
119.  Others  affirm  that  the  apos- 
tles, as  low  and  ignorant  men, 
natives  of  a  barbarous  country, 
had  not  the  power  of  relating 
every  thing  as  it  really  happened : 


— lb.  1 20.  and  that  the  only  me- 
thod of  getting  at  truth,  is  to 
subject  what  they  had  written  to 
a  critical  examination,  to  sepa- 
rate the  "  wheat  in  scripture  from 
the  chaff:'— Ih.  121.  This  is  Dr. 
Hampden's  method  with  St.  Paul. 
— Scholastic  Philosophy,  p.  375. 
All  these  writers  reject  the  doc- 
trine of  the  fathers. 

^  Tindal  the  infidel  declares 
that  what  he  says  is  in  defence  of 
the  Protestant  religion,  (p.  212.) 
that  they  who  do  not  allow  rea- 
son to  judge  in  matters  of  opinion 
or  speculation,  {i.e.  as  to  the 
truth  of  any  doctrines,  &c.  al- 
leged) are  guilty  of  as  great  ab- 
surdity as  the  papists;  (p.  178.) 
that  if  we  do  not  allow  reason  to 
judge  scripture  in  opposition  to 
all  authority,  we  cannot  show  the 
absurdity  of  the  plea  of  the  pa- 
pists to  implicit  faith,  p.  211.  He 
cites  "  Hoadly,  the  strenuous  as- 
sertor  of  our  religious  as  well  as 
civil  rights"  as  saying  that  "  Au- 
thority is  the  greatest  and  most 
irreconcileable  enemy  to  truth 
and  argument" — that  "  against 
authority  there  is  no  defence"  &c. 


CHAP.  III.]  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  59 

Reformation"  they  say,  "  cannot  be  defended  if  this  ap- 
peal is  allowed  :  popery  must  triumph."  Excellent  men  ! 
They  will  maintain  the  Reformation  at  all  hazards :  all 
evidence  shall  be  pronounced  worthless,  if  it  be  opposed 
to  the  interests  of  that  sacred  cause.  But  what  is  the 
end  sought  by  all  this  pretended  devotion  ?  It  is  that 
every  man  may  be  permitted  without  any  check,  to 
interpret  scripture  in  such  a  manner  as  to  subvert  all 
the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  whether  positive  or 
negative,  to  prove  the  Reformation  itself  needless, 
erroneous,  bigotted,  equally  absurd  as  the  system  to 
which  it  was  opposed,  and  more  inconsistent.  I  charge 
these  men  with  the  grossest  hypocrisy.  Never  was 
there  a  more  daring  attempt  to  palm  an  imposture  on 
the  credulous  and  unthinking,  than  this  effort  of  Deists 
and  heretics  to  set  aside  tradition  under  pretence  of 
zeal  for  the  Reformation.  They  are  the  opponents  of 
the  Reformation.  They  are  the  representatives  of  those 
whom  the  Reformation  condemned.  They  reject  its 
doctrines,  they  charge  it  with  ignorance,  bigotry,  in- 
tolerance, errors  as  gross  as  those  of  popery.  They 
have  separated  from  its  reformed  institutions,  as  anti- 
christian,  and  only  exist  by  a  perpetual  attack  upon 
them.  The  Reformation  has  no  connexion  with  these 
men :  its  defence  belongs  exclusively  to  those  who 
maintain  its  doctrines,  and  adhere  to  its  institutions : 
and  they  alone  are  the  proper  judges  of  the  mode  of 
argument  suited  to  its  interests. 

III.  Statements  directly  untrue. 

Under  this  head  may  be  included  the  palmary  argu- 

— p.   215.     The    assumption  of  p.  300.     This  hypocrisy  cannot 
authority  by  Protestants  accord-  deceive  any  one  possessed  of  com- 
ing to  Tindal  is  inconsistent  with  mon  penetration, 
the  defence  of  the  Reformation. — 


C50 


Tradition  accessible  to  all. 


[part  III. 


ment  employed  by  all  sects  against  any  appeal  to  the 
tradition  of  the  church  universal,  namely,  that  it  was 
the  ])rinciple  of  the  Reformation  to  reject  any  such 
appeal ;  that  its  principle  was,  "  the  bible  alone  is  the 
religion  of  protestants  ^"  Nothing  can  be  more  untrue 
than  this  assertion:  the  Reformation  as  a  whole  ac- 
knowledged and  appealed  to  the  authority  of  catholic 
tradition,  though  it  denied  the  infallibility  of  particular 
fathers  and  councils '".     With  equal  veracity  it  is  as- 


'  Heretics  seem  never  weary  of 
attributing  to  the  Reformation 
principles  which  it  abominated. 
Wegscheider,  Clarke,  and  others 
have  pretended  that  it  is  essen- 
tial to  a  "  Protestant"  church  to 
possess  the  power  of  varying  her 
belief ;  and  this,  notwithstanding 
that  the  whole  Reformation  re- 
ceived the  Athanasian  Creed, 
which  declares  that  the  catholic 
fciith  there  taught  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  that' unless  it  shall 
be  kept  whole  and  undefiled  by 
every  man,  he  shall  perish  ever- 
lastingly. 

""  See  Part  I.  Chapter  XII. 
Sect.  3.  See  also  Mr.  Rose's 
State  of  Protestantism,  p.  35,  &c. 
2d  ed.  He  observes  that  "  it  is 
this  very  circumstance  (J.  e.  re- 
verence for  the  fathers,)  which 
has  been  made  a  subject  of  re- 
proach against  the  early  refor- 
mers by  the  modern  school  of 
theology," — p.  37,  and  that  this 
rationalist  or  infidel  school  assert 
that  "  down  to  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury," "  appeals  were  made  only 
to  the  writings  of  the  fathers 
whose  ignorance,  prejudices,  and 
want  of  philosophical  illumina- 
tion, deprived  their  evidence  and 
opinions  of  all  value." — p.  39. 
If  Luther  and  others  occasion- 
ally opposed  themselves  to  the 


opinions  of  particular  fathers,  and 
used  strong  expressions  on  the 
subject ;  we  must  in  reason  sup- 
pose that  they  viewed  those  fa- 
thers then  only  in  their  capacity 
of  theologians  or  writers,  and  not 
as  witnesses  of  catholic  tradi- 
tion. It  is  certain  that  we  are 
not  bound  to  adopt  the  senti- 
ments of  any  father  merely  on  his 
own  authority,  Luther,  however, 
was  far  from  rejecting  them  even 
as  theologians.  He  recommend- 
ed the  works  of  Augustine,  Ber- 
nard, Ambrose,  and  Peter  Lom- 
bard to  students,  though  he  dis- 
approved of  those  of  Origen, 
Jerome,  and  Basil.  —  Walchii 
Bibliotheca  Patrist.  cap.  xv.  s. 
1 2.  Even  the  Roman  bishop  Tre- 
vern  admits,  that  Calvin,  Beza, 
Grotius,  Leibnitz,  and  other  dis- 
tinguished adherents  of  the  Re- 
formation respected  catholic  tra- 
dition.— Discussion  Amicale,  t. 
i.  p.  196—206.  The  Wallen- 
burghs  cite  sixteen  Lutheran  and 
reformed  theologians,  to  prove 
that  the  Reformation  allowed  the 
authority  of  the  early  church. — 
Oper.  t.  i.  p.  237.  The  Roman 
theologians  themselves  treat  the 
fathers  with  too  little  ceremony 
where  their  sentiments  are  op- 
posed to  those  of  Rome.  Medina 
accuses    Jerome,  Ambrose,  Au- 


CHAP.  III.]  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  61 

serted  that  the  Church  of  England  rejects  tradition  bj 
lier  sixth  article  of  religion ",  when  it  is  manifest  that 
her  object  is  simply  to  maintain  the  necessity  of  scrip- 
tural proof  for  articles  of  faith ;  while  our  canons,  our 
ritual,  and  the  whole  body  of  our  theologians,  have  so 
notoriously  upheld  the  authority  of  tradition,  that  it  is 
a  subject  of  unmeasured  complaint  on  the  part  of  those 
w^ho  disbelieve  the  doctrines  of  the  church  °. 

The  nature  of  these  various  arguments  testifies  suffi- 
ciently that  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  church  is 
opposed  to  those  who  employ  them.  It  could  be  no- 
thing but  a  feeling  of  despair  on  this  point,  which  could 
have  induced  men  to  resort  to  perpetual  misrepresen- 
tation, to  false  pretences,  and  to  untruths.  The  em- 
ployment of  these  weapons  by  all  sects,  in  order  to 
prevent  any  appeal  to  universal  tradition,  proves  two 
l)oints.  First,  as  the  sole  fundamental  principle  on 
which  they  all  agree  is,  the  rejection  of  an  appeal  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  church  as  a  check  on  the  interpre- 

gustine,  &c,  of  holding  Arian  own,  that  its  divines  have  been 
sentiments.  Maldonatus  charges  apt  on  all  occasions,  to  join  the 
Chrysostom  with  Pelagianism. —  authority  of  the  primitive  church 
See  many  instances  collected  by  to  that  of  sacred  writ ;  to  supply 
Crakanthorp,  Logicas,  lib.  v.  cap.  doctrines  frcm  the  ancient  coun- 
xvi.  Reg, xix.p.340.  SeealsoMr.  cils,  on  which  the  scriptures  are 
Newman's  valuable  observations,  either  silent  or  thought  defective 
Lectures  on  Romanism. p.59 — 99.  to  add  the  holy  fathers  to  the 
"  Whitby,  Dissert,  p.  4.  college  of  the  apostles  ;  and  by 
^  "  1  have  already  (Part  II.  Chap,  ascribing  the  same  gift  and  powers 
VI.)  cited  the  words  of  Walchius  to  them  both,  to  advance  the  pri- 
and  of  Blackburn  IMiddk-ton,  the  mitive  traditions  to  a  parity  with 
author  of  the  True  Enquiry,  who  apostolic  precepts."  —  True  En- 
resolved  the  Mosaic  account  of  quiry,  Introduct.p.xcviii.  Hethen 
the  fall  of  man  into  a  fable,  and  traces  the  prevalence  of  this  evil 
is  supposed  to  have  been  an  in-  principle  in  the  reigns  of  Henry 
fidel,  says,  "Though  this  doctrine  VIII.,  Edward  VI.',  Mary,  (wheu 
of  the  sufficiency  of  the  scriptures  Cranmer  and  Ridley  xmhapji'dij 
be  generally  professed  through  all  appealed  to  it)  Elizabeth,  James, 
the  Reformed  churches,  yet  it  has  Charles,  &c.  Page  xli,  he  corn- 
happened,  I  know  not  how,  in  our  plains  of  "  the  prejudice  in  favour 


62  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  [part  hi. 

tation  of  scripture,  and  the  assertion  of  an  unlimited 
right  of  private  interpretation;  this  principle  is  the 
source  of  all  their  divisions  and  contradictions,  and 
therefore  must  be  radically  false.  Secondly,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  universal  church  from  the  beginning  must 
condemn  that  of  all  modern  sects,  in  every  point  in 
which  they  differ  from  our  catholic  and  apostolic 
churches ;  and  therefore  on  every  such  point  they  are 
in  error  and  misinterpret  scripture,  and  the  church  is 
in  the  right. 

But  what  if  two  opposite  parties  both  appeal  to 
primitive  tradition  as  in  their  favour?  Some  of  the 
Unitarians,  &c.  do  so.  I  answer  that  they  appeal  to 
some  insignificant  sect  of  heretics  which  the  universal 
church  rejected,  and  which  utterly  perished  many  ages 
ago  P.  They  accuse  the  great  body  of  christians  from 
the  beginning  of  the  grossest  errors,  and  do  not  appeal 
to  their  doctrine ;  or  if  they  do  occasionally  cite  some 
of  the  early  fathers,  they  take  care  to  assure  us  at  the 
same  time  that  they  have  no  respect  for  their  autho- 
rity''.     With   regard    to   controversies   between   the 

of  primitive  antiquity  which  pre-  tended  to  tradition  in  favour  of 

vails  in  this  protestant  country."  their  errors,  but  when  they  were 

P  See  Waterland   on   the   Im-  asked  whether  they  woukl  admit 

portance  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  the  common  doctrine  of  the  an- 

Trinity,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.   327.  cients,   and  be   concluded  by  it, 

The  Ebionites  were   rejected   as  they   refused   the   trial  —  Socrat. 

heretics. — See  Bull's  "  Primitiva  Hist.   Eccl.  v.   10;    Sozom.  vii. 

and  Apostolica  Traditio."     The  12;   see  Waterland  ut  supra,  p. 

ancient  heretics  Basilides,  Valen-  323 — 325.     As  for  the  modern 

tinus,  the  Marcionites,  pretended  Arians  and   Socinians,  Whiston, 

to  a  private  tradition  contrary  to  Clarke,    Whitby,     Hoadly,     &e. 

that  of  the  catholic  church.    The  they  either  rejected  and  despised 

Artemonians  pretended  that  their  the   writings    of  the    fathers,    or 

doctrine  had  been  formerly  held  else  admitted  them  only  partially, 

by  the  church,  though  it  had  been  rejecting    such    writers    as    they 

long    ago    condemned    and    exe-  pleased. — See  Waterland  ut  su- 

crated    by    all    christians.      The  pra,  p.  327,  328. 
Arians  too  and  Macedonians  pre-  i  It  is  related  of   Biddle    the 


CHAP.  III.]  Tradition  accessible  to  all.  63 

churches  of  England  and  Rome,  it  may  be  observed 
that  while  both  parties  a}3peal  with  equal  confidence  to 
catholic  tradition,  the  former  usually  prefer  to  limit 
the  appeal  to  the  earlier  centuries,  while  the  latter  are 
anxious  to  introduce  the  testimonies  of  later  times. 
The  natural  inference  is,  that  our  doctrines  have  more 
support  from  the  earlier  tradition,  and  the  Roman 
opinions  from  that  of  subsequent  ages;  that  neither  are 
without  support  from  tradition  ;  that  the  differences  are 
not  concerning  matters  of  faith  or  things  necessary  to 
salvation;  and  therefore  that  we  are  perfectly  secure 
in  following  the  doctrines  and  practice  of  our  own 
churches,  and  Romanists  were  not  justified  in  separa- 
ting from  them^ 

These  are  conclusions  which  may  be  drawn  from 
facts,  by  those  who  are  themselves  unable  to  examine 
the  monuments  of  catholic  tradition.  The  more  learned 
will  of  course  know  from  actual  investigation,  that  the 
faith  of  the  universal  church  which  we  maintain,  is 
supported  by  universal  tradition. 

founder  of  the  English  Socinians,  the  first  two  centuries,  not  that 

that  "  he  gave  the  holy  scriptures  he  regarded    them    himself,   but 

a  diligent  reading ;  and  made  use  "  for  the  sake  of  the  adversaries 

of  no  other  rule  to  determine  con-  who  continually  crake,  the  fathers, 

troversies  about  religion  than  the  the  fathers." — Life  by  Toulmin, 

scriptures,    and  of  no   other  au-  amongst  the  Unitarian  Tracts, 
thentic  interpreter,   if  a   scruple  ''  See  Part  II.  Chapters  II.  and 

arose    concerning    the    sense    of  IX,  where  it  is   shown  that  the 

scripture,   than  reason."     After-  Romanists    separated    from    our 

wards,  indeed,  it  is  said  that  he  orthodox  churches, 
adduced  some  of  the  fathers  of 


64  Traditions  of  Rites  and  Discipline.         [part.  hi. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON    TRADITIONS    OF    RITES    AND    DISCIPLINE. 

Tradition  is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  "  custom" 
or  "  practice,"  as  in  the  thirty-fourth  Article  :  "  It  is  not 
necessary  that  traditions  and  ceremonies  be  in  all 
places  one  and  utterly  like ;  for  at  all  times  they  have 
been  divers,  and  may  be  changed  according  to  the 
diversities  of  countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so 
that  nothing  be  ordained  against  God's  word."  This 
leads  me  to  consider  the  rules  for  determining  what 
traditions  of  the  church  are  lawful  and  changeable, 
and  for  discriminating  them  from  those  which  are 
unchangeable  and  necessary. 

SECTION  I. 

THE  MODE  IN  WHICH  ALL  THINGS   LAWFUL  ARE  CONTAINED 
IN  SCRIPTURE. 

The  Puritans,  and  many  of  the  more  modern  sectaries, 
have  asserted  that  no  rites  or  discipline  can  be  lawful  for 
Christians,  except  those  which  are  expressed  in  scripture; 
and  for  this  reason  objected  to  several  traditions  which 
our  churches  have  received  from  the  remotest  ages ;  as 
the  use  of  sponsors,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  ministerial 
vestments,  the  offices  of  archbishop,  dean,  chancellor, 


CHAP.  IV.]  Rites,  when  Laivful.  65 

&c.     These  were  according  to  them  unlawful,  because 
they  were  not  mentioned  in  scripture ".     Hooker  has 
argued  well  against  this   principle  in  his  second  and 
third  books.     The   church   has  always   admitted,  that 
rites  and  discipline  which  can  be  proved  contrary  to 
scripture,  directly  or  indirectly,  are  unlawful :  the  Arti- 
cle above-cited,  and  the  twentieth,  both  recognize  this 
principle.     The  latter  says  that  the  church  "ought  not 
to  decree  any  thing  against  scripture."     We  also  admit 
that  some  general  principles  are  laid  down  in  scripture, 
from  which  every  thing  that  is  lawful  may  be  justified. 
The    question    then    is,   whether   every   thing   that   is 
simply  laivfal  in  worship  and  discipline  must  be  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  scripture.     This  I  deny  for  the 
following  reasons. 

1 .  There  is  no  assertion  to  that  effect  in  scripture  it- 
self, as  will  be  seen  in  the  answers  to  objections. 

2.  Every  thing  is  lawful  which  is  not  forbidden  by 
the  law;  which  is  not  contrary  to  the  law:  as  the  scrip- 
ture says,  "Where  no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression  ''." 
"  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law "."  Therefore  what- 
ever is  not  directly  or  indirectly  contrary  to  the  divine 
law  of  scripture  is  lawful. 

3.  The  scripture  lays  down  certain  general  rules  for 
the  guidance  of  the  church  in  regulating  externals : 
such  as,  "  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order V  "Let  all  things  be  done  unto  edifying ^" 
"  Whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God  V' 
"Give  none  offence,  neither  to  the  Jews,  nor  to  the 
Gentiles,  nor  to  the  church  ^."     Therefore  the  scripture 

*  See  the  objections  of  the  Puri-  '^  1  John  iii.  4. 

tans  in  Hooker,  and  those  of  the  **  1  Cor.  xiv.  40. 

modern  dissenters  in  Towgood  on  *  Ibid.  ver.  26. 

dissent.  *  1  Cor.  x.  31. 

''Rom.  iv.  io.  «  Ibid.  32. 

VOL.  II.  F 


G6  Traditional  Rites  and  Discipline.         [part  in. 

recognizes  a  power  of  regulating-  externals  which  is 
guided  by  general  scriptural  rules,  not  by  specific  scrip- 
tural enactment  or  precedent. 

4.  Every  church  and  every  sect  from  the  foundation 
of  Christianity  has  practised  a  number  of  rites  and 
matters  of  discipline  which  are  not  in  scripture.  Bing- 
ham, in  tracing  the  rites  of  the  primitive  church  in  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  and  public  worship, 
exhibits  a  multitude  of  various  rites,  ceremonies,  and 
disciplines,  in  the  churches  of  the  East  and  West, 
which  cannot  be  traced  in  scripture*'.  Tertullian  says, 
"  Let  us  then  enquire  whether  no  tradition  (in  this  case) 
should  be  admitted  unless  it  is  written.  We  will  allow 
that  it  should  not,  if  no  examples  of  other  practices 
prejudge  the  case,  as  being  maintained  on  the  title  of 
tradition  only,  and  the  strength  of  custom,  without  any 
authority  of  scripture.  To  begin  with  baptism ;  when 
entering  the  water,  and  a  little  before  in  the  church, 
under  the  bishop's  hand,  we  protest  that  we  renounce 
the  devil,  his  pomps,  and  his  angels.  Then  we  are 
plunged  three  times,  replying  something  more  than  our 
Saviour  in  the  gospel  has  prescribed.  Received  thence, 
we  taste  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey ;  and  from  that 
day  we  abstain  from  the  daily  bath  during  the  whole 
week.  The  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  ordained  by 
our  Saviour,  both  at  the  time  of  repast,  and  for  all,  we 
receive  in  our  assemblies  before  daylight ;  nor  from  the 
hands  of  others  than  those  who  preside.  We  offer  for 
the  dead,  and  on  an  annual  day  for  the  martyrs'  birth- 
days, &c. '  "  The  day  would  fail  me,"  says  St.  Basil,  "  if 

*>  See  Bingham's  Antiquities  of  eipi?      Plane    negabimus    rece- 

the  Christian  Church.  piendam,  si  nulla  exempla  prae- 

'  "  Ergo  quaeramus  an  et  tra-  judicent  aliarum  observationum, 

ditio  nisi  scripta  non  debeat  re-  quas  sine  ullius  scripturae  instru- 


CHAP.  IV.]      Traditional  Bites  universalhj  received.  67 

I  were  to  relate  to  you  all  the  rites  transmitted  to  the 
church  without  scripture.  I  omit  the  rest :  this  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
H0I7  Spirit  (the  creed),  from  what  scripture  have 
we  it '  ?" 

I  adduce  these  passages,  merely  to  show  that  the 
primitive  church  practised  many  rites  which  are  not 
contained  in  scripture.  Such  also  it  is  plain,  has 
been  the  invariable  custom  of  all  the  Oriental,  all  the 
Roman,  all  the  British  churches,  down  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  The  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists  also  fol- 
lowed the  same  rule,  as  might  be  instanced  in  their 
use  of  liturgies,  organs,  surplices,  and  other  ministerial 
vestments,  lights,  crosses,  kneeling  at  the  eucharist, 
cross  in  baptism,  observation  of  holy  days,  fonts,  creeds, 
use  of  the  ring  in  marriage,  churching  of  women,  burial 
of  the  dead  with  hymns  and  prayers,  titles  and  offices 
of  antistes,  prsepositus,  archbishop,  dean,  chancellor, 
provincial  and  national  synods,  moderators,  &c. '   These 


mento,  solius  traditionis  titulo  et  Oblationes     pro    defunctis,     pro 

exinde    consuetudinis   patrocinio  natalitiis  annua  die  facimus.    Die 

vindicamus.     Denique  ut  a  bap-  Dominico  jejunium   nefas    duci- 

tismate  ingrediar,  aquam  adituri,  mus.veldegeniculisadorare.   Ea- 

ibidem,  sed  et  aliquanto  prius  in  dem  immunitate  a  Die  Paschae  in 

ecclesia  sub  antistitis  manu  con-  Pentecosten     usque     gaudemus. 

testamur  nos  renuntiare  diabolo,  Calicis  aut  panis  etiam  nostri  ali- 

et  pompae,  et  angelis  ejus.     De-  quid  decuti  in  terram  anxie  pati- 

hinc     ter    mergitamur,     amplius  mur.  Adomnemprogressumatque 

aliquid  respondentes,  quam  Do-  promotum,  ad  omnem  aditum  et 

minus  in  evangelic  determinavit.  exitum,  ad  calceatum,  ad  lavacra, 

Inde  suscepti,  lactis  et  mellis  con-  ad  mensas,  ad  lumina,  ad  cubilia, 

cordiam  praegustamus,  exque  ea  adsedilia,  quaecunquenos  conver- 

die,  lavacro  quotidiano  per  totam  satio  exercet,  frontem  crucis  sig- 

hebdomadam    abstinemus.      Eu-  naculo    terimxis."  —  Tertull.    De 

charistiae  sacramentum,  et  in  tem-  Corona,  c.  ii,  iii,  iv. 

pore  victus,  et  omnibus  manda-  '*  Basil,   De   Spiritu   Sanct.   c. 

turn  a  Domino,  etiam  antelucanis  xxvii.  n.  67-  t.  iii.  oper.  p.  56. 

ccetibus,    nee    de    aliorum    manu  '  See  Durel  011   the  Reformed 

quam     prsesidentium     sumimus.  Churches. 

F  2 


68     Traditional  Rites  approved  hy  the  Reformation,  [part  iir. 

rites  were  practised  by  some  or  all  branches  of  the 
foreign  Reformation.  Indeed  all  their  confessions  of 
faith  or  doctrine  expressly  approve  of  the  continuance 
of  such  human  traditions  or  rites,  as  are  not  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God.  The  Confession  of  Augsburg  says,  "that 
those  rites  are  to  be  observed,  which  may  be  observed 
without  sin,  and  are  conducive  to  quietness  and  good 
order  in  the  church,  as  certain  holydays,  feasts,  and  the 
)>ke."  "  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  human  traditions,  or 
rites  and  ceremonies  introduced  hy  men,  should  be  alike 
everywhere  "\"  The  Apology  of  the  Confession  says : 
"  We  M  illingly  observe  the  ancient  traditions  which 
were  constituted  in  the  church  for  the  sake  of  utility 
and  quietness,"  &c.°  The  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  drawn 
up  by  Bucer  in  1 530,  observes,  "The  opinion  of  our  party 
concerning  the  traditions  of  the  fathers,  or  those  which 
the  bishops  and  churches  approve  now,  is  this  :  they  in- 
clude no  traditions  among  the  human  traditions  which  are 
condemned  in  scripture,  except  such  as  are  repugnant  to 
the  law  of  God.  .  .Those  which  agree  with  scripture  and 
were  instituted  to  promote  good  manners  and  the  public 
utility,  even  though  they  be  not  expressly  written  in 
scripture,  yet  since  they  arise  from  the  precept  of 
charity,  are  to  be  accounted  divine  rather  than  hu- 
man "."  The  same  views  are  taken  by  the  Bohemian  p, 
the  Polish "",  the  Helvetic""  Confessions,  the  Formula 
Concordiae^  &c.  Calvin  expressly  defends  the  obliga- 
tion of  human  traditions  *,  and  amongst  the  rest  ap- 


"*  Confessio    August,    pars   i.  '^  Declaratio  Thoruniensis,  art. 

art.  XV.  and  vii.  v,  vi. 

°  Apologia    Confessionis,    viii.  "■    Confessio     Helvetica,     cap. 

De  tradit.  humanis  in  Ecclesia.  xxvii. 

"  Confess.   Tetrapolitana,  cap.  ^  Pars  i.  art.  x. 

xiv.  '  Calvini  Institut.  lib.  iv.  c.  iii. 

P  Confess.  Bohemica,  art.  xv.  sect.  27  — 32. 


CHAP.  IV.]     Traditional  Rites  practised  hy  Sectaries.  69 

proves  of  the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church,  of 
synods,  patriarchs,  primates,  archbishops,  metropolitans, 
bishops,  archdeacons,  subdeacons,  readers,  acolytes, 
and  in  short  the  whole  hierarchy.  This  system  he  re- 
garded as  scarcely  in  any  respect  dissonant  from  the 
word  of  God".  In  fine,  the  dissenters  themselves 
adopt  a  number  of  rites  and  matters  of  discipline  which 
are  not  mentioned  in  scripture.  One  of  the  chief 
foundations  of  their  dissent  is  the  right  of  the  people 
to  elect  their  own  pastors,  yet  they  admit  that  there  is 
not  an  instance  in  the  Bible  of  a  particular  church 
electing  its  own  pastor".  They  administer  the  eucha- 
rist  to  women ;  exact  from  candidates  for  baptism,  for 
"church-membership,"  or  for  the  ministry,  confessions 
of  their  "  experience"  and  their  doctrine  ;  constitute 
members  of  the  church  by  a  ceremony  different  from 
baptism  ;  give  the  titles  of  "  reverend"  and  "  divine"  to 
their  ministers,  who  are  also  styled  "doctors  of  divinity 
and  law,"  "  masters  of  arts,"  &c. ;  constitute  congrega- 
tional and  baptist  unions,  conferences,  &c.;  build  chapels 
and  colleges,  and  establish  trustees,  committees,  and 
professors.  None  of  these  things  are  mentioned  in 
scripture,  nor  do  we  read  there  any  such  expressions  as 
"congregational"  or  "baptist"  churches ;  and  therefore 
we  claim  the  whole  mass  of  dissenting  communities  as 
effective,  though  reluctant,  witnesses  in  favour  of  our 
position. 

Hence  I  conclude  that  it  is  lawful,  it  is  not  anti- 
christian,  to  continue,  or  even  institute  rites  and  dis- 
cipline not  mentioned  in  scripture,  provided  they  be 
not  opposed  to  the  truths  or  the  principles  of  scripture. 
For  if  it  be   otherwise,  all  christians  from  the  begin- 

"  Ibid.  cap.  iv.  "^  .Tames,  Church  Memb.  Guide,  p.  12.  2d  ed. 


70  Variuhle  and  Invariable  Discipline.       [PAiir  ui. 

ning  must  have  mistaken  their  own  religion,  and  acted 
as  enemies  of  Christ,  until  at  last  in  the  sixteenth  or 
seventeenth  century,  a  handful  of  Puritan  and  Anabap- 
tist schismatics  discovered  the  truth :  a  supposition 
which  is  too  absurd  to  merit  a  serious  refutation. 

SECTION  II. 

ON  THE  MEANS  OF  DISCRIMINATING  VARIABLE  FROM  IN- 
VARIABLE RITES. 

Having  proved  that  traditions  of  rites  and  discipline 
not  taught  by  scripture,  may  be  lawfully  adopted  and 
continued  in  the  church,  it  now  remains  to  examine,  by 
what  rule  we  may  discriminate  those  traditions  or  cus- 
toms of  the  church  in  general  which  are  unchangeable, 
from  those  that  are  changeable? 

Rites  are  found  in  scripture,  which  every  one  admits 
to  be  changeable,  i.  e.  the  institution  of  deaconesses, 
the  kiss  of  peace,  feasts  of  charity,  the  use  of  long  hair 
and  of  a  covering  for  the  head  by  women.  In  the  same 
manner  rites  appear  to  have  been  universal  in  the 
earliest  ages  which  were  relinquished  afterwards ;  such 
as  trine  immersion  in  baptism,  the  administration  of 
confirmation  at  the  same  time,  the  administration  of 
the  eucharist  in  both  kinds,  &c. 

Are  then  all  rites  and  points  of  discipline  contained 
in  scripture  and  tradition  non-essential  and  variable  ? 
I  reply  that  they  are  not. 

First,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  perpetual  obliga- 
tion of  those  rites  which  Christ  declared  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  which  all  christians  from  the  bednnins: 
believed  to  be  so :  I  mean  baptism  and  the  eucharist. 
And  we  are  bound  by  a  sense  of  the  importance  of 
those  rites,  to  adhere  to  that  form  of  administering- 
them  which  is  found  in  scripture,  and  which  the  uni- 


CHAP,  i v.]        Vai'iable  and  Invariable  Discipline.  71 

versal  church  has  always  practised.  All  other  forms  and 
ceremonies  concerning  these  sacraments  are  variable. 

Secondly,  any  rites  which  may  be  traced  in  scripture 
as  means  of  grace,  and  which  the  wJiole  church  appears 
evidently  to  have  received  from  the  apostles,  cannot  be 
considered  as  changeable  by  the  church,  for  it  is  to  be 
presumed  that  such  rites  were  instituted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  the  whole  church.  Why  otherwise  should 
the  apostles  ha\e  ordained  them  everywhere?  Such 
are  confirmation,  ordination,  episcopacy,  matrimony, 
reading  of  scripture  in  the  churcli,  absolution,  adminis- 
tration of  the  eucharist  in  both  kinds,  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day,  &c.  These  are  customs  and  rites, 
which  cannot  without  extreme  rashness  and  danger  be 
changed  or  omitted ;  and  which,  if  neglected  at  any 
time  ought  to  be  restored  again. 

Thirdly,  if  any  rite  mentioned  in  scripture  was  not 
given  as  a  means  o^  grace,  or  appears  plainly  either  not 
to  have  been  delivered  in  all  churches  by  the  apostles, 
or  to  have  been  generally  held  non-essential  and 
changeable  in  primitive  times,  then  it  must  be  re- 
garded as  designed  only  for  temporary  purposes,  and 
only  enacted  by  the  authority  of  some  apostles  as  chief 
ministers  of  the  church,  and  not  by  all  the  apostles 
under  the  express  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For 
had  it  been  designed  for  the  whole  church,  it  would 
have  been  universally  received  by  the  church.  Hence 
we  may  infer  that  the  feasts  of  charity,  the  kiss  of 
peace,  the  wearing  of  long  hair,  the  order  of  deacon- 
nesses,  as  not  being  connected  with  grace;  and  the 
unction  of  the  sick,  as  not  universally  received  ^  were 
changeable  rites. 

"'  The  first  writer  who  clearly     is    Innocentius,  bishop  of  Rome, 
mentions  this  rite  as  customary     who   lived   in   the  fifth   century  : 


72  Variahle  and  Invariable  Discipline.       [part  hi. 

Fourthly,  if  any  rite  or  discipline  be  not  traceable 
in  scripture,  it  cannot  be  essential  or  invariable ;  for  it 
is  not  credible  that  scripture,  which  contains  some  rites 
that  are  changeable,  should  omit  all  mention  of  what 
was  unchangeable.  Therefore  all  rites  which  are  sup- 
ported by  ancient  tradition  only,  might  be  omitted  by 
the  church  for  special  reasons.  Such  are  trine  im- 
mersion in  baptism,  the  administration  of  the  eucharist 
to  infants,  the  mixture  of  water  with  wine  in  the 
eucharist,  the  use  of  leavened  or  unleavened  bread  in 
the  same,  prayers  for  the  saints  who  are  at  rest,  the 
time  of  keeping  Easter,  the  fast  of  Lent  \ 

Fifthly,  still  more  may  those  rites  and  disciplines  be 
omitted,  whose  early  prevalence  may  be  accounted  for 
without  apostolic  institution,  or  which  were  only  re- 
ceived by  a  portion  of  the  church,  or  which  were  not  of 
any  great  antiquity.  Such  were  various  rites  suppressed 
by  our  catholic  and  apostolic  churches  at  the  Refor- 
mation, as  being  inconvenient  and  burdensome ;  the 
rebaptizing  of  heretics  or  the  ojjposite  practice ;  the 
Roman  jurisdiction   over   other   particular  churches^, 

the  earlier   testimonies   are   dis-  whether    St.    James's  words  are 

puted  by  Romanists  themselves,  not  to  be  understood  as  advice, 

If  it  were  supposed  that  the  sick  not  as  precept. — Tournely,  p.  74. 

might  receive  some  consolation  by  *  Melchior  Canus  observes  that 

this    rite,  it  is   plain    that  what  the  Lent  fast,  though  apostolical, 

Romanists  regard  as  its  principal  is   changeable. — De   loc.    Theol. 

object,   the  remission    of   sin,  is  lib.  iii.  c.  5. 

previously  obtained  by  repen-  ^  Though  the  precedence  of 
tance,  absolution,  and  the  recep-  the  Roman  church  above  the  rest 
tion  of  the  holy  eucharist.  In-  wasearly  and  universally  acknow- 
deed  it  is  disputed  among  them-  ledged,  and  does  not  appear  to 
selves  whether  the  unction  remits  have  been  originally  instituted 
any  but  venial  sins  (Bellarmin,  by  any  council ;  still  in  this  case 
I)e  Extr.  Unct.  lib.  i.  c.  vii ;  the  rule  of  St.  Augustine,  "Quod 
Tournely,  De  Extr.  Unctione,  universa  tenet  ecclesia,  nee  con- 
p.  68.)  or  whether  the  faithful  ciliis  institutum,  sed  semper  re- 
are  bound  by  any  divine  or  eccle-  tentum  est,  non  nisi  auctoritate 
siaalical  precept  to  receive  it,  and  apostolicatradilumrectissime  ere- 


CHAP.  IV.]        Variable  and  Invariable  Discipline.  73 

administering  milk  and  honey  after  baptism,  standing 
at  prayers  between  Easter  and  Pentecost.  In  fine, 
those  rites  which  are  not  mentioned  in  scripture,  and 
which  having  after  some  ages  been  admitted  into  the 
church,  are  found  by  experience  to  be  injurious  to 
christian  piety,  in  consequence  of  the  extreme  abuses 
connected  with  them,  ought  to  be  removed  by  the 
church.  Such  were  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  the  in- 
vocation of  saints,  and  the  use  and  honouring  of  images. 
The  practical  evils  of  such  rites  afford  an  abundant 
reason  to  justify  their  removal :  but  it  should  be  ob- 
served, that  piety  as  well  as  prudence  would  prevent 
us  from  aflSrming,  that  even  in  such  cases,  the  divine 
protection  had  been  so  far  withdrawn  from  the  catholic 
church,  as  to  permit  it  to  sanction  any  practice  which 
was  in  itself  idolatrous  or  antichristian.  The  church 
universal  might  not  always  be  aided  to  perceive  what 
was  most  ejepedient  for  the  promotion  of  piety  ;  but  this 
is  very  different  from  approving  or  instituting  what  was 
in  itself  gross  and  manifest  sin. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  "Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin  ^"  Now  faith 
can  only  be  founded  on  the  word  of  God ;  therefore 
whatever  is  not  done  by  the  word  of  God  is  sin. 

Answer.  The  word  faith  here  means  o.  full  persuasion 
that  what  we  do  is  laivful,  as  appears  from  the  context. 
But  this  persuasion  or  faith  is  immediately  attained,  on 
observing  that  the   law  of  God   does   not  forbid  that 


ditur,"  does  not  apply ;   because  stitution.     See  Part  VII. 
the  origin  of  this  precedency  may  ^  Rom.  xiv.  23.      See  Hooker, 

he  reasonably  accounted  for  with-  vol.  i.  p.  368.  ed.  Keble,  for  the 

out  supposing  any  apostolical  in-  puritan  use  of  this  text. 


74  Puritan  Objections.  [p.  m.  CH.  iv. 

action:  for  "sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  lawV 
Therefore  there  is  no  necessity  that  the  "  faith"  here 
meant,  should  rest  on  the  express  institutions  or  prece- 
dents of  scripture. 

II.  "  My  son,  if  thou  wilt  receive  my  words,  &c.  .  .so 
that  thou  incline  thine  ear  unto  wisdom.  .  .  .  then  shalt 
thou  understand  righteousness,  and  judgment,  and 
equity :  yea,  every  good  path  ^"  Therefore  no  action 
is  good  which  is  not  contained  in  scripture. 

Answe7\  I  admit  that  the  wisdom  here  spoken  of, 
and  which  enables  us  to  understand  every  good  path,  is 
contained  in  scripture :  but  with  regard  to  certain  good 
works,  ^.  e.  those  of  variable  rites  and  discipline,  it  fur- 
nishes general  rules  only. 

III.  "Whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of 
God  ^"  Now  no  man  can  glorify  God  except  by  obe- 
dience, and  obedience  has  respect  to  the  word  of  God. 
Therefore  every  action  of  man  must  be  directed  by  the 
word  of  God. 

Ansiver.  I  admit  that  every  action  of  man  ought  to 
be  directed  by  the  word  of  God,  but  this  direction,  in 
the  case  of  rites  and  discipline,  is  by  general  rules,  not 
by  specific  enactments. 

IV.  Several  passages  from  Augustine,  Tertullian, 
Jerome,  Hilary,  &c.  are  cited  "^j  in  which  the  absolute 
necessity  of  scripture  proof  is  insisted  on :  but  these 
passages  relate  to  articles  of  faith,  with  which  we  are 
not  here  concerned. 

V.  Tertullian,  in  arguing  against  the  lawfulness  of  sol- 
diers wearing  garlands,  asks,  "  where  it  is  commanded  in 
scripture" ;  in  reply  to  his  adversaries'  question,  "  where 

*  1  John  iii.  4.  "^  1  Cor.  x.  31.  Hooker,  p.  365. 

''  Prov.  ii.  1,  &c.      Hooker,  p.  ^  See  Hooker's  Works,  vol.  i. 

363.  p.  378,  &c.  ed.  Keble. 


OBJECT.]  Puritan  Objections.  75 

it  is  forbidden  in  scripture '."  Therefore  both  parties 
appealed  to  scripture  as  conclusive  in  the  question. 

Ansiver.  Tertullian  concludes  that  though  scripture  is 
silent  on  the  point,  tradition  establishes  his  position. 
His  adversaries'  appeal  to  scripture  did  not  imply  that 
every  lawful  custom  must  be  expressed  there,  but  that 
every  unlawful  custom  must  be  proved  unlawful  by  its 
opposition  to  the  word  of  God,  which  is  exactly  our 
principle. 

VI.  It  is  injurious  to  the  dignity  and  perfection  of 
scripture  as  the  word  of  God,  to  suppose  that  it  omits 
any  thing  which  may  be  convenient  or  profitable  to  the 
church. 

Answer.  The  dignity  and  utility  of  the  scripture 
would  have  been  less,  if  all  rites  and  disciplines  which 
might  be  useful  to  the  church  had  been  expressly  men- 
tioned. For  the  universality  of  the  church  in  respect 
of  time  and  place,  would  render  the  expediency  of 
things  exceedingly  variable.  Consequently,  scripture 
Avould  have  contained  many  things  obsolete  or  useless, 
and  instead  of  comprising  scarcely  anything  but  the 
unchangeable  word  of  God,  would  have  been  made  up 
in  a  great  degree  of  details  concerning  changeable  and 
non-essential  rites.  The  New  Testament  in  this  case 
would  have  apparently  resembled  the  Mosaic  law  ;  and 
the  liberty  of  the  church  from  the  law  of  ceremonial 
observances,  which  is  so  admirably  reconciled  with  the 
order  and  peace  of  Christianity,  by  leaving  her  free  to 
make  and  vary  her  rites  and  disciplines,  could  scarcely 
have  been  preserved  perfect,  without  permitting  a  licen- 
tiousness of  private  judgment  and  action  that  would 
have  filled  the  church  with  confusion. 

''  Tertullian,  De  Corona  Militis,  see  Hooker,  p.  387,  &c. 


76  Belation  of  the  Church  to  Faith.         [part.  iit. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  CHURCH   IN  RELATION  TO  FAITH. 

The  instruction  of  the  existing  church  is,  in  its  own 
age,  an  ordinary  and  divinely-appointed  external  means 
for  the  production  of  faith.  This  is  the  position  which 
I  am  about  to  maintain,  avoiding  on  one  side  the  error 
of  those  who  would  found  faith  solely  on  the  examina- 
tion of  each  individual,  and  on  the  other,  that  which 
would  represent  the  infallibility  of  the  existing  church 
as  the  only  ground  of  our  faith. 

In  speaking  of  the  church,  I  refer  not  only  to  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  but  to  all  the  brethren.  That 
the  former  were  commissioned  to  instruct  the  people 
of  God,  we  know  from  scripture ;  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations. .  .  .  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  **." 
"He  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and 
some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  till  we 
all  come,  in  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  of  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,"  &c.'' 
"The  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men  who 

^  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  "  Eph.  iv.  11,  12. 


CHAP,  v.]  Relation  of  the  Church  to  Faith.  77 

shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also ''."  "  Remember 
them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken 
unto  you  the  word  of  God,  whose  faith  follow**."  .... 
"  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit 
yourselves :  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that 
must  give  account  ^"  Many  similar  proofs  might 
be  adduced :  and  the  apostle  Paul  expressly  connects 
faith  with  christian  instruction ;  "  How  shall  they  be- 
lieve in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  And  how 
shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?  And  how  shall 
they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?  .  .  .  .  So,  then,  faith 
Cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God  ?' 
Thus  the  instructions  of  the  ministers  of  God  are  de- 
signed to  produce  faith. 

Besides  this,  christian  parents  are  to  teach  their 
children  the  gospel,  to  "  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord":"  all  christians  are  to 
love  their  neighbours  as  themselves ;  and  on  this  prin- 
ciple, "  Let  no  man  seek  his  own,  but  every  man 
another's  wealth '',"  they  are  to  "  comfort  themselves 
together  and  edifi/  one  another '."  In  fine,  the  gospel  is 
equally  the  privilege  of  all  the  faithful;  and  all  in  com- 
mon, according  to  their  degree,  are  exhorted  to  "  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered 
to  the  saints  \" 

The  church,  then,  is  a  society,  in  which  by  the  divine 
institution,  a  great  and  complicated  system  of  instruc- 
tion is  always  to  continue.  The  admonitions  of  preach- 
ers, the  words  of  parents  and  friends,  the  conversation 
and  acts  of  all  the  brethren,  all  combine  to  impress  the 


<=  2  Tim.  ii.  2.  e  Eph.  vi.  4. 

'■  Heb.  xiii.  7-  ^  1  Cor.  x.  24. 

«  Ibid.  17.  '1  Thess.  v.  11. 

*^  Rom.  X.  15 — 17.  '  Jude  o. 


78  Relation  of  the  Church  to  Faith.  [part  hi. 

Christian's  mind  (even  before  his  reason  is  yet  able  to 
exert  itself,)  with  the  truths  of  revelation. 

This  has  always  been  the  doctrine  of  the  church. 
Irenffius  says :  "  It  is  necessary  to  hear  the  presbyters 
of  the  church  who  have  succession  from  the  apostles, 
as  we  have  shown ;  who  with  the  succession  of  the  epis- 
copate have  received  the  certain  gift  of  truth  according 
to  the  Father's  wilP."  Tertullian :  "To  know  what 
the  apostles  taught,  that  is  what  Christ  revealed  to 
them,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  churches  which 
they  founded,  and  which  they  instructed  by  word  of 
mouth,  and  their  epistles,' "  &c.  Origen  :  "  If  the  law 
of  God  be  received  according  to  the  meaning  which 
the  church  teaches,  then  truly  it  transcends  all  human 
laws,  and  will  be  believed  to  be  truly  the  law  of  God'"." 
Cyprian :  "  Christ  says  to  his  apostles,  and  through 
them  to  all  ministers  who  by  a  regular  ordination  suc- 
ceeded to  them,  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  and  he 
that  despiseth  you  despisetli  meV  Augustine:  "The 
authority  of  the  scriptures  themselves  commends  the 
church ;  therefore  since  the  holy  scripture  cannot  de- 

^  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  Prsescript.  c.  xxi. 
iv.  c.  26.      "  Quapropter  eis  qui  '"  "Si  vero  secundum  banc  in- 

in  ecclesia  sunt,  presbyteris  obau-  telligentiara,  quam  docet  ecclesia, 

dire  oportet,  his  qui  successionem  accipiatur  Dei  lex,  tunc  plane  om- 

habent  ab  apostolis,  sicut  osten-  nes  humanas  supereminet  leges, 

dimus ;  qui  cum  episcopatus  sue-  et  vere  Dei  lex  esse  credetur." — 

cessione  charisma  veritatis  certum  Origen,  Horn.  vii.  in  Levit.  t.  ii. 

secundum  placitum  Patris  acce-  p.  226.  ed.  Benedict, 
perunt."  "  "  Qui  dicit  ad  apostolos    ac 

'   "  Quid  autem  praedicaverint,  per    hoc    ad    omnes    praspositos, 

id  est  quid  illis  Christus  revela-  qui  apostolis  vicaria  ordinatione 

verit,  et  hie  praescribam  non  aliter  succedunt :    qui    audit    vos,    me 

probari  debere,  nisi  per  easdem  audit;  et  qui  me  audit,  audit  eum 

ecclesias  quas  ipsi  apostoli  condi-  qui  me  misit.    Et  qui  rejicit  vos, 

derunt,  ipsi  eis  praedicando,  tam  me  rejicit,  et  eum  qui  me  misit." 

viva,  quod  aiunt  voce,  quam  per  — Cyprianus,  Epist.   ad  Florent. 

epistolas    postea." — Tertull.    De  Pupian.  Ixix.  ed.  Pamel. 


CHAP,  v.]  Relation  of  the  Church  to  Faith.  79 

ceive,  let  him  who  fears  to  be  misled  by  the  obscurity  of 
the  present  question  (concerning  baptism)  consult  con- 
cerning- it  the  same  church,  Avhich  without  any  ambi- 
guity the  holy  scripture  demonstrates  °." 

By  preaching,  the  apostles  converted  heathen  nations 
before  the  scriptures  were  written,  and  Irenseus  testifies 
that  in  his  time,  some  nations  believed  the  gospel  with- 
out being  able  to  read  the  scriptures  ^  So  it  has  been 
even  to  the  present  day,  for  the  majority  of  christians 
have  at  all  times  been  unable  to  institute  an  exact 
examination  into  scripture,  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
church  universal.  Their  faith  is,  and  must  necessarily 
be  founded  to  a  great  extent  on  the  testimony  of  their 
pastors,  of  the  learned,  and  of  their  brethren  generally. 
For  they  have  ordinarily  no  other  external  evidence 
of  the  history  of  Christianity,  of  the  authenticity,  in- 
spiration, and  uncorrupted  preservation  of  scripture,  of 
the  accuracy  of  translations,  of  the  universality  and 
antiquity  of  the  church,  of  the  nature  of  its  belief  in 
all  ages.  It  is  true  that  those  who  have  more  informa- 
tion are  able  to  search  the  scripture,  and  the  tradition 
of  the  universal  church  ;  but  perhaps  no  man  can  have 
leisure  to  trace  out  all  the  evidence  on  each  doctrine 
of  religion :  so  that  in  fine  the  faith  of  every  christian 
rests  more  or  less  on  the  testimony  or  instruction  of 
the  church.  This  instruction  is  the  first  external  means 

°  "  In  hac   re  a  nobis  tenetur  contr.   Cresconium,  lib.  i.  c.  33. 

Veritas,   cum    hoc   facimus   quod  t.  ix.  p.  407. 
universse   jam    placuit    ecclesias,  ''  Irenseus,    Adv.    Haeres.    lib, 

quam  ipsarum  scrijjturarum  com-  iii.  c  iv.      '*  Cui  ordinationi  as- 

niendat   auctoritas ;   ut   quoniam  sentiunt   multae   gentes  barbaro- 

sancta  scriptura  fallere   non  po-  rum  eorum  qui  in  Cbristum  cre- 

test,  quisquis  falli  metuit  hujus  dunt,  sine    cbarta    et   atramento 

obscuritate    quaestionis,  eamdem  scriptam  babentes  per  spiritum  in 

ecclesiam  de  ilia  consulat,  quam  cordibus  salutem,  et  veterem  tra- 

sineullaambiguitate  sancta  scrip-  ditionem  diligenter  custodientes, 

tura    demonstrat." August,  in  unum  Deum  credentes,"  &c. 

15 


80  Human  and  Divine  Faith.  [part  hi. 

of  faith  in  the  mind  of  a  christian :  it  accompanies  and 
influences  his  opinions  imperceptibly :  and  he  is  never 
finally  disengaged  from  it  but  by  scepticism.  Nor  may 
this  be  affirmed  only  of  the  church:  the  very  same 
thing  occurs  in  every  sect  which  exists  as  a  society. 

Such  is  the  mode  in  which  God  has  willed  that  faith 
should  generally  take  its  rise.  He  founds  it  universally 
on  sufficiently  credible  testimony,  and  in  proportion  as 
the  intellect  is  expanded  and  cultivated,  it  is  enabled 
to  perceive  a  wider  range  of  evidence :  but  the  cer- 
tainty of  faith  does  not  vary  with  the  amount  of  the 
understanding:  the  evidence  which  an  unlettered  man 
has  of  christian  truth  is  sufficient  to  produce  the 
firmest  faith. 

We  are  here  met  by  two  opposite  parties,  who  unite 
in  asserting  that  faith  supported  only  by  the  testimony 
of  fallible  men  cannot  be  firm  or  divine  faith ;  and  that 
such  faith  must  either  be  founded  solely  on  the  infal- 
lible authority  of  the  existing  church,  or  else  solely  on 
the  infallible  authority  of  scripture ''. 

I  reply  first,  that  divine  faith  is  determined  by  the 
object  on  which  it  rests,  that  is  to  say,  the  authority  of 
God  himself.  Human  faith  rests  on  the  veracity  of 
men.  If  therefore  christian  truth  is  believed  because 
God  hath  s'poken  it,  that  belief  is  divine,  by  whatsoever 
QYieans  it  may  have  been  produced.  The  patriarchs  and 
apostles  had  this  faith  by  means  of  immediate  inspira- 
tion, the  early  christians  by  means  of  the  apostles'  in- 
structions, others  by  means  of  the  church's  testimony, 
some  perhaps,  in  remote  regions,  only  by  means  of 
their  parents'  instruction,  some  by  means  of  the  scrip- 
tures only ;  but  in  all  these  cases,  divine  faith  exists 

■i  This  argument  was  common     their  opponents  in  the  16th  and 
to   Roman   controversialists   and     17th  centuries. 


CHAP,  v.]  Sufficiency  of  Human  Testimony.  81 

whenever  the  doctrines  of  revelation  are  believed/wa% 
on  the  ttuthoTity  of  God. 

Secondly,  the  testimony  of  the  church,  though  given 
by  fallible  men,  is  a  means  sufficient  to  produce  the 
firmest  conviction  that  certain  doctrines  were  revealed 
by  God. 

Those  professing  Christians  who  rashly  and  incon- 
siderately deny  this  position,  and  who  set  aside  human 
testimony  as  uncertain,  in  order  to  establish  some  sys- 
tem of  their  own,  do  not  suppose  that  this  mode  of 
reasoning  tends  to  the  subversion  of  Christianity  itself: 
but  it  does  so  very  plainly.     If  all  human  testimony  be 
uncertain,  then  all  the  external  evidence  for  the  genu- 
ineness, authenticity,  and  uncorrupted  preservation  of 
scripture  is  uncertain :  if  all  human  testimony  be  un- 
certain, then  all  the  evidence  of  the  perpetual  eojistence, 
miiversalitt/,  belief,  and  judgments  of  the  church,  is  un- 
certain.  Thus  there  is  no  external  evidence  of  religion 
left,  except  the  assumed   infallibility  of  the   existing 
church,  which  itself  can  only  be  known  to  exist  univer- 
sally, or  to  give  any  particular  evidence  on  any  point,  by 
hitman  testimony ;  and  therefore  on  this  principle  there 
is  no  foundation  for  religion  at  all.     But  the  principle 
does   not  stop  here,  it  would  render  all  the  facts  of 
history  doubtful,  would  lead  us  to  doubt  whether  Caesar 
or  Alexander  the  Great  ever  lived,  whether  -any  coun- 
try which  we  have  not  visited  ourselves  exists,  whether 
there  be  a  sovereign  if  we  have  not  ourselves  seen  him, 
or  magistrates  if  we  have  not  witnessed  their  appoint- 
ment '. 

Such  a  principle  then  is  opposed  to  common  sense. 

■"See  the  very  able  argument  Christianisme.ou  Conferences  sur 
of  M.  Fraysinnous,  bishop  of  la  Religion."  (Sur  leTemoignao-e, 
Hermopolis,  in  his  "  Defense  du     torn,  i.) 

VOL.  II.  G 


82  llesolution  of  Faith.  [part  hi. 

It  is  evident  that  liiiman  testimony  in  all  these  in- 
stances is  capable  of  prodiicing  so  high  a  degree  of 
certainty,  and  is  really  so  credible,  that  he  who  disputed 
it  would  be  justly  regarded  as  insane.  Hence  I  con- 
tend that  human  testimony  is  a  sufficient  means  of 
conducting  us  to  divine  faith,  by  assuring  us  infallibly 
of  the  fact  that  God  has  revealed  certain  truths. 

It  must  be  observed,  that  while  the  instruction  of 
the  existing  church  as  far  as  it  is  exercised  on  indivi- 
duals, is  an  ordinary  means  of  producing  faith ;  that 
faith  does  not  rest  entirely  or  finally  on  the  authority 
of  the  existing  church'.  This  authority  assures  us 
most  credibly  that  God  revealed  certain  truths,  that  the 
scriptures  which  we  have,  may  be  relied  on  as  his 
word,  that  the  christians  have  always  believed  as  we 
do.  Nor  are  we  prevented,  but  encouraged,  according 
to  our  opportunities,  to  confirm  our  faith  and  enlarge 
our  knowledge,  by  consulting  the  word  of  God  and  the 
records  of  the  church.  The  learned  will  at  last  rest  their 
faith  on  the  word  of  God,  that  is,  on  the  true  mean- 
ing of  scripture,  established  by  the  consent  of  all  ages 
and  the  irrefragable  judgments  of  the  universal  church*. 


'"  By  experience  we  all  know,  duction,  to  bring  us  to  the  dis- 

that    the    first    outward     motive  cerning  and  perfect  apprehension 

leading  men  so  to  esteem  of  the  of  divine  things,  but  is  not  the 

scriptures"  (that  they  are  the  ora-  ground  of  our  faith,  and  reason 

cles  of  God)  "  is  the  authority  of  of    believing."  —  Field,    Of   the 

God's  church.   For  when  we  know  Church,  book  iv.  c,  8. 

the  whole  church  of  God  hath  that  'Michael  Medina  (one  of  the 

opinion  of  the  scripture,  we  judge  theologians    at   Trent,)  attempts 

it  even  at  the  first  an  impudent  to  prove  that  the  ultimate  resolu- 

thing    for    any    man    bred    and  tion  of  faith  is  into  the  authority 

brought  up  in  the  church,  to  be  of  the  church. — De  recta  in  Deum 

of  acontrarymind  without  cause."  Fide,    lib.    v.    c.    11.     Melchior 

— Hooker's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  475,  Canus  denies   this,   and   teaches 

ed.    Keble.     "  The   authority   of  that  our  faith  rests  finally  on  the 

God's  church  prepareth  us  unto  authority    of    God.  —  De    locis 

the  faith,  and  serveth  as  an  intro-  Theol.  lib.   ii.   c.    8.     Stapleton 


CHAP,  v.]  Resolution  of  Faith.  83 

It  is  therefore  in  vain  objected,  that  if  the  testimony 
of  the  existing  chnrch  be  the  ordinary  means  of  faith, 
Luther  and  the  reformers  were  unjustifiable  in  disput- 
ing any  point  of  doctrine,  which  they  had  been  taught 
by  the  existing  Roman  church :  for  we  deny  that  faith 
is  founded  on  the  testimony  of  the  existing  church  as 
supernatural  or  infallible ;  and  if  in  any  point  the  more 
common  oj^inion  be  found  on  attentive  examination  in- 
consistent with  scripture  and  the  opinion  of  former 
ages,  it  may  be  rejected ;  because  the  testimony  of  the 
existing  church  derives  its  vahie  only  from  its  faith- 
fully representing  the  doctrine  of  scripture  and  of  an- 
tiquity. I  do  not  affirm,  however,  nor  is  it  to  be  be- 
lieved, that  the  whole  existing  church  would  unani- 
mously teach  what  was  contrary  to  the  articles  of  the 
faith  certainly  revealed  by  Christ;  and  the  Reformation 
professed  that  it  did  not  differ  in  any  such  points  from 
the  catholic,  or  even  the  Roman  church,  but  only  con- 
cerning matters  of  opinion  and  practice.  It  would 
also  be  in  vain  to  object  to  our  doctrine,  that  we  can- 
not make  an  act  of  divine  faith  before  we  first  open 
the  scriptures  to  the  following  effect:  "As  I  believe 
that  God  is,  so  I  believe  that  this  scripture  is  his 
word;"  and  that  such  an  act  can  only  be  made  by 
those  who  receive  the  scripture  on  the  authority  of  the 
church  as  infallible " :  for  it  has  been  already  shown 
that  the  testimony  of  the  church  when  unanimous,  as 
it  is  in  this  case,  is  capable  of  producing  the  most  per- 
fect conviction,  though  it  be  supposed  nothing  more 
than  human  testimony. 


also    says  :    "  Ecclesiae  vox  non  mens  fidelis." — Lib,   viii.  Princ. 

est  ultima  fidei  resolutio,  ita  ut  cap,  20, 

in   ea  tanquam    in    authoritatem  "  Bossuet,  Conference  avec  M. 

supremam  desinat  in  eaque  sistat  Claude,  CEuvres,  t.  xxiii.  p,  300. 

G  2 


84  Argument  in  a  Circle.  [part  m. 

We  are  not  guilty  of  arguing  in  a  circle  when  we 
prove  the  church  from  scripture.  We  believe  that 
a  falsehood  cannot  have  obtained  universal  currency 
among  the  learned  and  the  good,  among  contradictory 
sects  and  parties.  We  think  it  rational  to  believe  the 
testimony  of  all  men  to  that  which  most  men  can  have 
no  interest  in  supporting  if  it  be  not  true.  We  be- 
lieve on  that  testimony,  that  the  Bible  is  genuine,  au- 
thentic, uncorrupted,  that  it  has  always  been  received 
by  christians  as  we  find  it,  that  it  is  fairly  translated. 
And  from  the  plain  language  of  that  record  we  deduce 
the  spiritual  authority  of  the  church.  Our  adversaries, 
in  their  eagerness  to  establish  that  authority,  assume  it 
to  be  the  only  proof  of  scripture,  and  then  prove  it 
from  scripture,  thus  finally  resting  the  proof  of  the 
church's  authority  on  the  church's  authority :  a  mode 
of  argument  which  is  perfectly  absurd,  and  which 
Roman  theologians  are  obliged  instantly  to  relinquish, 
when  they  attempt  to  defend  Christianity  against  infi- 
dels. They  are  then  compelled  to  adopt  our  course,  to 
commence  with  the  testimony  of  the  church  as  morally 
certain,  but  not  as  infallible  by  the  assistance  of  God ; 
and  having  established  revelation  on  this  most  firm  and 
rational  basis,  to  employ  it  in  proof  of  the  church's 
divine  privileges  ^. 

"  Cardinal  de  la  Luzerne,  in  their  authenticity  as  a  matter 
replying  to  the  charge  of  arguing  agreed  on  both  sides.  //  we  had 
in  a  circle,  observes  :  "  It  is  false  to  prove  this  authenticity,  we 
that  we  prove  the  authenticity  of  should  indeed  argue  from  the  tes- 
the  books  and  the  true  meaning  of  timony  of  the  church,  7iot  of  the 
the  texts  we  employ,  only  by  the  chiirch  as  an  infallible  judge,  but 
infallible  authority  of  the  judge  as  a  constant  and  perpetual  wit- 
of  controversies.  With  regard  to  ness  since  the  publication  of  those 
authenticity,  we  only  employ,  to  books  ;  and  as  having  always  re- 
prove infallibility,  passages  taken  garded  them  as  her  law.  It  is 
from  books  which  the  protestants  thus  that  we  are  sure  that  the 
receive  as  we  do.     We  suppose  Alcoran   was  truly  the  work  of 

15 


CHAP,  v.]     Controversy  between  Bossuet  and  Claude.  85 

The  controversy  between  Bossuet  and  M.  Claude, 
Calvinist  minister  of  Charenton ''j  in  which  the  for- 
mer had  evidently  the  advantage,  turned  very  much 
on  two  points ;  first,  whether  belief  founded  on  human 
testimony  must  necessarily  be  human  and  uncertain : 
secondly,  whether  it  is  essential  to  true  faith  to  be 
founded  on  personal  ejoamination.  Claude  incautiously 
admitted  the  former :  whence  Bossuet  inferred,  not  un- 
reasonably, that  the  Protestants  have  nothing  but  an 
uncertain  faith  in  scripture,  which  is  the  very  founda- 
tion of  their  whole  religion.  Claude  also  maintained 
the  latter  in  the  affirmative,  which  enabled  Bossuet  to 
argue  that  protestants  must  begin  by  examining,  and 
therefore  doubting  the  authority  of  the  scripture  ;  that 
they  must  still  examine  after  the  universal  church  has 
decided ;  and  in  fine,  that  a  private  person,  a  woman, 
or  any  ignorant  person,  may  and  ought  to  believe  that 
he  may  happen  to  understand  God's  word  better  than 
a  whole  council,  though  assembled  from  the  four  quar- 
ters of  the  world,  and  than  all  the  rest  of  the  church. 
It  is  curious  however  to  observe,  that  Bossuet  evaded 
for  a  long  time  any  reply  to  Claude's  objection,  that 

Mahomet.     It  is  thus  we  know  committed  to  writing  what  they 

the  authenticity  of  all  books  what-  were    commanded    by    God    to 

soever." — Dissert,  sur  les  Eglises  teach  everywhere." — (Tract,    de 

Cath.  et  Prot.  t  ii.  p.  263,  264.  Eccl.    p.   107.)     After  this,   the 

This   is   precisely   our   mode    of  church,  he  says,  is  proved  from 

argument.      In  the  same  manner  scripture,  and  here  certainly  is  no 

Delahogue  says:  "When  we  have  vicious  circle  :  but  how  absurd  is 

to  do  with  adversaries  who  deny  it  then  to  turn  upon  us,  and  call 

both    scripture    and    the    church  on  us  to  admit  doctrines  solely 

we    argue   differently.     First  me  on  the  infallible  authority  of  the 

prove  the  authenticity  of  the  scrip-  church,  because  we  have  no  other 

tures  in  the  same  way  as  it  is  cus-  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  scrip- 

tomary  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  ture  except  that  infallible  autho- 

other  works  :  then  we  prove  that  rity. 

their  authors  were  inspired,  who  "  Ut  supra. 


86  Artifices  of  Roman  Controversialists.       [part  hi. 

Romanists  themselves  are  obliged  to  rest  their  faith  in 
the  church  on  human  testimony.  At  last  he  appeals  to 
the  fact  of  the  church's  "perpetual  and  uninterrupted 
existence,"  as  alone  sufficient  to  give  her  an  "inviolable 
authority  ;"  forgetting  that  this  very  fact  is  only  proved 
by  human  testimony. 

It  is  time  that  these  disputes  as  to  the  credibility  of 
human  testimony  should  cease  between  professing 
christians.  Those  who  deny  its  credibility  must  deny 
every  fact  of  history.  Those  who  act  on  it  in  all  the 
concerns  of  life,  cannot,  without  inconsistency,  reject  the 
overpowering  mass  of  evidence  which  attests  equally 
the  truth  of  Christianity,  of  the  scriptures,  and  of  all 
the  articles  of  our  faith.  The  opponents  of  human  tes- 
timony should  only  be  found  amongst  the  followers  of 
the  infidels  Tindal  and  Hume. 

In  controversies  with  professing  christians  w^e  have 
a  right  to  assume  the  truth  of  revelation,  the  authenti- 
city, genuineness,  and  inspiration  of  scripture :  if  these 
be  denied,  we  no  longer  argue  with  christians.  Ro- 
manists, who  in  controversies  concerning  christian 
faith,  call  on  us  to  'prom  the  authenticity,  genuineness, 
and  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  should  be  met  by  a 
positive  refusal;  because  this  is  not  a  point  in  contro- 
versy between  us,  and  because  their  own  authors  adopt 
precisely  our  arguments  in  proving  scripture  against 
the  infidels.  Romanists  themselves  prove  scripture 
exactly  as  we  do:  and  it  is  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
grave  and  honest  controversy,  to  question  or  deny 
what  both  parties  have  already  unanimously  proved 
and  agreed  on.  Let  Romanists  admit  that  the 
whole  line  of  argument  employed  by  Bossuet,  Huet, 
Bergier,    Hooke,    Fraysinnous,    La    Mennais,    &c.    in 


CHAP,  v.]      Artifices  of  Roman  Controversialists.  87 

proof  of  scripture  is  invalid,  and  we  may  then  meet 
them,  but  not  as  members  of  the  Roman  Obedience, 
not  as  believers. 

The  mode  of  argument  adopted  by  too  many  Roman- 
ists after  Petavius,  the  Walenburghs,  and  others,  is,  to 
throw  doubt  and  uncertainty  on  every  proof  of  the 
catholic  faith,  except  those  which  are  founded  on  the 
infallible  judgments  of  the  church.  Thus  they  dispute 
all  the  usual  proofs  of  the  authenticity,  inspiration,  and 
uncorrupted  preservation  of  scripture,  in  order  to  esta- 
blish the  necessity  of  believing  the  church.  With  the 
same  intention  Petavius  denied  that  the  fathers  before 
the  synod  of  Nice  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity " ; 
and  if  Romish  theologians  of  this  school  followed  out 
their  own  principle,  they  would  dispute  the  genuineness 
and  uncorrupted  preservation  of  all  the  monuments  of 
catholic  tradition  ;  would  suggest  that  the  decrees  of  the 
oecumenical  synods  may  have  been  corrupted,  and  thus 
in  fine,  rest  the  faith  of  christians  on  an  authority 
whose  judgment  there  is  no  means  of  ascertaining. 
As  I  have  already  said,  the  scriptures,  the  monuments 
of  tradition,  and  therefore  the  catholic  faith  and  the  ca- 
tholic church  stand  or  fall  together.  If  the  scripture  be 
uncertain,  tradition,  the  fathers,  the  councils  are  equally 
so :  if  tradition  be  uncertain,  so  is  scripture. 

"^  It  is  stated  on  the  authority     Works,   vol.   v.  p.   257.   Oxford 
of  Bossuet  that  Petavius  retract-     edit, 
ed    this    opinion.  —  Waterland's 


88  The  Principle  of  Examination.  [part  hi. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON  THE  ALLEGED  NECESSITY  OF  EXAMINATION  AS  A 
FOUNDATION    OF    FAITH. 

It  has  been  maintained  by  some  persons  among  the 
opponents  of  the  Roman  ehnrch,  that  faith,  in  order  to 
be  real  and  saving,  must  be  founded  solely  on  indivi- 
dual examination  of  scripture.  Hence  they  would  send 
every  individual  to  the  scripture  to  form  his  own  reli- 
gion from  it,  without  in  any  degree  prejudicing  his 
mind  by  human  creeds  and  systems,  as  they  call  them. 

We  do  not  doubt  that  it  is  desirable  for  all  christ- 
ians to  read  the  scriptures,  for  the  confirmation  of  their 
faith  and  the  increase  of  their  knowledge :  but  I  deny 
that  it  is  essential  to  faith,  that  it  be  founded  on  per- 
sonal examination  of  scripture  ;  it  is  sufficient  if  by  any 
testimony,  the  mind  be  convinced  that  the  doctrines  of 
revelation  were  in  fact  revealed,  and  believe  them  on 
the  authority  of  God. 

I  have  already  proved  that  the  testimony  of  the 
church  is  an  ordinary  means  by  which  faith  is  pro- 
duced :  therefore  personal  examination  of  scripture 
cannot  be  the  only  essential  means ''.     If  it  were,  the 

^  See  some    most  just   obser-     versity  of  Oxford,  Sermon  III.  on 
vations    on    this   subject   in    Dr.      the  Authority  of  the  Church. 
Hook's  Sermons  before  the  Uni- 


CHAP.  VI.]  Principle  of  Examination.  89 

majority  of  mankind  must  at  all  times  have  been 
beyond  the  possibility  of  believing.  The  children  of 
christians  could  have  no  faith  until  they  were  of  age 
to  read  and  examine  the  scriptures ;  they  could  not 
even  believe  the  divine  authority  of  the  scriptures,  be- 
fore they  had  examined  them.  The  christian  ministry 
instituted  by  God  himself,  would  be  not  only  useless 
but  injurious;  because  their  instructions  could  not  fail  to 
interfere  with  the  perfect  freedom  of  each  individual's 
examination.  Creeds  and  articles  of  faith,  and  even 
the  association  of  men  in  any  christian  society,  must 
be  also  regarded  as  prejudicial ;  because  the  current  no- 
tions of  a  society  cannot  fail  to  exercise  an  influence  on 
the  opinions  of  its  members.  It  were  easy  to  point  out 
other  evils  and  absurdities  which  would  follow  from 
this  principle ;  but  they  will  readily  suggest  them- 
selves. I  now  turn  to  the  proofs  on  which  this  error  is 
sustained. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Christ  recommended  to  the  Jews  to  found  their 
faith  on  the  scriptures  only.  "  Search  the  scriptures, 
for  they  testify  of  me ""." 

Answer.  Our  Lord  admonished  the  unbelieving  Jews 
to  search  the  scriptures,  that  is,  to  examine  the  prophe- 
cies which  spake  so  plainly  of  him.  But  besides  theses 
he  had  just  referred  to  other  proofs  of  his  mission  ;  the 
testimony  of  John,  his  own  miracles,  and  the  Father's 
voice  ^  Would  not  the  Jews  have  had  true  faith,  if 
witJiout  seao^ching  the  scriptures  they  had  already  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  for  "  his  works'  sake  ?''  Certainly  they 
would :    and   therefore   om*   Lord  did  not  mean  that 

^  John  V.  39.  '^  Ibid.  33—37. 


90  Principle  of  Examination.  [object. 

"  searching  the  scriptures"  was  the  only  means  of  ob- 
taining faith. 

II.  "  These  were  more  noble  than  those  in  Thessalo- 
nica,  in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness 
of  mind,  and  searched  the  scriptures  daily  whether 
those  things  were  so.  Therefore  many  of  them  be- 
lieved ^" 

Answer.  (1.)  We  read  that  three  thousand  souls  be- 
lieved on  the  apostle's  ivo7'ds%  therefore  it  was  not 
essential  to  examine  the  prophecies  before  they  be- 
lieved. ('2.)  The  Jews  of  Berea  might  well  be  called 
"  more  noble  than  those  of  Thessalonica,"  for  the  latter 
had  driven  away  Paul  and  Silas  from  their  city  \  They 
are  praised,  not  because  they  founded  their  faith  solely 
on  an  examination  of  the  prophecies ;  but  because  they 
were  willing  to  receive  the  word,  and  to  employ  every 
means  for  attaining  the  truth. 

III.  "  From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  scriptures, 
which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation, 
through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus "."  Therefore  the  scrip- 
tures alone  are  a  sufficient  foundation  of  faith. 

Answer.  I  admit  that  the  scriptures  are  a  sufficient 
foundation  of  faith,  and  that  he  who  has  truly  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus,  will  be  made  wise  unto  salvation  by  the 
scriptures ;  but  I  deny  that  personal  examination  of 
scripture  is  the  sole  and  essential  foundation  of  fiiith,  so 
that  he  who  does  not  derive  his  faith  from  such  cd'ami-' 
nation,  is  devoid  of  faith. 

IV.  It  is  the  principle  of  the  Reformation  that  faith 
is  only  to  be  founded  on  scripture.     The  Church  of 


''  Acts  xvii.  11.  f  Acts  xvii.  5—10. 

*  Actsii.  41.  K  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 


p.  Ill,  CH.  VI,]       Principle  of  Examination.  91 

England  sends  her  members  to  the  Bible,  to  examine 
whether  her  religion  is  true  or  false. 

Ansiver.  (1.)  The  Reformation  maintained  that  all 
articles  of  faith  should  be  proved  from  scripture ;  but  it 
did  not  affirm  that  each  individual  must  himself  exa- 
mine scripture,  before  he  believed  any  doctrine.  On 
the  contrary,  every  branch  of  the  Reformation  taught 
children  to  believe  the  articles  of  the  christian  faith, 
before  they  could  possibly  examine  them.  (2.)  The 
Church  of  England  sends  her  members  to  the  scrip- 
ture, not  because  she  doubts  her  own  faith,  or  considers 
them  at  liberty  to  doubt  it ;  but  in  order  to  confirm  and 
enlarge  that  faith  which  she  has  taught  them.  If  they 
misinterpret  scripture  and  fall  into  obstinate  heresy, 
she  excommunicates  them*",  and  declares  that  they 
shall  "  without  doubt  perish  everlastingly  '." 

''  Canons  1603  and  1640.  '  Athanasian  Creed. 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  IV. 


ON  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  MATTERS  OF 
FAITH  AND  DISCIPLINE. 


A    TREATISE 


THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  IV. 

ON  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


INTRODUCTION. 

In  the  preceding  part  I  have  treated  the  general  doc- 
trine of  christians  in  all  ages  as  a  testimony  which 
cannot  reasonably  be  rejected,  and  have  briefly  touched 
on  the  office  of  the  existing  church  in  preserving  faith 
by  her  instructions  :  but  it  now  remains  to  consider 
the  authority  of  the  church  properly  so  called  ;  namely, 
the  right  of  the  church  to  judge  in  matters  of  faith  and 
discipline,  and  the  obligation  which  those  judgments 
have  on  individuals. 

I  shall,  in  the  first  place,  trace  the  right  of  the 
church  universal  to  judge  in  matters  of  christian  faith 
and  morality,  and  the  mode  and  authority  of  those 
judgments  ;  and  then  descend  to  the  various  instances  in 
which  such  judgments  have  been  made  or  alleged  ;  se- 
condly, I  shall  examine  the  authority  and  nature  of 
judgments  made  by  particular  churches ;  and,  thirdly, 
observe  the  authority  of  the  church  in  questions  of 
discipline,  and  resolve  various  questions  connected  with 
the  preceding  subjects. 


96 


The  Church  a  Judge  in  Controversies,      [part  iv. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  CHURCH  IS  A  JUDGE  IN  RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSIES. 


In  maintaining  the  right  of  the  church  to  judge  in  con- 
troversies, it  is  necessary  to  limit  her  authority  to  its 
proper  object.  It  is  not,  then,  supposed  by  any  one, 
that  the  church  is  authorized  to  determine  questions 
relating  to  ])hilosophy,  science,  legislation,  or  any  other 
subjects  beyond  the  doctrines  of  Revelation  :  her  office 
relates  entirely  to  the  truth  once  revealed  by  Jesus 
Christ  \ 

The  position  which  I  am  about  to  maintain  is,  that 
the  whole  catholic  church  of  Christ,  consisting  of  pas- 
tors and  people,  and  every  portion  of  it,  are  divinely 


^  This  is  admitted  by  Roman 
theologians.  "  Requiritur  ut  res 
sit  defnibilis  de  fide,  videlicet  ut 
sit  mediate  vel  immediate  reve- 
lata.  Unde  si,  praeter  institu- 
tionemsuara,  Concilium  Generale 
pronuntiaret  circa  questiones  phy- 
sicas,mathematicas,  ad  studia  le- 
gum  pertinentes,  a  prudentia,  non 
vero  a  scientia  divina  pendentes, 
illius  decreta  ad  fidem  minime 
pertinerent,  quia  non  haberent 
pro  objecto  aliquid  revelatum. 
Ita  Melchior  Canus,  Bellarminus, 


Veron,  in  sua  regula  fidei,  Bos- 
suet,  in  Defens.  declar.  part.  i. 
1.  3.  c.  i.  Tournely,  Delahogue, 
p.  216,  &c.  Hinc  etiam  si  con- 
cederetur  concilium  Lateranense, 
i.  et  iv.  erravisse  approbando  ex- 
peditiones  vulgo  dictas  les  Croi- 
sades,  nihil  inde  sequeretur."— 
Bouvier,  Episc.  Cenomanensis, 
Tract,  de  Vera  Eccl.  p.  235.  See 
also  Delahogue,  De  Ecclesia,  p. 
210,  after  Veron;  Melchior  Ca- 
nus, Loc.  Theol.  lib.  ii.  c.  7. 
proposit.  3  juxta  fin. 


CHAP.    I.]       The  Clnirch  a  ,Tialf/e  in  Controversies.  97 

authorized  to  judge  iu  (juestions  of  religious  contro- 
versy ;  tliat  is,  to  determine  whether  a  disputed  doe- 
trine  is,  or  is  not,  a  part  of  .revelation  ;  and  to  separate 
from  their  religious  communion  those  individuals  who 
oppose  themselves  to  the  common  judgment. 

I.  It  is  admitted  by  all  the  opjDonents  of  church 
authority  who  believe  in  revelation,  that  individual 
christians  are  authorized  by  God,  to  judge  what  are 
the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  therefore,  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  many,  or  all  christians,  /.  e.  the  church 
collectively,  must  have  the  same  right.  Whatever  texts 
or  arguments  establish  the  right  of  individuals  to  judge, 
establish  directly  that  of  the  church.  If  the  church  be 
denied  the  right  of  judging  in  religious  controversies,  it 
would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  individuals  have  it ; 
and,  therefore,  it  would  follow  that  revelation  was 
given  in  vain,  since  no  one  was  authorized  to  judge 
what  it  consisted  of:  thus  heresy  and  infidelity  would 
not  merely  be  free  from  censure,  but,  in  fact,  could  not 
exist.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  right  of  indi- 
viduals to  judge,  directly  establishes  that  of  the  church. 

II.  The  scrii)ture  says,  "  If  there  come  any  unto  you 
and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your 
house  ;  neither  bid  him  God  speed  :  for  he  that  biddoth 
him  God  speed,  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds  ''."  "If  any 
man  teach  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome 
words,  even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
to  the  doctrine  Avhicli  is  according  to  godliness  . .  .  from 
such  withdraw  thyself  \"  "  We  command  you,  bre- 
thren, in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye 
withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh 
disorderly,   and  not  after  the   tradition  which   lie  re- 

''  2  John,  vcr.  2.  '•  I  Tim    vi    :]. 

VOL.  II.  II 


98  The  Church  a  Judge  m  Controversies.      [part  iv. 

ceived  of  us ''."  "  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the  churcli, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  pub- 
lican '."  These  and  many  other  texts  establish  the 
rig-ht,  or  rather  obligation,  of  christians  to  preserve 
their  religion,  by  holding  no  communion  with  open 
sinners,  false  prophets,  antichrists,  heretics,  and  those 
who  teach  what  is  contrary  to  the  Gospel;  a  right, 
which  is  most  fully  admitted  by  all  opponents  of  the 
church,  and  on  which  alone  they  can  pretend  to  justify 
their  own  dissent  or  heresy.  If,  then,  all  christians 
have  the  right  to  separate  from  their  communion  those 
who  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  the  right 
of  the  church  (which  is  the  same  tiling)  is  directly 
established. 

III.  The  same  power  is  specially  and  peculiarly  given 
to  the  ministers  of  religion.  They  are  authorized  to 
teach  the  truth,  and  therefore  to  discriminate  it  from 
error,  and  to  oppose  themselves  to  false  teachers,  and 
separate  them  from  their  communion.  This  appears 
from  the  following  texts  :  "  Go  ye  and  teach  all  na- 
tions . . .  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you  V  "Of  your  ownselves 
shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things  to  draw  away 
disciples  after  them  ;  therefore  watch  '^,"  &c.  "  I  be- 
sought thee  still  to  abide  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into 
Macedonia,  that  thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they 
teach  no  other  doctrine ''."  "  The  things  that  thou  hast 
heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit 
thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
also  '."     "  That  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both 


^  2  Thess.  iii.  G.  g  Acts  xx.  30. 

^  Matt,  xviii.  17.  M  Tim.  i.  3. 

f  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  *  2  Tim.  i.  9. 


CHAP.  I.]       The  Church  a  Jmhje  in  Controversies.  99 

to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayersJ."  "A  man 
that  is  a  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition, 
reject  ^"  &cc. 

IV.  "The  chnrch  of  the  HvingGod"  is  "the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth  ' ;"  but  if  she  were  not  authorized 
to  judge  what  the  truth  is,  and  to  separate  herself  from 
false  teachers,  she  could  neither  teach  nor  support 
the  truth,  and  therefore  could  not  be  its  "  pillar  and 
ground." 

V.  "  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of 
peace,  as  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints '" ;"  but  if 
the  church  might  not  define  what  her  own  faith  is, 
and  separate  herself  from  the  communion  of  a  few 
turbulent  false  teachers  and  heretics,  "whose  mouths 
must  be  stopped,  who  subvert  whole  houses","  there 
would  be  interminable  discord  and  confusion  within  the 
church. 

VI.  The  church  is  a  society  instituted  by  God  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  and  propagating  his  revelation, 
by  which  is  the  way  of  salvation.  Therefore  it  must 
be  furnished  with  what  is  essential  to  the  very  object 
for  which  it  was  instituted  ;  and  consequently  must,  as 
a  society,  be  authorized  to  judge  what  the  truths  of 
revelation  are.  I  shall  not  multiply  similar  arguments 
from  the  unity  of  the  church  and  the  promises  of  Christ, 
but  conclude  from  these,  that  the  church  of  Christ  is 
divinely  authorized  to  judge  whether  controverted  doc- 
trines are  those  of  the  Gospel,  or  contrary  to  the 
Gospel,  and  to  provide  for  the  security  of  religion,  by 
separating  from  her  communion  those  who  obstinately 
contradict  the  revealed  truth. 

J  Tit.  i.  9.  •"  1  Cor.  xiv.  23. 

^  Tit.  iii.  10.  "  Tit.  i.  11. 

'  1  Tim.  iii.  1."). 

H  -2 


100  The  Church  a  Jv.ihje  in  Controversies.      [part  i v. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  universal  practice 
of  professing  christians  in  every  age.  We  know  from 
Irena3us  and  others,  that  the  Christians  avoided  all 
intercourse  with  heretics".  Heretics  themselves,  in 
forsaking  the  communion  of  the  church,  acknowledged 
the  same  right  of  judgment.  As  soon  as  heresies 
arose  within  the  church  itself,  so  soon  did  the  church 
exercise  this  right.  The  pastors  of  the  church,  either 
separately  or  conjointly,  published  their  judgments  in 
condemnation  of  heresies,  or  confirmation  of  the  truth  ; 
and  these  being  aj^proved  and  acted  on  by  the  faithful 
and  their  pastors,  in  every  part  of  the  world  ;  the  judg- 
ment of  the  universal  church  was  made  known.  The 
decisions  of  many  hundreds  of  synods,  not  only  of  the 
church,  but  even  of  heretics,  such  as  Arians,  Donatists, 
&c.  establish  suflflciently  the  universal  conviction,  that 
the  church  was  authorized  to  judge  in  controversies  of 
faith.  This  principle,  indeed,  has  even  been  adopted 
by  all  denominations  of  professing  christians  in  modern 
times.  The  Presbyterians  decide  controversies  of  faith 
in  their  synods.  The  Westminster  Confession  declared 
that  "  It  belongeth  to  synods  and  councils  ministerially 
to  determine  controversies  of  faith,  and  cases  of  con- 
science P."  Owen,  and  other  Independents,  claim  for 
particular  churches  the  right  of  judging  in  matters 
of  faith,  and  of  expelling  heretics  ;  and  for  the  churches 
collectively,  the  right  of  judging  particular  churches, 
and  separating  them  from  communion  if  heretical ''.  It 
is  the  same  with  every  other  sect. 

The  Lutherans  acknowledged  the  right  of  the  church 


"  Irenaeus  adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iii.      clu  p.  xxxi.  art.  3. 
c.  3.  cited  above,  Vol.  I.  p.  96.  ''Owen's  Gospel  Church,  chap- 

•*  Westmiiisler    Confession,  ters  x.  and  xi 


CHAP.   I.]       The  Church  a  Judge  in  Controversies.  )0I 

to  judge  in  controversies:  they  appealed  to  the  judg- 
ment of  a  general  council  for  forty  or  fifty  years ' : 
they,  themselves,  in  councils,  condemned  the  Calvinists, 
Zuinglians,  Papists,  and  innumerable  heretics  \  The 
Calvinists  of  France  arranged  their  church  government 
in  successive  gradations  of  synods,  of  vi^hich  the  highest 
decided  controversies  in  faith.  Those  of  Holland,  in 
the  synod  of  Dort,  condemned  the  Arminians :  the 
reformed  confessions  approved  of  the  ancient  judg- 
ments of  the  church*.  In  fine,  it  is  needless  to  speak  of 
the  sentiments  and  practice  of  the  Oriental,  Roman, 
and  British  churches,  as  to  the  right  of  the  church  to 
judge  in  controversies  of  faith.  Our  churches  expressly 
aiBrm  that  "  the  church  has  authority  in  controversies 
of  faith  ^."  They  exercised  this  authority  in  framing 
articles  of  doctrine,  approving  of  the  ancient  creeds, 
condemning  the  heresy  of  Socinus '",  excommunicating 
those  who  affirm  the  Articles  to  be  superstitious  and 
erroneous  "" :  in  fine,  their  constant  law  and  practice  has 
been  to  separate  from  their  communion  all  who  are 
convicted  of  heresy,  according  to  the  prescribed  forms. 
This  universal  practice  of  the  church,  and  of  all  reli- 
gious communities,  renders  it  superfluous  to  adduce 
the  accordant  sentiments  of  theologians  in  different 
ages.  It  also  renders  any  attempt  to  adduce  the  oppo- 
site opinions  of  individuals  perfectly  futile. 

The  right  of  the  church  to  judge  in  controversies, 
and  to  act  on  her  judgments,  by  separating  those  who 
oppose  them,   is  all  I  here-  contend  for.     What  the 


■■  See  Part  I.  c.  xi.  s.  1.  "'  Article  XX. 

'  Ibid.  s.  3.  *  In  the  synod,  a.  d.  1640. 

'  Ibid.  s.  3.  "  Canon  v. 


10-2  Modes  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

mdhority  of  those  judgments  is,  strictly  speaking,  i.  e. 
what  degree  of  respect  individuals  are  bound  to  pay  to 
them,  is  a  very  different  question,  which  I  shall  consider 
presently. 


CHAPTER  11. 

ON    THE    MODES    OF    ECCLESIASTICAL    JUDGMENTS. 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  maintain,  that  the  judg- 
ment of  the  church  in  a  controversy  cannot  be  made 
known,  unless  each  individual  declares  his  sentiments 
by  some  formal  and  public  act.  In  every  assembly, 
that  resolution  which  is  proposed  in  the  name  of  all, 
and  which  is  opposed  by  none,  or  only  a  few,  is  ac- 
counted to  be  the  judgment  of  the  remainder.  If  a  law 
be  made  by  the  rulers  of  a  commonwealth,  which,  being 
published  to  all,  is  notoriously  approved  by  many  within 
tliat  commonwealth,  and  opposed  by  none,  it  is  evident 
that  all  unite  in  giving  it  assent.  If  in  any  society 
a  sentence  of  exclusion  is  passed  against  certain  indi- 
viduals, by  one  or  more  of  the  members  in  the  name  of 
all,  the  rest  being  present  and  showing  no  sign  of  dis- 
approbation, but,  on  the  contrary,  receiving  and  acting 
on  the  sentence,  that  sentence  is  evidently  authorized 
by  all.  In  the  same  manner,  the  judgment  of  the  church 
may  be  abundantly  made  known  by  the  formal  public 
acts  of  a  few  of  its  members  ;  approved,  accepted,  and 
acted  on  by  the  remainder.  The  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles themselves  confirms  this.   When  "  all  the  multitude 


CHAP.  II.]       Modes  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments.  103 

had  given  audience  to  Barnabas  and  Saul,"  and  when 
several  of  the  apostles  and  elders  had  delivered  their 
judgments,  a  letter  was  written  to  the  brethren  of 
Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia,  in  the  name  of  the  apostles, 
elders,  and  brethren''^  concerning  the  matter  in  con- 
troversy; thus  declaring  the  approbation  of  the  mul- 
titude of  the  faithful  at  Jerusalem,  though  there  is  no 
evidence  that  they  individually  expressed  their  judg- 
ment, nor  perhaps  were  in  any  way  consenting,  except 
by  silence.  In  the  same  manner  the  judgment  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  in  the  case  of  Arius,  was  fairly  es- 
teemed the  judgment  of  the  whole  church  of  Christ, 
because  it  was  made  known  to,  approved,  and  acted 
on  by  all  christians. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  are  there  any  members  of  the 
church  peculiarly  emjiowered  to  issue  formal  judgments 
or  decrees  in  controversies  of  religion,  or  is  every  indi- 
vidual equally  authorized  to  do  so  ?     I  reply  that 

The  rigid  of  making  public  and  formal  decrees,  in  con- 
troversies  of  religion,  is  vested  in  the  minister's  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

I  argue  this  from  the  nature  of  the  office  of  the  mi- 
nisters of  Christ,  who  are  leaders  of  the  church  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,  "  ensamples  to  the  flock  ^"  . . .  The  office 
of  every  pastor  is  to  be  "  an  eocam'ple  of  the  believers  . . . 
in  faith "."  The  duty  of  the  faithful  is  to  attend  to 
their  admonitions :  "  Remember  them  which  have  the 
rule  over  you,  who  have  Sf>oken  unto  you  the  word  of 
God,  whose  faith /b//oz^  'V  ^  "  Obey  them  that  have  the 
rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they  watch  for 
your  souls  ^"    They  alone  are  the  watchmen  of  God's 

*  Acts  XV.  23.  ^  Heb.  xiii.  7—9. 

''  1  Pet.  V.  3.  <=  Heb.  xiii.  17. 

•^  1  Tim.  iv.  12. 


104  Modes  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

people,  Avlio,  when  they  see  the  sword  coming,  are  to 
blow  the  trumpet,  and  give  warning  to  the  peopled 
They  alone  are  the  shepherds  of  God's  flock  beneath 
the  Chief  Shepherd  ^ ;  and,  as  such,  are  bound  to  "  take 
heed  unto  themselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  them  overseers  'V  and  to 
fi-uard  this  flock  from  "  wolves '."  To  them,  and  not  to 
all  the  faithful,  is  given  the  power  to  teach  publicly 
in  the  church:  "Are  all  teachers^?"  They  are  pecu- 
liarly commanded  to  censure  and  rebuke  gainsayers  of 
the  truth  :  "  Rebuke  them  sharply,  that  they  may  be 
sound  in  the  faith  ^ ;"  "  A  man  that  is  an  heretic  after 
a  first  and  second  admonition,  reject '."  Therefore  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  are  authorized,  above  all  the 
rest  of  the  brethren,  to  act  in  controversies  of  religion; 
and  their  judgment  ought,  according  to  the  divine  ap- 
pointment, to  be  published  before  that  of  the  brethren 
is  known.  They,  alone,  judge  as  the  authorized  teachers 
of  religion ;  and  the  office  of  the  brethren  is  evidently 
to  accept  or  reject  their  judgment,  according  to  its 
conformity  with  the  Gospel,  but  not  themselves  to  as- 
sume the  position  of  teachers,  and  to  define,  formally 
and  publicly,  the  matters  in  controversy. 

When  the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem  were 
consulted  in  the  controversy  concerning  legal  observ- 
ances, the  brethren  of  Antioch  did  not  think  it  neces- 
sary themselves  to  go  thither,  and  join  in  the  decree. 
Barnabas  and  Paul  were  deputed  by  all  the  church. 
In  the  controversy  about  the  time  of  Easter,  in  the 
second  century,  synods  of  bishops  judged  the  question 

'  Ezek.  xxxiii.  '  1  Cor.  xii.  2t). 

g  1  Pet.  V.  4.  ^  Tit.  i.  13. 

h  Acts  XX.  28—31.  '  Tit.  iii.  10. 
'  Acts  XX.  29. 


CHAP.  II.]        Modes  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments.  105 

ill  many  parts  of  the  world.  Paul  of  Samoyata  was 
condemned  by  seventy  bishops  of  the  Oriental  diocese. 
The  innumerable  synods  of  the  East  and  West  gene- 
rally comprised  only  bishops,  and  the  deputies  of 
absent  bishops.  Each  church  was  represented  by  its 
pastor,  and  the  other  believers  never  esteemed  it  neces- 
sary or  expedient  to  attend  these  assemblies  and  unite 
in  their  decrees,  though  some  were  occasionally  allowed 
to  be  present,  and  to  subscribe.  Even  the  Independent, 
Owen,  holds  that  in  synods,  which  consist  of  the  dele- 
gates and  messengers  of  several  churches,  "  the  elders 
or  officers  of  them,  or  some  of  them  at  least,  ought  to 
be  the  principal ;  for  there  is  a  peculiar  care  of  public 
edification  incumbent  on  them,  which  they  are  to  exer- 
cise on  all  just  occasions  :"  and  though  he  contends  that 
others  (even  of  the  laity)  may  be  united  with  them,  he 
does  not  absolutely  affirm  it  to  be  necessary  :  "  Yet  it 
is  not  necessary  that  they  (the  ministers)  alone  should 
be  so  sent  or  delegated  by  the  churches '"." 

The  public  judgments  of  Christ's  ministers  in  con- 
troversies of  religion  are  sometimes  made  in  oecume- 
nical synods,  consisting  of  bishops  from  many  provinces 
and  nations  ;  sometimes  in  national  synods,  consisting 
of  bishops  from  the  provinces  of  one  nation  ;  sometimes 
in  provincial,  or  even  in  diocesan  synods.  Sometimes 
they  are  made  by  the  patriarchs  or  chief  bishops  of 
the  catholic  church  singly,  sometimes  by  particular 
bishops. 

"^  Oweji's  Gospel  Church,  p.  432. 


106  Conditions  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments,     [part  iv. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON    THE   CONDITIONS    OF    ECCLESIASTICAL   JUDGMENTS. 

The  judgments  of  bishops  or  councils  in  religious  con- 
troversies, are  of  little  weight  in  the  church,  unless  they 
be  given  lawfully.  If  their  decisions  are  not  free,  but 
constrained  by  external  force  and  violence,  they  are  in 
themselves  of  no  weight,  because  they  do  not  exhibit 
the  genuine  judgment  of  those  who  made  them.  If 
they  manifestly  act  under  the  influence  of  prejudice 
and  passion,  or  in  blind  obedience  to  some  leader,  their 
decrees  are  also  devoid  of  authority  in  themselves.  The 
church  has  often  rejected  tli,e  decisions  of  such  synods. 
Thus  the  synod  held  at  Ephesus,  under  Dioscorus, 
against  Flavianus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  that 
of  Ariminum,  where  the  Arian  party  deceived  the  or- 
thodox, W'Ore  both  justly  rejected  by  the  church,  in 
consequence  of  the  force  and  violence  employed  to 
influence  their  proceedings.  The  judgments  of  the 
synod  of  Trent,  also,  have  been  justly  disregarded  by 
several  churches,  as  it  was  chiefly  composed  of  mere 
creatures  of  the  Roman  patriarch. 

But,  even  if  there  has  been  some  irregularity  in  the 
mode  of  judgment,  the  church  ultimately  judges  whe- 
ther that  judgment  is  in  itself  correct;  and  if  the  whole 
church,  in  fact,  approves  and  acts  on  it,  it  becomes  the 
judgment  of  the  universal  church :  nor  can  any  irregu- 


CHAP.  III.]    Conditions  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments.  107 

larity  in  the  original  proceedings  be  pleaded  in  proof 
that  it  is  not  a  lawful  judgment  of  the  universal 
church. 

Certain  conditions,  however,  must  be  found  in  all 
real  judgments  of  the  church. 

I.  They  must  be  decreed  and  published  by  a  sufficient 
authority,  and  be  known  universally.  The  judgment  of  a 
single  bishop  might  be  unknown  to  the  greater  part  of 
the  church :  it  might  be  considered  of  not  sufficient 
weight  to  call  for  a  counter  decision,  and  circumstances 
might  render  it  inexpedient  to  make  one.  But  if  a 
judgment  be  made  by  a  great  assembly  of  bishops, 
from  various  parts  of  the  world,  condemning  certain 
doctrines  as  heretical,  and  establishing  the  contrary 
truth,  this  decree  must  necessarily  be  known  through- 
out the  whole  church. 

II.  They  must  be  universally  received  and  acted  on. 
If  the  church  knows  of  such  decrees,  and  yet  does  not 
receive  or  act  on  them,  they  are  evidently  not  generally 
approved.  If  the  church  universal  acts  on  those  decrees, 
she  evidently  aj^proves  of  them.  If  they  are  only 
received  and  acted  on  in  a  part  of  the  church,  they 
represent  only  the  judgment  of  that  ])ortion  of  the 
church  :  c.  g.  the  Latin  synods  were  only  received  in 
the  Latin  churches. 

III.  There  must  be  no  ^roo/"  that  they  are  received 
everywhere  by  a  mere  act  of  submission  to  authority, 
by  a  blind  impulse,  without  any  examination  or  judg- 
ment whatever,  or  by  force.  If  there  be  such  proof,  it 
reduces  such  decrees  to  be  judgments  of  those  individual 
bishops  only  from  whom  they  emanated.  A  mere  pre- 
sumption, however,  that  the  church  generally  has  not 
exercised  any  judgment  on  certain  decrees,  would  be 
insufficient  to  reduce  the  authority  of  those  decrees  to 


108  Conditions  of  Ecclesiastical  Judginents.     [part   iv. 

that  of  their  framers,  if  the  church  has  acted  on  them; 
because  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  without  evident  proof, 
that  any  great  cliristian  community  would  fail  to  exer- 
cise a  conscientious  vigilance  over  the  faith. 

In  speaking  of  an  universal  or  unanimous  reception 
and  approbation  of  judgments  in  faith,  I  do  not  mean 
a  physical  and  absolute,  but  a  moral  universality.  In 
this  sense  our  Saviour  said,  "  If  he  will  not  hear  the 
church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and 
a  publican-;"  where  he  speaks  of  "  the  church"  as  united 
in  judging  an  offender,  though  that  offender  is  himself 
a  member  of  the  church,  and  opposed  of  course  to  the 
judgment.  Scripture,  in  teaching  us  that  heresies  were 
to  exist,  shows  that  a  judgment,  absolutely  unanimous, 
could  not  be  expected  at  any  time  :  but  if  the  judgment 
be  that  of  so  great  a  majority  of  the  church,  that  there 
are  only  a  very  small  number  of  opponents,  then  its 
unanimity  cannot  fairly  be  contested.  Where  parties 
approach  to  anything  like  an  equality  in  numbers, 
learning,  &c.  there  is  an  evident  want  of  unanimity; 
and,  under  such  circumstances,  the  judgment  of  the 
church  universal  is  not  given. 

This  may  be  illustrated  by  examples  from  the  history 
of  the  church.  The  Arians  and  Macedonians,  the  Nes- 
torians  and  Eutychians,  the  Luciferians  and  Donatists, 
had  respectively  several  bishops  in  their  favour ;  but  the 
infinite  majority  of  the  church  approved  and  acted  on 
the  judgments  by  which  they  were  condemned  as  here- 
tics or  schismatics,  and  thus  manifested  the  moral  una- 
nimity of  the  judgment  of  christians. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  the  church  was  considerably 
divided  on  questions,  no  one  would  maintain  that  the 
(question  had  been  determined  by  general  consent. 
Thus,  in  the  (jucstion  of  rebaptizing  heretics,  the  oppo- 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  109 

site  decrees  of  the  African  synod,  and  of  the  Roman 
see,  were  respectively  supported  by  numerous  ad- 
herents. So  in  the  case  of  the  second  synod  at  Nice 
(by  some  called  the  seventh  oecumenical),  those  who 
received,  and  those  who  rejected  its  decrees,  were 
nearly  balanced  in  number  and  weight ;  and,  therefore, 
there  was  no  Judgment  of  the  church. 

What  I  have  observed  of  the  unanimity  requisite  to 
prove  judgments  to  have  been  made  by  the  universal 
church,  applies  also  to  the  case  of  national,  provin- 
cial, and  particular  churches.  Their  judgment  is  not 
given  in  controversies  of  faith,  unless  it  be  morally 
unanimous. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  JUDGMENTS  OF  THE  UNIVERSAL 
CHURCH. 

Assuming  that  in  a  controversy  of  faith,  the  formal  and 
decided  judgment  of  the  universal  church  has  been  pro- 
nounced, it  now  remains  to  enquire,  what  authority  this 
judgment  is  invested  with ;  that  is,  whether  individual 
christians,  then  and  in  all  future  time,  are,  or  are  not, 
bound  to  submit  to  it.  In  order  to  narrow  the  question, 
let  us  suppose  that  a  judgment  in  a  controversy  of  faith 
has  been  made  by  a  great  council  of  bishops,  assembled 
from  all  parts  of  the  world ;  that  this,  their  judgment, 
has  been  transmitted  to  all  churches,  publicly  approved 
by  many,  received,  accepted,  and  acted  on  by  all :  that 
no  opposing  voice  has  been  heard;  or,  if  a  few  indivi- 


110  Authority  of  UniversalJudgments.         [part  i  v. 

duals  have  objected,  that  their  very  fewness  has.  evinced 
tlie  sentiment  of  the  vast  majority,  who  also  separate 
them  from  their  communion  as  heretics  :  let  us  sup- 
pose that  this  judgment  is  not  constrained  by  force  and 
violence,  nor  given  under  the  influence  of  any  authority 
which  destroys  its  freedom  :  the  question  now  is,  whe- 
ther individuals  are,  after  this,  justified  in  opposing  the 
doctrine  so  defined,  on  the  ground  of  their  own  opinion 
of  the  sense  of  scripture,  or  for  any  other  reason  ;  and 
whether  they  are  justified  in  subjecting  themselves  to 
the  sentence  of  separation  from  the  communion,  and 
from  the  ordinances  of  the  universal  church. 

I.  I  contend  that  such  a  judgment  is  absolutely  binding 
on  all  individual  christians,  from  the  moment  of  its  full 
manifestation,  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  It  has  been  already  proved  that  the  universal 
church  is  divinely  authorized  to  judge  in  religious  con- 
troversies, and  to  expel  from  her  communion  those  who 
teach  what  is  opposed  to  her  faith.  But  Christ  cannot 
have  authorized  two  contradictory  judgments  or  ac- 
tions ;  therefore,  when  the  universal  church  has  mani- 
fested her  judgment,  individuals  cannot  be  authorized 
to  oppose  their  judgment  to  her's. 

2.  It  is  certain,  from  the  word  of  God,  that  the 
church  of  Christ  was  never  to  fail,  or  become  apostate  : 
but  it  would  be  apostate,  if  it  taught,  positively,  what 
was  false  in  faith,  or  contrary  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ ; 
for  the  apostle  says :  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  we 
have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  anathema  ^"  It 
would  also  be  sinful  and  detestable  in  the  sight  of 
God,  to  teach  merely  human  theories  and  opinions  as 

""  Gal.  i.  8. 


CHAP.  IV.]       Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  Ill 

equally  obligatory  on  the  conscience  of  christians  with 
the  doctrines  of  divine  revelation  ;   for  God  himself  has 
said :  "  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men."  The  very  object  for 
which  the  church  was  founded,  was  to  maintain,  pure 
and  inviolate,  the  revealed  truth  :  and  it  is,  therefore, 
called  in  scripture  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  ^ :" 
but  if  the  churcli  universal  could  positively  condemn 
and  extirpate  the  revealed  truth,  or  pollute  it  by  the  ad- 
mixture of  merely  human  traditions,  how  could  she  be, 
in  any  sense,  its  "  pillar  and  ground  ?"    To  suppose  that 
the  universal  church  could  determine  what  is  contrary 
to  the  Gospel  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  promises  of  Christ  himself:  "Lo,  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  to  tlie  end  of  the  world " ;"  "  The 
Spirit   of  truth   shall  abide  with  you  for  ever'';"  For 
how  could  Christ  be  with  a  church  which  publicly  and 
unanimously  contradicted  his  word  ?     That  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  church  might,  for  a  time,  receive  errors,  from 
want  of  enquiry,  or  merely  by  implicit  obedience  to  an 
authority  supposed  to  be  infallible,  may  be  readily  con- 
ceded ;  but  that  the  whole  church,  with  the  apjmrent 
use  of  all  means,  should  unite  in  a  regular  and  orderly 
condemnation  of  the  truth  revealed,  and  an  approbation 
of  what  is  contrary  to  the  truth,  or  impose  the  belief  of 
a  spurious  and  merely  human  doctrine  as  necessarv  to 
salvation,  would  be  inconsistent  Avith  the  promises  of 
Him  whose  word  cannot  fail.     Hence  I  infer  that  such 
a  judgment  as  I  have  supposed,  cannot  be  false  or  con- 
trary to  the  Gospel ;  and,  therefore,  individuals  caimot 
be  justified  in  opposing  their  private  opinions  to  it,  and 


•"  1  Tim.  iii.  5.  ^'  John  xiv.  IG,  17. 

"  Matt,  xxviii.  20, 

15 


112  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  i v. 

incurring  tlie  sentence  of  excommunication   from  the 
society  and  ordinances  of  Christianity. 

3.  It  is  incredible  that  any  individual  should  be  able 
to  judge,  more  wisely  and  correctly,  as  to  the  nature  of 
Christ's  revelation,  than  the  body  of  Christ's  ministers 
throughout  the  world,  together  with  the  great  body  of 
believers.  How  can  it  be  supposed  that  he  possesses 
superior  means  of  ascertaining  the  truth  ?  Are  the 
scriptures  in  his  hands  only  ?  Is  the  tradition  of  past 
ages  known  to  him  only  ?  "  Came  the  word  of  God  out 
from  him,  or  came  it  unto  him  only  '  ?"  It  is  manifest 
that  the  whole  christian  church,  which  equally  possesses 
these  means  of  coming  to  a  right  judgment,  is  infinitely 
more  likely  to  judge  right,  than  any  individual.  If  he 
allege  in  confirmation  of  his  right  of  judgment,  those 
gracious  promises  of  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  guide 
and  teach  believers ;  surely  he  cannot  deny,  that  wdien 
the  multitude  of  the  believers  unite  in  a  judgment  con- 
trary to  his,  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  evidently 
given  against  him.  If  he  pretends  that  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  renders  him  individually  infallible,  let  him  prove 
that  infallibility  by  miracles.  We  may  hence  conclude, 
that  it  is  altogether  unreasonable  for  any  individuals  to 
dispute  the  universal  judgment. 

4.  If  each  individual  may  lawfully  oppose  himself  to 
the  judgment  of  the  whole  christian  world,  and  esteem 
himself,  whether  by  nature  or  grace,  wiser  than  all  be- 
lievers united,  the  most  fatal  results  to  Christianity 
must  follow.  He  whom  the  whole  church  cannot 
teach,  will  contemn  the  instructions  of  the  particular 
pastor  whom  God  has  placed  over  him,  will  despise  the 
doctrine  of  his  own  particular  church,  and,  if  the  bre- 

''  1  Cor.  xiv.  30. 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  113 

thren  do  not  submit  to  his  views,  will  separate  from 
their  communion.  Hence  order,  humility,  peace,  and 
unity,  must  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  and  in 
their  place  must  come  arrogance,  turbulence,  division, 
heresies;  and,  at  length,  when  the  human  mind  is 
wearied  vn.t\\  its  own  absurdities,  universal  toleration  of 
falsehood  as  equally  acceptable  to  God  with  truth  ;  and, 
finally,  the  rejection  of  Christianity,  as  obsolete  and 
useless. 

5.  The  divisions  of  modern  sects  calling  themselves 
Protestant,  afford  a  strong  argument  for  the  necessity 
of  submission  to  the  judgment  of  the  universal  church ; 
for,  surely,  it  is  impossible  that  Christ  could  have  de- 
signed his  disciples  to  break  into  a  hundred  different 
sects,  contending  with  each  other  on  every  doctrine  of 
religion.  It  is  impossible,  I  say,  that  this  system  of 
endless  division  can  be  christian.  It  cannot  but  be  the 
result  of  some  deep-rooted,  some  universal  error,  some 
radically  false  principle  which  is  common  to  all  these 
sects.  And  what  principle  do  they  hold  in  common, 
except  the  right  of  each  individual  to  oppose  his  judg- 
ment to  that  of  all  the  church?  This  principle,  then, 
must  be  utterly  false  and  unfounded. 

To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  God  has  authorized 
individuals  to  judge  in  questions  of  controversy ;  and, 
therefore,  the  judgment  of  all  the  church  cannot  be 
binding  on  them.  I  reply,  that  God  has  indeed  au- 
thorized individuals  to  judge,  according  to  their  means 
of  judging  ;  but  their  judgment  is  limited  by  the  divine 
will,  for  every  one  admits  that  it  is  not  free  to  reject 
any  doctrine  of  o'evelation.  Now  all  I  contend  for  here  is, 
that  their  i-ight  of  judgment  is  so  far  limited,  that  it  is 
not  entitled  to  reject  what  is  manifested  to  be  a  doc- 
trine  of  revelation,  by  so  great   an   evidence    as   the 

VOL.  II.  I 


114  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

legitimate  judgment  of  the  universal  church.  They  are 
not  entitled  to  oppose  their  own  opinion,  devoid  of  all 
authority,  to  the  judgment  of  the  multitude  of  believers; 
and,  in  so  doing,  to  incur  the  sentence  of  separation 
from  christian  communion  ;  a  sentence  authorized  by 
God  himself,  as  I  have  shown  \ 

The  right  of  individual  judgment  is  positive  and 
unquestionable,  as  far  as  it  cvtends.  I  allow,  that  in- 
dividuals exercise  a  sacred  right,  or  rather  duti/,  in 
examining  and  judging  of  doctrines  under  controversy, 
according  to  their  capacities  and  stations.  But  this 
process  of  examination  precedes  the  time  when  the 
judgment  of  the  universal  church  is  manifested :  till 
that  period  different  opinions  may  be  held  ;  but  after- 
wards reason  and  piety  require  the  sacrifice  of  a  private 
oi^inion  to  the  judgment  finally  ratified  by  universal 
consent. 

II.  I  maintain,  further,  that  such  a  judgment  is  irre- 
vocable., irreformable,  never  to  be  altered. 

First :  all  individuals  are  bound  to  submit  to  such  a 
judgment,  as  I  have  shown  ;  consequently,  no  one  can 
lawfully  bring  the  doctrine  once  decided,  into  contro- 
versy again  ;  and  there  can  be  no  new  decision  on  it. 

Secondly :  the  church  in  one  age  has  no  greater 
promises  from  Christ  than  in  another ;  if,  therefore,  any 
new  decision  be  binding  on  individuals,  the  decision 
formerly  made  must  have  been  equally  so :  if  a  new 
decision  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  obligator!/,  it  would 
be  superfluous  to  alter  that  which  was  formerly  made. 

Thirdly :  the  universal  church  could  not  reverse  her 
judgment,  without  admitting  that,  although  to  all  ap- 
pearance she  had  employed  all  lawful  modes  of  attain- 

^  See  Chapter  I. 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  115 

ing  to  the  truth,  she  had  failed ;  she  would,  therefore, 
be  obliged  to  admit,  that  not  even  under  the  most 
favourable  circumstances,  could  the  promised  aid  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  be  securely  relied  on :  in  this  case  it  would, 
at  least,  be  just  as  probable  that  her  former  decision 
was  right,  as  any  other  which  she  could  now  make.  But 
the  supposition  that  the  church  could  not,  under  any 
circumstances,  rely  securely  on  the  actual  promises  of 
Christ  to  her,  would  be  contrary  to  faith  ;  because  it 
would  entitle  christians  to  doubt  always  whether  the 
church  exists ;  whether  it  has  not  apostatized ;  whether 
it  does  not  formally  teach  a  Gospel  contrary  to  that  of 
Christ,  and  excommunicate  those  who  maintain  the  re- 
vealed truth ;  whether  the  Spirit  of  Truth  has  not  for- 
saken it,  and  the  gates  of  hell  prevailed  against  it. 

Finally :  such  a  judgment  as  I  have  sui^posed,  cannot 
be  altered  or  revoked;  because  by  virtue  of  Christ's  pro- 
mises, as  I  have  shown,  it  must  be  true  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Gospel. 

The  doctrine  of  christians,  from  the  earliest  period, 
recognized  the  authority  attached  to  the  faith  of  the 
universal  church :  "  Where  the  church  is,  there  is  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  says  Irenseus :  "  and  where  the  Spirit  of 
God  is,  there  also  the  church  and  every  grace  exist  : 
but  the  Spirit  is  truth  ^."  "  It  is  necessary  to  hear  the 
presbyters  which  are  in  the  church,  who  have  succession 
from  the  apostles,  as  we  have  shown ;  who,  with  the 
succession  of  the  episcopate,  have  received  the  certain 
gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  Father's  will  ''."  Hence, 
according  to  Irenseus,  the  judgment  of  the  whole  body 

8  "Ubi   enim    ecclesia,  ibi    et  naeus  adv.  Hser.  lib.iii.  c.  24. 
Spiritus  Dei ;  et  ubi  Spiritus  Dei,         ''  Irenaeus  adv.  Haeres   iv.  26. 

illic    ecclesia    et    oranis    gratia.  See  above,  p.  78. 
Spiritus    autem    Veritas."' — Ire- 

I  2 


1 IG  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

of  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  cannot  be  false.  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  says  :  "  He  ceases  to  be  faithful  to 
the  Lord,  Avho  revolts  against  the  received  doctrines  of 
the  church,  to  embrace  the  opinions  of  heretics'." 
Tertullian :  "  Every  doctrine  is  to  be  judged  as  false, 
which  is  opposed  to  the  truth  taught  by  the  churches, 
the  apostles,  Christ,  and  God^."  "Suppose  that  all 
churches  had  erred ;  that  the  apostle  was  deceived  in 
giving  his  testimony ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  Avho  for  this 
very  thing  was  sent  by  Christ,  sought  from  the  Father, 
to  be  the  teacher  of  truth,  regarded  no  church  so  as  to 
lead  it  into  truth ;  that  the  Steward  of  God,  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  neglected  his  office,  permitting  the  churches 
to  understand  and  to  believe  differently  from  what  he 
himself  had  preached  by  the  apostles;  is  it  probable  that 
so  many  and  so  great  churches  should  have  erred  into 
one  faith  f"  &c.''  Alexander  of  Alexandria :  "  We  be- 
lieve so  as  it  pleases  the  apostolic  church  ...these  things 
we  teach,  these  we  preach,  these  are  the  apostolical  doc- 
trines of  the  church,  for  which  we  are  ready  to  lay  down 
our  lives'."     Hilary  of  Poictiers:  "  The  reason  of  our 

'  nvOpwTTOc  elrot  rov  Qeov  kcu  postulatus  de  Patre,  ut  esset  doc- 

TTtwroc  rw  Kvpf'w  cia/i£»'£iv  aVoXw-  tor  veritatis ;    neglexerit  officium, 

\tKEv,  6  a.i'a\aKTi(Tag  t})i'  skkXt]-  Dei  villicus,  Christi  vicarius,  si- 

aLaariKYiv  ■Kapucoaiv,  —  Clemens  nens  ecclesias  aliter  interim  in- 

Alexandr.  oper.  p.  890.  ed.  Pot-  telligere,  aliter  credere,  quod  ipse 

ter.  per  apostolos  prsedicabat :  ecquid 

■*  "  Omnem  vero  doctrinam  de  verisimile   est,    ut    tot    ac  tantae 

mendacio    praejudicandam,    quae  in    unum  fidem    erraverint?"  — 

sapiat  contra  veritatem  ecclesia-  Tertull.  Prsescript.  Haeret.  c.  27, 

rum,  et  Apostolorum,  et  Christi,  28. 

et  Dei." — Tertull.  de  Prsescript.  '  'H/jeIc   ovrwc    TnaTsvofiEi',   w£ 

c.  21.  p.  209.  ed.  Rigalt.  ttj  dwouToXiKij  tKK\i]irta  coi:u  .    .  . 

*  "  Age  nunc,   omnes    errave-  ravra  Sida(TKoi.i£v,  raiira  ki)qvtto- 

rint ;    deceptus  sit  et  Apostolus  fiev,  ravra  rrJQ  licKXtialag  ra   d-n-o- 

de  testimonio  reddendo  :   nullam  oroXtca    lojixara,    vwep    ivy     Kai 

respexerit  Spiritus   Sanctus,   uti  aVoStj/o-ivO/itEj'. — Alexander  Alex- 

eam  in  veritatem  deduceret,  ad  andr.     apud     Theodoret.     Hist. 

hoc   missus   a  Christo,    ad    hoc  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  iv. 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  117 

Lord's  sitting  in  the  ship,  and  the  crowds  standing  with- 
out, arises  from  the  accompanying  circumstances.  He 
was  about  to  speak  in  parables,  and  by  this  sort  of  pro- 
ceeding intimates  that  they  who  are  out  of  the  church, 
can  possess  no  understanding  of  the  divine  word ;  for 
the  ship  is  an  emblem  of  the  church,  within  which  the 
word  of  life  being  placed  and  preached,  those  who  are 
without,  and  who  resemble  barren  and  useless  sands, 
cannot  understand  it  "\"  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  :  "  The 
church  is  called  catholic,  because  it  teaches  catholicly, 
and  without  omission,  all  points  that  men  should 
know"."  Maximus  :  "  I  wish  you,  with  all  your  power, 
to  turn  away  from  all  those  who  do  not  receive  the 
pious  and  saving  doctrines  of  the  church  °."  Ambrose  : 
"  How  can  the  traveller  walk  in  the  dark  ?  His  foot 
soon  stumbles  in  the  night,  if  the  moon,  like  an  eye  of 
the  world,  does  not  point  out  his  way.  Thou  also  art 
in  the  night  of  the  world :  let  the  church  point  out  the 
way  to  thee  p,"  Pacianus  :  "  The  church  hath  neither 
spot  nor  wrinkle :  that  is,  hath  no  heresies ;  neither  the 
Valentinians,  the  Cataphrygians,  nor  the  Novatians''." 

"^  "  Sedisse  Dominum  in  navi,  "  KadoXiK))  fjiep  olv  koXeItui  .  .  . 

et  turbas  foris  stetisse,  ex  sub-  ha    to    SicaaKtii'    KadoXiKwg    (cat 

jectis    rebus  est  ratio.      In  para-  di'eXkenrQc,  uirayra  ra  elg  yvwaLV 

bolis  enim  erat  locuturus  :  et  facti  dvQpuT^wv  iXde'iy  6(j)eiXovTa  Soy- 

istius  genera  significat   eos,    qui  fxara.  —  Cyril.     Hierosol.    Cat. 

extra  ecclesiam  positi  sunt,  nul-  xviii.  p.  270.  ed.  Milles. 

lam  divini  sermonis  capere  posse  °    Udprag  wdcrri  Svi'dfiei   uko- 

intelligeutiam.      Navis   enim  ec-  GTpefonivovQ  tovq  firi  de-^^^ofxepovg 

clesias  typum  prajfert :  intra  quam  ra  tvarelSij  ri'ig  iKfcXrfcrlac  mt   <rw- 

verbum  vitse  positum  et  praedi-  Tiipiahoynara. — Maximus,  Oper. 

catum,    hi    qui     extra    sunt,   et  i.  ii.  p.  284. 

arense  modo  steriles   atque  inu-  p  "  Et  tu   in  nocte  es  sseculi, 

tiles     adjacent,     intelligere    non  monstret  tibi  ecclesia    viam." — 

possunt." — Hilar.    Pictav.   com.  Ambros.    Enar.    in    Ps.    xxxv. 

in   S.  Matt.  c.  xiii.  p.  675.   ed.  Oper.  t.  ii.  p.  776.  ed.  Ben. 

Ben.  1   "  Ecclesia  est   non  habens 


118  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

Vincentius :  "  The  church  of  Christ,  a  diligent  and  care- 
ful ouardian  of  the  doctrines  entrusted  to  her,  never 
changes  aught  in  them,  diminishes  nothing,  adds  no- 
thing'." The  practice  of  the  church  was  accor- 
dant with  these  principles.  Those  who  op]50sed  the 
universal  faith  were  always  accounted  heretics ;  and 
whenever  the  judgment  of  the  whole  church  was  ascer- 
tained, the  controversy  was  held  to  be  decided.  That 
judgment  was  ever  afterwards  maintained  by  the  church, 
and  those  who  attempted  to  alter  it  were  regarded  as 
heretics. 

If  we  trace  the  doctrine  of  christians  in  more  modern 
times,  we  shall  still  find  the  authority  of  the  judgments 
of  the  universal  church  acknowledged.  The  whole  re- 
formation professed  its  adherence  to  the  decisions  of  the 
ancient  and  genuine  cecumenical  synods  ^  The  reform- 
ation maintained  the  perpetuity  of  the  church,  and  the 
necessity  of  the  truth  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ  * ;  there- 
fore its  principle  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  church 
can  never  deny  that  truth.  Calvin  admits,  that  if  the 
church  contains  herself  within  the  compass  of  that 
heavenly  doctrine,  which  is  comprehended  in  the  scrip- 


maculam  neque  rugam,  hoc  est,  therans    and    Reformed,     says : 

hasreses  non  habens,  non  Valen-  "  Non  enim  aspernamur  eonsen- 

tinos,  non  Cataphrygas,  non  No-  sum  catholicse  ecclesise,  nee  est 

vatianos." — Pacian.  Epist.  iii.  ad  animus  nobis  uUum  novum  dog- 

Sempron.  Bibl.  Patr.  t.  ii.  ma  et  ignotum  sanctse  ecclesiae 

"■  "  Christi   vero  ecclesia,  se-  invehere  in  ecclesiam,    nee  pa- 

dula  et  cauta  depositorum  apud  trocinari     impiis    aut    seditiosis 

se  dogmatum  custos,  nihil  in  his  opinionibus    volumus,   quas    ec- 

unquam  permutat,  nihil  minuit,  clesia    catholica     damnavit."  — 

nihil    addit."  —  Vincent.  Lirin.  Confess.  August,  c.  21. 
Commonitor.  c.  xxiii.  '  See  Part  I.   chap.  i.  sect.  2  ; 

*  See   Part  I.    chap.  xii.   sect.  chap.  v.  sect.  2  ;   chap.  xii.  sect. 

3.      The    Confession    of    Augs-  3. 
burgh,  received  by  all  the  Lu- 


CHAP.  IV.]         Authority  ofXJniversal  Judgments.  119 

ture,  "  she  cannot  err " ;"  and  he  observes,  when  urged 
with  the  text,  "  If  he  will  not  hear  the  church,  let  him 
be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man,"  &c.  that  the  church 
ought  to  be  heard,  as  "she  never  consents  except  to  the 
truth  of  God,  pronounces  nothing  except  from  the  word 
of  God ''."  But  he  insists  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  the 
church  to  make  a  new  doctrine,  and  to  deliver  for  an 
oracle  more  than  the  Lord  revealed  by  his  word. 

Chillingworth  is  well  known  as  a  strong  opponent  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  church;  but 
his  dehberate  judgment  did  not  permit  him  to  dispute 
the  superior  authority  of  the  universal  church.  In  his 
controversy  with  Lewgar,  the  latter  asked  :  "  When  our 
church  hath  decided  a  controversy,  I  desire  to  know 
whether  any  particular  church  or  person  hath  authority 
to  re-examine  her  decision,  whether  she  hath  observed 
her  rule  or  no,  and  free  themselves  from  the  obedience 
of  it,  by  their  particular  judgment  ?"  Chillingworth  re- 
plied :  "  If  ijou  understand  hy  your  church  the  church 
catholic,  probably  I  should  answer  no ;  but  if  you  under- 
stand by  your  church,  that  only  which  is  subordinate  to 
the  see  of  Rome,  or  if  you  understand  a  council  of  this 
church,  I  answer  yea  \"  Dr.  Field,  speaking  in  the 
name  of  our  churches,  says :  "  As  we  hold  it  impossible 

"  "Nos  si  demus  illud  pri-  verbi  Dei  consentit  ?  Ecclesia 
mum,  errare  non  posse  ecclesiam  audienda  est,  inquiunt.  Quis 
in  rebus  ad  salutem  necessariis  :  negat  ?  quandoquidem  nihil  pro- 
hie  sensus  noster  est,  ideo  hoc  nuntiat  nisi  ex  verbo  Domini, 
esse  quod  abdicata  omni  sua  sa-  Si  plus  aliquid  postulant,  sciant 
pientia,  a  Spiritu  sancto  doceri  nihil  sibi  in  eo  sufFragari  haec 
se  per  verbum  Dei  patitur." —  Christi  verba,"  &c. —  Calv.  Inst. 
Calv.  Instit.  lib.  iv.  c.  viii.  s.  iv.  cap.  viii.  s.  15. 
13.  ""  Conference  between  Mr.  Cliil- 

"■"  "  Quid  enim  tandem  obtine-  lingworth  and   Mr.  Lewgar,  near 

bunt    (Romani)  nisi    non    sper-  the    beginning. — Chillingworth's 

nendum     ecclesij3e      consensum,  Works, 
quae  nunquam  nisi  in  veritatem 


120  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  iv. 

the  church  should  ever,  by  apostasy  and  misbelief, 
wholly  depart  from  God  ...  so  we  hold  it  never  falleth 
into  any  heresy  ^"  Dr.  Hammond,  also,  speaking  the 
general  sentiment,  declares  that  "  We  do  not  believe 
that  any  general  council,  truly  such,  ever  did,  or  ever 
shall  err  in  any  matter  o^  faith  ;  nor  shall  we  further 
dispute  the  authority,  when  we  shall  be  duly  satisfied 
of  the  universality  of  any  such '."  Bishop  Pearson  ob- 
serves, that  the  church  of  Christ  is  catholic,  "  because 
it  teacheth  all  things  which  are  necessary  for  a  christian 
to  know,  whether  they  be  things  in  heaven  or  things  in 
earth,  whether  they  concern  the  condition  of  man  in 
this  life,  or  in  the  life  to  come ;"  and  afterwards  jn-o- 
fesses  belief  in  a  universal  church  "  to  be  j^ropagated  to 
all  ages,  to  contain  in  it  all  truths  necessary  to  be  hnown^T 
Archbishop  Bramhall :  "  We  are  most  ready,  in  all  our 
differences,  to  stand  to  the  judgment  of  the  truly  ca- 
tholic church,  and  its  lawful  representative,  a  free  gene- 
ral council  ^"  Dr.  Sayw^ell,  Master  of  Jesus  College, 
Cambridge,  says :  "  The  divine  wisdom  has  provided  a 
more  effectual  means  for  removing  of  schism  out  of  the 
church,  by  erecting  an  authority  in  her,  to  end  all  dis- 
putes and  controversies ;  and,  that  she  may  the  better 
demean  herself  in  this  office,  he  has  promised  her  the 
perpetual  guidance  and  direction  of  his  Spirit,  till  she 
shall  receive  her  perfect  consummation  in  glory :  and 
thereupon  our  Saviour  himself  has  pronounced  of  every 
one  that  shall  neglect  to  hear  his  church,  '  Let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican ''.'  "  "  St. 
Paul  admonishes  the  bishops  (Acts  xx),  that  of  them- 

y  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book         "  Pearson   on   the  Creed,  Art. 

iv.  c.  2.  ix. 

'  Hammond,   Of  Heresies,   p.         "  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  bQ. 
lf>3.  <:  Saywell  on  Schism,  p.  82. 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  121 

selves  should  men  arise  speaking  perverse  things,  to 
draw  away  disciples  after  them :  and  this  may  happen 
even  in  large  councils.  But  nothing  like  this  can  be 
said  of  the  college  of  pastors,  or  of  councils  truly  oecu- 
menical, received  and  approved  by  the  catholic  church  :  nor 
may  any  one  oppose  scripture  and  the  tradition  of  the 
church,  to  the  tradition  of  an  oecumenical  council  uni- 

^  versally  received  and  approved :  for  they  teach  the  same 
thing,  and  equally  declare  the  evangelical  faith ;  nor  do 
the  pastors,  either  when  dispersed  abroad  or  collected 
in  a  really  free  council,  bear  a  discordant  testimony. 
The  same  truth  is  contained  in  scripture,  in  tradition, 
in  oecumenical  synods.  It  cannot  be  that  an  oecume- 
nical council,  or  the  free  and  true  testimony  of  the 
college  of  pastors,  should  be  contrary  to  the  tradition 
of  the  church ;  nor  can  any  doctrine  be  confirmed  by 
the  tradition  of  the  church,  which  is  repugnant  to  sa- 
cred scripture,  since  among  all  traditions  none  is  more 
certain  than  that  of  scripture.     Therefore  let  the  scrip- 

V  ture  retain  its  perspicuity  and  sufficiency,  tradition 
its  firmness  and  constancy,  the  pastors  and  oecume- 
nical synods  their  authority  and  reverence  ;  nor  let  any 
one  set  them  in  opposition  to  each  other,  since  the 
same  faith,  the  same  doctrine  in  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,  is  taught  ill  its  own  method  and  order  by 
each ;  and  each  has  its  own  use  and  authority  in  handing 
down  and  preserving  the  truth  '\"  Archbishop  Tillotson 
says  :  "  That  the  whole  church,  that  is,  all  the  christians 
in  the  world,  should  at  any  time  fall  off  to  idolatry,  and 
into  errors  and  practices  directly  contrary  to  the  christ- 
ian doctrine  revealed  in  the  holy  scriptures,  is,  on  all 
hands,  I  think,  denied:  only  that  any  particular  church 

■*  Praefat.  ad  Epist.  Launoii,  Cantab.  1G89. 


122  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.         [part  i  v. 

may  fall  into  such  errors  and  practices,  is,  I  think, 
as  universally  granted  \"  He  also  acknowledges  that 
"  when  individuals  prove  perverse  and  disobedient,  au- 
thority is  judge,  and  may  restrain  and  punish  them. 
This  is  true ;  but  then  a  question  occurs,  who  is  to 
decide  whether  they  be  perverse  and  disobedient  ?  who 
is  to  judge  whether  they  are  heretics  ?  I  say,  of  course, 
authority  V'  Bishop  Bull,  in  speaking  of  the  synod  of 
Nice,  argues  as  follows :  "  In  this  synod  the  question 
was  concerning  a  chief  point  of  the  christian  religion ; 
namely,  concerning  the  dignity  of  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour ;  whether  he  was  to  be  worshipped 
as  true  God,  or  to  be  reduced  to  the  rank  of  creatures 
and  things  subject  to  the  true  God.  If,  in  this  question 
of  the  greatest  moment,  we  pretend  that  all  the  rulers 
of  the  church  fell  into  total  error,  and  persuaded  the 
christian  people  of  that  error;  how  shall  the  faithfulness 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  appear,  who  promised  '  that 
he  would  be  with  the  apostles,'  and  therefore  with  their 
successors,  '  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  ?'  For  since 
the  promise  extends  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the 
apostles  were  not  to  live  so  long,  Christ  is  to  be  sup- 
posed to  have  addressed,  in  the  persons  of  the  apostles, 
their  successors  in  that  office  ^." 

It  would  be  easy  to  cite  many  additional  testimonies 
of  our  theologians  to  the  great  truth,  that  the  universal 
church  cannot  at  any  time  fall  into  heresy,  or  contradict 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel  '\  This,  indeed,  would  be  in- 
consistent with  the  "  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine"  of 
the  Homilies,  which  affirm  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 

^  Tillotson,  Sermon  xlix.  *>  See  the  very  valuable  Preface 

•"  Sermon  xxi.  of  Dr.  Say  well  to  the  Epistles  of 

^  Bull,  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaen.  Launoius,  Cantabr.  1689. 
I'rooem.  s.  2. 


CHAP.  IV.]        Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  123 

always  to  remain  with  the  church :  "  Neither  must  we 
think  that  this  Comforter  was  either  promised,  or  else 
given,  only  to  the  apostles,  but  also  to  the  universal 
chureh  of  Christ,  dispersed  through  the  whole  world:  for 
unless  the  Holy  Ghost  had  been  always  present,  govern- 
ing and  preserving  the  church  from  the  beginning,  it  could 
never  have  sustained  so  many  and  great  brunts  of  af- 
fliction and  persecution,  with  so  little  damage  as  it 
hath ;  and  the  words  of  Christ  are  most  plain  in  this 
behalf,  saying  that  "  the  Spirit  of  Truth  should  bide  with 
themfm-  ever,"'  that  "he  would  be  with  them  always  (he 
meaneth  by  grace,  virtue,  and  power,)  even  to  the  world's 
end\"  And  hence,  our  catholic  apostolic  churches, 
resting  on  these  promises  with  undoubting  confidence, 
declare   that   while   particular   churches    have   erred, 

"THE    CHURCH HAS   AUTHORITY   IN  CONTROVERSIES   OF 

FAITH  ^ : "  that  is  to  say,  particular  churches  may  fail  in 
faith :  general  councils  consisting  of  numerous  bishops 
may  err  in  faith :  but  the  universal  church,  guided 
for  ever  by  the  Spirit  of  truth,  sustained  even  to  the 
end  of  the  world  by  the  presence  of  her  Redeemer, 
can  never  fall  into  heresy,  or  deny  the  truth  revealed 
by  Jesus  Christ.  Were  it  possible  that  the  universal 
church  could  fall  into  heresy ;  that  with  the  use  of  all 
means,  she  might  have  contradicted  the  gospel  of 
Christ :  where  would  be  her  authority  ?  What  atom  of 
authority  would  remain  to  the  church  in  any  of  her 
judgments  ? 

Whatever  various  modes  of  treating  the  authority  of 
the  church  there  may  have  been,  I  believe  that  scarcely 
any  christian  writer  can  be  found,  who  has  ventured 

*  Sermon  on  Whitsunday,  part         ^  Article  XX. 
ii. 

15 


124  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments,     [p.  iv.  ch.  iv. 

actually  to  maintain  that  the  judgment  of  the  universal 
churchy  freely,  and  deliberately  given,  loith  the  a'pparent 
use  of  all  means,  might  in  fact  be  heretical  and  con- 
trary to  the  gospel.  If  the  principles  of  some  writers 
among  the  adherents  of  the  reformation  appear  to  lead 
to  such  a  conclusion,  we  must  make  allowances  for 
mistakes  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  when  they  were 
hard  pressed  by  wily  antagonists.  Men  who  argue  in 
haste,  and  under  the  pressure  of  most  urgent  dangers, 
cannot  always  select  with  rigid  discrimination,  the 
arguments  by  which  they  sincerely  and  honestly  en- 
deavour to  defend  the  truth ;  and  something  always 
remains  for  future  generations  to  do,  in  criticizing  their 
particular  arguments,  and  retaining  those  only  which 
are  free  from  all  defects.  If  we  observe  the  general 
mode  of  reasoning  practised  by  English  theologians 
since  the  reformation,  it  will  not  be  found  directed 
against  the  authority  of  the  universal  church.  Jewel 
denies  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  church,  and  the 
Roman  pontiff,  as  maintained  by  Hosius,  Sylvester  de 
Prierio,  Pighius,  and  others.  He  contends  that  the 
Roman  is  not  the  catholic  church,  and  denies  that  the 
council  of  Trent  was  truly  general,  from  defects  in  the 
mode  of  its  convocation,  and  in  its  numbers  ^  Chil- 
lingworth  addresses  himself  chiefly  to  prove,  that  the 
Roman  church  is  not  infallible ;  that  no  church  of  one 
denomination  is  infallible '.  Leslie  contends,  that  the 
promises  of  Christ  to  his  church  are  conditional,  not  ab- 
solute "'.  These  and  other  writers  argue,  that  the  church 
cannot  invent  any  new  article  of  faith ;  that  every 
thing  which  is  held  in  the  church  is  not  matter  of 

\  Juelli  Apologia.  •"  Leslie,  Case  stated  between 

Chillmgworth,    Religion    of    the  church  of  Rome,  &c. 
Prot.  chap.  iii. 


OBJECT.]  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  125 

faith ;  that  our  faith  is  not  founded  solely  and  finally 
on  the  authority  of  the  church  now  existing.  All 
these  propositions  are  true,  and  have  been  of  great 
efficacy  in  controversy  with  Romanists :  but  they  are 
not  contradictory  to  the  authority  of  the  universal 
church  properly  understood  ;  and  several  of  them  seem 
to  infer,  that  under  certain  circumstances,  i.  e.  when  all 
lawful  conditions  are  observed,  individuals  are  not  jus- 
tified in  opposing  their  own  opinion  to  the  decree  of 
the  universal  church. 

With  reference  to  the  doctrines  actually  supported  by 
such  judgments  of  the  universal  church  as  I  have  spoken 
of,  it  may  be  observed,  that  they  are  by  no  means  nu- 
merous, extending  little  beyond  the  Nicene  faith,  the 
right  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  incarnation,  and  grace. 
These  doctrines  are  not  many,  but  they  constitute  the 
very  heart  of  the  christian  religion :  and  as  such,  have 
been  subject  to  the  principal  attacks  of  infidelity  and 
heresy  in  every  age. 

OBJECTIONS. 

1.  Several  passages  of  scripture  establish  the  right  of 
private  judgment  in  christians.  "  Search  the  scriptures, 
for  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life,  and  they  are  they 
which  testify  of  me"."  Therefore  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  christian  to  found  his  religious  doctrines  solely 
on  his  personal  examination  of  scripture,  independently 
of  all  other  authority  whatever. 

Ansiver.  (1.)  Several  eminent  theologians  maintain 
that  the  word  epivvare  should  be  translated  "ye  search." 
Of  this  opinion  are  Beza,  Lightfoot,  Erasmus,  and 
others   cited  by   the   Synopsis   Criticoium:    also   Dr. 

"  John  V,  39. 


126  Authority  of  UniversalJudgments.     [p.  iv.  ch.  iv. 

Campbell  the  presbyterian ",  who  refers  to  the  dissenter 
Doddridge,  to  Worsley,  Heylin,  Le  Clerc,  Beausobre, 
he.  It  has  also  lately  been  maintained  ably  by  Bishop 
Jebb  P.  But  if  this  translation  be  good,  the  objection 
falls  to  the  ground.  (2.)  These  words  are  addressed  to 
tinhelievers,  whom  Christ  directs  to  search  the  prophe- 
tical scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  order  that  the 
proofs  afforded  by  his  own  miracles,  the  testimony  of 
the  Father,  the  testimony  of  John,  might  be  completed 
by  that  from  prophecy.  But  he  does  not  mean  that 
believers  in  his  divine  mission,  should  receive  nothing 
without  tracing  it  in  the  Old  Testament ;  because  this 
would  have  entitled  them  to  doubt  his  own  revelation 
in  several  points.  Therefore  no  argument  can  be 
drawn  from  this  text,  in  proof  of  the  duty  of  believers 
to  receive  nothing  except  what  they  derive  from  scrip- 
ture by  examination. 

II.  Of  the  Bereans  it  is  said:  "These  were  more  noble 
than  those  of  Thessalonica,  in  that  they  received  the 
word  with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and  searched  the 
scriptures  daily,  whether  those  things  were  so ''." 

Answer.  They  searched  whether  St.  Paul  rightly  al- 
leged the  prophecies,  in  proof  that  "  Christ  must  needs 
have  suffered,  and  risen  again  from  the  dead ;  and  that 
this  Jesus  whom  I  preach  to  you  is  Christ "" :"  but  surely 
it  does  not  follow  that  christians  who  already  believe  in 
Christ,  must  imitate  their  example ;  still  less  that  they 
are  bound  to  believe  nothing  except  what  they  indivi- 
dually deduce  from  scripture ;  and  that  too,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  judgment  of  the  universal  church. 

III.  To  the  Thessalonians  it  is  said :  "  Despise  not 

"  Campbell  on  the  Gospels,  in     vol.  i.  p.  286,  &c. 
loc.  "^  Acts  xvii.  11. 

"   Jebb,    Practical    Theology,         '  Ibid.  2,  3. 


OBJECT.]  Authority  of  IJniversalJudgments.  127 

prophesy ings.  Prove  all  things :  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good '."  Therefore  christians  are  entitled  to  examine 
every  doctrine  without  reference  to  the  authority  on 
which  it  is  founded,  and  to  hold  that  only  which  their 
reason  approves. 

Answer.  (1.)  This  interpretation  would  authorize 
christians  to  examine  and  dispute  the  doctrines  re- 
vealed even  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  (2.)  The 
direction  to  "  prove  all  things,"  &c.  relates  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  not  receiving  indiscriminately  the  doctrines 
and  revelations  of  all  who  pretend  to  the  gift  of  pro- 
phecy ;  for  there  were  "  many  false  prophets  gone  out 
into  the  world,"  as  St.  John  testifies :  and  therefore 
this  passage  and  that  other,  "  Believe  not  every  spirit, 
but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God ' ;"  enjoin 
the  duty  of  examining  whether  those  who  pretended  to 
be  prophets  were  truly  such,  and  whether  they  taught 
what  was  conformable  to  the  truth ;  but  they  do  not 
authorize  christians  to  oppose  their  own  private  opin- 
ions to  the  formal  judgment  of  the  universal  church. 

IV.  Christ  saith :  "  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God,  or 
whether  I  speak  of  myself"."  Therefore  a  sincere  and 
honest  enquirer  cannot  fail  to  be  led  into  truth,  and 
consequently  may  oppose  his  opinion  to  that  of  all 
other  men. 

Answer.  I  admit  that  a  sincere  desire  to  do  God's 
will  is  the  principal  means  of  attaining  to  a  sound  and 
pure  faith;  but  this  sincere  desire,  must  lead  indivi- 
duals not  to  hazard  their  salvation,  by  reposing  ab- 
solutely on  their  private  judgment  of  scripture,  when  it 


"  1  Thess.  V.  20,  21.  "  John  vii.  17. 

*  1  John  iv.  1. 


128  Authority  of  UniversalJudgments.     [p.  iv.  ch.  iv. 

is  opposed  to  so  great  an  authority  as  the  deUberate 
judgment  of  the  church  universal. 

V.  "  From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation, 
through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  scripture. . . 
is  profitable  for  doctrine,  &c.  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  throughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works "." 
Therefore  scripture  being  sufficient  to  guide  us  into 
truth,  it  is  lawful  to  oppose  the  judgment  of  the  whole 
church,  if  it  appears  to  us  inconsistent  with  scripture. 

Answer.  Scripture  is  able  to  guide  all  christians 
into  truth  ;  and  if  all  judge  against  us,  the  testimony  of 
the  Spirit  is  apparently  against  us.  It  is  far  more  pro- 
bable that  some  individuals  should  err  or  mistake  the 
meaning  of  scripture,  than  that  the  whole  church  with 
equal  or  superior  means  of  information  should  do  so. 

VI.  Various  passages  prove  that  there  is  an  internal 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  minds  of  the 
faithful,  by  which  they  are  infallibly  taught  the  truth. 
Therefore  they  may  oppose  their  own  judgment  to  that 
of  the  whole  church.  Thus  it  is  WTitten  :  "  All  my 
children  shall  be  taught  of  the  Lord ''' :"  "  After  those 
days  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write 
it  in  their  hearts "" :"  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice  ^ :" 
"  When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth  ^ :"  "  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom  let  ' 
him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men  liberally, 
and   upbraideth   not ;    and    it   shall   be  given    him  ^ :" 

"  Ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you :  but  as  the 
same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is  truth  V 

"  2  Tim.  iii.  15—17.  '  Ibid.  xvi.  13. 

"  Isaiah  liv.  13.  '  James  i.  5. 

"  Jer.  xxxi.  33.  ^  1  John  ii.  27. 
-  John  X.  27- 


OBJECT.]  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  129 

&c.     "  He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  in  himself''." 

Ansiver.  I  admit  that  all  these  passages  prove  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  leading  believers  into 
truth  :  but  the  promises  are  ^\\  (leneral ;  and  if  christians 
universally,  Avith  all  the  external  signs  of  belief,  with 
the  use  of  all  means,  such  as  j^rayer,  the  investiga- 
tion of  scripture,  &c.  agree  in  their  judgment,  and 
determine  that  a  certain  doctrine  is  false  and  contra- 
dictory to  the  gospel ;  is  it  not  clear  that  they  are 
worthy  of  belief: — that  the  Spirit  has  spoken  by  them'' : 
and  that  the  contradictory  opinion  which  we  embrace 
on  our  own  interpretation  of  scripture,  cannot  be  legi- 
timately drawn  from  it  ? 

VII.  "  Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi ;  for  one  is  your  mas- 
ter, even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren "."  Therefore, 
Christ  alone  being  the  master  of  the  faithful,  they  are 
bound  not  to  submit  their  own  individual  judgment  to 
any  other  authority  whatever. 

Afiswer.  This  direction  is  designed  to  prevent  the 
assumption  of  any  undue  authority  by  pastors  over 
their  people,  or  of  one  christian  over  another :  as  the 
apostle  says,  "  Neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heri- 
tage, but  being  an  ensample  to  the  flock  ^;"  and  again, 
"  Not  for  that  we  have  dominion  over  your  faith,  but 
are  helpers  of  your  joy  ^."  But  this  does  not  authorize 
individuals  to  oppose  their  own  opinion,  to  that  which 
is  proved  to  be  true  by  the  united  solemn  testimony 
of  the  whole  christian  world. 

VIII.  It  is  admitted  that  we  must  employ  our  reason 
to  discover  A\hether  the  church  has  actually  judged  in 

"  1  John  V.  10.  '1  Pet.  v.  3. 

^  Matt.  X.  20.  e  2  Cor.  i.  24. 

*  Ibid,  xxiii.  8. 

VOL.  II.  K 


130  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments,   [p.  iv.  ch.  iv. 

any  particular  case.  Why  then  should  we  not  contitiue 
to  exercise  that  reason,  in  judging  whether  the  decision 
itself  is  or  is  not  conformable  to  scripture  ?  Why 
should  we  make  use  of  our  eyes  to  find  a  guide,  and 
then  put  them  out  to  follow  him  ? 

Amwer.  Men  were  obliged  to  exercise  their  reason  in 
order  to  believe  in  Christ ;  but  when  they  had  discovered 
his  divine  mission  they  were  bound  not  to  question  or  dis- 
pute his  doctrines,  or  those  of  the  ajjostles.  In  like  man- 
ner, the  inspiration  of  scripture  being  once  ascertained  by 
reason,  we  cannot  dispute  the  doctrines  revealed  there, 
nor  examine  them  by  our  own  reason.  So  also,  if  the 
church  universal  be  authorized  to  judge,  we  are  bound 
not  to  dispute  her  judgment,  though  we  may  have  ex- 
ercised our  reason  in  discovering  that  she  possesses  this 
authority,  and  in  ascertaining  the  particulars  of  her 
decrees. 

IX-  If  the  universal  church  cannot  formally  decide 
contrary  to  the  faith,  or  teach  falsehood,  then  the 
Reformation  erred  in  maintaining  that  some  false  doc- 
trines had  been  received  in  the  church. 

Ansiver.  (1.)  Particular  churches,  or  portions  of  the 
universal  church,  may  receive  errors,  without  ceasing  to 
be  churches,  provided  they  do  so  without  obstinacy,  or 
under  the  influence  of  an  excuseable  mistake.  There- 
fore some  Western  churches  subject  to  the  Roman  see, 
may  have  for  a  time  received  errors,  which  better  in- 
formation enabled  them  to  correct.  (2  )  The  opinions 
and  practices  common  in  the  Western  churches,  which 
were  objected  to,  were  not  contrary  to  faith,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  reformation,  evidenced  by  the 
Confession  of  Augsburgh  '\     (3.)  There  is  a  great  dif- 

''  Confcssio  August,  pars  i.  art.  22  ;   pars  ii.  prolo". 

15 


OBJECT.]  Authority  of  Universal  Judgments.  1  .S 1 

ference  between  common  opinions  and  practices,  which 
may  be  received  for  a  time  without  examination,  and 
by  abuse  ;  and  formal  judgments  of  the  catholic  church'. 
The  errors  of  Romanism  were  never  supported  by  any 
such  judgments  K 

X.  The  Articles  maintain  that  the  church  and  gene- 
ral councils  have  erred  in  faith. 

Answer.  The  Articles  only  affirm  that  the  particular 
church  of  Rome,  like  others,  has  erred  in  faith,  as  was 
evidenced  in  the  case  of  Liberius,  Honorius,  &c. ;  and 
that  councils  termed  general,  such  as  the  Latrocinium 
of  Ephesus,  have  also  erred  in  faith ;  but  they  do  not 
affirm  that  the  church  universal  has  ever  formally  ap- 
proved and  acted  on  the  decree  of  any  council  which 
opposed  the  faith  of  Christ. 

XI.  Chillingworth  says  "  that  the  Bible  only  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants,"  and  that  there  are  "  councils 
against  councils,"  and  "  the  church  of  one  age  against  the 
church  of  another  age  ^"  Therefore  it  is  inconsistent 
with  sound  principle,  to  maintain  any  authority  except 
that  of  the  Bible  only,  as  binding  on  christiaus. 

Answer.  (1.)  1  maintain  that  the  "Bible  only,"  in  a 
certain  sense,  has  always  been  the  religion  of  the  catholic 
church  ;  that  is,  the  church  has  always  believed  that  the 
whole  christian  faith  is  contained  in  the  Bible :  but  the 
church  is  authorized  to  judge  whether  any  controverted 
doctrine  is  taught  by  the  Bible.  (2.)  "  The  church  of 
one  age"  has  been  "  against  the  church  of  another"  in 
some  points,  that  is,  in  matters  of  opinioti,  but  not  in 
matters  of  faith.     Chillingworth  himself  does  not  mean 

'  See  Chapter  VT.  of  their  opinions,  is  distinguished 

■•See    Chapters   X,   XI,    XII,  from  that  of  the  catholic  church, 
where  the  authority  of  the  coun-  "^     Chillingworth,    religion     of 

cils  alleged  by  Romanists  in  proof  Protestants,  c.  vi.  sect.  56. 

k2 


132  Authority  of  UniversalJudgvients.  [part  i  v. 

that  what  he  calls  "  fundamental"  doctrines,  /.  e.  those 
contained  in  the  creeds,  have  been  denied  by  the  uni- 
versal church  in  any  age.  Nor  can  it  be  proved,  that 
any  article  of  faith,  ever  confessed  by  the  universal 
church,  has  at  any  other  time  been  relinquished  or  de- 
nied by  the  universal  church  '. 

X.tl.  The  whole  church  fell  into  the  Arian  heresy 
in  the  time  of  Athanasius,  after  the  council  of  Nice  had 
established  the  orthodox  doctrine. 

Answer.  I  deny  that  the  universal  church  ever  re- 
versed the  decree  made  at  Nice;  though  many  indi- 
viduals were  compelled  by  force,  or  misled  by  artifice,  to 
fail  in  their  steadfastness,  and  to  give  an  apparent  and 
temporary  sanction  to  what  was  contrary  to  their  real 
belief.  But  I  shall  consider  this  objection  more  fully 
in  treating  on  the  council  of  Ariminum  ™. 

XIII.  The  church  made  contradictory  decrees  in 
the  synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  concerning 
Eutyches;  and  in  the  synods  of  Constantinople  and 
Nice,  concerning  the  worship  of  images. 

'  See  Bishop  Van  Mildert's  as  the  church  catholic  can  be 
impressive  remarks  in  his  eighth  deemed  responsible,  the  substance 
Barapton  lecture,  where  he  ob-  of  sound  doctrine  still  remains  un- 
serves, that  "  if  a  candid  in-  destroyed  at  least,  if  not  unini- 
vestifTation  be  made  of  the  points  paired.  Let  us  take,  for  instance, 
generally  agreed  up(>n  by  the  those  articles  of  faith  which  we 
church  universal,  it  will  probably  have  already  shown  to  be  es- 
be  found,  that  at  no  period  of  its  sential  to  the  christian  covenant 
history  has  any  fundamental  or  ,  .  .  At  what  period  of  the  church 
essential  truth  of  the  Gospel  been  have  these  doctrines,  or  either  of 
authoritatively  disowned.  Parti-  them,  been  by  any  public  act 
cular  churches  may  have  added  disowned,  or  called  in  question  ? 
superstitious  observances,  and  .  .  .  No  age  of  the  church  has 
many  erroneous  tenets,  to  these  ever  been  entirely  free  from  at- 
essential  truths  ;  and  in  every  tempts  to  spread  pernicious  er- 
church,  particular  individuals,  or  rors  ;  yet  at  what  period  have 
congregations  of  individuals,  they  ever  received  its  authorita- 
may  have  tainted  large  portions  tive  sanction  ?"  &'c. 
of  the  christian  community  with  ^  See  Chapter  X.  section  2. 
pestilential  heresies.     15 ut  as  far 


CHAP,  v.]  Doctrine  of  a  Perpetual  Tribunal  refuted.  133 

Answer.  The  contradictory  synods  were  not  both 
approved  and  acted  on  by  the  universal  church ". 

XIV.  If  God  has  authorized  the  catholic  church  to 
judge  in  matters  of  controversy,  then  tlie  true  church 
must  always  be  in  a  condition  to  declare  her  judgment 
on  whatever  controversy  may  arise.  Consequently  the 
true  church  must  always  be  united  in  one  communion, 
and  the  Roman  obedience,  being  the  greatest  com- 
munion, must  be  the  true  church. 

Anstcer.  I  deny  that  the  universal  church  must  always 
be  in  a  condition  to  declare  her  judgment,  and  shall 
refute  this  notion  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON    THE    NOTION    OF    A    PERPETUAL    TRIBUNAL    IN    THE 
CHURCH. 

It  has  been  well  observed  by  Bossuet,  that  "  that  alone 
should  be  held  impossible  in  the  church,  which  would 
leave  the  truth  without  defence  ■"."  On  the  same  prin- 
ciple I  argue,  that  the  universal  church  need  not  always 
be  in  a  condition  to  pronounce  her  united  judgment  in 
matters  of  controversy;  because  the  truth  may  be  suf- 
ficiently defended  in  many  cases,  without  the  aid  of  any 
such  judgment. 

I.  Some  controversies,  as  every  one  admits,  need  no 

"  See  Chapter  X.  dicimus,  tutum  superesset  in  ec- 

*  "  Id  tantum   in   ecclesia  ha-  clesiae  catholicae  auctoritate  pras- 

bendum  est  pro   impossibili,  quo  sidium  :  non   ergo  ille  casus  est 

facto,  nullum   superesset  veritati  impossibilis." — Def.   Decl.   Cler. 

prsesidium  :     at    in    cas'i,    quern  Gall.  lib.  x.  c.  36. 


134  Doctrine  of  a  Perpetual  Tribunal  refuted,  [part  iv. 

decision,  and  may  continue  in  the  church.  Some  here- 
sies are  so  manifestly  opposed  to  scripture,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  catholic  church,  that  they  require  no 
condemnation  :  as  St.  Augustine  said,  "  What  need  was 
there  of  a  synod  to  condemn  a  manifest  error  ?  as  if  no 
heresy  had  ever  been  condemned  except  by  a  synod. 
There  are  but  few  which  need  for  their  condemnation 
any  such  thing ;  and  there  are  many,  yea  incomparably 
more  heresies  which  have  been  rejected  and  condemned 
where  they  arose;  and  which  have  been  known  elsewhere, 
only  in  order  to  be  avoided''."  Other  sects,  by  their  volun- 
tary separation  from  the  church,  or  their  formation  exte- 
rior to  it,  are  but  little  dangerous  to  the  faith  of  christ- 
ians. Even  of  those  heresies  which  require  to  be  con- 
demned, very  few  need  the  united  judgment  of  the  ca- 
tholic church.  More  than  sixty  heresies  were  suppressed 
before  the  synod  of  Nice,  by  the  arguments  and  authority 
of  the  bishops  and  provincial  synods.  Bossuet  himself 
admits  that  the  judgment  of  the  catholic  church  is  not 
essential  in  every  case  of  heresy "" ;  besides  this,  new 
heresies  may  often  be  manifest  revivals  of  old  ones 
formerly  condemned  by  the  catholic  church  ;  therefore 
she  need  not  always  be  in  a  condition  to  judge  in 
controversy. 

II.  This  indeed  cannot  be  denied  by  Romanists :  for 
during  the  great  Western  schism,  the  catholic  church 
(according  to  their  opinion)  was  divided  into  two  or 
three  different  obediences,  subject  to  as  many  rival 
popes  ''.     Therefore    a  general   synod   could   not  then 


''Contra  duas  Epistolas  Pela-  Eglises  Prot.   liv.  xv.  sect.  128; 

gianor.  lib.  iv.   c.  ult.   oper.  t.  x.  Tournely,   De   Ecclesia,   t.   i.    p. 

p.  492.  331,  &c.  360. 

'■  Bossuet,  Defens.   Decl.  Cler.  "^     Roman    theologians    prove 

GaU.  lib.  ix.  c.  1  ;  Variations  des  that    none   of    these    obediences 


CHAP,  v.]      Doctrine  of  a  Perpetual  Trihnnnl  refuted.  l.'].') 

have  been  convened  at  any  moment;  neither  couhl  any 
bishop  of  Rome  have  made  a  decision  in  controversy 
uhich  wonld  have  been  transmitted  to,  or  acknowledged 
by  all  the  church.  Consequently  the  church  was  not 
at  that  time  in  a  condition  to  determine  unitedly  con- 
troversies in  faith. 

III.  Besides  this,  it  results  necessarily  from  a  belief 
in  the  superintending  care  of  Christ  over  his  church, 
that  if  at  any  time  the  church  universal  be  divided 
in  communion  (as  it  actually  is  at  present),  no  new 
heresies  shall  be  permitted  to  arise,  which  would 
require  the  united  judgment  of  the  catholic  church ; 
but  that  any  which  do  arise,  shall  be  capal)le  of  re- 
futation and  suppression,  by  the  light  of  scripture  and 
tradition,  and  the  admonitions  and  judgments  of  the 
successors  of  the  apostles,  either  separately,  or  in  pro- 
vincial or  national  synods.  It  may  also  be  assumed,  as 
a  matter  of  certainty,  that  if  God  should  determine  that 
the  judgment  of  the  united  catholic  church  is  at  any 
time  necessary  to  preserve  the  truth ;  he  will  remove 
those  jealousies  and  misunderstandings,  that  ignorance, 
and  that  exaggerated  influence  of  the  Roman  see, 
which  have  for  a  time  impaired  the  harmony  of  the 
catholic  church. 


were  schismatical. — See  Tourne-     p.    643  ;     Delahogue,    De    Eccl. 
ly,  Praelect.  Theol.  de  Eccl.  t.  i.     Christi,  p.  34. 


136  Judgments,  Traditions^  and  Opinions,     [part  iv. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON  THE  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  ECCLESIASTICAL  JUDG- 
MENTS AND  TRADITIONS,  AND  MERE  COMMON  OPI- 
NIONS. 

Of  doctrines  and  practices  in  the  cliurcli,  some  have 
been  always  universally  received,  and  are  matters  of 
catholic  tradition  :  others  have  likewise  been  defined 
and  enjoined  by  the  authoritative  judgments  of  the 
universal  church :  but  besides  these,  there  are  doctrines 
which  prevail  in  certain  times  and  places,  without 
formal  judgments,  and  which  are  afterwards  relin- 
quished, as  forming  no  part  of  the  revealed  truth,  and 
rather  repugnant  to  it.  It  is  now  to  be  enquired 
whether  such  opinions  may  at  any  particular  time  pre- 
vail in  a  large  portion  of  the  church. 

I.  I  contend  that  some  opinion  which  is  an  error, 
but  not  a  heresy,  and  directly  contrary  to  the  truth  re- 
vealed by  Jesus  Christ,  may  for  a  time  prevail  in  a 
large  portion  of  the  catholic  church. 

1.  No  one  pretends  that  individuals  taken  sepa- 
rately, are,  by  the  divine  promises,  exempt  from  error 
even  in  matters  of  faith " :  nor  is  there  any  certainty 
that  particular  churches  may  not  fall  into  error.     It  is 

*  "  Episcopos  seorsum  exis-  seoraum  errare  possunt." — Bel- 
tentes  non  docet  Spiritus  Sanctus  larmin.  De  Conciliis  et  Ecclesia, 
oinnem     veritatem."       "  Siuguli     lib.  ii.  c.  2. 


CHAP.  VI.]       Common  Opinions  not  infallibly  true.  137 

admitted  by  Roman  theologians,  that  a  considerable 
])art  of  the  church  may  for  a  time  be  in  error  in  a 
matter  of  faith  or  morality,  through  some  mistake 
in  a  question  o^fad :  e.  g,  they  do  not  deny  that  the 
Western  churches  very  generally  rejected  the  decree  of 
the  synod  at  Nice  under  the  empress  Irene,  in  favour 
of  honourino-  imao'es  ''. 

o  o 

2.  The  promises  of  Christ  to  his  church  did  not  ex- 
tend to  a  total  exemption  from  all  error,  but  to  the 
preservation  of  the  truth  revealed  by  himself,  pure  and 
inviolate.  If  then,  a  large  portion  of  the  church  should 
receive  for  a  time  some  error  not  contrary  to  the  faith, 
the  promises  of  Christ  would  still  be  fulfilled. 

3.  It  is  admitted  by  our  opponents,  that  the  promise 
of  infallibility  was  made  by  Christ  to  the  great  body 
of  pastors  teaching  ^  that  is,  authoritatively  defining 
doctrine  :  but  an  error  not  contrary  to  faith,  received 
by  a  number  of  pastors  and  of  the  faithful,  merely  on 
the  authority  of  eminent  theologians,  as  Aquinas, 
Scotus,  &c.  without  any  controversy,  examination,  or 
formal  definition,  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  any  portion  of 
that  teaching  to  which  Christ's  promise  extends. 

4.  There  is,  humanly  speaking,  much  less  certainty 
of  the  truth  of  an  opinion  commonly  received  without 
discussion  and  inquiry  (unless  it  be  certain  that  it  has 
always  been  received  by  the  catholic  church),  than  of 
2.  judgment  made  by  the  universal  church,  which  always 
presupposes  the  use  of  all  the  ordinary  means  for  attain- 
ing the  truth.  The  necessity  of  this  use  of  means  is 
admitted  by  Roman  theologians  '\ 

"  Bossiiet,     Def.    Decl.    Cler.  Christi,  p.  148  ;  Bailly,  Tract,  de 

Gall.  lib.  vii.  c.   31 ;  Delahogue,  Eccl.  t.  ii.  p.  269. 

De  Ecclesia  Chrisli,  p.  177.  ''  In  reply  to  the  question  on 

•^    Delahoifue,      De      Ecclesia  what  conditions  Christ  promised 


138 


Cummon  Opinions  not  infallibly  true.       [part  iv. 


5.  In  fact,  some  opinions  which  are  generally  ad- 
mitted to  be  erroneous,  have  at  various  times  prevailed 
commonly  in  a  large  part  of  the  church.  Gerson  says, 
that  the  false  opinions  concerning  the  papal  power 
fretted  like  a  canker,  and  formerly  prevailed  so  far, 
that  he  would  have  been  esteemed  a  heretic,  who  had 
held  the  doctrine  of  the-  council  of  Constance  ^ 
Amongst  errors,  which  were  at  one  time  universal 
in  the  Latin  churches,  were  the  opinion  of  the 
lawfulness  of  burning  heretics ',  and  that  of  the  pope's 
power  in  temporals.  The  genuineness  of  the  decre- 
tals of  the  early  Roman  pontiffs  was  also  univer- 
sally held  in  the  Western  churches  for  some  cen- 
turies ;  and  the  error  of  fact  in  this  case  was  most 
materially  connected  with  doctrine  ;  for  the  papal  su- 
premacy, and  infallibility  in  matters  of  faith,  are  chiefly 


to  be  with  councils,  Hooke  says  : 
"  Si  in  nomine  suo  congregata 
fuerint,  hoc  est  servata  sufFragi- 
orum  libertate,  invocata  coelesti 
auxilio,  adhibita  humana  indus- 
tria  et  diligentia  in  conquirenda 
veritate  ....  Necesse  igitur  est 
episcopos  in  conciliis  omnia  ad- 
hibere  humana  et  ordinaria  me- 
dia, industriae,  diligentiae,  studii, 
collationis,  disputationis,  ad  ve- 
ritatem  detegendam  .  .  ;  neque 
enim  illis  nova  fit  revelatio,  sed 
quod  in  purissimis  scripturae  ac 
traditionis  fontibus  detegunt,  hoc 
fidelibus  proponunt,"  &c. — Relig. 
Nat.  et  Revel.  Princip.  t.  iii.  p. 
390.  So  also  Tournely,  De  Ec- 
clesia,  t.  i.  p.  384.  Gregorius  de 
Valentia  observes,  that  the  Ro- 
man pontiff,  though  infallible,  is 
under  the  same  obligations. — 
Analys.  Fid.  Cathol.  lib.  viii.  c. 
4.  So  also  Bellarmine,  lib.  i.  de 
Conciliis,  c.  11.  cited  by  Tournely, 


de  Eccl.  t.  i.  p.  356. 

^  "  Fallor  si  non  ante  celebra- 
tionem  hujus  sacrosanctae  Con- 
stant, synodi,  sic  occupaverat 
mentes  plurimorum,  literarum 
magis  quam  literatorum  ista  tra- 
ditio,  ut  oppositorum  dogmati- 
zator  fuisset  de  haeretica  pravi- 
tate  vel  notatus  vel  damnatus. 
Hujus  rei  signum  accipe,  quia 
post  declarationem  ex  theologiae 
principiis  luce  clariorem,  et  quod 
urgentius  est,  post  determinati- 
onem  et  practicationem  ejusdem 
sanctse  synodi,  inveniuntur  qui 
talia  palam  asserere  non  paveant ; 
tam  radicatum,  et  ut  cancer  ser- 
pens tam  medullitus  imbibitum 
fuit  hoc  priscae  adulationis  virus 
laetiferum." — Gerson,  De  Potest. 
Eccl.  consid.  12.  Oper.  t.  i.  p. 
135.  ed.   1606. 

^  This  is  argued  at  length  by 
Eckius,  Enchirid.  p.  156,  &c. 


CHAP.  VI.]      Common  Opinions  not  infallibly  true.  139 

founded  on  these  spurious  decretals  by  Canus  ^  and 
many  other  theologians  *".  The  Western  synod  of 
Constance  even  condemned  the  opinion  that  these 
decretals  were  spurious  ',  which  is  however  now  uni- 
versally received.  Bailly  says  :  "It  may  happen  that  a 
false  opinion  is  the  more  common  among  theologians. 
Thus  in  the  last  century,  almost  all  casuists  held  that 
the  less  safe  and  less  probable  opinion  might  safely  be 
adhered  to  K"  And  again :  "  It  may  happen  that  the 
common  opinion  is  not  true.  Christ  only  promised 
that  he  would  be  with  the  greater  number  of  bishops  in 
those  things  which  relate  to  faith,  not  in  mere  opinions 
which  are  different  in  different  times''."  According  to 
Bossuet,  "  any  person  who  does  not  embrace  the  whole 
series  of  tradition,  but  merely  addicts  himself  to  modern 
authors,  will  fall  into  most  grievous  errors '."  So  that 
it  is  evident,  that  theologians  generally,  in  a  large  ])art 
of  the  church,  may  be  in  error :  and  in  fact  Bossuet  re- 
marks, that  "  the  united  opinion  of  all  the  theologians 
of  modern  times  in  a  grave  matter,  makes  only  a  pro- 
bable  opinion,   which   may    not    be    despised    without 


6  Melchior    Canus,     De    locis  — Bailly,  De  Ecclesia,   t.    ii.    p. 

Theol.  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  268. 

^  See  the  very  useful  work  of         ^  "  Christus    tantum  promisit 

M.  De  Hontheim,  bishop  of  My-  se  futurum  esse  cum  majore  epis- 

riophyta,    entitled  "  Febronius,"  coporum  nuniero  in    iis  quae  ad 

where  the  influence  of  the  spu-  fidem  spectant,  non  in  meris  opi- 

rious  decretals  in  raising   the  pa-  nionibus  quae  variae  sunt  pro  va- 

pal     jurisdiction     is     considered  riis  temporibus." — Ibid.    p.  269. 
fully.  '  "  Id     aperte     incunctanter- 

'  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  103.  que  profiteor,   fore  ut  in  gravis- 

s.  28.  simos  errores  impingat,  qui  non 

J  "  Fieri  potest  ut  opinio  falsa  omnia  saecula   totamque   traditi- 

communior    sit   inter    theologos.  onis    seriem    mente     complexus, 

Sic  sseculo  proxime  elapso,omnes  recentioribus      se     addixerit."— 

fere  casuistae  sentiebant  opinioni  Bossuet,    Defens.    Declar.    Cler. 

minus  tutoe    et   minus    probabili  Gall.  Appendix,  lib.  ii.  c.  14. 
legitime  posse  adhaesionem  fieri." 


140  Common  Opinions  not,  infallibly  true.        [pa:!t  iv 

temerity  "\"  Delahogue  says,  that  "  since  the  promises 
of  Christ  relative  to  infallibility  do  not  concern  bishops 
except  when  they  teach ;  it  may  be  that  a  theological 
opinion,  far  the  most  common,  is  not  true.  Therefore 
it  would  be  wrong  to  apply  to  the  proof  of  the  truth  of 
such  opinions,  that  saying  of  St.  Augustine,  ecclesia 
quae  sunt  contra  fidem  nee  approbat  nee  facet "." 

6.  Roman  theologians  admit  that  doctrines  held 
even  by  what  they  consider  an  infallible  authority,  and 
equivalent  to  the  universal  church  °,  are  not  always  de 
fide,  and  therefore  may  be  disputed.  Bossuet  says  : 
"  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  many  things  are  said  and 
done  in  (general)  councils  by  which  catholics  unani- 
mously deny  that  they  are  bound  '\"  Melchior  Canus 
proves  "  that  all  things  which  are  even  absolutely  and 
simply  affirmed  in  (general)  councils,  are  not  decrees  of 
faith  ''."  Veron  observes,  that  "  many  things  are  con- 
tained in  the  universal  councils,  which  are  not  de  fide. 
That  is,  whatever  is  said  obiter  is  not  de  fide^  And  he 
also  remarks  on  the  contents  of  the  canons  or  chapters 
of  such  councils,  that  "  this  only  is  de  fide  which  is  ac- 
tually defined,  or  as  jurists  speak,  the  dispositivum 
arresti ;  but  the  motiviwi  arresti,  or  its  proofs,  are  not  de 
fide\"  Thus  it  is  conceded,  that  even  general  councils 
which  are  supposed  equivalent  to  the  universal  church, 
may  hold  doctrines  which  are  not  de  fide,  and  may  be 
disputed  ;  and  the  reason  of  this  is,  because  there  is  no 
discussion  or  examination  in  the  case,  and  the  promises 

">  Bossuet,  ibid.  p  Bossuet,   Def.  Declar.  Cler. 

"  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi,  Gall.  lib.  iii.  c.  1. 
P-  148.  1  Melchior   Canus,   De    Locis 

°  A  General   Council   accord-  Theol.  lib.  v.  c.  5. 
ing  to  them  is  the  representative  ■•  Veron,  Regula  Fidei,  c.  i.  s. 

church. — See  Eckii  Enchirid.  p.  4. 
16. 


CI  J  A  p.  VI.]       Comviou  Opinions  not  infallibly  true.  141 

of  Christ  to  his  church  do  not  apply.  Hence  we  might 
infer  on  the  principles  of  these  theologians,  that  some 
opinion  even  universally  received,  is  not  de  fide,  and  mav 
be  disputed. 

7.  In  fact,  several  theologians,  mentioned  by  Canus, 
have  held  without  censure,  that  "  although  the  church 
can  never  want  true  faith  or  charity,  yet  she  may  pro- 
bably be  ignorant  of  something,  which  being  unknown, 
the  church's  faith  is  not  lost.  .  .  .  For  though  she  should 
be  deceived,  yet  a  probable  and  blameless  error  would 
not  exclude  the  faith  of  the  church '."  This  opinion 
was  held  by  the  author  of  the  Glossa  interlinearis,  S. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  Cardinal  Turrecremata,  and  Alphon- 
sus  a  Castro.  Tournely  says  that  "  the  church  herself 
may  err  in  all  facts  merely  personal  and  historical, 
whose  truth  depends  on  human  testimony,  in  reporting 
the  histories  of  martyrs  and  other  saints,  in  citing  testi- 
monies of  the  fathers  as  genuine  which  are  not  so '." 

8.  In  fine,  I  ask  whether  it  is  certain  that  the  Roman 
church  herself  believes  that  whatever  is  commonly  held 
in  the  church  at  any  particular  time  is  de  fide,  and  may 
not  be  disputed  ?  I  have  never  observed  that  any  au- 
thoritative declaration  to  this  effect  has  been  adduced 
by  Roman  theologians. 

We  may  infer  from  this,  that  if  the  Roman  opinion  of 
transubstantiation  became  very  common  in  the  West 
for  two  or  three  ages  before  the  reformation,  this  preva- 
lence could  not  make  it  an  article  of  faith.  Nor  could 
the  adoption  of  this  opinion  afterwards  by  many  of  the 
Eastern  christians  confer  on  it  any  binding  authority. 
This  opinion  is  disputed  by  several  churches,  and  is  not 
universally  regarded  as  a  matter  of  faith  by  Romanists. 

^    Melcliior    Canus,    De    locis         *  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  i. 
Theol.  lib.  iv.  c.  iv.  "  p.  431. 


142  Common  Opinions  not  infallihhj  true.       [part  iv. 

II.  I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  show  that  some  opi- 
nion which  is  not  de  fide,  and  which  even  is  not  true, 
may  prevail  for  a  time  in  a  large  part  of  the  church. 
We  are  now  to  enquire  whether  such  an  opinion  may 
be  not  merely  received  in  a  large  part  of  the  church, 
but  held  by  some  persons  as  a  matter  of  faith.  I  reply 
that  it  may :  for  the  promises  of  Jesus  Christ  would 
not  fail,  in  case  an  opinion  untrue,  but  not  contrary  to 
the  gospel,  were  received  by  some  for  a  time,  through  a 
pardonable  mistake,  as  an  article  of  faith.  Bossuet  says, 
that  "  some,  many,  or  even  most  writers  of  an  age, 
may  say  absolutely  and  certainly,  De  fide  est :  erron- 
eum  est :  hsereticum  est :  with  more  confidence  than 
learning "."  And  we  know  that  in  the  Roman  church, 
some  of  the  Ultramontanes  and  Cisalpines,  and  of  the 
advocates  of  the  immaculate  conception,  regard  their 
own  doctrines  as  matters  of  faith,  and  consider  their 
opponents  as  heretics.  It  is  admitted  by  Roman  theo- 
logians, that  if  national  cimrches  doubt  on  probable 
grounds  whether  a  certain  cecumenical  council  is  oecu- 
menical, they  are  not  heretical  in  doubting  its  de- 
crees ''' ;  and  on  the  same  principle  they  are  bound  to 

"  Bossuet,   Def.    Declar.  Cleri  council   to   the  pope,   is  de  fide, 

Gallic.     Appendix,  lib.  ii.  c.  14.  and  cites  the  Coramonitorium  of 

The  faculty  of  theology  at  Paris,  Cardinal    de    Lorraine   in    1563, 

in  the  fifteenth  century,  declared  where  he  says,  "  Ego  vero  negare 

the  immaculate  conception  of  the  uon  possum   quin  Gallus   sim  et 

Virgin  to  be  de  fide ;   and  in  1521  Parisiensis  academiae  alumnus,  in 

declared  that  the  doctrine  of  Clic-  qua  Romanum  pontificem  subesse 

tovseus,  who  held  that  Mary  Mag-  concilio  tenetur,  et  qui  decent  ihi 

dalene  was  a  different  person  from  contrarium,    ii   tanquam   li(jeretici 

Mary  sister  of  Martha,  and  the  notcvilur.'''  —  Launoii     Epistolag, 

sinner,  was  opposed  to  the  doc-  pars  ii.  ep.  6    ed.  Cantab.  1689. 
trine  of  the  catholic  church,  and  "  "  Quandoque  baud  immerito 

should  not  be  tolerated.    Fleury,  ac  bona  fide  dubitatur,  utrura  ali- 

lib,    cxxvii.    sect.    80.      Launoy  qua  synodus  sit  vere  oecumenica. 

proves  that  the  Galilean  doctrine  Quale    dubium    contigisse    vidi- 

of  the    superiority    of  a   general  nius  Hispanicae  et  Gallicae  eccle- 


CHAP.  VI.]  lleformatiov  probably  requisite.  143 

admit,  that  if  national  churches  believe  on  probable 
grounds  that  a  non-oecumenical  council  is  oecumeni- 
cal, they  are  not  heretical  in  holding  its  decrees 
(though  erroneous)  to  be  matters  of  faith.  This  is 
actually  exemplified  by  the  recejDtion  of  the  synod  of 
Trent  in  the  churches  of  the  Roman  obedience. 

III.  May  the  church  generally  adopt  a  rite  or  cus- 
tom which  is  liable  to  abuse,  which  is  actually  abused, 
or  which  tends  to  disturb  the  order  and  peace  of  the 
brethren  ?  I  answer  that  she  may,  because  Christ  only 
promised  to  protect  the  majority  of  his  church  from 
falling  into  errors  contrary  to  faith  or  morality ;  but 
this  does  not  necessarily  infer  the  gift  of  wisdom  to 
perceive  the  tendencies  of  particular  institutions,  or 
the  abuses  to  which  they  are  subject ;  and  besides, 
abuses  may  vary  in  different  places.  If,  therefore,  the 
church  for  a  time  universally  adopted  the  custom  of 
honouring  images,  and  invocating  saints  to  pray  for  us ; 
these  customs  might  be  afterwards  accounted  very  in- 
expedient and  even  unlawful  to  be  continued,  when  a 
fuller  light  was  thrown  on  their  tendency  and  abuses. 

Hence  we  may  infer  altogether,  that  consistently 
with  the  promises  of  Christ  to  his  church,  several 
erroneous  opinions  and  superstitious  practices  might 
have  been  received  more  or  less  commonly  for  some 
time  before  the  reformation ;  especially  in  ages  when 
scripture  and  tradition  were  less  consulted  by  theolo- 
gians, than  mere  philosophical  reasonings.  Bossuet,  in 
observing  on  the  absurd  doctrine  that  bishops  are  merely 
counsellors  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  that  as  they  derive 

siae,    circa    synodum    sextam    et  shewn  that  several  general  synods 

septimara,    ad    quas    vocati    non  were  not  received   by  particular 

essent." — Bossuet,  Defens.  Decl.  churches,  which   were    neverthe- 

Cler.  Gal!,  lib.  viii.  c.ix.  See  also  less  free  from  heresy.      See  also 

lib,    vii.    c.    29,   31,    where   it   is  Tournely,  De  Ecc.  t.  i.  p.  401. 


144  Heformation  probably  requisite.  [part.  iv. 

everything  from  him,  they  can  do  nothing  against  his 
will,  says,  "  This  doctrine  falls  of  itself,  on  this  account, 
that  being  unheard  of  in  early  times,  it  began  to  be 
introduced  into  theology  in  the  thirteenth  century,  that 
is  to  say,  after  they  preferred  for  the  most  part,  to  pro- 
ceed on  philosophical  reasonings  of  the  worst  descrip- 
tion, rather  than  to  consult  the  fathers  ^T  Even  those 
who  cited  the  fathers,  most  commonly  did  so,  either 
from  the  Book  of  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard,  or  from 
the  Canon  Law :  comparatively  few  seem  to  have  stu- 
died the  originals.  The  schoolmen  continually  cite 
the  Canon  Law  as  decisive  in  matters  of  doctrine : 
and  no  one  thought  of  disputing  the  genuineness  of  the 
early  papal  decretals,  which  are  now  universally  ac- 
knowledged to  be  spurious.  Fleury  says ;  "  It  was  the 
misfortune  of  the  doctors  of  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries,  to  know  but  little  of  the  works  of  the 
fathers,  especially  the  more  ancient;  and  to  be  deficient 
in  the  aids  necessary  for  well  understanding  them.  It 
is  not  that  their  books  were  lost :  they  existed,  for  we 
have  them  still :  but  the  copies  of  them  were  rare,  and 
hid  in  the  libraries  of  the  ancient  monasteries,  where 
little  use  was  made  of  them.  There  the  kinof  S.  Louis 
caused  them  to  be  sought  for,  and  transcribed,  and 
multiplied  to  the  great  advantage  of  learning ;  and 
thence  arose  the  great  work  of  Vincent  of  Beauvais, 
where  ^\e  see  extracts  from  so  many  ancient  authors. 
In  the  preceding  centuiy  we  see  a 'great  number  cited 
in  the  works  of  John  of  Salisbury :  but  this  was  the 
curiosity  of  some  individuals.  The  generality  of  stu- 
dents and  even  of  doctors,  limited  themselves  to  a  few 
books ;  chiefly  to  those  of  modern  authors,  which  they 

"  Bossuet,  Defensio  Declar.  Ckr.  Gallic,  lib.  viii.  c.  xi. 


CHAP.  VI.]  Reformation  probably  requisite.  145 

understood  better  than  the  ancients  \"  "  I  do  not  cease 
to  wonder,  that  in  times  so  calamitous,  and  with  sucli 
small  aid,  the  doctors  so  faithfully  preserved  to  us  the 
deposit  of  tradition,  as  far  as  relates  to  doctrine  ^."  The 
Abbe  Goujet  observes  that  the  study  of  scripture  had 
"been  extremely  neglected"  when  letters  began  to  re- 
vive. "  They  did  not  engage  in  the  study  of  it,  even  in 
schools  of  theology,  except  with  great  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  tlie  hands  of  those 
who  wished  to  apply  to  theological  science.  Hence  the 
ignorance  which  reigned  in  the  clergy;  the  few  de- 
fenders which  the  church  found  among  them  to  main- 
tain her  doctrines  against  heresies The  study  of 

holy  scripture  at  length  caused  men  to  escape  from 
this  lethargy,  which  would  have  destroyed  the  church, 
if  the  church  could  have  perished.  When  it  was 
read  in  its  original,  men  soon  perceived  the  crowd 
of  errors  and  false  opinions  which  had  inundated 
the  whole  church,  and  which,  like  a  dangerous  tare, 
had  nearly  choked  the  good  seed."  He  remarks  after- 
wards, that  "the  theologians  who  preceded  the  14th 
century,  and  were  after  the  time  of  St.  Bernard  or  St. 
Thomas,  had  deprived  themselves  of  an  advantage 
essential  to  know  well  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  in 
abandoning,  or  at  least  neglecting  so  much  the  study 
of  the  fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin"."  Hence  we 
need  not  wonder  at  the  account  which  Melchior  Canus 
gives  of  the  state  of  theology  at  the  period  of  the  refor- 

"  Fleury,  Cinquieme  Discours  nouvelleraent  des  Etudes,  printed 

sur  I'Histoire  Ecclesiastique.  with  Fleury's  Discourses  on  EccL 

''  Ibid.  History. 
'"■  Goujet,  Discours  sur  le  Re- 

VOL.  II.  L 


146  Beformation  probably  requisite,     [p.  iv.  ch.  vi. 

mation,  "  Would  that  we  ourselves  had  not  known  by- 
experience,  that  in  the  present  age  there  were  in  the 
universities  many,  who  carried  on  almost  every  theo- 
logical disputation  by  sophistical  and  absurd  reasomings. 
The  devil  caused,  (what  I  cannot  say  without  tears,) 
that  when  it  was  necessary  that  the  scholastic  theolo- 
gians should  have  been  armed  with  the  very  best 
weapons  against  the  invading  heresies  of  Germany, 
they  were  absolutely  destitute  of  any,  except  long 
reeds,  the  trifling  arms  of  children.  Thus  they  were 
generally  laughed  at,  and  justly  too,  because  they  pos- 
sessed no  solid  image  of  true  theology,  but  employed 
its  shadows;  and  would  that  they  had  even  followed 
them,  for  they  are  drawn  from  the  principles  of  sa- 
cred scripture,  of  which  these  men  did  not  reach  even 
the  shadows.  Wherefore,  being  merely  verbally  doc- 
tors of  theology,  they  contended  indeed  against  the 
enemies  of  the  church,  but  most  unhappily."  He  after- 
wards says,  "  Wherefore  we  may  account  it  sufficiently 
evident,  how  badly  men  can  dispute  or  write  concern- 
ing theology,  who  either  reject,  or  are  ignorant  of  the 
scripture,  the  apostolical  traditions,  the  doctrines  of 
councils,  the  decrees  of  pontifical  law,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  ancient  saints"."  In  1530,  the  faculty  of 
arts  of  the  university  of  Paris  addressed  to  the  parlia- 
ment a  complaint  on  the  manner  in  which  theology 
was  taught.  "  The  study  of  sacred  scripture,  they  said, 
is  neglected,  the  holy  gospels  are  no  longer  cited,  the 
authority  of  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Augus- 
tine, and  the  other  fathers,  is  not  employed;  theology 
is  nothing  more  than  a  sophistical  science,"  &c.  The 
parliament  accordingly  ordered  that  no  one  should  be 
licensed,  who  had  not  studied  holy  scripture,  the  holy 

"  Melchior  Canus,  De  locis  Theol.  lib.  ix.  c.  1. 


OBJECT.]  Reformation  probably  requisite.  147 

doctors  of  the  church,  and  the  master  of  the  Sen- 
tences ^  All  these  circumstances  render  it  highly  pro- 
bable that  several  opinions  may  have  grown  up  during 
the  middle  ages  in  the  Latin  churches,  and  obtained 
more  or  less  prevalence,  which  the  church  might  reject 
afterwards,  when  scripture  and  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers  were  more  attentively  examined. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  faith  of  the  church  cannot  fail.  The  church 
being  the  body  of  Christ,  must  be  moved  and  governed 
by  its  head  :  if,  therefore,  the  church  erred,  its  error 
must  be  referred  to  Christ.    (Canus.) 

Answer.  (1.)  Admitting  that  the  church's  faith  can- 
not fail,  I  deny  that  there  would  be  any  failure  in  faith, 
if  an  opinion  was  commonly  held,  which  was  an  error 
not  contrary  to  faith.  (2.)  I  admit  that  the  church  is 
governed  and  moved  by  Christ,  in  what  concerns  the 
preservation  of  the  faith ;  but  maintain  that  it  is  not 
exempted  from  the  temporary  prevalence  of  some  erro- 
neous ojjinions  not  contrary  to  faith. 

II.  If  any  thing  false  was  maintained  by  the  church, 
as  a  dogma  of  the  catholic  faith,  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
would  not  always  remain  with  the  faithful,  and  teach 
them  all  truth  according  to  his  promise. 

Answer.  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  catholic  church, 
defining  formally  and  collectively,  could  do  so  at  any 
time  :  it  has  never  yet  done  so  :  but  the  Spirit  of 
Truth  w^as  given  for  the  preservation  of  the  truth  re- 
vealed hy  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  the  meaning  of  the 
expression  "  all  truth,"  here  used ;  and,  therefore,  if  the 
majority  of  the  church  received  for  a  time  some  error 
not  contrary  to  faith,  and  if  some  in  the  church  held 

''  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  133.  seel.  91. 

L  2 


148  Reformation  prohahhj  requisite,     [p.  iv.  en.  vr. 

that  error  as  a  matter  of  faith,  the  promise  of  Christ 
would  still  be  fulfilled. 

III.  The  church  is  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth;"  therefore  she  cannot  propose  a  false  dogma, 
even  through  ignorance. 

Answer.  The  catholic  church  cannot  do  so  by  a  formal 
judgment,  because  all  men  would  be  bound  to  believe 
her ;  but  particular  synods,  and  many  members  of  the 
church  dispersed,  may  do  so,  because  the  doctrine  may 
still  be  examined  by  the  light  of  scripture  and  catholic 
tradition. 

IV.  If  the  majority  of  the  church  might  err  on  some 
point,  it  may  have  erred  in  receiving  the  Gospels  as 
canonical. 

Answer.  We  do  not  receive  the  Gospels  merely  on 
the  testimony  of  the  church  at  this  time  existing ;  but 
on  that  of  the  church  in  all  ages  from  the  beginning. 

V.  If  every  doctrine  generally  received  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  existing  church  be  not  infallibly  true,  we 
may  doubt  all  doctrines  which  have  been  taught  us. 

Answer.  Though  it  be  abstractedly  possible  that  some 
prevalent  opinion  may  be  incorrect,  yet  we  should  not 
hesitate  to  believe  generally  what  is  received  in  the 
visible  church ;  because  the  promises  of  Christ  assure 
us,  that  the  church,  on  the  whole,  teaches  the  truth 
revealed  by  him  ;  and  the  authority  which  teaches  us 
christian  doctrine  is  so  probable  in  itself,  that  we  can 
never  be  justified  in  doubting  it  on  any  point,  unless 
there  be  clear  evidence  that  scripture  and  catholic  tra- 
dition do  not  support,  but  are  rather  repugnant  to  it  in 
that  point. 

VI.  If  individuals  may  generally  hold  an  erroneous 
opinion,  they  may  perhaps  be  in  error  in  holding  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Incarnation,  Atonement,  &c. 


OBJECT.]  Reformation  probably  requisite.  149 

Answer.  These  doctrines  have  been  amply  discussed 
long  ago,  and  approved  by  formal  judgments  of  the 
church  ;  and  it  is  as  notorious  that  they  have  been  so 
ai)proved,  and  always  received  in  the  church  as  matters 
of  faith,  as  it  is  that  they  are  so  received  at  this  mo- 
ment. But  doctrines  which  the  universal  church  has 
not  defined,  or  matters  held  by  many  individuals  with- 
out discussion  and  judgment,  are  not  equally  certain. 

VII.  If  individuals  may  at  a  particular  time  com- 
monly hold  an  erroneous  opinion,  and  through  that 
opinion  maintain  an  error  in  doctrine,  then  there  can 
be  no  binding  authority  in  the  tradition  of  the  church, 
which  may  have  been  corrupted  at  some  time. 

Answer.  Divine  Providence  would  not  have  per- 
mitted any  error,  even  one  which  is  founded  on  ig- 
norance or  on  a  mistaken  opinion,  to  prevail  always  in 
the  church ;  because  it  would,  in  this  case,  have  M'orn 
so  strongly  the  appearance  of  truth,  that  it  could  never 
have  been  relinquished.  It  is  also  impossible,  from  the 
nature  of  things,  that  any  error  could  always  have  pre- 
vailed generally  in  the  church  ;  because  the  apostles 
taught  nothing  but  truth,  and  error  could  not  have  been 
immediately  received  universally  without  opposition. 
But,  notwithstanding  this,  an  erroneous  opinion  might 
be  received  commonly  at  a  particular  time,  considerably 
after  the  apostolic  age,  because  it  would  be  always 
liable  to  be  relinquished  when  enquiry  and  discussion 
arose.  Therefore,  while  I  deny  that  the  mere  present 
opinion  and  doctrine  of  individuals  generally  is  abso- 
lutely infallible,  but  affords  only  a  probable  reason, 
which  may  be  relinquished  when  enquiry  discerns  evi- 
dently that  a  received  opinion  is  only  modern ;  I 
maintain,  that  universal  apostolical  tradition  is  of  irre- 
fragable authority,  as  I  have  elsewhere  said. 


150  On  (Ecumenical  Synods.  [pari'  iv. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON    THE    NATURE    AND    AUTHORITY    OF    CECUMENICAL 
SYNODS. 

(Ecumenical,  or  universal  synods,  are  those  assemblies 
of  bishops  which  are  supposed  to  represent,  in  some 
way,  the  church  universal.  They  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes:  those  which  have  been  approved  and  termed 
oecumenical  by  the  universal  church,  and  which  alone 
are  properly  accounted  oecumenical  councils  ;  and  those 
which  the  universal  church  does  not  so  approve  and  de- 
signate. Of  the  former,  there  have  been  only  six  ;  the 
latter  are  more  numerous  :  and  though  some  of  them 
are  received  as  oecumenical  by  different  parts  of  the 
church,  their  authority  is  much  inferior  to  that  of  the 
former. 

Theologians  endeavour  to  lay  down  several  rules  for 
determining  whether  a  council  be  oecumenical  or  not. 
Some  contend  that  all  the  bishops  of  the  universal 
church  must  be  summoned  by  the  Roman  patriarch ; 
that  he  alone  presides,  by  himself  or  his  legates ;  that 
the  decrees  of  the  council  need  his  confirmation.  Others 
dispute  the  necessity  of  these  conditions,  and  require 
tlie  previous  consent  of  the  Eastern  patriarchs,  or  of 


CHAT.  VII.]  On  (Ecumenical  Synods.  151 

temporal  princes ''.  These  various  opinions,  as  to  the 
conditions  essential  to  constitute  an  oecumenical  coun- 
cil, are  discussed  by  Launoius,  doctor  of  the  Sorbonne  ^ ; 
and  those  Romanists  who  affirm,  as  a  matter  of  cer- 
tainty, that  the  oecumenical  synods  are  neither  more 
nor  less  than  eighteen,  would  do  well  to  consult  his 
epistle,  in  which  it  is  shown  that  some  writers  of  the 
Roman  obedience  only  admit  nine  or  ten  synods,  while 
others  admit  various  larger  numbers.  In  fact,  it  is  now 
generally  affirmed,  by  Roman  theologians  of  respect- 
ability, after  Bossuet ",  that  the  only  final  proof  of  the 
oecumenicity  of  a  council,  is  its  acceptance  by  the  uni- 
versal church  as  oecumenical ;  and  that  this  acceptance 
confers  on  it  such  an  authority,  that  no  defects  in  its 
mode  of  celebration  can  be  adduced  afterwards  to 
throw  doubt  on  its  judgments. 

The  final  authority  of  proper  oecumenical  synods  does 
not  arise  merely  from  the  number  of  bishops  assembled 
in  them,  but  from  the  approbation  of  the  catholic  church 
throughout  the  world ;  which,  having  received  their  de- 
crees, examines  them  with  the  respect  due  to  so  consi- 
derable an  authority,  compares  them  with  scripture  and 
catholic  tradition,  and  by  an  universal  approbation  and 
execution  of  those  decrees,  pronounces  a  final  and  irre- 
fragable sentence  in  their  favour. 

Romanists,  however,   still  most  commonly  contend 


^    For   the    various    questions  Gallicane,  part  iii.  c.  2  ;  De  Hon- 

concerning  general  councils,  and  tlieim,  Febronius,  c.  vi ;  Launoii 

for    a    refutation   of    the    papal  Epistolae,  pars  vi.  viii  ;   Tourne- 

claims,  see  Field,  of  the  Church,  ly,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  i.  p.  380,  &c. 

book  V.    c.  48 — 53  ;   Barrow  on  ^  Launoii  Epistolae,  pars  viii. 

the  Pope's  Supremacy;    Crakan-  ep.  11. 

thorp,    De   loc.    arg.   ab   author.  '^  Bossuet,    Def.     Decl.     Cler. 

Logicse,    c.    16  ;    Bossuet,    Def.  Gall.  lib.  viii.  c.  ix.  ad  fin.;  Re- 

Cler.  Gallic,  lib.  vii ;   De  Barral,  ponse  a  plusieurs  lettres  de  Leib- 

Defens.  des  Libertes  de   I'Eglise  nitz,  let.  xxii. 


152  Infallihility  of  General  Synods,     [p.  iv.  ch.  vii. 

that  an  oecumenical  council  confirmed  by  the  Roman 
patriarch  is  in  itself  infallible  ;  so  that  the  approbation 
of  the  catholic  church  does  not  add  to  its  authority,  but 
merely  proves  that  the  council  was  truly  oecumenical  ^. 
Against  this  doctrine  I  shall  first  prove  that  it  is  only 
a  matter  of  opinion,  even  in  the  Roman  obedience ;  and, 
secondly,  that  it  is  an  erroneous  opinion, 

SECTION  1. 

THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  A  GENERAL  SYNOD,  LAWFULLY  CELE- 
BRATED, AND  CONFIRMED  BY  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFF  ALONE, 
IS  ONLV   A  MATTER  OF  OPINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  CHURCHES, 

It  is  necessary  to  jjremise  that  I  here  speak  only  of 
such  a  synod  as  consists  of  the  clear  minority  of  the 
whole  body  of  catholic  bishops,  as  has  been  the  case  in 
all  synods  hitherto  ^  I  do  not  speak  of  a  synod  in 
which  the  great  majority  of  bishops  were  assembled, 
and  decreed  unanimously.  Having  stated  this,  I  argue 
thus : 

1.  According  to  the  universal  doctrine  of  those  Ro- 
man theologians  who  admit  the  infallibility  of  a  general 
council  confirmed  by  their  pope,  their  infallibility,  when 
united,  arises  not  from  their  union,  but  solely  from  that 
of  one  or  other  of  the  parts,  i.  e.  either  from  the  coun- 
cil (as  the  Galileans  hold),  or  from  the  pope  (as  the 
Ultramontanes  hold) '.     But  the  infallibility  of  either 

^   "  Subsequeas   ecclesise    dis-  Jos.  Hooke,  Religionis    Nat.  et 

persae  approbatio  est  tantum  sig-  Rev.  Principia,  t.  iii.  p.  394. 
num,     quo    illius    oecumenicitas         *   "  Quisquis  sit  numerus  epis- 

ita    declaratur,   ut  de    illius    su-  coporum    adstautium    nuinquam 

prema    et    infallibili     autoritate  constituit  majorem  omnium  uni- 

iiullum    moveri    possit    dubium,  versi  orbis  episeoporum  partem." 

sub   quocumque    pra^textu    con-  —  Delahogue,     De    Ecclesia,  p. 

ditionum   quae  in   illo  desiderari  166. 

dicerentur."  —   Delahogue,    De  '  "  Ex  quo  apparet  totam  fir- 

Ecclesia,  p.    166.      See   also   L.  niitatem     conciliorum    legitimo- 


SECT.  I.] 


Not  a  Matter  of  Faith. 


153 


part,  is  not  matter  of  faith  (as  Roman  theologians 
admit)  ^ ;  therefore  that  of  the  whole,  founded  on  it, 
cannot  be  matter  of  faith. 

2.  No  proofs  from  scripture  or  tradition  have  been 
adduced  to  prove  the  infallibility  of  this  united  authority, 
except  as  proving  the  infallibility  of  one  or  other  of  its 
parts ;  but  these  passages  are  not  sufficiently  clear  to 
render  the  infallibility  of  either  part  a  matter  of  faith 
amongst  Romanists  ;  therefore  they  cannot  render  that 
of  the  whole  a  matter  of  faith. 

3.  According  to  Bossuet,  "that  only  is  to  be  held 
impossible  in  the  church,  which  being  done,  there 
would  no  longer  be  any  safeguard  for  the  truth '' ;"  but 
if  a  general  council,  confirmed  by  the  pope,  were  liable 
to  error,  the  authority  of  the  catholic  church,  dispersed 
throughout  the  world,  would  still  constitute  a  sufficient 


rum  esse  a  pontifice,  non  partim 
a  pontifice,  partim  a  concilio." 
—  Bellarm.  De  Romano  Pon- 
tifice, lib.  iv.  c.  iii.  So  also 
Turrecremata,  Summa,  lib.  iii.  c. 
58  ;  Gregor,  de  Valentia,  Ana- 
lysis Fidei  Cathol.  lib.  viii.  c.  7. 
On  the  other  hand,  Tournely 
holds,  with  the  Galilean  theolo- 
gians, that  the  papal  confirmation 
is  not  essential  to  the  authority 
of  a  general  council's  decrees  ; 
observing,  "  Absque  tali  confir- 
matione  .  .  .  suam  concilio  ce- 
cumenico  ....  stare  firmitatem 
et  auctoritatem,  quain  habet  a 
Christo  immediate,  non  a  S.  Pon- 
tifice, cui  proinde  omnes  chris- 
tiani  obedire  tenentur  cujuscum- 
que  conditionis  sint,  etiam  pa- 
palis,  ut  declarat  synodus  Con- 
stantiensis." — Tourn.  de  Eccl.  t. 
i.  p.  419. 

s  Delahogue   proves  from   the 


Walenburghs,  Veron,  Du  Perron, 
the  synod  of  Trent,  &c.  that  the 
papal  infallibility  is  not  de  Jide, 
— De  Eccl.  p.  386,  &c.  Bellar- 
mine,  Valentia,  Canus,  and  the 
Ultramontanes  generally,  profess 
to  prove  that  the  infallibility  of 
councils,  apart  from  the  pope's 
authority,  is  so  far  from  being 
de  fide,  that  it  is  an  error. 

^  "Id  tantum  in  ecclesia  ha- 
bendum est  pro  impossibili,  quo 
facto,  nullum  superesset  veritati 
praesidium  :  at  in  casu  quem  di- 
cimus,  tutum  superesset  in  ec- 
clesise  catholicae  auctoritate  prae- 
sidium :  non  ergo  ille  casus  est 
impossibilis.  Quae  cum  ita  sint, 
ecclesia  catholica  sola  est,  quae 
nunquam  deficere,  nunquam  er- 
rare  possit,  ac  ne  momento  qui- 
dem."  —  Bossuet,  Defensio  De- 
clar.  Cleri  Gallicani,  lib.  x.  c. 
36. 


154  Infullihility  of  General  Synods,      [p.  iv.  ch,  vii. 

guard  for  the  truth,  aud  therefore  it  is  not  impossible 
that  such  a  council  may  err. 

4.  La  Chambre,  and  other  Roman  theologians,  have 
maintained,  without  any  censure,  that  the  catholic 
church  herself  cannot  define  whether  a  disputed  gene- 
ral council  was  really  general.  This  opinion  is  said  by 
Delahogue,  to  lead  to  no  serious  inconvenience,  because 
its  authors  admit  that  the  consent  given  by  the  church 
to  any  council,  confers  on  it  all  the  authority  of  a  gene- 
ral council '.  Nor  is  there  any  greater  inconvenience  in 
our  doctrine,  which  supposes  that  the  approbation  of 
the  church  dispersed,  gives  to  the  decrees  of  any  coun- 
cil a  final  and  irrefragable  authority;  therefore  it  is 
equally  free  from  censure. 

5.  In  fact  several  theologians  of  the  Roman  churches 
have  taught  this  very  doctrine.  Bouvier  says :  "  some 
theologians  are  of  opinion,  that  this  approbation  of  the 
church  confers  all  its  authority  on  a  general  council  ^" 
This  doctrine  is  taught  by  DeBarral,  archbishop  of  Tours, 
and  by  Trevern,  bishop  of  Strasburgh,  after  Bossuet. 
The  first  says,  "  There  are  facts  which  prove  in  an  invin- 
cible manner  that  neither  the  decrees  of  popes,  nor  even 


'  "  Quidam  theologi  ultra  pro-  alicui  concilio  cujus  decreta  ap- 

gressi   sunt  et  dixere   ipsam  ec-  probat,  illi  omnem   tribuere  au- 

clesiam  definire  non  posse  aliquod  toritatem  concilii  oecumenici  sive 

concilium  de  cujus  oecumenicitate  tale  sit,  sive  non,  ex  hac  opinione 

dubitaretur,  re  vera  oecumenicum  non  videtur  grave  sequi  incom- 

fuisse :    quia   quod  iiiquiunt,   ibi  modum."  —  Delahogue,  De  Ec- 

agiturde /acfo  de  quo  nihil  statui  clesia,  p.  175. 

potest  nisi  innumer^expendantur  J     "  Quid  am     tamen     theologi 

circumstantise  ex  quibus  pendet  opinantur  banc  ecclesiae   appro- 

illius  Veritas.      Ita  inter  alios  D.  bationem     omnem     auctoritatem 

La  Chambre  in  Gallico  Tractatu  concilio    generali      tribuere."  — 

de  Ecclesia,   t.  iii.  p.  16  et  seq.  Bouvier,  Tract.  deVera  Ecclesia, 

Cum  autem  isti  theologi  admit-  p.  234. 
tant  consensum  datum  ab  ecclesia 

15 


SECT.  I.]  Not  a  Matter  of  Faith.  155 

those  of  councils,  acquire  an  irrefragable  authority,  ex- 
cept by  virtue  of  the  consent  of  the  universal  church  ^" 
Trevern  cites  the  following  passage  from  Bossuet,  which 
very  plainly  teaches  that  the  final  authority  is  in  all 
cases  vested  in  the  whole  catholic  church.  "  The  last 
mark,"  he  says,  "  of  any  council  or  assembly's  repre- 
senting truly  the  catholic  church,  is  when  the  whole 
body  of  the  episcopate,  and  the  whole  society  which 
professes  to  receive  its  instructions,  approve  and  receive 
that  council :  this,  I  say,  is  the  last  seal  of  the  authority 
of  this  council  and  the  infallihility  of  its  decrees." — "  The 
council  of  Orange  .  .  was  by  no  means  universal.  It 
contained  chapters  which  the  pope  had  sent.  In  this 
council  there  were  scarcely  twelve  or  thirteen  bishops. 
But  because  it  was  received  without  opposition,  its  de- 
cisions are  no  more  disputed  than  those  of  the  council 
of  Nice,  because  every  thing  depe^ids  on  consent.  There 
were  but  few  bishops  of  the  West  in  the  council  of 
Nice,  there  were  none  in  that  of  Constantinople,  none 
in  that  of  Ephesus,  and  at  Chalcedon  only  the  legates  of 
the  pope :  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  others.  But 
because  all  the  ivorld  consented  then  or  afterwards,  those 
decrees  are  the  decrees  of  the  whole  world.  .  .  If  we  go 
further  back,  Paul  of  Samosata  was  condemned  only  by 
a  particular  council  held  at  Antioch :  but  because  its 
decree  was  addressed  to  all  the  bishops  in  the  world, 
and  received  by  them  (for  in  this  resides  the  whole  force, 
and  without  it  the  mere  address  would  be  nothing)  this 
decree  is  immoveable'."  Hence  I  conclude  that  the 
doctrine   of  the  infallibility  of  a  general  council  con- 


"^  De  Barral,   Defense  des  Li-  plusieurs  lettres  de  M.  Leibnitz, 

bertes   de  I'Eglise    Gallicane,  p.  — Lettre  xxii,  cited  by  Trevern, 

284.  Discussion  Amicale,  t.  i.  p.  222, 

'  Reponse   de  M.   Bossuet   a  223. 


156  General  Synods  not  infallible.       [p.  iv.  ch.  vii. 

firmed  by  the  pope,  independently  of  the  consent  of  the 
catholic  church,  is  only  an  opinion  in  the  Roman 
churches ;  and  though  it  be  the  more  common  opinion, 
I  have  shown  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  common 
opinion  may  not  be  true.  And  though  some  Roman 
theologians  may  esteem  the  contrary  doctrine  which 
I  shall  maintain,  as  heretical,  their  opinion  by  no  means 
proves  that  this  doctrine  may  not  be  lawfully  held  by 
members  of  the  Roman  churches  ". 

SECTION  II. 

A  GENERAL  SYNOD  CONFIRMED  BY  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFF, 
HAS  NOT,  WITHOUT  THE  CONSENT  OF  THE  UNIVERSAL 
CHURCH,  ANY  IRREFRAGABLE  AUTHORITY". 

1.  The  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff  is  not  that  of 
the  catholic  church.  Bossuet,  and  many  other  theo- 
logians have  ji roved  convincingly  that  he  is  liable  to 
error  and  heresy,  and  that  his  decision  alone  affords  no 
infallible  ground  of  faith  ". 

2.  Assuming  still  that  the  synod  consists  of  the  mi- 
nority of  the  episcopal  body,  its  judgment  cannot  be 
final  and  irrefragable,  because  Christ  has  committed 
the  public  and  authoritative  judgment  of  controversies 
of  faith  to  all  the  successors  of  the  apostles  in  common 
and  equally '' :  but  it  is  contrary  to  all  reason  that  the 

""  See  the  second   division  of  rationis    cleri   Gallicani"   is    the 

the  last  Chapter.  best  work    against    the    exagge- 

"  This  subject  is  well  treated  rations  of  the  papal  power.     See 

by  Ockham,  Dialogus,  part  i.  lib.  also    Ockham,   Dialogus,    part  i. 

V.  c.  25 — 28,  and   lib.  iii.  prim,  lib,  v.  c.  1 — 24,  where  the  papal 

tract,  iii.  part.  c.  5 — 13.  infallibility    is    refuted.       Dela- 

"  See  Bossuet,  Gallia  Ortho-  hogue  shows  that  the  papal  infal- 

doxa,   c.   liv,    and  Defens.  Decl.  libility  may  be  lawfully  denied  by 

Cler.   Gall.  lib.   vii.   c.   21 — 28,  Romanists.— DeEcclesia,  p.  386, 

where    he  shows    that  Honorius  &c. 

erred    though    speaking    ex   ca-  f  This  is  admitted  by  the  theo- 

thedra.     The   "  Defensio  Decla-  logians  of  Rome.     "  Verba  qui- 


SECT,  ir.]  General  Synods  not.  infalUhle.  157 

minority  of  a  tribunal  so  constituted,  should  be  em- 
powered to  decide  controversies  finally  without  the  aid 
of  the  majority ''. 

3.  The  authority  which  is  not  common  to  all  final  and 
irrefragable  judgments  in  faith  is  not  itself  final  and  irre- 
fragable. Now  decrees  are  received  as  such  by  Romans 
which  have  not  been  made  in  general  councils  con- 
firmed by  a  pope  ;  e.  g.  those  of  the  j)rovincial  synods 
of  Orange,  Gangra,  Antioch,  and  Milevis  against 
various  heretics  '.  The  only  authority  which  is  common 
to  all  decrees  received  as  final  and  irrefragable,  is  the 
consent  of  the  catholic  church  dispersed  :  and  hence  we 
may  infer,  that  this  authority  alone  is  final. 

4.  The  infallibility  of  such  general  synods  is  not  es- 
sential to  the  preservation  of  the  truth  and  the  termi- 
nation of  controversies,  for  it  is  undeniable  that  many 
heresies  have  been  condemned  by  bishops  in  provincial 
and  national  synods,  and  even  by  individual  bishops^; 
and  the  doctrine  that  heresy   could  not  be  condemned 


bus    Christus    ecclesiae    docenti  pari   episcoporum  promissa  est : 

inerrantise  donum  pollicitus  est,  at  minor  numerus  majori  opposi- 

spectant  ad  corpus  seu  ad  collec-  tus  corpus  illud  non  reprgesentat, 

tionem    episcoporum."  —  Bailly,  ut    evidens    est." — Bouvier,    De 

De  Ecclesia,t.  i.  p.  592.     "  Pri-  Eccl.  p.  198.     "  Uua  est  sola  ec- 

vilegium  infallibilitatis  non  indi-  clesia  militans  quae  contra  fidem 

viduis    sed    corpori   episcoporum  errare  non  potest.      Quia  de  sola 

fuit  promissum  ;   ita  omnes  sen-  universali  ecclesia  militante  inve- 

tiunt." — Bouvier,  De  Ecclesia,  p.  nitur  in  scripturis  authenticis  quia 

189.  errare  non    potest.        Concilium 

"I   "  Collegium  quodcumqueju-  autem  generale  licet  sit  pars  ec- 

dicum   nunquam  minore  illorum  clesise  militantis  universalis,  ta- 

numero   repraesentatur,   et  auto-  men  non  est  ecclesia  universalis, 

ritas  quae  definit  semper  est  pe-  Igitur  temerarium  est  dicere  quia 

nes  raajorem  numerum." — Dela-  concilium   generale     circa    fidem 

hogue,  De  Eccles.  p.  148.    "Cer-  errare  non   potest."  —  Ockham, 

turn  est  viinorem  numerum  epis-  Dialogus,  part  i.  lib.  v.  c.  25. 

coporumcaeteriscontradicentibus,  ""  See  Bossuet,  quoted  above, 

sententiam    infallibilem   proferre  p.  155. 

non  posse  :  nam  infallibilitas  cor-  ^  E.  g.   the  Pelagians,   Sabel- 


158  General  Sj/nods  not  infallible.       [p.  iv.  ch.  vii. 

except  by  a  general  synod,  was  expressly  censured  by 
the  faculty  of  theology  at  Paris,  in  1662,  as  it  had  been 
rejected  by  St.  Augustine  \  Therefore  these  assemblies 
are  not  essential  absolutely,  and  supposing  that  under 
certain  circumstances  they  may  appear  highly  expe- 
dient or  morally  essential,  yet  their  infaUibility  is  not 
so,  because  the  subsequent  consent  and  approbation  of 
the  cathohc  church  dispersed  would  furnish  a  sufficient 
safeguard  for  the  truth :  and  hence  we  may  reasonably 
infer  that  such  councils  are  not  in  themselves  infallible, 
because  there  is  no  superfluity  in  the  works  and  gifts 
of  God. 

5.  I  have  before  proved  that  the  infallibility  of  such 
synods  is  only  a  matter  of  opinion  even  in  the  Roman 
churches,  whence  it  follows  that  there  can  be  no  certain 
proofs  of  it  either  in  scripture  or  tradition,  and  there- 
fore that  Christ  cannot  have  instituted  it  for  his  church  : 
and  besides  this,  an  opinion  cannot  serve  as  a  foundation 
for  certain  faitb,  therefore  Romanists  can  have  no  cer- 
tainty of  the  truth  of  doctrines  defined  merely  by  a 
synod  whose  infallibility  is  a  matter  of  opinion. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  bishops  in  a  general  council  represent  the  uni- 
versal church,  and  as  in  a  commonwealth  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nation  have  the  national  authority,  so 

lians,      Apollinarians,      Aerians,  nisi  synodicongregationedamnata 

Eustathians. — See   Melcliior  Ca-  sit :  cum  potius  rarissimae  inve- 

nus,  lib.  V.  c,  4.    Many  were  sup-  niantur,  propter  quas  damnandas 

pressed  by  individual  bishops. —  necessitas  talis  extiterit ;  multo- 

See  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  i.  que   sint  atque    incomparabiliter 

p.  331.  plures,  quae  ubi  extiterunt,  illic 

'  Bossuet,    Gallia    orthodoxa,  improbari  damnarique  meruerunt, 

c.  Ixxxiii.  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  atque  inde  per  cajteras  terras  devi- 

t    i.   p.   361.      Augustine  says:  tandae  innotescere  potuerunt." — 

"  Quasi  nulla  liaeresis  aliquando  Aug.  lib.  iv.   ad  Bonifac.  c.  ult. 


OBJECT.]  General  Synods  not  infallible.  159 

the  representatives  of  the  church  have  the  church's 
authority  ". 

Answer.  I  deny  that  bishops  can  properly  or  perfectly 
represent  other  bishops  in  deciding  questions  of  faith, 
so  as  to  render  the  consent  of  the  latter  unnecessary. 
It  is  admitted  that  all  catholic  bishops  ought  to  be 
summoned  to  general  councils",  and  if  any  of  them 
have  a  lawful  impediment,  they  are  not  bound  to  de- 
pute other  bishops  to  represent  them ;  they  are  allowed 
by  the  canons  to  depute  deacons  or  presbyters  as  their 
procurators.  But  these  deputies  have  not  the  authority 
of  those  who  sent  them.  It  is  uncertain  in  the  Roman 
church  whether  they  have  any  right  to  sit  even  in  pro- 
vincial synods.  Gregory  XIII.  replied  to  the  provincial 
synod  of  Rouen  in  1581,  that  the  deputies  of  absent 
bishops  might  have  a  deliberative  not  a  decisive  voice,  if 
the  synod  judged  it  expedient '''.  In  the  synod  of  Trent 
the  procurators  of  absent  bishops  were  not  permitted 
to  have  any  voice ".  Nor  is  the  idea  of  bishops  being 
represented  perfectly  by  others  in  questions  of  faith  and 
morality,  consistent  with  the  divine  institution.  Each 
successor  of  the  apostles  is  bound  to  watch  over  the 
faith  personally,  and  cannot  depute  this  office  and  its 


"  Bellarmin.  DeConcil.  etEccl.  Vera    Ecclesia,    p.     224.       See 

lib.  ii.  c.  2.      Ockham  replies  to  Tournely,   De  Ecclesia,   t.    i.    p. 

this  argument. — Dialog,    part  i.  382. 

lib.  V.  c.  25.     Tournely,  De  Ec-  "  Labbe,  Concil.  t,  xv.  p.  873. 

clesia,  t.  i.  p.  370.  376.  ''    "  Constat    hujusmodi   dele- 

"  "  Omnes  episcopi  qui  catho-  gatos  non   nisi   ex  speciali  con- 

lica  communione  inter  se  et  cum  cessione  vocem   deliberativara  in 

Romano    Pontifice  devinciuntur,  conciliis    habuisse.       Concilium 

convocandi  sunt;   nam  jure  di-  Tridentinum  banc  facultatem  ipsis 

vino  omnes  aequalem  habent  po-  denegavit." — Bouvier,    De    Vera 

testatem    de    controversiis  circa  Ecclesia,  p.  187.     So  also  Dela- 

fidem  judicandi ;  ergo  nullius  con-  hogue,  p.  182.    See  Paolo  Sarpi's 

vocatio    negligi  potest  quin   jus  History    of  the  Council  of  Trent 

divinum  laedatur." — Bouvier,  De  by  Coui'ayer,  vol.  i.  p.  221. 


160  General  Synods  not  infallible.      [p.  iv.  ch.  vir. 

resiionsibility  to  others.  Therefore  bishops  cannot  be 
represented  in  a  synod  except  in  an  imperfect  manner, 
and  such  a  synod  consisting  of  the  minority  of  bishops, 
together  with  some  deputies  of  absent  bishops,  does  not 
represent  the  catholic  church  so  perfectly  as  to  need  no 
subsequent  confirmation. 

It  is  true  that  the  decrees  of  a  great  synod  of  bishops 
from  all  parts  of  the  world,  made  after  due  examination 
and  deliberation,  have  an  exceedingly  great  authority 
in  themselves ;  but  until  they  are  accepted  and  exe- 
cuted by  the  universal  church,  they  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  judgments  of  the  universal  church. 

II.  If  general  councils  approved  by  the  pope  may 
err,  all  heresies  formerly  condemned  by  general  councils 
will  be  free  from  censure  and  will  revive.  The  autho- 
rity of  the  Nicene  creed,  and  even  the  canon  of  scrip- 
ture, will  be  doubtful  ^ 

Ansiver.  If  those  ancient  decrees  were  approved  by 
the  universal  church  they  are  unchangeable ;  if  they 
were  not,  the  doctrines  condemned  are  not  heresies. 
The  Nicene  faith  rests  firmly  on  the  approbation  of  the 
universal  church :  the  canon  of  scrij^ture  is  not  proved 
by  the  decrees  of  general  councils,  but  by  catholic 
tradition. 

III.  If  a  council  be  liable  to  error,  and  the  people  be 
bound  to  obey  it,  they  must  be  led  into  error ;  which 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  divine  design.  But 
they  are  bound  to  obey  them,  for  "  He  that  heareth 
you  heareth  me,"  and  "  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in 
Moses'  seat,"  &;c. "" 

Answer.  I  ask,  in  the  words  of  Bossuet,  "  should  they 

^  Melchior  Canus,  Loc.  Theol.     min.  De  Concil.  et   Eccl.  lib.  ii. 
lib.  V.  c.  4  ;  Turrecremata,  Sum-     c,  4. 
ma  de  Eccl.  1.  iii.  c.  58  ;  Bellar-  ''  Ibid. 


OBJECT.]  General  Synods  not  infallible.  161 

obey  if"  the  synod  "  enjoins  what  is  contrary  to  the  di- 
vine commands?"  Surely  not.  It  may  be  further 
objected,  that  if  men  are  allowed  to  judge  the  decrees 
of  a  general  synod,  it  must  be  useless  and  powerless ; 
which  would  be  contrary  to  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  the  church.  I  reply  that  its  authority  cannot  fail  to 
be  very  great,  in  proportion  to  the  numbers,  piety,  wis- 
dom, and  national  variety  of  the  bishops  present,  even 
supposing  that  it  is  still  inferior  to  that  of  the  whole 
catholic  church  dispersed  throughout  all  nations.  The 
passages  of  scripture  cited  above,  relate  to  the  whole 
body  of  pastors,  and  not  to  a  feeble  minority  of  them 
assembled  in  council, 

IV.  If  such  a  council  may  err,  then  in  any  important 
controversy  all  will  be  uncertain,  or  there  will  be  im- 
minent danger  of  schism. 

Answer.  I  say  with  Bossuet,  "  Neither :  for  the 
learned  will  be  held  by  tradition,  as  Augustine  says 
happened  in  the  time  of  Stephen  ;  and  the  unlearned, 
if  they  are  true  sons  of  the  church,  will  wait  most  obe- 
diently for  the  judgment  of  their  pious  mother'." 

V.  The  decrees  of  general  synods  are  prescribed  to 
be  received  under  pain  of  anathema :  we  must,  there- 
fore, blame  the  fathers  who  composed  them,  if  any 
subsequent  approbation  of  the  catholic  church  was 
requisite  ^. 

Answer.  The  decrees  of  provincial  synods,  as  that 
of  Gangra,  have  also  been  prescribed  under  pain  of 
anathema,  yet  no  one  deems  them  infallible.  The 
anathema  is  rightly  added  from  the  absolute  conviction 
which  enables  the  synod  to  decide  certain  questions  ; 


^  <=  Bossuet,    Def.    Decl.     Cler.         '^  Bellarniin.  deConcil.  et  Eccl. 
(iiall.  lib.  X.  c.  36.  lib.  ii.  c.  4. 

VOL,  II.  M 


162  General  Synods  not  infallible,     [p.  iv.  ch.  vii. 

but  it  should  be  always  understood  as  being  only  in- 
tended to  take  effect  under  the  supposition  that  it 
agrees  with  the  judgment  of  the  universal  church.  To 
imagine  otherwise  of  any  synod,  would  be  to  esteem  it 
presumptuous  and  impious. 

VI.  Such  an  authority  would  be  most  useful  and 
convenient,  so  that  something  might  seem  wanting  to 
the  splendour  of  the  church  if  general  councils  were 
liable  to  error  ^ 

Answer.  Bossuet  says  truly  that  "  we  must  not  rely 
upon  mere  reasonings  or  wishes,  but  on  certain  pro- 
mises and  certain  tradition.  If  it  be  our  pleasure  to 
wish,  or  rather  to  dream,  we  may  certainly  expect  that 
the  Roman  pontiff  should  be  not  only  free  from  error, 
but  from  sin,  ignorance,  negligence,  or  cupidity.  We 
might  ask  why,  when  Christ  said  to  his  apostles, 
'  Lo  !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,'  the  bishops  were  not,  like  the  apostles,  to  enjoy 
the  promise  of  unfailing  faith  '  ?" 

VII.  Ambrose  calls  the  decrees  of  general  councils 
"  hereditary  seals  to  be  broken  by  no  temerity  ^"  Leo 
styles  them  "  the  judgments  of  the  whole  christian 
world  '\"  Gregory  the  Great  received  the  four  first 
general  councils,  "  as  the  four  books  of  the  Gospels  '." 
Vincentius  Lirinensis  attributes  whatever  is  done  in 
general  synods  to  the  catholic  church:  "This,  and 
nothing  else,  did  the  catholic  church  ever  perform  by 
the  decrees  of  her  councils ;  namely,  to  consign  in 
writing  to  posterity,  what  she  had  received  by  tradition 

^  Melchior   Canus,    ut   supra.         ^  Leo,  Epist.  Ixiii.   ad  Theo- 

Delahogue,  Tract.  deEdcl.Christi,  doret.  Labbe,  Cone.  t.  iii. 
p.  173.  '  Gregor.  Epist.  ad  Joan.  Con- 

^  Bossuet,  Defensio  Decl.  Cler.  stantinop.  Episc.     Epistolar.  lib. 

Gallic,  lib.  x.  c.  36.  i.  c.  24. 

s  Ambros.  de  Fide,  1.  iii.  c.  15. 


OBJECT.]  General  Synods  not  infallible.  163 

from  antiquity  J."  Therefore  these  fathers  believed  such 
councils  to  be  invested  with  the  authority  of  the  whole 
catholic  church. 

Answer.  They  only  spoke  of  synods  universally  re- 
ceived and  approved  by  the  church,  which  we  fully 
admit  to  be  invested  with  the  authority  of  the  catholic 
church. 

VIII.  Several  pasages  of  scripture  prove  the  in- 
fallibility of  general  councils,  e.  g.  "  Tell  it  to  the 
church,  and  if  he  will  not  hear  the  church,"  &c.  "  The 
Spirit  of  truth  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth."  "  Lo  !  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
"  The  church  of  the  living  God,  which  is  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth ''." 

Ansiver.  (1.)  None  of  these  passages  can  prove  the 
point  in  question,  because  I  have  already  shewn  that 
it  is  nothing  more  than  a  matter  of  opinion  even  in 
the  Roman  churches.  (2.)  These  passages,  in  pro- 
mising inerrancy,  relate  to  the  church  universal,  or  to 
the  successors  of  the  apostles  collectively,  not  to  a 
small  minority  of  them  assembled  in  synod. 

IX.  It  may  be  objected  that  our  Saviour  seems  to 
attribute  infallible  authority  to  a  minority.  "  Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them '." 

Answer.  (1.)  Were  this  interpretation  correct,  it 
would  prove  provincial  synods  infallible  and  equal  in 
authority  to  general  synods,  which  no  one  admits 
Besides  that  every  thing  would  be  thrown  into  con- 
fusion, if  in  the  tribunal  of  the  church  a  minority  could 
issue   a   final  judgmemt.      (2.)    The   promise   of  our 

J  Vincent.  Lirin.  Commonitor.     Ecclesia,  lib.  ii.  c.  2. 
c.  13.  28.  '  Tournely  de    Ecclesia,    t.   i. 

''  Bellarmin.    de    Conciliis    et     p.  378. 

M  2 


164  General  Si/nods  not  infallible.      [p.  iv.  ch.  vti. 

Saviour  in  these  words  only  relates  to  the  ordinary  aid 
and  protection  of  divine  grace,  which  does  not  infer 
exemption  from  all  possibility  of  error. 

X.  The  apostolical  synod  held  at  Jerusalem  on  the 
question  of  legal  observances  was  only  attended  by 
four  apostles,  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Paul,  and  yet 
their  decrees  commenced  with  these  words,  "  It  hath 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,"  in  which 
the  supreme  and  infallible  authority  of  general  councils 
according  to  Tournely  is  inscribed  as  it  were  "  in  sun- 
beams "." 

Answer.  This  meeting  does  not  correspond  with  the 
description  of  a  general  synod,  inasmuch  as  all  the 
apostles  do  not  seem  to  have  been  summoned  to  it. 
Nor  has  it  ever  been  accounted  a  general  council  by 
the  catholic  church,  which  reckons  the  synod  of  Nice 
as  the  fast  general  council.  Melchior  Canus  says  that 
this  apostolic  synod  was  not  general  but  provincial ". 
It  is  in  fact  a  model  for  all  synods  which  are  to  decide 
matters  of  controversy,  and  would  prove  the  infallibility 
of  provincial  synods,  as  well  as  that  of  general  synods. 
Besides  this,  the  apostles  possessed  the  miraculous 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  consequently  might 
decide  absolutely  and  infallibly,  without  any  need  that 
their  decree  should  be  confirmed  by  the  authority  of 
the  church  dispersed  °. 

XI.  The  synod  of  Constance  decreed  in  their  fifth 
session  that  a  general  council  represents  the  universal 
church ;  and  that  obedience  is  due  to  it  by  all  persons, 


"  Tournely  de   Ecclesia,   t.  i.  provinciale  concilium  fuit."  Melc. 

p.    387.     Delahogue,    Tract,     de  Canus,  Loc.  Theol.   lib.  v.  c.  4. 

Eccl    Christi,  p.  167.  conclusio  5. 

"  "  Quod   enim  ibi  congrega-  °  Melchior  Canus,  Loc.Theolog. 

tuin  legittir,  hoc  non  generale  sod  lib.  v.  c.  4. 


OBJECT.]  General  Synods  nut  hifallihle.  165 

even  by  the  Pope ;  and  this  decree  was  confirmed  by 
Pope  Martin  V.  The  same  was  decreed  by  the  synod 
of  Basil.  Therefore  he  ^^'ho  denies  the  authority  of  a 
general  council  denies  that  of  the  universal  church  p. 

Answer.  (1.)  I  admit  that  a  general  council  repre- 
sents the  universal  church,  but  not  so  perfectly  as  to 
be  able  to  dispense  with  the  confirmation  of  the  univer- 
sal church  dispersed.  (2.)  Bellarmine  affirms  that  the 
council  of  Constance  was  not  oecumenical  at  that  time, 
being  only  attended  by  a  third  part  of  the  Latin 
church ;  and  that  Martin  V.  did  not  confirm  its  decree, 
because  it  had  not  been  made  conciliariter,  and  after 
examinations  The  same  objections  are  urged  by 
Gregorius  de  Valentia ""  from  Cajetan,  and  by  Ligorio  ^ 
The  synod  of  Basil  is  rejected  by  the  same  writers  as 
not  oecumenical  when  it  made  its  decision. 

P  See  Ockham,  Dialog,  lib.  iii.         '  Gregor.  de  Valentia,  Analys. 

1  tract.  111.  partis  c.  5.  Fid.  Cath.  lib.  viii.  c.  7. 

"■  Bellarminus  de  Concil.  Aug-         ^  Ligorio,   Theol.   Moral,  lib 

tor.  lib.  ii.  c.  19.  i.  art.  129—133. 


166  Remarks  on  Decrees  of  Synods.  [part  iv. 


COT..COT>l.?^ 

LIBRARY 

N.YORK^ 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

GENERAL  REMARKS  ON  THE  DECREES  OF  SYNODS. 

With  respect  to  the  definitions  of  synods  concerning 
faith  and  morals,  it  may  be  observed  first,  that  when 
the  catholic  church  approves  the  judgment  of  any 
council,  she  does  not  necessarily  declare  the  validity  of 
the  proofs  adduced  in  that  judgment  to  support  it ;  nor 
does  she  authorize  every  thing  which  may  be  intro- 
duced in  explanation,  in  reply  to  objection,  or  even 
cursorily  and  incidentally.  The  church  only  approves 
the  substantial  doctrine  which  has  been  defined :  and 
she  offers  no  opposition  to  incidental  positions  advanced 
iti  connection  with  such  doctrine,  though  she  may 
judge  them  less  probably  true ;  provided  that  they  do 
not  endanger  the  articles  of  her  faith. 

Secondly,  the  church  cannot  decide  questions  beyond 
her  province  ;  that  is,  she  has  no  authority  by  divine 
right,  in  questions  of  politics,  general  law,  physics,  or 
any  other  science  :  and  had  the  universal  church  ever 
made  any  definition  in  such  matters  it  would  not  be 
obligatory  on  any  individual. 

The  principles  stated  above,  are  acknowledged  by 
Roman  theologians,  and  are  of  great  use  in  contro- 
versy, by  enabling  us  to  discriminate  the  real  definitions 


CHAP,  viii.]  Remarks  on  Decrees  of  Synods.  167 

of  the  catholic  church  from  extraneous  matters  which 
others  may  attempt  to  mix  up  with  them,  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  cause  of  revealed  truth,  and  of  our 
catholic  and  apostolic  churches/ 

Melchior  Canus,  whose  doctrine  in. this,  point  has 
been  followed  by  all  subsequent  Roman  theologians,! 
says,  "  If  all  things  in  councils  are-not  Ge|-tain^(for  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  assist  tkgm  in  every  thing)  by 
what  method  shall  we  discover  those  decrees  of  coun- 
cils which  are  certain  in  matters  of  faith  ?"  In  reply 
to  this  question  he  observes  :  "  The  doctrine  of  pontiffs 
and  councils  is  a  judgment  of  faith,  if  it  be  proposed  to 
the  whole  church,  and  if  it  be  also  proposed  with  an 
obligation  to  believe  it.  But  we  should  carefully  re- 
mark both  the  nature  of  the  things  about  which  the 
judgment  is  made,  and  the  due  meaning  and  weight  of 
the  words :  for  all  ecclesiastical  doctrine  which  we  are 
bound  to  embrace,  is  not  of  the  same  degree,  nor  are 

all  judgments  to  be  accounted  equally  important 

We  say,  that  all  matters  contained  in  the  volumes  of 
the  canon  law  or  of  the  councils,  are  not  judgments  of 
christian  doctrine ;  nor  again  are  all  judgments  of  doc- 
trine decisions  oi faith  :  for  many  things  pertain  to  the 
sound  discipline  of  the  church,  which  are  not  decrees 
of  faith."  "  Is  there  any  mark  then,  by  which  the 
judgments  of  councils  concerning  faith  may  be  dis- 
tinguished ?  Certainly.  The  first  and  most  manifest 
is,  when  those  who  assert  the  contrary  are  adjudged 
heretics.  .  .  .  Another  mark  is,  when  a  synod  prescribes 
its  decrees  in  this  manner :  If  any  one  be  of  this  or 

that  opinion,  let   him  be  anathema A  third  is, 

when  the  sentence  of  excommunication  is  denounced 

ipso  Jure  against  those  who  contradict  a  doctrine 

A  fourth,  when  it  is  expressly  and  peculiarly  declared 


168  Remarks  on  Decrees  of  Synods.  [part  iv, 

of  any  thing,  that  it  ought  to  be  firmly  believed  by  the 
faithful,  or  received  as  a  doctrine  of  the  catholic  faith  : 
— declared  I  say,  not  merely  from  opinion,  but  by  a 

certain   and  firm   decree Moreover  those  things 

which  are  introduced  into  the  decrees  of  councils  or 
pontiffs,  either  by  way  of  explanation,  reply  to  objec- 
tions, or  even  obiter  and  in  transcursu,  beyond  the 
principal  design,  the  matter  actually  in  controversy ; 
such  do  not  belong  to  faith,  that  is,  are  not  judgments 
of  catholic  faith  *." 

Veron  observes  that  in  the  decisions  of  a  general 
council,  it  is  only  the  decision  itself,  not  its  motive  or 
proof,  which  is  dejide: — that  what  is  said  incidentally 
by  synods  is  not  de  fide,  much  less  what  is  said  by 
particular  prelates  in  the  sessions  of  synods  ;  still  less, 
what  is  proposed  by  doctors  for  the  discussion  of 
matters  about  to  be  defined  ^.  These  principles  are 
generally  admitted  by  Roman  theologians,  as  by  Bos- 
suet  *■,  Delahogue '',  &c. 

The  second  principle  above  mentioned,  is  also  main- 
tained by  Melchior  Canus,  Bellarmine,  Veron,  Bossuet, 
Tournely,  Bouvier^  he.  Delahogue  says,  "  Veron,  in 
his  '  Rule  of  Faith,'  c.  4.  p.  i.  no.  8,  says.  The  object 
ouofht  to  be  definable  as  a  matter  of  faith :  therefore 
doctrines  relating  to  law  or  philosophy,  are  not  definable 
as  matters  of  faith.'"  He  then  cites  Bellarmine,  who  (lib. 
iv.  de  Roman.  Pontif.)  allows  "  that  John  XXII.  was  in 
error,  when  he  taught  that  use  could  not  be  separated 
from  dominion  in  things  consumable  by  use ;  but  not 

*  Melchior   Canus,     de    Locis         ''  Delahogue,  de  Eccl.  Christi, 

Theol.  lib.  v.  c.  5.  p.  213,  214. 

•*  Veron,    Regula   Fidei,    c.   i.  *  Bouvier,  Episc.  Cenomanen- 

s.   4.  sis.Tract.  de  veraEcclesia,  p.235, 

■^  Bossuet,     Defens.       Declar.  where  he  cites  these  theologians. 

Cler.  Gall.  lib.  iii.  c.  1.  See  above,  p.  9G. 


CHAT.  VIII.]  Transuhstantiation.  169 

in  error  cowcei-ning  faith,  for  this  question  did  not  per- 
tain to  faith  ?' 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  church  could  never  have 
defined  as  a  matter  of  faith  the  common  Roman 
opinion  of  transubstaijtiation,  which  supposes  that  the 
appearances  and  accidents  of  bodies  have  a  real  exist- 
ence, and  can  in  the  nature  of  things  be  separated 
from  the  substances  in  which  they  are  inherent ;  and 
that  the  matters  of  different  bodies  are  really  different. 
Such  questions  belong  not  to  the  church  to  decide :  nor 
can  any  decisions  concerning  them  be  matters  of  faith. 
This  seems  to  have  been  felt  indeed  by  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Roman  obedience.  Cassander,  having 
asserted  the  doctrine  of  such  a  conversion  as  renders 
the  bread  and  wine  the  eucharist  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood  really  present,  says :  "  Would  that,  content  with 
such  an  explanation,  we  might  abstain  from  superfluous 
questions,  in  no  respect  pertaining  to/afifA  and  piety  ^" 
thus  intimating  his  persuasion  that  the  opinion  of  tran- 
suhstantiation was  not  a  matter  of  faith.  The  learned 
Benedictine  Barnes  says,  that  "  the  assertion  of  tran- 
suhstantiation or  substantial  change  of  the  bread, 
although  the  more  common  opinion,  is  not  the  faith  o^ 
the  church  ''."  Des  Cartes  was  charged  by  the  doctors 
of  Louvain  with  advancing  philosophical  principles, 
which  subverted  altogether  the  doctrine  of  transuh- 
stantiation '.  In  fact,  though  he  laboured  at  first  to 
prove  the  consistency  of  his  views  with  that  doctrine, 
in  reply  to  Arnauld  ;  he  ultimately  taught  that  the  real 
presence  in  the  eucharist  consisted  in  the  union  of  the 

^Delahogue,  p.  210.  pacificus,    s.    viii.     in     Brown's 

g  Cassander,     Consultatio     de  Fasciculus  Rerum,  t.  ii.  p.  849. 
Artie.  Relig.  Oper.  p.  939.  '  Doctorum     aliquot     Lovan. 

•"  Barnes,   Catholico-Ronianus  Judicia,  a.u.  1653. 


170  Transuhstantiation.  [part  iv. 

matter  of  bread  with  the  soul  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  \  This  doctrine,  which  was  entirely  contrary 
to  the  common  Roman  opinion  of  transuhstantiation, 
was  also  publicly  maintained  by  Pere  Des  Gabets,  De 
Viogue,  De  Clerselier,  Rohault,  and  other  members  of 
the  Roman  church  ''.  Early  in  the  last  century  the  Pere 
Cally,  in  a  work  entitled  Durand  commente,  maintained 
the  opinion  of  Durand,  that  transuhstantiation  con- 
sisted in  the  conversion  of  the  substantial  form  of 
bread  into  that  of  our  Lord ;  the  matter  of  bread  re- 
maining. The  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne,  in  their  cor- 
respondence Avith  Archbishop  Wake,  were  willing  to 
relinquish  the  term  transuhstantiation  altogether,  and 
only  to  retain  the  doctrine  of  a  real  conversion  and 
presence  '  ;  and  M.  Courayer,  canon  regular  of 
S.  Genevieve,  publicly  taught  that  the  doctrine  of 
transuhstantiation,  as  defined  by  the  synod  of  Trent, 
Avas  only  the  common  opinion  of  the  schools  at  that 
time  ;  and  that  it  was  a  point  purely  philosophical, 
which  they  chose  to  erect  into  a  dogma "".  In  fine, 
we  may  observe,  that  Roman  writers  generally,  in  the 
present  day,  avoid  as  much  as  possible  the  question  of 
transuhstantiation,  and  wish  only  to  engage  in  con- 
troversies on  the  real  presence :  and  there  are  other 
reasons  for  believing  that  some  of  them  do  not  view 
the  former  doctrine  as  an  article  of  faith. 

With  regard  to  the  canons  or  decrees  of  discipline, 
made  by  oecumenical  synods,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
they  are  of  a  different  authority  from  their  decrees  on 

J  La  Vie  de  M.  Des  Cartes,  which  contains  the  above  pro- 
part  ii.  p.  520.  posal,  was,    it   seems,    read   and 

^  Ibid.  521.  approved  in  the  Sorbonne. 

•  See  Maclaine's  third  Appen-  "'  Courayer,  Hist,  dii  Cone,  de 

<lix   to    Mosheim's    Eccl.    Hist.  Trente,  from  Sarpi,  t.  i.  p.  547 
The  Commonitorium  of  Du  Pin, 


CHAP.  IX.]  The  (Ecumenical  Synods.  171 

faith  ;  and  that  generally  they  are  not  binding  on 
churches,  except  by  their  own  consent.  But  of  this  1 
shall  speak  more  fully  when  the  authority  of  the 
church  in  matters  of  discipline  is  under  consideration. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON    THE    SIX    CECUMENICAL    SYNODS. 

The  catholic  church  has  never  received  or  approved 
more  than  six  synods  as  oecumenical,  which  are  as 
follows:  ].  The  synod  of  318  bishops  at  Nice  in 
Bithynia,  a.d.  325;  2.  the  synod  of  150  bishops  at 
Constantinople,  a.d.  381;  3.  the  synod  of  200  bishops 
at  Ephesus,  a.d.  431 ;  4.  the  synod  of  680  bishops  at 
Chalcedon,  A.D.  451:  5.  the  synod  of  165  bishops  at 
Constantinople,  a.d.  553;  6.  the  synod  of  170  bishops 
at  Constantinople,  a.d.  680.  The  oriental  church  admits 
one  other  synod  as  oecumenical  ^  the  Roman  churches 
now  also  acknowledge  several  others,  but  are  not 
agreed  as  to  their  number.  The  six  synods  alone  have 
been  universally  received  by  the  catholic  church. 

Some  of  our  theologians,  as  Hooker  and  Andre wes, 
seem  to  acknowledge  only  four  oecumenical  synods ; 
but  they  are  then  to  be  understood  as  speaking  only  of 
those  which  are  the  principal  and  most  important,  and 
which  virtually  include  the  others  :  for  the  fifth  and 
sixth  synods  were  supplementary  to  the  third  and 
fourth,  and  did  not,  jDroperly  speaking,  condemn  any  new 
heresy.  Field  says  :  "  Concerning  the  general  councils 
of  this  sort,  that  hitherto  have  been  holden,  we  confess, 

"  The  synod  of  Nice  under  Irene,  787. 


172  The  (Ecumenical  Synods.  [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

that  in  respect  of  the  matter  about  which  they  were 
called,  so  nearly  and  essentially  concerning  the  life 
and  soul  of  the  christian  faith,  and  in  respect  of  the 
manner  and  form  of  their  proceeding,  and  the  evidence 
of  proof  brought  in  them,  they  are,  and  ever  were, 
expressly  to  be  believed  by  all  such  as  perfectly  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  their  determination.  And  that 
therefore  it  is  not  to  be  marvelled  at,  if  Gregory  pro- 
fess that  he  honoureth  the  first  four  councils  as  the 
four  gospels,  and  that  whosoever  admitteth  them  not, 
though  he  seem  to  be  a  stone  elect  and  precious,  yet 
he  lieth  beside  the  foundation  and  out  of  the  building. 
Of  this  sort  there  are  only  six  V  &c.  He  seems, 
however,  to  allow  the  second  Nicene  787,  and  the 
fourth  of  Constantinople  869,  as  general ;  though  dis- 
approving the  former.  Dr.  Hammond  teaches  that 
there  are  only  six  oecumenical  synods,  and  that  the 
rest  so  called,  are  of  no  binding  authority '".  The  same 
is  shewn  by  Saywell  ^,  Crakanthorp  \  and  others. 

The  six  oecumenical  synods  were  also  received  by 
the  Polish  confession  \  and  generally  acknowledged  by 
the  Lutherans  and  reformed  ^. 

Tieldjof  thechurch,  b.5.c.  51.     remurque  ut  sacrosanctas,  quan- 

*  Hammond,  of  Heresy,  c.  iii.  turn  attinet  ad  fidei  dogmata  : 
s.  7 — 11.  nihil  enim  continent  quam  puram 

'^  Saywell  on  Schism,  p.  211.  et  nativam  scripturae  interpreta- 

*  "  Sex  fuisse  generalia  legi-  tionem,  quam  sancti  Patres,spiri- 
timaconcilia  nemini  est  dubium."  tuali  prudentia,  ad  frangendos 
Crakanthorp,  de  loco  arguend.  religionis  hostes,  qui  tunc  emer- 
ab  Authorit.  Logicae,  c.  xvi.  serant,  accommodarunt." — Calv. 
reg.  12.  S.  Ward,  Determinat.  Institut.  1.  iv.  c.  ix.  s.  8.  He 
Theol.  p.  103  cited  by  Saywell,  rejects  the  error  of  the  Monothe- 
Praefat.  Epist.  Launoii.  lites,    condemned    by  the    sixth 

^  Declaratio    Thoruniensis,    I.  oecumenical  synod. — Inst.  ii.  if), 

s  Calvin  says,  "  Sic  priscas  illas  12.       The    Helvetic    confession 

synodos,  ut  Nicaenam,   Constan-  1566,  cap.  xi.  receives  the  creeds 

tinopolitanam,     Eph^sinam     pri-  and   doctrines    of  the    first  four 

mam,  Chalcedonensem,ac  similes,  and  principal    councils,   and  all 

quae  confutandis  erroribus  habitas  others    like    them.      The    Cen- 

bunt,  libenter  amplectimur,  reve-  turiators    of    Magdeburg    admit 


SECT.  I.]  First  (Ecumenical  Synod.  173 


SECTION  I. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    NICE. 

The  first  oecumenical  synod  of  318  bishops,  was 
assembled  at  Nice,  a.d.  325,  by  order  of  the  Emperor 
Constantino  ^  to  terminate  the  controversy  raised  by 
Arius,  presbyter  of  Alexandria,  who  denied  the  divinity 
of  the  Son  of  God,  maintaining  that  he  was  a  creature 
brought  forth  from  nothing,  and  susceptible  of  vice 
and  virtue '.  Though  the  authors  of  these  blasphemies 
had  been  condemned  by  a  synod  at  Alexandria,  under 
Alexander,  bishop  of  that  church  in  320  \  and  by 
another  larger  synod  at  the  same  place  shortly  after- 
wards, which  addressed  a  synodal  letter  to  all  churches''; 
yet  the  Arian  party,  headed  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
having  also  held  a  meeting  in  Bithynia  ^  and  addressed 
a  letter  to  all  churches  in  favour  of  Arius,  the  judg- 
ment of  an  oecumenical  synod  became  necessary. 

The  synod  was  held  in  a  hall  of  the  imperial  palace*". 
Its  presidents  were,  Alexander  pope  of  Alexandria, 
Eustathius  bishop  of  Antioch,  and  Hosius  bishop  of 
Corduba".      The   presbyters,    Vitus   and    Vincentius, 

the    six    oecumenical    synods. —  doret,  i.  c.  4.  7. 

Saywell,  Praefat.  Epist.  Launoii  '  Sozomen.    Hist.    Eccl.  lib.  i. 

juxta    fin.    cites    the    reformed  c.  15. 

divines,  Chamier,  Alsted,  Daille,  ™  Eusebii  Vita  Constant,   lib. 

as  of  the  same  sentiment.  iii.  c.  10;   Theodoret,  i.  7. 

^  Socrates,   Hist.  Eccl.   lib.   i.  "  Richerius,    (Histor.    Concil. 

c.  8  ;   Sozomen.    lib.  i.    c.    17  ;  General,  pars  i.  c.  2.)  proves  that 

Theodoret,    Hist.    Eccl.    lib.    i.  Alexander   and   other  patriarchs 

c.  4.  7.  presided.     Launoius   (Epist.  ad 

*  Socrates,  i.  56,  59.  Theodoret,  Raimund.   Formentin.   Epist.  p. 

Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  9.     Fleury,  701.       Ed.       Cantab.)      proves 

liv.  X.  s.  39.  from  the  synodal  epistle,    Euse- 

j  Socrates,  i.  6  ;  Athanas.or.  1.  bins,  Proclus,  Felix  III.  Facun- 

cont.    Arianos ;     Fleury,   liv.    x.  dus    Hermianensis,    Athanasius, 

c.  38.  Theodoret,    Sozomen,    &c.    that 

''  Socrates,   lib.  i.  c.  6  ;  Theo-  Alexander  of  Alexandria,  Eusta- 

15 


174  First  (Ecumenical  Synod.  [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

attended  as  representatives  of  the  Roman  bishop,  but 
none  of  the  ancient  writers,  except  Gelasius  of  Cyzi- 
cum,  who  wrote  about  476,  state  that  they  presided  in 
the  synod,  or  that  Hosius  was  a  legate  of  the  bishop 
of  Rome.  These  fables  were  propagated  about  the 
ninth  century". 

Arius  was  permitted  to  state  his  doctrines  before 
the  synod  p,  which  after  much  disputation  and  inquiry 
condemned  them  as  heretical,  and  declared  the  faith 
of  the  church  in  that  celebrated  creed  or  confession, 
which  has  ever  since  been  received  and  venerated  by 
the  universal  church,  and  even  by  many  sects  and 
heresies  "•. 

The  synod  also  made  several  regulations  in  matters 
of  disciiDline.  It  determined  that  the  feast  of  Easter 
should  be  always  held  on  the  Sunday  after  the  full 
moon  which  occurs  next  after  the  vernal  equinox"; 
and  that  the  Meletian  schismatics  should  be  reunited 
to  the  church  on  certain  conditions  ^  In  fine,  twenty 
canons  were  made  '. 

The  decrees  of  the  synod  were  published  to  all  the 
church  by  a  synodal  epistle  addressed  to  "  the  church 
of  Alexandria,  and  the  beloved  brethren  throughout 
Egypt,  Pentapolis,  Lybia,  and  all  others  under  the 
heavens ;"  in  which  the  fathers  informed  them  that 
they  had  anathematised  "  Arius  and  his  impious  doc- 
trine, by  which  he  had  blasphemed  the  Son  of  God, 
saying,  that  he  was  brought  forth  fi'om  nothing,  that 
he  did  not  exist  before  he  was  ingendered,  and  that 
there  was  a  time  when  he  did  not  exist ;  that  by  his 

thius  of  Antioch,  and  Hosius  of  Eutychians,  Monothelites,  Pela- 

Corduba,  presided.  gians,  &c. 

"  Launoii  Epistolae,  ut  supra.  "■  Fleury,  liv.  xi.  s.  14. 

^  Socrates,  lib.  i.  c.  9.  *  Ibid.  s.  15. 

•^  E.    g.    by    the   Nestorians,         *  See  Dr.  Routh's  Opuscula. 


SECT.  I.]  First  (Ecumenical  Synod.  175 

free  will  he  is  capable  of  vice  and  virtue,  and  that  he 
is  a  creature.  The  holy  council  has  anathematised  all 
this,  scarcely  enduring  even  to  listen  to  such  blasphe- 
mies "."  The  emperor  also  addressed  a  letter  to  all 
churches  exhorting  them  to  receive  the  decrees  of  the 
synod,  and  imposed  penalties  on  the  Arian  sect  ^ 
Gelasius  of  Cyzicam  states  that  the  principal  bishops 
of  the  synod  were  deputed  to  convey  its  decrees  to  all 
provinces  \  Marius  Victorinus  also  states  that  they 
were  sent  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  approved 
universally  \  Sulpitius  Severus  remarks,  that  the 
Arians  themselves  "  not  daring  to  utter  anything 
against  the  sound  faith,  returned  to  their  churches,  as 
if  acquiescing,  and  holding  nothing  else'."  And  in  fact, 
when  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and  the  Arian  party  urged 
the  readmission  of  Arius  to  the  catholic  church  in  336, 
the  latter  professed  that  he  followed  the  Nicene faith  '^  : 
nor  did  the  Arian  party  venture  to  compose  any  new 
formulary  of  faith  until  their  synod  of  Antioch  in  341, 
full  sixteen  years  after  the  Nicene  Creed  had  been 
universally  professed,  even  by  themselves. 

The  Nicene  faith  was  therefore  universally  re- 
ceived, approved,  and  acted  on  by  the  church  through- 
out the  whole  world,  and  thus  expressed  evidently 
the  judgment  of  the  universal  church.  And  though 
afterwards  the  Arian  party,  supported  by  the  Emperor 
Constantius,    troubled    the   church   for    nearly    thirty 

"  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl,  lib  i.  ^  Sulpitius  Severus,  Hist.  Sacr. 

c.  9.  lib.  ii. 

"  Eusebii  Vita  Constant,   lib.  *  See  Socrates,  i.  26  ;   Fleury, 

iii.  c.  14,  &c. ;   Theodoret,   lib.  i.  liv.  xi.  s.  58.      In  his  confession 

c.  10  ;   Socrates,  lib.  i.  c.  9.  of  faith  he  protested  that  he  used 

/^  Gelasius  Cyzicen.  Hist.  Cone,  the   words    in    the  sense   of  the 

Nic.  lib.  ii.  c.  35.  church.     See  Harduini  Concilia, 

''Marius    Victorinus,    lib.    ii.  t.  i.  p.  551. 
contra  Arium,    Bibl.  Patr. 


176  First  (Ecumenical  Synod.  [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

years,  expelling  from  tbeir  sees  the  most  ortho- 
dox bishops,  and  constructing  various  confessions  of 
faith;  the  Nicene  doctrine  was  always  held  by  the 
great  majority  of  the  church,  and  finally  triumphed 
over  all  opposition  :  it  was  received  by  the  council  of 
Milan  347  ',  by  the  council  of  Sardica  of  100  bishops 
in  347  %  by  the  council  of  Jerusalem  ^  and  by  the 
synod  of  Ariminum  of  400  bishops  in  359  %  while  that 
synod  was  free. 

S.  Athanasius  informs  us  that  in  363  the  Nicene 
faith  was  approved  by  all  the  churches  in  the  world, 
in  Spain,  Britain,  Gaul,  Italy,  Dalmatia,  Dacia,  Mysia, 
Macedonia,  Greece,  Africa,  Sardinia,  Cyprus,  Crete, 
Pamphylia,  Lycia,  Isauria,  Egypt,  Lybia,  Pontus, 
Cappadocia  and  throughout  the  east,  except  a  few 
which  followed  the  heresy  of  Arius  \  S.  Basil  accounted 
the  318  fathers  to  be  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ^. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum  held  that  the  Nicene  fathers 
were  assembled  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ^ :  and  several 
synods  held  in  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Rome,  sent  synodical 
letters  everywhere,  declaring  that  "  henceforth  no  synod 
ought  to  be  received  in  the  church,  but  only  that  of 
Nice '."  In  fine,  the  Nicene  faith  was  confirmed  by 
the  oecumenical  synod  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  38 1  \  by 
those  of  Ephesus  ^  Chalcedon ',  and  a  multitude  of 
others.  The  Nicene  faith  has  ever  since  been  firmly 
held  and  believed  by  all  Christians ;  and  therefore,  as  I 

»•  Fleury,  1.  xii.  s.  33.  iii.  p.  207-     Ed.  Ben. 

'  Ibid,  35.  ^  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  t.  i. 

^  Socrates,  ii.  24.  '  Athanasii  Opera,  p.  901. 

*  Sozomen,  Hist.   Eccl.  1.  iv.         J  Canon  I. 

c.  17-     Socrates,  ii.  37.  ''  Harduin.   Concilia,    t.   i.    p. 

*  Athanasii  Epist.    ad   Jovian.      1362. 

Imper.  Oper.  p.  781.  Ed.  Ben.  '  Definitio  Fidei  apud  Routli. 

s  Hasil.   Epist.    114.  Oper.  t.     Opuscula,  p.  427,  &c. 


SECT.  II.]  Second  (Ecnrnenical  Sijnod.  177 

have  already  shewn,  it  is  to  be  accounted  an  irrefraga- 
ble, unalterable  rule,  which  cannot  be  disputed  without 
heresy,  and  for  which,  as  the  Egyptian  synod  wrote, 
"  we  should  be  ready  even  to  lay  down  our  lives." 

The  authentic  monuments  of  this  council  are  the 
creed "",  twenty  canons ",  and  the  synodal  epistle  °. 

SECTION  II. 

THE    FIRST    SYNOD    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The  second  oecumenical  synod  of  150  oriental 
bishops  was  assembled  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius " 
the  elder,  in  381,  to  appease  the  troubles  of  the  east. 
Timothy  of  Alexandria,  and  others,  successively  pre- 
sided '' :  and  no  one  was  present  on  the  jDart  of  Dama- 
sus  bishop  of  Rome  and  the  other  western  bishops. 

The  heresy  of  Macedonius,  who  blasphemously  taught 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  creature,  as  Arius  and 
Eunomius  had  blasphemed  the  Son  of  God ",  had  been 
condemned,  and  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  consub- 
stantial  Trinity  had  been  taught  in  the  synods  of 
Alexandria  362  \  Illyricum  367  %  Rome  367  \  and 
Rome  381    or   382*^.     The  synod   of  Constantinoi^le 

'"  Routh,    Opuscula,    p.    351.  Heeres.  haer.  Ixxiv. 

Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  8.  '^  Harduini    Concilia,    t.    i.    p, 

°  Routh,     Opuscula,    p.    354,  731.       Athanasii    Opera,     t.    ii. 

&c.   Beveregii   Pandect.  Justelli  p.  770. 

Bibl.  Jur.  Can.  "^  Theodoret,    Hist.    Eccl.  lib. 

°  Socrates,  i.  9.  Theodoret,i.6.  iv.  c.  9. 

"  Natalis    Alexander    proves  "^  Harduin.  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  773; 

that    it   was    assembled   without  Theodoret,  lib.  ii.  c.  22. 

consulting  Pope  Damasus.   Hist.  *  Theodoret,   Hist.    Eccl.    lib. 

Eccl.  Ssecul.  iv.  Dissert,  xxxvi.  v.    c.    11.     Their   decree  ran  as 

Richerius   treats   of  this  synod,  follows :  "  Quia   post    concilium 

Hist.  Cone.  General,  lib.  i.  c.  5.  Nicaenum  hie   error  inolevit,  ut 

**  Natalis  Alexander,  ibid.  Art.  quidam    ore    sacrilego    auderent 

II.  dicere,  Spiritum  Sanctum  factum 

*  Theodoret,  Heretic.  Pabular,  esse  per  Fiiium  ;   anathematiza- 

lib.  iv,    c.    5  ;   Epiphanius,    adv.  mus  eos,   qui  non   tota  libertate 

VOL.  II.  N 


J78  Second  CEcumenical  Synod.        [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

now  anathematized  the  Macedonians  or  Pneumatoma- 
chi,  as  well  as  the  Eunomians  and  other  sects  of 
Arians,  the  Sabellians,  and  other  heresies  "^ :  and  in 
opposition  to  the  Apollinarians,  and  the  Macedonians, 
enlarged  the  Nicene  creed  by  some  passages  concern- 
inof  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  and  of 
the  real  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  *.  Six  canons  also 
were  made  concerning  discipline. 

The  synod  addressed  an  epistle  to  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  informing  him  of  their  decrees,  and  re- 
questing him  to  authorize  them  '^ ;  and  he  accordingly 
published  an  edict  commanding  all  churches  to  be 
delivered  to  bishops  who  held  the  orthodox  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity'.  Thus  the  decree  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  could  not  fail  to  be  known  to  the 
whole  church,  and  from  the  date  of  its  publication,  the 
Macedonians  were  always  regarded  as  heretics;  and 
the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  consubstantial  Mdth 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  was  universally  acknowledged. 
It  is  not  clear,  however,  that  the  synod  of  Constanti- 
nople was  immediately  acknowledged  everywhere  as 
equal  in  authority  to  that  of  Nice.  The  Egyptian 
churches  seem  not  to  have  accounted  it  as  such.  In 
the  synodal  epistle  of  the  council  of  Alexandria  to 
Nestorius,  the  synod  of  Nice  only  is  spoken  of"':  and 
the  Nicene  creed  alone  was  approved  by  the  third 
oecumenical  synod  of  Ephesus  in  431  ° :  but  the  greater 


proclaraant,   eum   cum   Patre  et  Saec.  iv.  Dissert,  xxxvii.   traces 

Filio  unius  potestatis  esse  atque  the     reasons    for    the     additions 

substantige Anathematiza-  made  to  the  Nicene  Creed. 

mus  Macedonianos   qui    de  Arii  ''  Fleury,  liv.  .xviii.  s.  8. 

stirpe    venientes,    non   perfidiam  *  Ibid.  s.  9. 

mutavere,  sed  nomen."  "^    Harduin.    Concil.    t.    i.    p. 

h  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  ii  p.  809.  1439. 

'NatalisAlexandei',  Hist.  Eccl.  "  Canon  vii. 


SECT.  II.]  Second  (Ecumenical  Synod.  179 

part  of  the  church  seem  to  have  accounted  the  synod 
of  Constantinople  oecumenical  then,  or  shortly  after. 
Flavianus  of  Constantinople,  in  his  profession  of  faith, 
acknowledged  the  three  synods  of  Nice,  Constantino- 
ple, and  Ephesus ".  Eusebius  of  Dorylseum  in  his 
profession  of  faith  made  at  Rome  in  presence  of  Pope 
Leo  received  the  same  ^.  Socrates  and  Sozomen  also 
speak  of  this  synod  as  they  do  of  the  synod  of  Nice "", 
and  in  fine  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Chalcedon  in 
451,  consisting  of  630  bishops,  approved  the  Constan- 
tinopolitan  creed,  which  it  caused  to  be  read  after  that 
of  Nice  \  From  this  time  the  council  of  Constanti- 
nople was  acknowledged  by  all  churches  to  be  oecume- 
nical ;  as  appears  by  the  answers  of  the  bishops  of  the 
whole  world  to  the  encyclical  letters  of  the  Emperor 
Leo,  in  458,  in  which  they  universally  received  the 
four  oecumenical  synods '.  The  Constantinopolitan 
creed  was  even  received  by  all  churches  into  their 
Liturgies  and  other  offices,  in  preference  to  that  of 
Nice.  It  was  only  rejected  by  the  Eutychians  because 
it  expressed  more  fully  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  *.  Hence,  this  creed,  having  been  received 
and  approved  by  all  churches,  and  never  disputed  for  a 
moment  by  any  catholic,  cannot  teach  any  error  in 
faith,  but  must  be  irrefragably  true,  and  binding  on  all 
churches,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  authentic  records  of  the  council  of  Constanti- 
nople are,  its  seven  canons,  creed,  and  synodal  epistle 
to  the  Emperor  Theodosius  ". 

°  Fleury,    liv.    xxvii.    s.    o3.  ^  Harduin.    Concil,    ii,   691  — 

Harduin.  Concil.  t.  ii.  p.  7.  768. 

p  Fleury,  liv.  xxvii.  s.  49.  '  See  Natalis  Alexander,  Hist. 

•i  Socrates,    Hist.  Eccl.   lib.  v.  Eccl.  ut  supra, 
c.  8.   Sozomen,  6,  7.  "  See  the  creed  and  canons  in 

*■  Synod.     Chalced.     Definitio  Routh's  Opuscula,  p.  372,  &c. 
Fidei,  Harduin.  ii.  451,  452. 

N  2 


180  Third  (Ecumejiical  Si/nod.        [r.  iv.  ch.  ix 


SECTION  III. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    EPHESUS. 

The  third  oecumenical  synod  of  200  bishops,  was 
assembled  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  the  younger  ^ 
to  determine  the  controversy  raised  by  Nestorius, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  declaimed  against  the 
title  of  Theotokos,  which  the  church  had  long  applied 
to  the  Virgin  Mary  as  the  mother  of  Him  who  was 
both  God  and  Man ;  and  taught  that  the  Son  of  man 
and  God  the  Word  were  different  persons,  connected 
only  by  a  moral  or  apparent  union  ;  contrary  to  the 
scripture,  which  declared,  that  "  the  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,"  and  that  God  "  purchased 
the  church  with  his  own  blood."  (Acts  xx.  28.)  When 
the  people  of  Constantinople  and  all  the  east,  together 
with  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Celestine  of  Rome,  and  many 
other  great  bishops,  declared  their  alarm  and  disap- 
probation at  this  doctrine,  Nestorius  endeavoured  to 
defend  himself  by  charging  his  opponents  with  errors 
which  they  did  not  maintain,  and  by  offering  to  employ 
the  term  Theotokos  in  a  sense  which  afforded  no 
security  for  the  orthodox  doctrine.  The  councils  of 
Alexandria  under  S.  Cyril ",  and  of  Rome  under  Celes- 
tinus '',  condemned  the  doctrine  of  Nestorius  in  430, 
and  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Ephesus  also  condemned 
it  in  431  ^  The  judgment  of  this  synod  was  at  once 
approved  by  the  whole  western  church,  and  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the   East ;    it   was  subsequently   con- 


''  Richerii  Hist.  Cone.  General.  ^  Ibid.  s.  14. 

t.  i.   c.    vii  ;  Natalis  Alexander,  *  Harduin.     Cone.     t. 

saec.  V,  Dissert.  7.  1359—62,  1387 — 95. 

'^  Fleury,  liv.  xxv.  s.  21. 


SECT.  III.]  Tliii-d  CEcumenical  Synod.  181 

firmed  by  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Clialcedon  of  630 
bishops  \  and  ever  afterwards  acknowledged  to  be 
legitimate  by  the  whole  catholic  church.  Hence  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  council  of  Ephesus  un- 
justly condemned  Nestorius  ;  though  his  ambiguous 
expressions,  and  his  attempts  to  palliate  his  original 
doctrine,  for  a  short  time  deceived  John  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  and  several  bishops  of  that  patriarchate,  into 
a  belief  that  he  was  in  reality  orthodox  ^  Theodoret, 
bishop  of  Cyrus,  for  many  years  maintained  the  ortho- 
doxy of  Nestorius,  but  was  obliged  by  the  oecumenical 
synod  of  Chalcedon  to  anathematize  him  as  a  heretic  ^ 
John  of  Antioch  and  the  eastern  bishops  very  soon 
agreed  with  the  synod  of  Ephesus  *. 

The  want  of  regularity,  which  is  alleged  against  the 
proceedings  of  this  synod,  cannot  throw  any  doubt  on 
the  case  of  Nestorius,  because  it  is  not  credible  that 
there  should  have  been  any  real  injustice  in  a  decree 
which  the  universal  church  deliberately  ratified  and  ap- 
proved. And  if  the  synod,  consisting  of  tivo  hundred 
bishops,  after  waiting  sixteen  days  in  vain  for  the  arrival 
of  John  of  Antioch  and  his  bishops  (about  twenty-five 
in  number),  proceeded  without  them  to  judge  the  cause 
for  which  they  were  assembled,  shall  it  be  said,  that  so 
great  a  synod  was  not  competent  to  do  so?  Many 
bishops  had  arrived  from  a  much  greater  distance  at 
the  time  appointed.  Nestorius,  it  is  said,  was  con- 
demned unheard  ;  but  the  council  summoned  him  three 


^  Definitio  Fidei,  Routh  Opus-  some  modern  writers. 
cula.  "  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  VIII. 

8  See  Natalis  Alexander,  Hist.  Fleury,   Hist.    Eccl.    liv.  xxviii. 

Eccl.  V.   Sasc.  Dissert,  vi.  where  s.  24. 

Nestorius  is  convicted  of  heresy,  '  Fleury,  liv.  xxvi.  s.  21. 

in  opposition  to  the  pretences  of 


182  Third  CEcumenical  Synod.         [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

times  to  defend  himself;  and  on  his  refusal,  condemned 
him  after  examining-  his  writings,  and  hearing  com- 
petent witnesses  as  to  his  sentiments ''.  There  never 
was  a  cause  more  fully  discussed  by  the  church  ;  for  the 
violent  opposition  offered  to  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of 
Ephesus  at  first  by  John  of  Antioch  and  his  party, 
caused  the  judgment  of  the  church  to  appear  suspended 
for  a  time ;  and  then,  after  mature  examination,  the 
emperor'  and  all  the  church  united  in  ratifying  the 
condemnation  of  Nestorius. 

The  doctrine  approved  by  this  synod  and  received  by 
the  universal  church,  is  contained  in  the  epistle  of  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  to  Nestorius,  which  was  read  in 
the  synod,  and  approved  by  every  one  of  the  bishops  "\ 
This  epistle  was  also  approved  universally  in  the  church. 
The  synodal  epistle  of  St.  Cyril  to  Nestorius,  con- 
cluding with  twelve  anathemas  against  the  several  Nes- 
torian  errors,  was  also  read  in  the  council ",  and  autho- 
rized, as  well  as  the  former,  by  the  synodal  letter  to  the 
emperor  ° ;  and  though  some  persons  pretended  that  it 
was  incautiously  worded,  it  was  afterwards  approved, 
together  with  the  former  epistle  of  St.  Cyril,  by  the 
great  council  of  Chalcedon  *".  The  fifth  oecumenical 
synod  afterwards  condemned  the  writings  of  Theodoret 
against  St.  Cyril's  epistles  ''. 

The  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  taught  by  the  epistles 
of  St.  Cyril,  and  approved  by  the  catholic  church,  is  as 
follows :   "  The   great  and  holy  synod  (of  Nice)  said, 


''    Harduin.    Concil.    t.    i.    p.  Harduin.    Cone.    t.    ii.    ji.    451. 

1359—1362;   1387—1395.  Natalis  Alexander,   Saec.  v.  Dis- 

'  Fleury,  liv.  xxvi.  s.  34.  sert.  8.  defends  the  epistles  of  St. 

>"  Harduin.  i.  1363—1387.  Cyril  from  all  charges  of  error. 
"  Harduin.  i.  1395.  ^  Collat.  viii.  Harduin.  iii.  188 

"   Ibid.  1439—1443.  —202. 
"  Definitio  Fidei,  Syn.  Chalc. 


SECT.  III.]  Third  (Ecumenical  Synod.  183 

that  He  '  who  was  begotten  of  the  Father  as  the  only- 
begotten  Son  by  nature ;  who  was  true  God  of  true 
God,  Light  of  Light,  by  whom  the  Father  made  all 
things ;  that  he  descended,  became  incarnate,  and  was 
made  man,  suffered,  rose  on  the  third  day,  and  ascended 
into  the  heavens.'  These  words  and  doctrines  we 
ought  to  follow,  in  considering  what  i's  meant  by  the 
Word  of  God  being  '  incarnate  and  made  man.' 

"  We  do  not  say  that  the  nature  of  the  Word  was 
converted  and  became  flesh;  nor  that  it  was  changed  into 
perfect  man,  consisting  of  body  and  soul :  but  rather, 
that  the  Word,  uniting  to  himself  personally  flesh,  ani- 
mated by  a  rational  soul,  became  man  in  an  inefliable 
and  incomprehensible  manner,  and  became  the  Son  of 
man,  not  merely  by  will  and  affection,  nor  merely  by 
the  assumption  of  one  aspect  or  appearance ;  but  that 
different  natures  were  joined  in  a  real  unity,  and  that 
there  is  one  Christ  and  Son,  of  two  natures ;  the  diffe- 
rence of  natures  not  being  taken  away  by  their  union. 
....  It  is  said  also,  that  He  who  was  before  all  ages, 
and  begotten  of  the  Father,  was  '  born  according  to  the 
flesh,  of  a  Avoman  :'  not  as  if  his  divine  nature  had  taken 
its  beginning  from  the  holy  Virgin  .  .  .  but  because  for 
us,  and  for  our  salvation.  He  united  personally  to  himself 
the  nature  of  man,  and  proceeded  from  a  woman  ;  there- 
fore He  is  said  to  be  '  born  according  to  the  flesh.'  .... 
So  also  we  say  that  He  '  suffered  and  rose  again,'  not  as 
if  God  the  Word  had  suffered  in  his  own  nature  the 
stripes,  the  nails,  or  the  other  wounds ;  for  the  Godhead 
cannot  suffer,  as  it  is  incorporeal :  but  because  that 
which  had  become  his  own  body  suffered.  He  is  said  to 
suffer  these  things  for  us.  For  He  who  was  incapable 
of  suffering  was  in  a  suffering  body.  In  like  manner 
we  understand  his  '  death.'  .  .  .  Because  his  own  body, 


184  Fourth  (Ecumenical  Synod.        [p.  iv.  CH.  ix. 

by  the  grace  of  God,  as  Paul  saith,  tasted  death  for 
every  man,  he  is  said  to  suffer  death,"  &c.  ^ 

The  acts  of  the  synod  of  Ephesus  are  extant  in  all 
the  collections  of  the  councils.  It  accounted  the  Pela- 
gians to  be  heretics  S  and  made  eight  canons  of  dis- 
cipline \ 

SECTION  IV. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    CHALCEDON. 

The  fourth  oecumenical  synod,  of  630  bishops,  was 
assembled  by  the  Emperor  Marcian  in  451,  at  Chal- 
cedon ''.  The  legates  of  Pope  Leo  of  Rome  presided  at 
the  emperor's  desire.  This  synod  published  a  con- 
fession or  definition  of  faith,  in  which  the  doctrine  and 
creeds  of  the  three  preceding  councils  of  Nice,  Con- 
stantinople, and  Ephesus,  were  confirmed ;  the  epistles 
of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  that  of  Leo  of  Rome,  on 
the  incarnation,  were  approved  :  and  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine of  the  existence  of  two  perfect  and  distinct 
natures,  the  divine  and  human,  in  the  unity  of  the  per- 
son of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  was  clearly  defined  ^ 

Eutyches,  and  Dioscorus  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who 
maintained  that  there  was  only  one  nature  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  after  the  incarnation,  or  union  of  the  di- 
vinity and  humanity,  were  condemned  as  heretics  by 
this  council.  Eutyches  had  been  already  condemned 
by  the  synod  of  Constantinople  under  Flavianus  bishop 
of  that  see  *" ;  who  was  in  his  turn  deposed  by  Dioscorus 

■■  llarduin.   Concilia,    t.   i.    p.  '^  Harduin.  Cone.  ii.  451 — 455. 

1 274.  On  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  of 

^  Canon  i.  iv.  St.    Leo,    see  Natal.  Alexander, 

•  See  Routh's  Opuscula.  sasc.    v.    Dissert.    .12.      See    the 

*  "Richer.  Hist.  Cone.  General.  Epistle  itself.  Harduin.  Cone. 
t.    i.    c.    viii.    Natal.  Alexander,  ii.  290,  &c. 

ssec.  V.  Dissert.  11.  '^  Harduin.  ii.  110,  &c. 


SECT.  IV.]  Fourth  (Ecumenical  Si/nod.  185 

and  tlie  pseudo-synod  at  Ephesus '',  called  the  Latro- 
ciniiim,  from  the  violence  of  its  proceedings.  The 
oecumenical  synod  of  Chalcedon  annulled  the  decree  of 
this  pseudo-synod,  and  though  a  few  bishops  of  Egypt 
and  Palestine,  of  the  party  of  Dioscorus,  opposed  the 
orthodox  doctrine,  and  founded  the  JNIonophysite  sect ; 
the  infinite  majority  of  the  catholic  church  throughout 
the  world  received  the  doctrine  of  the  oecumenical 
synod.  This  appears  especially  from  the  epistles  of  the 
bishops  of  all  provinces  which  were  obtained  by  the 
Emperor  Leo  seven  years  after  the  council,  when  all 
unanimously  received  and  approved  the  doctrine  of  the 
synod  of  Chalcedon  and  the  other  oecumenical  councils  ^ 
The  doctrine  taught  by  the  synod  of  Chalcedon  is  as 
follows  :  "  We  confess,  and  with  one  accord  teach,  one 
and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  perfect  in 
the  divinity,  perfect  in  the  humanity  ;  truly  God  and 
truly  man ;  consisting  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  body  ; 
consubstantial  with  the  Father  according  to  the  God- 
head, and  consubstantial  with  us  according  to  the  man- 
hood ;  in  all  things  like  to  us,  without  sin  :  who  was  be- 
gotten of  the  Father  before  all  ages,  according  to  the 
Godhead  ;  and  in  the  last  days  the  same  born  according 
to  the  manhood,  of  Mary  the  Virgin,  Mother  of  God, 
for  us  and  our  salvation  :  who  is  to  be  acknowledged 
one  and  the  same  Christ,  the  Son,  the  Lord,  the  only- 
begotten,  in  two  natures,  without  mixture,  change,  di- 
vision, or  separation  ;  the  difference  of  natures  not  being 
removed  by  their  union,  but  rather,  the  propriety  of 
each  nature  being  preserved,  and  concurring  in  one 
aspect  and  one  person,"  &c.  ^ 


^  Ibid.  p.  71,  &c.  '  Definitio   Fidei  apud  Routli, 

*  Harduin.  CoMC.  ii.691 — 768.     Opuscula,  p.  425. 


186  Fifth  CEcujneJiical  Synod.         [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

The  acts  of  the  synod  of  Chalcedon  still  remain.  Its 
canons  of  discipline  were  twenty-eight  in  number  ^ 

SECTION  V. 

THE    SECOND    SYNOD    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The  fifth  oecumenical  synod  of  165bishoi3S,  was  con- 
vened by  the  Emperor  Justinian  ^  in  553  to  determine 
the  controversy  concerning  the  three  chapters,  or  certain 
writings  of  Theodorus,  Ibas,  and  Theodoret,  which  sup- 
ported the  Nestorian  heresy.  This  synod  received  and 
confirmed  the  decrees  of  the  four  first  oecumenical 
councils,  and  condemned  the  person  and  writings  of 
Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  ;  the  writings  of  Theodoret  of 
Cyrus  against  the  twelve  chapters  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, against  the  council  of  Ephesus,  and  in  defence 
of  Theodore  and  Nestorius ;  and  the  impious  letter  said 
to  be  written  by  Ibas  to  Maris  the  Persian,  in  which 
he  denied  that  the  Word  became  incarnate  and  was 
made  man  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  charged  St.  Cyril  with 
heresy,  accused  the  council  of  Ephesus  of  deposing  Nes- 
torius without  examination,  and  defended  Theodorus 
and  Nestorius  and  their  impious  writings.  The  synod 
also  added  fourteen  anathemas  against  these  and  other 
Nestorian  errors  ^  It  appears  then,  that  this  synod  is 
to  be  viewed  as  a  supplement  of  the  third ;  both  being 
engaged  in  establishing  the  orthodox  faith  against  the 
same  errors. 

It  was  received  generally  in  the  East,  but  some  of 

s  Routh,  p.  401,  &c.  cil.  t.  iii.  p.  188—202  ;   Fleury, 

^  Fleury,    liv.    xxxiii.   s.   43.  liv,  xxxiii.  s.  50;  see  Nat.  Alex. 

See  Natalis  Alexander,  ssec.  vi.  saec.  vi.  Diss.  4.  in  proof  of  the 

Dissert.  3.  De  V  synodi  convo-  justice    of  the    sentence    against 

catione,  praeside,  auctoritate.  the  three  Chapters. 

''  Collatio  viii.  Harduin.  Con- 


SECT.  VI.]  Sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  187 

the  Western  bishoj3s  in  Africa,  Tuscany,  lUyricum,  and 
liiguria,  rejected  it  at  first,  under  the  persuasion  that 
its  condemnation  of  the  writings  of  Theodoret  and  Ibas 
was  derogatory  to  the  synod  of  Chalcedon,  in  which 
those  prelates  had  been  received  as  orthodox.  How- 
ever the  greater  part  of  them  soon  concurred  with  the 
majority  of  the  catholic  church  in  acknowledging  the 
synod  as  oecumenical ;  and  the  remainder  were  viewed 
as  schismatics. 

SECTION  VI. 

THE    THIRD    SYNOD    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The  sixth  oecumenical  synod  of  170  bishops,  was 
assembled  by  the  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus ",  in 
680,  to  terminate  the  divisions  in  the  church  which  had 
been  caused  by  the  heresy  of  the  Monothelites,  who 
held  that  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  after  the  union  of 
the  divine  and  human  natures,  there  was  but  one  will 
and  one  operation.  This  error  evidently  was  connected 
with  the  Eutychian  heresy  condemned  by  the  fourth 
oecumenical  council,  and  like  it,  was  inconsistent  with 
the  revealed  doctrine  of  the  co-existence  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  perfect  and  distinct,  in  the  person  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  synod  of  Constantinople 
having  fully  examined  the  controversy,  published  a  de- 
finition of  faith,  in  which  they  received  the  preceding 
five  oecumenical  synods,  and  the  creeds  of  Nice  and  Con- 
stantinople ;  condemned  the  authors  and  supporters  of 
the  Monothelite  heresy,  viz.  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Ser- 
gius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul  and  Peter  of  Constantinople,  Ho- 
norius  bishop  of  Rome,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  Macarius, 

*=   Fleury,  liv.  xL  s.  10.      Nat.  Alex.  saec.  vii.  Diss.  1. 


188  Sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  [p.  iv.  ch.  ix. 

and  Stephen ;  approved  the  synodical  letters  of  pope 
Agatho  and  a  synod  of  125  bishops  assembled  at  Rome 
from  Italy,  France,  and  Britain ;  and  in  conclusion  de- 
clared that  in  Christ  are  two  natural  wills,  and  two  na- 
tural operations,  without  division,  conversion,  or  confu- 
sion*^. The  decree  of  this  synod  was  universally  received 
and  approved  in  the  catholic  church. 

The  acts  of  the  sixth  oecumenical  synod  are  still 
extant. 

These  are  the  only  synods  which  the  universal  church 
has  ever  received  and  approved  as  oecumenical.  The 
decrees  of  other  synods,  called  oecumenical  or  general, 
are  of  very  inferior  authority,  as  will  be  presently 
shown. 

The  doctrine  of  these  genuine  oecumenical  synods, 
having  been  approved  and  acted  on  by  the  whole  body 
of  the  catholic  church,  and  thus  ratified  by  a  universal 
consent,  which  has  continued  ever  since ;  this  doctrine 
is,  according  to  the  principles  laid  down  in  Chapter  IV,, 
irrefragably  true,  unalterable,  irreformable ;  nor  could 
any  particular  church  forsake  or  change  this  doctrine 
without  ceasing  to  be  christian. 

''  Actio  xviii.  Definitio  Fidei.  doctrine    of  two    wills  and   two 

— Harduin.  Cone.  iii.  p.  1395 —  operations,      was      entirely    ap- 

1402.     The  general  tenor  of  the  proved  by  the  bishops. — Harduin. 

two  Epistles  of  Agatho  and  the  iii.  1158. 
Roman  synod,  which  taught  the 


CHAP.  X.]  Synod  of  Sardica.  189 


CHAPTER  X. 

COUNCILS    IMPROPERLY    STYLED    OECUMENICAL, 
HELD    BEFORE    A.D.    1054. 

I  AM  HOW  to  speak  of  various  synods  sometimes  styled 
oecumenical,  and  held  before  the  year  1054,  when  the 
existing  divisions  between  the  Eastern  and  Western 
churches  commenced.  Of  these  synods  some  are 
simply  deficient  in  authority,  others  are  to  be  rejected, 
as  unjust,  or  injurious  to  the  catholic  faith. 

SECTION  I. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    SARDICA. 

The  synod  of  Sardica  was  assembled  in  347,  by  the 
emperors  Constantius  and  Constans ",  to  re-estabhsh  the 
union  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches,  which  had 
been  disturbed  by  the  violent  proceedings  of  the  Arian 
party,  who  had  expelled  from  their  sees  St.  Athanasius, 
and  other  orthodox  bishops.  This  synod,  which  con- 
sisted of  100  bishops  of  the  western  provinces  (the  ori- 
ental bishops  under  the  influence  of  the  Arians,  having 
retired  from  it),  restored  St.  Athanasius  and  the  or- 
thodox bishops  to  their  sees,    confirmed    the   Nicene 

**  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  ii,  c.  20. 


190  Synod  of  Ariminum.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

creed  ^  and  made  several  canons  of  discipline,  in  one 
of  which  they  conferred  on  the  Roman  bishop  the  pri- 
vilege of  desiring  a  rehearing  of  the  causes  of  bishops 
condemned  by  their  provincial  synods  '.  This  novel 
privilege  however,  did  not  take  effect  until  some  cen- 
turies afterwards  '^.  This  synod  was  orthodox  and  always 
approved  by  the  church,  but  as  it  made  no  new  defini- 
tion in  faith,  so  it  was  never  accounted  an  oecumenical 
synod,  nor  esteemed  of  the  same  authority  as  the  synods 
of  Nice,  Constantinoj^le,  &c. 

SECTION  II. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    ARIMINUM,    AND    ARIANISM. 

The  questions  concerning  the  synod  of  Ariminum  are 
of  the  highest  importance  in  controversies  concerning 
church  authority.  Those  who  are  desirous  of  over- 
throwing that  authority,  affirm  that  the  synod  of  Ari- 
minum apostatized  to  Arianism,  and  that  the  whole 
church  fell  along  with  it.  I  maintain  that  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  fell  into  the  Arian  heresy,  or  decided 
in  its  favour. 

The  Arian  party,  which  at  first  only  existed  in  the 
east,  did  not  for  many  years  dare  to  assail  the  Nicene 
faith  to  which  they  had  subscribed ;  but  persecuted  on 
various  false  pretences,  its  sincere  defenders  ^  Arian 
bishoj^s  were  unlawfully  intruded  into  several  of  the 
Eastern  sees,  and  thus  the  heresy  gained  ground  among 
the  chief  rulers  of  the  church  ;  Avhile  the  great  body  of 
the  faithful  remained  attached  to  the  truth.  The  West 
was  sound  in  faith:  synods  at  Rome  341,  Milan  346, 

''  Socrates,  ibid.  Discipl,  Dissert,  ii   s   3,  4. 

'■  Canons  iii.  iv.  v.  ^  Socrates,  i.  23,  24.  32.  35, 

"  See  Du  Pin,  De  Antiq.  Eccl.     36  ;  ii.  7. 


SECT.  II.]  Synod  of  Ariminum.  191 

and  Sardica  347,  confirmed  the  catholic  faith,  and  re- 
stored to  his  see  the  holy  confessor  Athanasius,  who 
had  been  unlawfully  expelled  by  the  Arians  with  the 
aid  of  the  emperor.  Their  example  was  followed  by  the 
synod  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  under  Maximus  archbishop 
of  Jerusalem  ^  Ursacius  and  Valens,  Arian  bishops, 
had  even  openly  renounced  their  heresy  ^  and  been 
received  into  communion  by  the  Western  bishops 
assembled  at  Milan  ^. 

The  emperor  Constantius  designed  to  convene  an 
oecumenical  synod  to  terminate  the  existing  contro- 
versies in  a  manner  favourable  to  Arianism  ;  but  con- 
sidering the  difficulty  of  assembling  the  bishops  in  one 
place,  he  ordered  the  eastern  bishops  to  meet  at  Se- 
leucia  in  Isauria,  and  the  western  at  Ariminum  ^  The 
synod  of  Seleucia  was  divided  in  sentiments,  and  the 
semi- Arians,  who  formed  the  majority,  and  whose  sen- 
timents were  substantially  orthodox,  approved  of  a  creed 
made  at  Antioch,  in  which  the  word  consubstantial 
alone  was  omitted  \ 

The  synod  of  Ariminum  comprised  about  400  bishops, 
only  eighty  of  whom  were  Arians,  headed  by  Ursacius 
and  Valens,  who  had  again  apostatized.  These  bishops 
presented  to  the  synod  a  formulary  of  faith  which  had 
been  recently  agreed  on  privately  by  their  party  at  Sir- 
mium,  and  required  that  all  former  confessions  of  faith 
should  be  abrogated,  and  this  alone  be  received  ^.  The 
proposed  formulary  asserted  in  the  strongest  terms  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  but  prohibited  the  use  of  the  term 
which  the  Nicene  fathers  had  used  to  designate  it.    The 

""  Socrates,  ii.  24.  ^  Socrates,  1.  ii.  c.  37. 

•^  Ibid.  12.  ^  Ibid.  c.  40. 

''  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  Hi.  e  Ibid.  1.  ii.  c.  37;  Sozomen, 
s.  44.  1.  iv.  c.  17. 

15 


192  Synod  of  Ariminum.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x« 

council  however  declared  that  they  did  not  need  any 
new  creed,  called  on  Ursacius  and  Valens  to  pronounce 
anathema  against  Arius,  and  on  their  refusal  deposed 
and  excommunicated  them,  and  sent  deputies  to  the 
emperor  to  notify  their  decision,  and  their  resolution  to 
maintain  the  Nicene  creed;  and  to  request  his  protection 
for  the  orthodox  faith,  together  with  his  permission  to 
retire  to  their  respective  churches  \ 

The  orthodoxy  of  the  synod  when  acting  freely  was 
thus  most  fully  manifested.  But  Ursacius  and  Valens 
having  been  sent  by  their  party  to  Constantius,  by 
whom  they  were  received  with  great  distinction ;  and 
having  returned  with  orders  to  the  imperial  prefect 
Taurus  not  to  permit  the  bishops  to  depart  till  they 
had  signed  the  creed  :  several  of  the  more  obstinately 
orthodox  bishops,  having  also  been  sent  into  banish- 
ment; and  the  Arian  party  having  urged  that  the  adop- 
tion of  the  proposed  formulary  would  restore  harmony 
and  peace  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches' ; 
and  in  fine,  having  anathematized  the  heresies  imputed  to 
them  ''j  and  thus  deceived  the  orthodox  into  a  belief  that 
the  creed  was  to  be  understood  in  an  orthodox  sense^  of 
wliich  it  was  perfectly  capable  :  the  bishops,  worn  out  by 
a  delay  of  seven  months,  and  misled  by  these  various 
motives,  received  the  formulary  proposed  to  them'. 
It  does  not  appear  however  that  they  annulled  the 
Nicene  creed  further  than  by  abrogating  the  use  of  the 
word  "  consubstantial ""." 


^  Socrates,  ut  supra.  n.  41.  t.  i.  p.  755,  observes  that 

'  Sozomen,  iv.  17-  those  who  merely  objected  to  the 

^  Hieronymus,  Dial.  adv.  Lu-  use  of  this  word,  but  really  be- 

eifer.  t.  iv.  p.  299,  300.  ed.  Ben.  lieved    the    doctrine  it    was    in- 

'  Sulp.    Severus,    Hist.    Sacr.  tended  by  the  church  to  convey, 

lib.  ii.  were  not  to  be  regarded  as  ene- 

'"  Athanasius  Lib.  de  Synodis,  mies  or  heretics. 


SECT.  II.]  Synod  of  Ariminum.  IS**^ 

It  appears  plainly  from  this,  tliat  the  bishops  of  the 
synod  of  Ariminum  were  really  orthodox  in  their  be- 
lief, and  that  they  did  not  design  to  approve  the  Arian 
heresy.  They  were  indeed  deceived,  for  the  Arians, 
who  had  anathematized  their  own  errors  in  order  to 
induce  the  bishops  to  subscribe  a  creed  which  was  or- 
thodox in  ai:)pearance,  asserted  presently  that  the  creed 
was  to  be  taken  in  the  Arian  sense,  and  that  Arianism 
had  been  approved  by  the  council.  The  bishops  of  the 
synod  of  Ariminum  were  certainly  blameable  for  per- 
mitting themselves  to  be  deceived  by  the  craft  and  sub- 
tilty  of  the  Arians  ;  but  the  church  did  not  believe  them 
to  have  designed  any  sanction  of  heresy.  St.  Jerome 
clears  them  of  the  charge  of  Arianism  on  several 
grounds".  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  also  excuses  many 
of  them  from  any  intentional  error  °.  Damasus  bisho]) 
of  Rome  said  that  it  was  through  ignorance  and  sim- 
plicity they  were  deceived  ^  and  the  synod  of  Paris  tes- 
tified the  same  "• ;  and  Sulpicius  Severus  attributes  it  to 
the  ambiguity  of  the  terms  employed  by  the  Arians, 
which  deceived  the  bishops  '. 

The  synod  of  Ariminum,  consisting  of  400  bishops, 
was  not  the  universal  church,  for  I  have  already  shown 
that  there  were  upwards  of  2000  episcopal  sees  in  the 
east  and  west  \  Hence  the  Arians  felt  it  necessary  to 
procure  the  subscription  of  the  bishops  generally  to  the 
creed  of  Ariminum,  before  they  could  pretend  that 
their  heresy  was  sanctioned  by  the  catholic  church. 
Accordingly  the  emperor  Constantius   commanded  all 


°  Hieron.   Dial.  adv.  Lucifer.  ''  Fleury,  Hv.  xiv.  s.  27. 

t.  iv.  ■"  Sulp.  Sever.  Hist.  Sacr.  lib. 

"  Gregor.  Nazianz.   Orat.   21.  ii. 

t.  i.  p.  387.  ^  See  above,  Vol,  I.  p.  204, 

"  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  22.  &c. 

VOL.  II.  O 


194  Synod  of  Ariminiim.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

bishops  to  subscribe  it;  and  those  who  refused  were  ex- 
iled and  persecuted  *.  Amongst  those  who  raised  their 
voices  against  the  Arian  perfidy,  were  Liberius  of 
Rome,  Vincent  of  Capua,  Gregory  of  Elvira,  the  great 
Athanasius,  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari. 
Many  bishops  subscribed  from  want  of  information ; 
others,  as  St.  Athanasius  intimates,  by  a  questionable 
prudence,  lest  heretical  bishops  should  supersede  them 
in  the  government  of  their  churches,  and  corrupt  their 
people ".  In  fine,  this  subscription  of  bishops,  exacted 
hy  force,  and  opposed  by  many  eminent  bishops,  could 
not  be  considered  as  any  real  judgment  of  the  universal 
church  in  favour  of  Arianism.  It  does  not  appear  that 
the  majority  of  the  bishops  ever  condemned  the  Nicene 
doctrine,  or  received  the  creed  of  Ariminum  in  an 
Arian  sense  :  and  as  soon  as  the  perfidy  of  the  Arians 
was  made  fully  manifest,  and  the  question  had  been 
really  examined  and  discussed,  the  whole  church  so- 
lemnly confirmed  again  the  Nicene  faith,  rejected  the 
creed  of  Ariminum,  and  expelled  the  Arians  from  its 
communion. 

Hilary  of  Poictiers,  having  returned  to  Gaul  from  his 
exile,  about  360,  held  many  synods  in  that  country  to 
extirpate  Arianism  and  annul  the  proceedings  at  Ari- 
minum \  The  synod  of  Paris  shortly  after  revoked 
what  had  been  done  there  through  ignorance ;  excom- 
municated the  Arian  leaders,  and  transmitted  their 
resolutions  to  the  Eastern  bishops  "^  Hilary  even  passed 
into  Italy,  where  the  bishops  assembled  in  synod,  and 
annulled  the  synod  of  Ariminum ".     At  the  same  time 

'  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  37  ;  v.   13  ;   Sulpitius  Severus,   Hist. 

Sozomen.  iv.  17.  Sacr.  lib.  ii. 

"  Athanasii  Epistola  ad  Rufi-  ™  Harduin.   Concilia,   t.   i.   p. 

nianum.  p.  964.  ed.  Ben.  727- 

"  Socrates,  iii.    10  ;  Sozomen.  ^  Fleury,  liv.  xv.  s.  30. 


SECT.  II.]       Arianism  not  approved  hy  the  Chvrch.  195 

another  synod  at  Alexandria  confirmed  the  Nicene 
faith  ^.  In  363,  only  three  years  after  the  synod  of 
Ariniinura,  Athanasius  testified  that  the  Nicene  faith 
was  received  by  the  churches  of  Spain,  Britain,  Gaul, 
Italy,  Dalmatia,  Dacia,  Mysia,  Macedonia,  Greece, 
Africa,  Sardinia,  Cyprus,  Crete,  Pamphylia,  Syria, 
Isauria,  Egypt,  Lybia,  Pontus,  Cappadocia,  and  the 
East  \  In  the  same  year  a  synod  of  eastern  bishops  at 
Antioch  proposed  the  Nicene  creed  as  the  faith  of  the 
church".  Synods  of  semi-Arians  in  Smyrna,  Pam- 
phylia, Isauria,  and  Lycia,  acknowledged  and  received 
it ''.  Synods,  in  quick  succession  in  Asia,  Cappadocia, 
Sicily,  Illyricum,  &c. ""  confirmed  the  catholic  faith.  So 
that  it  is  plain  that  the  universal  church  had  not  ap- 
proved the  Arian  heresy,  though  many  bishops  had 
either  fallen  for  a  time,  or  been  deceived  by  their  crafty 
opponents  into  an  apparent  sanction  of  their  errors. 

So  strong  was  the  attachment  of  the  christian  com- 
munity at  all  times  to  the  original  and  apostolical  doc- 
trine of  the  proper  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
that  the  Arians  who  were  intruded  into  bishopricks, 
were  obliged  almost  always  to  employ  language  on  the 
subject,  which  in  its  simple  obvious  meaning  conveyed 
the  orthodox  doctrine.  St.  Hilary  of  Poictiers  in  de- 
scribing the  arts  of  these  men,  says :  "  They  attribute 
the  name  of '  God'  to  Christ,  because  it  is  also  given  to 
men:  they  acknowledge  'the  Son  of  God,'  because  every 
one  is  made  '  a  son  of  God'  by  baptism  :  they  confess 
that  he  'was  before  all  times  and  ages,'  because  the 
same  cannot  be  denied  even  of  angels  and  the  devil. 


y  Ibid.  s.  26.  "  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iv. 

"'  Athanas.   Epist.  ad    Imper.  c.  12. 

Jov.  t.i.  Oper.  p.  781.  "^  Sozomen.  lib.   v.  c.    11,   12. 

*  Harduin.  t.  i.  p.  742.  Theodoret.  iv.  9. 

o  2 


196  Synod  of  Ariminum.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

Thus  they  attribute  to  Christ  our  Lord  only  that  which 
may  be  attributed  to  angels  or  to  ourselves :  but  what 
rightly  and  truly  belongs  to  Christ  as  God,  that  is,  '  that 
Christ  is  the  true  God,' or,  'that  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Father,'  is  denied.  And  through 
this  impious  fraud  it  is,  that  even  now,  the  people  of 
Christ  do  not  perish  beneath  the  priests  of  Antichrist ; 
since  they  believe  that  what  is  avowed  merely  verbally, 
is  to  be  really  believed.  They  hear  of  '  Christ  the  God  :' 
they  suppose  him  to  be  so.  They  hear  him  called  '  the 
Son  of  God,'  they  suppose  that  in  the  generation  of  God 
is  inferred  the  reality  of  the  Godhead :  they  hear  '  before 
times :'  they  suppose  that  before  time  is  eternity.  More 
holy  are  the  ears  of  the  people  than  the  hearts  of  the 
bishops  '^."  Even  when  Arianism  was  most  prosperous, 
Lucifer  bishop  of  Cagliari  thus  addressed  the  emperor 
Constantius  :  "  If  thou  couldst  in  a  short  time  traverse 
all  nations,  thou  wouldst  find  christians  every  where  to 
believe  as  we  do.  .  .  .  Thy  new  preaching  not  only  can- 
not as  yet  pass  the  Roman  border,  though  thy  efforts 
are  certainly  sufficiently  great ;  but  even  wherever  it 
endeavoured  to  fix  its  roots,  it  has  withered  away  \" 

Bishop  Bull  observes  that  "  in  the  time  of  Con- 
stantius, and  somewhat  after,  many  persons,  chiefly  in 
the  east,  received  the  Arians  to  communion ;  but  very 
few  comparatively  embraced  Arianism  itself.  For 
those  most  false  men,  except  when  they  had  a  fitting 
auditory,  concealed  their  impious  doctrines,  and  professed 
their  faith  almost  always  in  language  which  apparently 
conveyed  the  ancient  and  catholic  doctrine  :  and  hence 
it  occurred,  that  they  were  generally  held  and  acknow- 

"■^    Hilar.     Pictav.     Lib.  cont,     riendum  sit  pro  Filio  Dei. — Bibl. 
Auxent.  p.  126G.    ed.  Benedict.       Patr.  t.  iv.  p.  1200. 
^  Lucifer.    Calar.     Quod  mo- 


OBJECT.]         Arianism  not  approved  by  the  Church.  197 


ledged  as  catholics,  even  by  those  who  heartily  de- 
tested their  genuine  doctrines  ^." 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  neither  the  synod 
of  Ariminum,  nor  the  catholic  church  apostatized  to  the 
Arian  heresy,  or  even  sanctioned  or  tolerated  it. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  that,  except  a  few,  "  all 
the  bishops  went  with  the  times,  and  the  only  difference 
between  them  was,  that  some  fell  sooner,  and  others 
later  into  the  fraud  ^." 

Answer.  He  does  not  mean  that  they  really  fell  into 
the  Arian  heresy ;  but  that  they  yielded  successively  to 
threats  or  artifices,  so  as  to  afford  an  apparent  sanction 
to  it.  Besides,  they  did  not  fall  at  once,  so  that  the 
truth  had  always  defenders. 

II.  Hilary  says  :  "  The  danger  of  the  oriental  churches 
is  so  great,  that  it  is  rare  to  find  either  bishops  or 
people  of  the  catholic  faith.  .  .  .  Except  the  bishop 
Eleusius,  and  a  few  with  him,  the  ten  provinces  of  Asia, 
in  which  I  dwell,  for  the  most  part  really  know  not  God. 
Every  where  there  are  scandals,  schisms,  perfidies  \" 

A7iswer.  This  relates  solely  to  the  provinces  of  the 
Asiatic  diocese,  which  M'ere  peculiarly  infected  with 
Arianism  :  but  St.  Hilary  himself  testifies  (as  we  have 
seen  above)  that  the  faith  was  preserved  even  under 
Arian  bishops :  and  in  the  synod  of  Seleucia  held 
shortly  after,  it  appears  that  out  of  150  bishops,  there 
were  but  37  real  Arian s  \  The  remainder,  soon  after, 
adopted  the  Nicene  creed. 

'  Bull,  Defensio  Fid.  Nicaen.  *>  Hilar.   Pictav.   Lib.  de  Sy- 

— Works  by  Burton,   vol.    v.   p.  nodis,  n.  63.  p.  1186. 

804.  >  Sozomen,  iv.  22. 

^  Gregor.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  t.  i. 


198  Synod  of  Ariminum.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

III.  Jerome  says,  with  reference  to  the  synod  of 
Ariminum  :  "  Then  it  was  proclaimed  that  the  Nicene 
faith  was  condemned,  and  the  whole  world  groaned, 
and  wondered  to  find  itself  Arian  ''." 

Answer.  He  means  that  the  Arians  pretended  falsely 
that  the  Nicene  faith  had  been  condemned  by  the 
synod :  and  the  very  wonder  of  all  the  church  to  find 
Arianism  imputed  to  themselves,  proves  that  they  were 
not  really  of  Arian  sentiments.  St.  Jerome  proves  in 
the  same  work,  that  the  fathers  of  Ariminum  were  de- 
ceived, and  that  they  did  not  act  heretically. 

IV.  St.  Augustine  says :  "  Who  is  ignorant  that 
many  persons  of  small  understanding  were  at  that  time 
deluded  by  ambiguous  words,  to  suppose  that  the 
Arians  believed  as  they  themselves  did :  and  that 
others  yielded  to  fear,  and  gave  a  feigned  consent.  .  .  . 
Those  who  were  then  most  firm,  and  who  were  able  to 
understand  the  insidious  words  of  the  heretics,  were 
few  indeed  in  comparison  of  the  rest :  but  yet  even 
they,  some  of  them,  bravely  went  into  exile,  others  lay 
in  concealment  throughout  the  workV."  Therefore  the 
majority  adopted  the  Arian  heresy. 

Answer.  St.  Augustine  says  that  they  were  deceived, 
or  that  they  pretended  to  agree.  In  either  case  they 
did  not  fall  into  heresy  but  into  infirmity  or  sin. 

V.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  says:  "When  the  poison 
of  the  Arians  had  contaminated  not  merely  a  small 
portion,  but  almost  the  whole  world  ;  so  that,  nearly  all 
the  Latin  bishops  being  deceived,  partly  by  force,  partly 
by  fraud,  a  sort  of  darkness  fell  over  the  minds  of  men, 
as  to  what  was  to  be  especially  followed,  in  circum- 

^  Hier.  Dial.  adv.  Lucifer,  t.  Rogatist.  c.  ix.  n.  31.  t.  ii.  p. 
iv.  pars  ii.  p.  300.  244. 

'    August.    Ep.     ad    Vincent. 


SECT.  III.]  Pseudo-Synod  of  Ephesus.  199 

stances  of  such  great  confusion :  then,  whoever  was  a 
true  lover  and  worshipper  of  Christ,  by  preferring  the 
ancient  faith  to  the  novel  perfidy,  escaped  the  defile- 
ment of  that  contagion "'."  Therefore  the  church  ap- 
jiroved  Arianism. 

Answer.  Vincentius  says  the  bishops  were  deceived, 
he  does  not  affirm  that  they  really  adopted  Arianism. 
The  obscurity  which  fell  on  the  minds  of  men  at  the 
time  of  the  synod  of  Ariminum,  arose  from  the  tem- 
porary appearance  of  contradiction  between  the  church's 
judgment  then,  and  at  the  synod  of  Nice  :  and  during 
such  a  temporary  difficulty  the  faithful  would  of  course 
follow  the  light  of  ancient  tradition.  A  very  short  time, 
however,  sufficed  to  show  that  the  church  had  really 
never  contradicted  herself;  and  the  Nicene  faith  was 
acknowledged  to  be  the  divine,  the  eternal,  the  un- 
changeable truth  of  Christianity. 

SECTION  III. 

THE    LATROCINIUM    OF    EPHESUS. 

This  synod  was  assembled  by  the  emperor  Theodosius 
in  449,  and  consisted  of  130  bishops.  St.  Leo  of  Rome 
sent  his  legates,  and  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  presided  ". 
In  this  synod  the  heretic  Eutyches  was  absolved  from 
the  censure  of  a  synod  at  Constantinople:  and  Flavianus 
who  had  condemned  him  was  deposed,  and  treated  with 
such  violence,  that  the  synod  for  this,  and  its  other 
irregular  proceedings,  was  styled  the  Latrocinium.  No 
decree  in  faith  was  made  here,  and  the  synod  was  im- 
mediately rejected  and  annulled  by  the  oecumenical 
synod  of  Chalcedon  and  by  the  universal  church. 

'"  Hist.  Sacr.  lib.  ii.  found  among  those  of  the  fourth 

"  The  acts  of  this   synod  are     cecumenical  synod. 


200  Pseiido-Syjiod  of  Constantinople,    [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 


SECTION  IV. 

THE    SYNODS    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE    AND    NICE    IN    THE 
QUESTION    OF    IMAGES. 

The  synod  of  Constantinople  was  assembled  by  the 
emperor  Constantine  Copronymus ""  in  754,  to  suppress 
the  use  of  images.  It  consisted  of  338  oriental  bishops, 
and  assumed  the  title  of  oecumenical.  The  patriarchs 
of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  took  no  part  in  it. 
The  use  of  images  had  been  already  prohibited  by  tlie 
emperors  Leo''  and  Constantine  Caballinus^  The 
iconoclast  party,  in  their  zeal  to  prevent  an  idolatrous 
use  of  images,  which  had  arisen  in  later  times,  and 
which  was  contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  catholic 
church  ;  blamed  the  use  of  all  images  in  such  terms 
as  implied  a  condemnation  of  the  ancient  practice 
of  the  universal  church  in  permitting  the  use  of  pic- 
tures, and  a  charge  of  heresy  and  idolatry  against  all 
who  retained  them  ^.  This  was  an  uncharitable  and 
censurable  proceeding :  and  hence,  it  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at,  that  the  Western  church,  which  permitted 
images,  but  prohibited  any  bowing  or  other  worship  to 
them,  rejected  the  synod  of  Constantinople,  and  never 
accounted  it  oecumenical. 

The  synod  of  Nice  was  assembled  in  787  by  the 
empress  Irene,  to  reverse  the  decrees  of  Constantinople. 
It  consisted  of  350  oriental  bishops,  and  was  attended 
by  the  legates  of  pope  Hadrian  ^  In  this  synod  the 
judgment  formerly  made  against  images  was  condemned, 

^  The  acts   of  this  synod  are  ''    Goldastus,    Imperialia    De- 

extant    among    those  of  the  se~  creta  de  cultu  imaginum,  jj.  19. 

cond    Nicene    synod. — Hardiiin.  "^  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  iv.  p.  355, 

Cone.  t.  iv.  p.  327,  &c.  &c.  426,  &c. 

''  Fleury,  liv.  xlii.  s.  1.  5.  *■  Fleury,  liv.  xliv.  s.  29. 


-ECT.  IV.]  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  201 

and  their  worship  was  established  in  the  following 
terms :  "  We  define  .  .  .  that  like  the  image  of  the 
I)recious  and  life-giving  cross,  the  venerable  and  holy 
images  be  set  up  .  ,  .  for  according  as  they  are  conti- 
nually seen  by  image  representation,  so  they  who  be- 
hold them  are  excited  to  remember  and  to  love  the 
prototypes,  and  to  pay  these  images  salutation  and  re- 
spectful honour  :  not  indeed  that  true  worship,  which 
is  according  to  our  faith,  which  only  befits  the  divine 
nature  .  .  .  but  to  offer  incense  and  lights  to  their  ho- 
nour, as  has  been  piously  ordained  by  the  ancients  V' 

The  decree  of  this  synod  was  not  universally  re- 
ceived in  the  east,  and  did  not  terminate  the  contro- 
versy ;  the  iconoclasts  having  the  preceding  decree  at 
Constantinople  in  their  favour.  Considered  in  itself, 
this  synod  was  fully  equal  in  authority  to  that  of  Nice  ; 
while  both  were  alike  rejected  by  the  western  church  ; 
and  hence,  though  the  party  who  adhered  to  the  council 
of  Nice,  obtained  a  temporary  predominance  by  the 
aid  of  the  Empress  Irene,  who  enforced  its  decree  with 
the  strong  arm  of  the  law,  the  party  who  rejected  the 
use  of  images  did  not  cease  their  opposition  ^,  and  in 
815  another  council  assembled  at  Constantinople,  con- 
firmed the  former  synod  held  at  the  same  place,  and 
anathematised  the  synod  of  Nice  *" ;   which  from  this 

*  Act.  vii.  Harduin.  Concil   t.  Decreta, "    cites     the    following 

iv.  p.  456.  decrees  of  the  eastern  Emperors 

s  Du    Pin,    Eccl.   Hist.   Cent,  against  images  after  the  pseudo- 

viii.  c.  3,  says  that  the  Emperor  synod.     An  edict  of  Leo  IV.  in 

Constantine,  whose  reign  ended  814,    commanding    them    to    be 

only  ten   years  after  the  council,  destroyed,   p.  G04.     An  edict  of 

abrogated    it.        The     Emperor  Theophilus  in  830,  against  image 

Nicephorus,    who     succeeded    in  worshippers,    p.    758,     Another 

802,    deprived   the  defenders  of  edict   in  832,    against   the  same, 

image   worship   of  all   power  to  p.  760. 

molest  or  injure  their  adversaries.  ^   Fleury,     liv.    xlvi.     s.     17. 

Goldastus,    in    his    "  Imperiulia  Theodore  Studita   says,    that   all 


202  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

period  till  842,  a  space  of  nearly  thirty  years,  remained 
rejected  by  the  emperors  and  a  large  part  of  the 
eastern  church.  At  the  latter  epoch  its  decree  was 
again  restored  by  another  council '.  It  is  not  to  be 
inferred  from  this,  however,  that  it  was  yet  received  as 
an  oecumenical  council  even  by  its  advocates :  in  863 
it  was  still  not  reckoned  as  such  in  any  of  the  eastern 
churches,  except  Constantinople  and  its  dependencies ; 
as  we  find  by  a  letter  addressed  by  Photius  in  that  year 
to  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusa- 
lem, in  which  he  intimates,  that,  though  the  synod  of 
Nice  was  held  in  great  reverence,  yet  it  was  not 
reckoned  among  the  oecumenical  councils  ;  which,  he 
argued,  it  ought  to  be\  What  may  have  been  the 
effect  of  this  exhortation  we  know  not,  but  in  a  great 
council  held  under  Photius  in  879,  it  was  recognized  as 
"  the  seventh  oecumenical  synod."  It  has  been  latterly 
admitted  as  oecumenical  in  the  eastern  church "",  but 
the  facts  are  undeniable,  that,  for  a  space  of  sixty  years, 
the  decree  of  Nice  was  not  approved  by  the  east ;  that 
for  ninety  years  at  least  it  was  not  generally  admitted 
to  be  cecumenical ;  and  in  fine,  even  in  the  time  of 
Barlaam,  abbot  of  St.  Saviour,  (a.d.  1339,)  nearly  six 
hundred  years  after  its  celebration,  some   of  the  ori- 


except  a  few  fell  away.    Epist.  habeant  venerationem."    Baronii 

lib.    ii.  ep.    15.     Ed.    Sirmond.  Annales  ad  an.  863. 

See  Baronii  Annal.  ad  an.  814.  ''  See  Acta  et  Scripta  Theolog. 

^  Fleury,  liv.  xlviii.  s.  6.  Witeberg.  et  Patr.  Hieremise,  p. 

J  "  Fama  enim    et  rumor  qui-  56.   255  ;   Methodii   Archiepisc. 

dam  ad  nos  pervenit,  quod  nullae  Twer,     Liber    Hist.    p.      173; 

ecclesiae  earum  quae  vestrse  apos-  Summary  of   Christian    divinity 

tolicae    subjiciuntur    sedi,    usque  by  Plato,  archbishop  of  Moscow, 

ad    sextam    generalem   synodum  published   by   Pinkerton   in    his 

annumerantes,    septimam  prceter  "  Present    state    of    the    Greek 

eas  non  agnoscunt,  licet  ea  quae  Church." 
in   ipsa    sunt    decreta,    magnam 

15 


SECT.  IV.]  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  203 

entals  still  reckoned  only  siw  general  councils ',  thus 
denying  the  authority  of  this  synod. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  west.  It  is  a  matter  of 
certainty  that  (with  the  exception  of  the  Roman  see 
which  always  supported  and  approved  it,)  the  churches 
of  the  west  generally  condemned  and  rejected  the 
synod  of  Nice  as  illegitimate.  Roman  theologians 
have  endeavoured  to  account  for  this  conduct,  by 
supposing  that  the  western  churches  were  misled  by 
an  erroneous  translation  of  the  acts  of  the  council, 
which,  they  deemed,  prescribed  divine  worship  or  latria 
as  due  to  images ;  but  that  their  doubts  immediately 
vanished  when  its  acts  were  accurately  translated,  and 
when  they  knew  that  it  was  confirmed  by  the  Roman 
pontiff". 

A  statement  of  facts  will  afford  a  conclusive  reply  to 
this.  The  acts  of  the  synod  of  Nice  having  been  sent 
to  Rome  in  the  year  787,  Pope  Hadrian  himself, 
according  to  Hincmar ",  transmitted  them  into  France 
to  Charlemagne,  to  be  confirmed  by  the  bishops  of 
his  kingdom ;    and    the    emperor    also   received    the 


'  Barlaam,   Abbot  of  St.   Sa-  quia   quod   sit    determinatum    a 

viour,  was   sent  by  Andronicus,  generale   concilio,  rectum  et  sa- 

emperor   of    Constantinople,    to  num    est,"    &c.     Leo    Allatius, 

Benedict  XII.  in  1339,  to  treat  De    Perpet.    Consens.    p.    790  ; 

of  the  union  of  the  eastern  and  Raynald.  Annales,  an.  1339.  n. 

western  churches.   He  said  to  the  21  ;    Bzovii    Annal.     Eccl.    an. 

Pope  :  '*  Q,uis   ergo  est  modus,  1339.  c.  xxiv. 
qui  et  plebem  et  sapientes  simul  '"  Strange   is   the    mistake    of 

adducet    ad    unionem    vestram  ?  Delahogue,  "  Sensum  (Actorum) 

Ego    dicam.       Audiendo    com-  non  apprime  percipientes,  errore 

munis  populus,  quod  sexies  fac-  facti  crediderunt  in  illis  reprohari 

turn    est   generale    concilium,    et  imaginum    cultum."      De    Eccl. 

quoties  factum  est,  ad  perfectio-  p.  177.      See  for  much  valuable 

nem   ecclesia;  factum   est,  et  ad  information  concerning  this  synod, 

correctionem  errorum,  qui  erant  Basnage,    Hist,  de  I'Eglise,  liv. 

in    illis   temporibus  ;    opinionem  xxiii.  c.  o. 
receperunt  omnes  ad  animas  suas,  "  Cited  below  innote("),p.206. 


204  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

acts  directly  from  Constantinople,  according  to  Roger 
Hovedon.  These  prelates,  thus  furnished  with  an  au- 
thentic copy,  and  not  a  mere  translation,  composed 
a  reply  to  the  synod,  in  which  they  absolutely  con- 
demned any  adoration  or  worship  of  images.  "  We 
object,"  they  said,  "  to  nothing  about  images  but  their 
adoration,  for  we  allow  the  images  of  the  saints  in 
the  churches  ;  not  to  adore  them,  but  for  historical 
remembrance,  and  ornament  to  the  walls  °."  They  did 
not  attribute  to  the  synod  of  Nice  itself  the  open 
avowal  that  divine  worship  or  latria  was  due  to  images, 
though  they  did,  through  a  mistranslation,  attribute 
this  error  to  Constantine  of  Cyprus,  a  bishop  of  the 
synod '' ;  but  they  distinctly  rejected  every  act  and 
kind  of  worship  as  paid  to  images.  They  prohibited 
"  service,"  "  adoration,"  "  honour  exhibited  by  bending 
the  neck  or  bowing  the  head,"  "  the  oblation  of  in- 
cense and  lights  ^"  In  fact  as  the  learned  Benedictine 
Mabillon  allows,  "  the  Galilean  bishops  admitted  no 
worship  whatever,  whether  positive  or  relative,  to  be 
given  to  images  ^ ;"  and  one  of  their  reasons  for  this 


*•  "  Diim  nos  nihil  in  imagini-  '  He  observes  that  the  author 

bus   spernamus  prseter  adoratio-  of  the  Caroline  books,  the  synod 

nem,     quippe     qui    in    basilicis  of  Paris,  and  Agobard,  object  to 

sanctorum     imagines,     non     ad  all  adoration   of  images.     Jonas 

adorandum,    sed    ad    memoriam  of  Orleans     rejects    their    wor- 

rerum   gestarum    et    venustatem  ship,   but   without    any    charge 

parietum    habere   permittimus. "  of  idolatry.       Walafrid    Strabo, 

Carol,   Mag.  adv.  Imag.  lib.  iii.  and  Dungalus  the  monk,  teach 

c.  IG.  that  they    are   to  be   loved   and 

■^  Ibid.  c.  17,  18.  honoured. — "  Ex  lis  quae  hucus- 

■"  They  rejected,  "  colla  deflec-  que     dicta     sunt,      intelligimus 

tere,"  (lib.   ii.  c.    1),    "  thuris  et  qusenam  fuit  Gallorum  sententia 

luminaribus  honorem,"  (ib.  c.  2),  de     cultu    imaginum   ;     et    qua 

"  observationem,    adorationem, "  ratione     explicari    debeat    honos 

(ib.    c.    27),    "  servitium,    obse-  ille  divinus,  quern  Scriptor  Caro- 

quium,"  (lib.  iii.  c.  18),  as  ap-  linus,  libellus  Synodi  Parisiensis, 

plied  to  images.  Agobardus,    et    Jonas,    picturis 


sF.cT.  IV.]  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  205 

was,  that  it  was  impossible  practically  that  the  honour 
paid  to  the  image  should  pass  to,  and  be  paid  to  the 
original.  "For,"  they  say,  "though  what  the  Greeks 
do  in  adoring  images,  may  be  avoided  by  all  learned 
persons,  who  venerate  not  what  they  are,  but  what 
they  represent ;  yet  they  are  a  cause  of  offence  to  all 
the  unlearned,  who  venerate  and  adore  in  them  nothins" 
else  but  what  they  see'." 

This  work  was  published  by  the  authority  and  in  the 
name  of  the  Emperor  Charlemagne,  and  with  the 
consent  of  his  bishops  in  790.  Pope  Hadrian  com- 
posed a  reply,  in  which  he  maintained  the  decision  of 
the  Nicene  synod;  but,  though  the  Gallican  bisho})s 
must  by  this  time  have  been  well  aware  that  the  pope 
had  approved  it ;  their  opinion  remained  unchanged. 
Charlemagne  had  received  at  least  one  copy  of  the 
authentic  acts  direct  from  Constantinople,  which  he  trans- 
mitted to  the  bishops  of  England  in  792,  requesting 
their  judgment  on  them.  These  prelates,  abhorrino- 
the  worship  of  images,  authorized  Albinus  to  convey 
in  their  name  a  refutation  of  the  synod  of  Nice  to 
Charlemagne  '. 

sacris  abrogant.     Nempe  sentie-  tainen  quibusque  scandalum  ge- 

bant  Galli  imagines  honore  mode-  nerant,    qui     nihil    aliud  in    his 

rata  coli  posse,  eas  scilicet  decenti  praeter  id  quod  vident,    veneran- 

in  loco  collocando,  ornando,  cu-  tur  et  adorant.     Unde  cavendum 

randoque   ut  quam  mnxime  nite-  est    ne    evangelicam    sententiam 

rent  et  ne  pulvere  sordibusve  hifi-  subeant,  qui  tot  pusillos  ad  scan- 

cerenlur.  "     Mabill.     Act.      SS.     dalizandum  impellant qui 

Benedict,     saec.    4.     Praefat.    p.  pene  omnemChristi  ecclesiam  aut 

xxiv.     This  honour  no  one  could  ad  imagines  adorandas  impellit, 

with  reason    object   to,   if  expe-  aut  imaginum  adorationem  sper- 

rience  had  not  shewn    its    great  nentes     anathemati     submittit." 

liability  to  abuse.  Car.  Mag.  adv.  Imag.  lib.  iii.c.G. 

'  "  Etsi   a    doctis    quibusque,  "  Roger  Hovedon,   who  lived 

vitari  possit  hoc  quod  illi  in  ado-  about    a.d.    1204,    says,    ad   an. 

randis  imaginibus  exercent,  qui  792  :  "  Carolus  Rex  Francorum 

videlicet  non  quid  sint,  sed  quid  misit  synodalem  librum   ad  Bri- 

innuant,     venerantur  ;     indoctis  tanniam   sibi    a    Constantinopoli 


206  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

At  length,  after  due  deliberation,  and  with  the  fullest 
means  of  ascertaining  the  truth  by  a  controversy  con- 
tinued for  seven  or  eight  years,  the  bishops  of  the 
west,  to  the  number  of  300,  from  Gaul,  Aquitain, 
Germany,  and  Italy,  assembled  at  Frankfort  at  the 
desire  of  Charlemagne  in  794 ;  and  there  formally  and 
synodically  annulled  and  rejected  the  council  of  the 
Greeks,  declaring  that  it  was  not  to  be  acknowledged 
as  the  seventh  general  coimcil  '\  The  synod  of  Frankfort 
does  not  affirm  that  the  Nicene  convention  actually 
enjoined  the  same  honour  to  be  given  to  images  as  to 
the  Trinity ;  but  that  this  principle  was  contained  in 
the  acts  of  that  convention,  being  avowed  by  one  of  its 
bishops. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  imagined  that  this  proceeding  of 
the  western  church  was  rescinded,  or  in  some  way 
speedily  relinquished.  The  learned  Du  Pin  says  : 
"  the  French  and  Germans  persisted  in  their  custom  a 
long  time,  and  did  not  acknowledge  till  very  late  the 
council  of  Nice,   instead  of  which  they  put  that  of 

directum,  in  quo  libro  (heu  proh  confringendas,      quidam     autem 

dolor)   multa  inconvenientia,    et  adorandas  dicebant  .  .  non  longe 

verse  fidei   contraria  reperieban-  ante  tempora  nostra  Constantino- 

tur  ;  maxime,  quod  pene  omnium  poli  est  a  quamplurimis  episcopis 

orientalium  doctorum,  non  minus  habita,  et  Romam  missa.    Quam 

quam   trecentorum,   vel   eo   am-  etiam  Papa    Romanus  in  Fran- 

plius,      episcoporum,       unanimi  ciam   direxit;  unde  tempore  Ca- 

assertione      confirmatum     fuerit,  roli  Magni  Imperatoris,  jussione 

imagines    adorari    debere ;    quod  Apostolicse    sedis,    generalis    est 

omnino    ecclesia  Dei   execratur.  synodus  in   Francia,  convocante 

Contra     quod     scripsit    Albinus  prsefato    Imperatore,    celebrata  ; 

epistolam  ex  authoritate  divina-  et  secundum  scripturarum  trami- 

rum      scripturarum      mirabiliter  tem,     traditlonemque    majorum, 

afRrmatam ;  illamque  cum  eodem  ipsa  Grascorum   pseudo-synodus 

libro  ex  persona  episcoporum  ac  destructaest  etpenitus  abrogata." 

principum  nostrorum  regi  Fran-  Hincmar.    Rem.    Opusc.    Iv.    c. 

corum  attulit."  xx.     contra     Hincm.      Laudun. 

"  "Septimaautem  apudGraecos,  N.B.  This    synod  of  Nice  com- 

vocata  universalis,   pseudo-syno-  menced  at  Constantinople, 
dus  de  imaginibus,  quas  quidem 


SECT.  IV.]  Pseudo- Synod  of  Nice.  207 

Frankfort  \"  In  proof  of  this  it  appears  that  in  824, 
(thirty  years  afterwards,)  the  Gallican  bishops  and 
divines  assembled  at  Paris  agreed  in  condemning  again 
the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  synod,  and  the  epistle  of 
Pope  Hadrian  in  favour  of  image  Avorship  ^. 

But  what  is  still  more  remarkable  is,  that  even  the 
Roman  'pontiffs  themselves,  though  they  always  received 
and  strenuously  defended  the  synod  of  Nice,  did  not  for 
a  long  time  include  it  in  the  number  of  oecumenical 
synods.  In  859,  Pope  Nicholas  I.  in  his  reply  to  a 
letter  of  Ado,  bishop  of  Vienne,  asking  the  pallium, 
requires  his  assent  only  to  six  general  councils — 
omitting  that  of  Nice  '^ :  and,  lest  it  should  be  alleged 
that  this  arose  merely  from  that  Pope's  toleration  of 
the  error  of  the  Franks  who  rejected  that  council ;  in 
the  year  863  or  866,  he  held  a  synod  at  Rome,  and  in 
the  decree  against  Photius  there  unanimously  made, 
six  general  councils  only  are  again  acknowledged  ; 
excluding  as  before,  the  synod  of  Nice "".  In  this  case 
there  can  be  no  conceivable  reason  for  such  an  omis- 
sion, except  that  the  church  of  Rome  did  not  at  this 
period  reckon  it  among  the  general  synods.  Even  in 
871,  Pope  Hadrian  in  a  letter  to  the  Emperor  Charles 
the  Bald,   still   only  speaks   of  six   general  councils  ^, 

"  Du    Pin,  Eccl.    Hist.  Cent.  ^  "  Venerandorum  sex  univer- 

viii.  c.  3.    Launoius  Epist.    Pars  salium  conciliorum  auctoritate. " 

viii.  Epist.  ix.  says  of  the  writers  Nicolaus  P.Ep.adlmj)  Michael, 

of  the  Western    church,  "  Septi-  Harduin.    Cone.    t.    v.    p.    l^S. 

mam   enim   synodum  veteres,  et  Baronius,  ad  an.  863. 

cum  primis  Galli,  pro  cecumenica  ''  "  Sed  de  his  nihil    audemus 

non  habuerunt."  judicare,     quod    possit    Nicaeno 

''  See  the  Acts   of  this  synod  Concilio,    et  qimique    cceterormn 

in  Goldastus,  Imperialia  Decreta  conciliorum  regulis,   vel   decretis 

de  cultu  Imag.  p.  626,  &c.  nostrorumantecessorumobviare." 

'    "  Et    sub    omni    celeritate  Hadr.   P.  Ep.  xxxiv.   ad    Caro- 

dirigatis,    qualiter  vos    de    ipsis  lum  Calvum. 
qu'inta  et  sexta  synodis  sentiatis." 


208  Pseudo-Sijnod  of  Nice.  [y.  iv.  CH.  x. 

though  before  this  time  the  eicjhth,  (as  it  has  since  been 
styled  by  the  Romans,)  had  been  approved  and  con- 
firmed by  that  Pope.  At  length,  hoM^ever,  the  church 
of  Rome  held  the  synod  of  Nice  to  be  the  seventh 
oecumenical  synod,  as  appears  from  Cardinal  Humbert's 
excommunication  of  Cerularius,  a.d.  1054'. 

The  several  chronicles  of  France  and  Germany  during 
the  ninth  and  following  centuries,  uniformly  speak  of 
it  as  a  "  pseudo-synod."  The  Annales  Francorum, 
written  a.d.  808,  say,  that  at  the  synod  of  Frankfort, 
"  the  pseudo-synod  of  the  Greeks,  which  they  falsely 
called  the  seventh,  and  which  they  had  made  in  order  to 
sanction  the  adoration  of  images,  was  rejected  by  the 
bishops''."  It  is  also  termed  "pseudo-synod"  in  the 
Annales  Francorum,  continued  to  814  %  and  in  the 
anonymous  life  of  Charlemagne  written  after  814*; 
and  it  is  condemned  in  the  annals  written  after  8 1 9  ^ 
Eginhard,  in  his  Annales  Francorum,  MTitten  in  829, 
says  that  at  Frankfort,  "  the  synod  which  had  been 
called  by  the  Greeks  not  only  the  seventh,  but  univer- 
sal, was  entirely  annulled  by  all,  as  of  no  force  ;  that  it 
might  neither  be  held  nor  spoken  of  as  universal ''." 
In  824,  the  Gallican  bishops  again  condemned  it  at 
Paris*.     Hincmar,  archbishop   of  Rheims,  about  870, 

*^    Canisii    Thesaurus,    t.     iii.  paucos  annos  itl  Const,  sub  Irene 

p.  327-  et  Constantino  filio  ejus  congre- 

^  "  Pseudo-synodus  Grseco  -  gata,  et  ab  ipsis  non  solum  sep- 
tum, quam  falso  septimam  voca-  tima,  verum  etiam  universalis 
bant,  pro  adorandis  imaginibus  erat  appellata  ;  ut  nee  septima 
fecerant,  rejecta  est  a  pontifici-  nee  universalis  haberetur  dicere- 
bus."  —  Annal.  Francorum,  Du  turve,  quasi  supervacua,  in  totum 
Cliesne,  Hist.  Franc.  Script,  t.  ab  omnibus  abdicata  est.  "  — 
ii.  p.  17.  Eginhard.     Annal.    Franc.     Du 

*=  Du  Chesne,  ibid.  p.  38.  Chesne,  t.  ii.  p.  247. 

^  Ibid.  p.  57.  '  Harduini    Concil.     t.    iv.  p. 

8  Ibid.  t.  iii.  p.  141.  1258.     Goldastus,  Imp.  Deer. 

•^  "  Synodus  etiara,   qune  ante 


SECT.  IV.]  Pseudo-Synod  of  Nice.  209 

speaks  of  the  "pseudo-synod"  of  Nice  as  entirely 
destroyed  and  annulled  by  a  general  synod  in  France  ^ 
Ado,  bishop  of  Vienne,  who  died  875,  in  his  chronicle 
speaks  of  the  "pseudo-synod,"  which  the  Greeks  call 
the  seventh  \  Anastasius,  librarian  of  the  Roman 
church,  translated  the  synod  of  Nice  into  Latin,  when 
he  was  at  the  (so  called)  "  eighth  general  synod," 
A.  D.  870  ;  and,  in  his  preface  to  it,  observes  that 
the  French  did  not  approve  the  worship  of  images  '. 
The  chronicles  of  the  monastery  of  S.  Bertinus,  writ- 
ten after  884,  speak  of  the  synod  of  Constantinople 
870,  in  which  that  of  Nice  was  approved,  and  the 
worship  of  images  authorized,  as  "  ordaining  things 
concerning  the  adoration  of  images  contrary  to  the 
definitions  of  the  orthodox  doctors  "","  &c.  The  An- 
nales  Francorum  written  in  the  abbey  of  Fulda 
after  the  year  900,  speak  of  the  synod  of  Nice  as 
"a  pseudo-synod  of  the  Greeks,  falsely  called  the 
seventh"."  Regino,  abbot  of  Prum,  a.  d.  910,  calls  it 
"  a   pseudo-synod  °."      The  chronicle  of  S.   Bertinus, 

J  "Septima  autemapud  Grsecos  thematizantes,  et  Ignatium  resti- 

vocata  universalis  p5ei<f/«-s^H0f/H5  tuentes.       In     qua     synodo     de 

de  imaginibus,  quas  qnidam  con-  imaginibus  adorandis  aliter  quain 

fringendas,  quidam  autem  adoran-  orthodoxi  doctc  rej  antea  diffinie- 

das    dicebant."  —  Hincmar.     in  rant,  et  pro  favore  Romani  Pon- 

Opusculo,    Iv.     c.    20.       Contra  tificis,  qui  eorum  votis  de  imagi- 

Hincmar.  Laudun.     See  p.  206.  nibus  annuit ;  et  qusedam  contra 

''  Ado  Vien.    Chronic,    ^tat.  antiquos  canones,  sed  et  contra 

vi.   "  pseudo-synodus,  quam  sep-  suam  ipsam   synodum  constitue- 

timam  Graeci  appellant."  runt,  sicut  qui  eandem  synodum 

'  Anastas.  Biblioth.  Pragfat.  in  legerit     patenter     inveniet.  "  — 

VII  Synod.   Harduin    Concil.   t.  Annales     Bertin.     Du     Chesne, 

iii.  p.  20.  Hist.  Franc.  Script,  t.  iii.  p.  244. 

™    •'  Et    synodo     congregata,         "   Ar«nal.     Franc.     Fuldenses, 

quam  octavam  universalem  syno-  Du  Chesne,  t.  ii.  p.  538. 
dum  illuc  convenientes  appella-  °  Cited  by  Dorschseus,  Collat. 

verunt,     exortum      schisma     de  ad  Concil.  Francoford.  Argentor. 

Ignatii  depositione  et  Focii  ordi-  1649.  p.  8. 
natione  scdavcrunt  :  Focium  ana- 

VOL.  II.  P 


210  Pspiido-Sijnod  of  Nice.  [p.  iv.  ch.  x. 

written  in  the  tenth  century  by  Folquinus,  a  learned 
monk,  speaks  of  the  "  seventh  synod  of  Constantinople 
of  384  bishops  ^ ;"  (a  synod  held  under  Photius  in  879, 
and  not  acknowledged  as  oecumenical  by  the  universal 
church ;)  shewing  that  the  synod  of  Nice  was  not  yet 
considered  the  seventh  oecumenical  council.  In  1025, 
Gerhard,  bishop  of  Cambray,  in  a  synod  held  there, 
tauffht  the  doctrine  of  the  western  church,  that  the 
church  does  not  use  images  to  be  adored,  but  to  excite 
us  to  contemplate  inwardly  the  operations  of  divine 
grace,  &c.  "^  Hermannus  Contractus,  a.  d.  1054,  speaks 
of  the  council  of  Nice  as  a  "  pseudo-synod '."  The 
author  who  continued  Aimon's  books  de  Gestis  Fran- 
corum  to  the  year  1165,  reprobated  the  (so  called) 
eighth  synod,  which  approved  the  doctrine  of  this 
Nicene  synod  '.  Nicetas  Choniates  says  that,  when  the 
Emperor  Frederick  Barbarossa,  after  the  year  1190, 
entered  Philippopolis  on  the  crusade,  the  Armenians 
alone  remained  there,  because  they  agreed  in  the  prin- 
cipal points  of  religion  with  the  Germans,  and  the 
adoration  of  images  was  forbidden  in  the  two  nations  *. 
Roger  Hovedon,  A.  d.  1204,  says  that  in  the  synod  of 
Nice  were  found  "  many  things  inconvenient  and  con- 
trary to  the  true  faith  ;  chiefly  that  it  was  confirmed, 


p  Martene  and  Durand,  Anec-  — Synod.  Atrebat.  c.  xiv.    Spici- 

dota,  t.  iii.  p.  527.     The  note  of  leg.  t.  i.  p.  622. 

Martene  is  :    "  Pseudo-synodus  ""  Cited    by    Dorschaeus,     ut 

Photiana  octava  et  genci-alis  falso  supra, 

a  multis  nominata."  ^  De  Gestis  Francorum,  lib.  v. 

•I    "  Ideo   in    sancta    ecclesia  c.  28. 

fiunt,  non  ut  ab  hominibus  adorari  '  'Aputvioic    ydp  koX   'AXufxa- 

debeant,    sed   ut  per  eas  interius  volg  kniarjq  »/  tCjv  ayiwy   etKovwy 

excitemur      ad     contemplandam  TrpoaKvyqfng  dir^yopEvrai. — Nice- 

gratiaj  divinge  operationem,  atque  tas    Choniates,    Annales    Isaac, 

exeorumactibus  aliquid  in  usum  Angel,  lib.  ii.  p.  258.  Ed.  Paris, 

nostrae  conversationis  trahamus."  1647. 


s  E CI'.  IV.]  Psi'ii(lo-Si/u<n]  of  Nice.  211 

that  images  ougJit  to  he  adored,  wliich  the  church  of  God 
altofjether  e.vecrates  "."  Conrade  a  Lichtenau,  abbot  of 
Urspurg-,  about  1230,  speaks  of  the  synod  of  Nice  as 
being  rejected  by  the  bishops  at  Frankfort,  and  as  not 
being  the  seventh  general  synod  ''.  Albertus  Staden- 
sis,  about  1260,  mentions  its  rejection  by  the  great 
synod  of  Frankfort  ^ .  JNIatthew  of  Westminster,  about 
1375,  employs  nearly  the  same  language  as  Roger 
Hovedon  ^ 

I  shall  not  pursue  this  investigation  further,  having 
now  proved  that  for  at  least  five  centuries  and  a  half, 
the  council  of  Nice  remained  rejected  in  the  western 
church  ;  which  amounts  to  a  demonstration  that  it  is 
not  to  be  viewed  as  a  legitimate  cecumenical  council, 
possessed  of  the  same  authority  as  those  six  which  the 
church  has  always  venerated  :  for  had  the  Roman  see 
and  the  east  considered  it  as  such,  they  would  not 
have  remained,  as  they  did,  in  full  communion  with 
those  who  rejected  it  ^.  In  fact  the  doctrine  of  the 
adoration  of  images  was  never  received  in  the  west, 
except  where  the  influence  of  the  Roman  see  was  pre- 
dominant ;  and  hence  it  is,  that  even  to  this  day 
France  and  Germany  are  less  infected  with  super- 
stition in  this  respect  than  Italy.  A  modern  French 
theologian  explains  the  worship  of  images  to  "  consist 
'princi'pally  in  their  being  'placed  decently  and  honourably 
in  the  churches,  to  the   memory  and   honour  of  those 

"'  See  above,  note  (^),  page  205.  dicata.  "  —  Albertus     Stadensis 

"  See  Dorschaeus,  ut  supra.  Chronicon,  ad  an.  794. 

w  "  Magna   synodus    est   col-  "       Matthaei     Westmonaster. 

lecta    et    legati    Adrian!     papse  Flores  Historiarum,   ad  an.  793. 

adfuerunt Synodus  etiam  p.  283.      Ed.  1570. 

quae  ante  paucos  annos  ab  Irene  "^  Bossuet  admits  that  commu- 

et  Constantino  filio  ejus  septima  nion    existed.  —  Defens.     Decl. 

et   universalis    dicta   est,    quasi  Cler.  Gall.  lib.  vii.  c.  31. 

supervacua   est  ab  omnibus  ab- 

p  2 


•212 


P.seudo-Si/nud  of  Nice. 


[p.  JV.  CH.  X. 


whom  tliey  represent  \"  This  is  precisely  the  doctrine 
held  by  the  western  church  in  opposition  to  the  synod 
of  Nice. 

It  is  not  disputed  that  in  later  ages,  many  private 
theologians,  even  in  France,  began  to  speak  of  it  as 
the  seventh  general  council ;  but  this  was  merely  their 
l»rivate  opinion,  and  can  have  no  authority.  It  arose 
from  three  causes :  first,  from  exaggerated  notions  of 
the  authority  of  the  Roman  see,  which  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  admit  this  as  a  general  council :  secondly, 
from  its  being  included  among  the  general  councils  by 
Gratian  in  his  "  Decretum,"  or  com]  ilation  of  canons, 
completed  in  1 150,  and  which  was  immediately  received 
as    a   text-book    in   all   the   universities   of   Europe "" : 


^  Collet,  Theologia  Scliolastica, 
I.  i.  p.  635. 

*  The  modern  canon  law  was 
first  reduced  to  a  system,  in 
the  "Decretum"  of  Gratian, 
who  included  in  his  collection 
all  the  spurious  decretals,  and 
a  number  of  other  unauthentic 
pieces.  Long  before  the  end  of 
the  century,  the  Decretum  was 
taught  with  great  applause  and 
profit  in  the  Universities  of  Bo- 
logna, Oxford,  Paris,  Orleans, 
and  many  others.  It  became  the 
fashionable  study  ;  and  led  the 
way  to  the  highest  honours.  In 
the  fourteenth  century  it  is  said, 
that  almost  the  whole  multitude 
of  scholars  applied  to  this  study, 
(R.  Holcot  apud  Ant.  Wood,  lib. 
i.  p.  160,)  and  with  so  much 
eagerness,  that  Matthew  Paris 
(Hist.  Angl.  an.  1254)  says,  they 
neglected  the  languages  and  phi- 
losophy. Alexander  of  Hales, 
and  other  schoolmen,  commonly 
cite  the  canon  law  as  a  sufficient 


proof  of  doctrine.  Stephen,  bishoj) 
of  Tournay  from  1192  to  1203, 
in  his  epistles,  part  iii.  ep.  251, 
(cited  by  DuPin),  complains  to  the 
Pope,  that  the  study  of  the  Fathers 
was  neglected,  in  order  to  follow 
the  study  of  scholastic  divines, 
and  the  decrees  or  canon  laws. 
Pope  Innocent  IV.  was  obliged 
to  publish  a  bull  to  prevent  the 
clergy  from  neglecting  philoso- 
phy and  theology,  and  to  prevent 
bishops  from  appointing  to  bene- 
fices and  dignities,  those  who 
were  only  skilled  in  canon  laws. 
(Bulasi  Hist.  Univ.  Paris,  t.  iii. 
p.  265.)  See  Fleury,  Discours 
iv,  V.  sur  I'Hist.  Eccl. ;  and  Hist. 
Eccl.  liv.  70.  s.  28,  for  further 
observations  on  the  authority  of 
the  canon  law  in  the  middle  ages. 
It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that, 
when  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Fathers  were,  in  some  degree, 
superseded  by  such  studies,  seve- 
ral erroneous  opinions  should 
have  become  common. 


SECT.  IV.]  Ps€7ido-SyHod  of  Nice.  213 

thirdly,  from  a  cause  alluded  to  by  the  learned  Launoy, 
who  having  observed  and  proved  that  all  the  ancient 
Latin  writers,  and  especially  those  of  France,  did  not 
hold  it  as  oecumenical,  says  :  "  In  later  ages  the 
Gallican  Avriters,  as  occasion  offered,  held  the  seventh 
synod  to  be  universal  and  oecumenical.  The  reason 
why  they  did  so,  in  my  opinion,  was,  that  the  wo7'shij> 
of  holy  images  decreed  by  that  synod  pleased  them. 
Therefore  they  admit  it,  and  hold  that  Hadrian  the 
First  presided  in  it  by  his  vicars  ''."  As  superstition 
increased,  even  the  synod  of  Nice  began  to  find  advo- 
cates; and  it  was  styled  general  by  the  synod  of  Con- 
stance :  but  since  this  latter  is  itself  of  doubtful  autho- 
rity, as  I  shall  prove  ;  and  since  it  is  questioned  by 
Roman  theologians  whether  the  church  has  the  power 
of  determining  whether  a  disputed  synod  is  really 
oecumenical ' ;  there  is  no  presumption  that  the  western 
church  ever  admitted  the  Greek  synod  of  Nice  to  be 
the  seventh  oecumenical  synod.  Even  if  it  had  done 
so,  however,  and  if  the  whole  church  had  thus  finally 
acknowledged  it,  still  it  must  always  remain  of  dubious 
authority,  and  can  never  be  received  except  on  mere 
opinion ;  because  the  church  can  only  vary  in  matters 
of  opinion,  not  in  matters  of  faith. 

Even  in  the  sixteenth  century  it  seems  not  to  have 
been  much  known,  or  to  have  been  still  looked  on  with 
suspicion  by  some.  Longolius  j)ublished  at  Cologne,  in 
1540,  the  Nicene  synod  with  this  title:  "Synodi  Ni- 
csenge  quam  GrcBci  septimam  vocant,"  &c.  Merlinus 
published  an  edition  of  the  councils  in  1530,  containing 
the  six  general  councils,  but  omitting  the  synod  of 
Nice.     Bellarmine  says  :   "  It  is  very  credible  that  St. 

''  Launoii  Epistolae,  pars  viii.  '^  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi, 
ep.  9.  p.  175. 


•214  Pseadu-Synod  of  ConsfantiiKiple.   \\\  iv.  en.  x. 

Thomas,  Alexander  of  Hales,  and  other  scholastic 
doctors  had  not  seen  the  second  synod  of  Nice,  nor 
the  eighth  general  synod ;"  he  adds,  that  they  "  were 
long  in  obscurity,  and  were  first  published  in  our  own 
age,  as  may  be  known  from  their  not  being  extant  in 
the  older  volumes  of  the  councils  ;  and  St.  Thomas  and 
the  other  ancient  schoolmen  never  make  any  mention 
of  this  Nicene  synod''."  This  silence  is  very  remark- 
able, because  the  Decretum  Gratiani,  which  was  then 
universally  received,  mentioned  it  as  an  oecumenical 
synod.  In  the  fifteenth  century,  however,  it  is  referred 
to  by  Thomas  Waldensis  as  a  general  synod  \ 

SECTION  V. 

THE    SYNODS    (IF    CONSTANTINOI'LE    IN    THE    CAUSE    OF 
PHOTIUS. 

A  synod  was  assembled  at  Constantinople  in  869  by 
the  emperor  Basil,  which  was  attended  by  about  100 
eastern  bishops.  The  legates  of  Adrian  II.  of  Rome 
presided.  They  acknowledged  seven  preceding  synods, 
condemned  Photius  patriarch  of  Constantinople  as 
having  been  unlawfully  appointed,  and  confirmed  the 
worship  of  images  ^  This  is  now  generally  accounted 
the  eighth  oecumenical  synod  by  Roman  theologians. 
Bailly  says  :  "  It  was  confirmed  by  the  pontiff  and  the 
whole  Western  church  ^"  Delahogue  says  :  "  The 
cecumenicity  of  this  council  is  certain  and  undoubted. 
The  schismatical  Greeks  alone  do  not  acknowledge  it  ^" 

These  are  strange  assertions,  when  it  is  remembered 

^    Bellavminus     de      Imagin.  ^  Bailly,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  i.  p. 

sanct.  lib.  ii.  c.  22.  463. 

'■  Thomas    Waldensis  Doctri-         ''  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi, 

nale  Fidei,  t.  iii.  tit.  xix.  c.  150.  p.  444. 

•^  Ilaiduin.  Concilia,  t.  v. 


SECT,  v.]  Pseudo-Synod  oj  Constantinople.  '215 

that  pope  Hadrian  in  871  only  acknowledged  sid'  ge- 
neral councils  ^ ;  that  cardinal  Humbert,  the  Roman 
legate  at  Constantinople  in  1054,  only  admitted  seven 
general  councils "  ;  that  the  chronicles  of  St.  Bertin  in 
the  tenth  century  reject  this  synod  ^ ;  that  the  conti- 
nuator  of  Aimon's  books  de  Gestis  Francorum  to  the 
year  1165,  also  reprobates  it^;  that  it  was  annulled  in 
879  by  a  synod  of  384  bishops  at  Constantinople,  and 
has  always  since  been  rejected  by  the  Eastern  church ; 
that  in  1339,  according  to  Barlaam,  but  sLv  oecumenical 
synods  were  commonly  received  in  the  East '' ;  that  the 
synod  of  Florence,  1438,  was  styled  the  eighth  oecume- 
nical synod  by  its  own  acts,  and  in  the  papal  licences '. 
It  is  manifest  from  all  this,  that  this  synod  has  never 
been  received  by  the  catholic  church. 

A  synod  was  assembled  at  Constantinople  in  879  by 
the  emperor  Basil,  on  occasion  of  the  restoration  of 
Photius  to  the  patriarchal  throne  of  Constantinople.  It 
was  attended  by  the  legates  of  John  VIII.  of  Rome, 
and  by  384  bishops.  Photius  was  in  this  synod  declared 
legitimate  patriarch,  and  the  synod  of  869  or  870  under 
Ignatius,  was  abrogated,  rejected,  and  anathematized  ■■. 
The  second  Nicene  was  acknowledged  as  the  seventh 
oecumenical  synod.  This  synod  was  rejected  in  the 
West :  the  Chronicle  of  St.  Bertin  alone  describes  it  as 
the  "  seventh  synod  of  Constantinople  ^"  Launoy  says 
that  some  of  the  Eastern  writers  called  it  the  eighth 


<■  Hadr.  Ep.  xxxiv.  ad  Carol.  ''  Leo  Allatius  de  perp.   Con- 

Calv.  sens.  p.  790. 

^  Canisii  Thesaurus,  t.  iii.  p.  '  Launoii  Epistolae,  pars  viii. 

327.  eP:  xi. 

'^  Martene  &  Durand,    Anec-  J  Harduin.  Concilia,  t.  vi.  pars  i. 

dota,  t.  iii.  p.  527.  ^  Martene   &   Durand,    Anec- 

s    Aimon,   De    Gestis   Franc,  dota,  iii.  527. 
liv.  V.  c.  28. 


216  Western  S?/nods.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

oecumenical,  but  that  others  considered  it  a  pseudo- 
synod  '.  To  this  day,  however,  it  has  not  been  reckoned 
at  any  time  by  either  the  Eastern  or  tlie  Western 
churches  among  the  oecumenical  synods. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

COUNCILS    OF    THE    WESTERN    CHURCH    AFTER  A.D.   1054, 
IMPROPERLY  TERMED  (ECUMENICAL. 

Of  the  synods  held  in  the  West  since  1 054,  when  the 
patriarchs  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  separated  mu- 
tually from  communion,  none  have  been  received  by 
the  Eastern  church  as  oecumenical  or  binding  in 
matters  of  faith  or  discipline.  These  synods  were 
therefore  merely  national  or  general  synods  of  the 
West,  and  are  not  invested  with  the  authority  of  the 
catholic  church.  More  than  one  of  these  synods  have 
advanced  propositions  which  are  very  questionable  and 
even  erroneous  ;  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove 
that  the  whole  Western  church  has  ever  decreed  what 
was  contrary  to  faith.  I  shall  reserve  the  synod  of 
Trent  for  separate  consideration. 

SECTION  I. 

THE  FIRST,  SECOND,  AND  THIRD  LATERAN   SYNODS. 

The  first  Lateran  synod  was  assembled  by  pope 
Calixtus  II.  in  1123.  Three  hundred  bishops  are  said 
to  have  attended.     There  was  no  decree  in  faith  made 

'  Launoius,  ut  supra. 


SECT.  I.]       First,  Second,  Third,  Latrran  Synods.  217 

by  this  synod,  which  only  confirmed  the  agreement 
about  the  investitures  of  prelates  made  between  the 
emperor  Henry  and  the  Roman  pontiff.  This  synod  is 
generally  called  the  "  ninth  oecumenical"  by  modern 
Roman  authors. 

The  second  Lateran  synod  was  convened  by  pope 
Innocentius  in  1139.  Otho  Frisingensis  says,  that 
1000  bishops  were  present*,  but  this  is  evidently  a 
mistake,  and  it  is  to  be  understood  that  1000  prelates 
of  all  sorts  were  present,  including  bishops,  abbots, 
deans,  &;c.  In  this  synod  the  heresies  of  the  Mani- 
chgeans  were  condemned ''.  These  heretics  rejected 
the  sacraments,  infant  baptism,  holy  orders,  and  lawful 
marriao-e.     Arnold  of  Brescia  was  admonished  and  si- 

o 

lenced  for  his  excessive  declamations  against  the 
elergy^  Several  canons  of  discipline  were  made. 
Nothing  except  what  was  laudable  was  done  in  this 
synod  in  matters  of  faith.  It  is  styled  by  modern  Ro- 
man theologians,  the  "  tenth  oecumenical  synod." 

The  third  Lateran  synod  was  assembled  by  Alex- 
ander III.  in  1 179,  and  was  attended  by  280  bishops. 
There  were  no  decrees  on  faith,  except  that  the  heretics 
called  Cathari,  Patarini,  or  Publicani,  were  for  very 
good  reasons  excommunicated  '^.  The  principal  act  of 
the  synod  consisted  of  a  regulation  concerning  the 
elections  of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  Some  modern 
writers  call  it  "  the  eleventh  oecumenical  synod." 

These  three  synods 'were  not  oecumenical  by  convo- 


"  Otto   Frisingensis,    lib.   vii.  ''   Canon    xxiii.    Harduin.    p. 

c.  23.  cited  by  Harduin.  Concil.  1212. 

t.   vi.    p.   1215,   who   says,   that  "  Harduin.  Cone.  vi.  p.  1215. 

Urspergensis   testifies  the  same.  ^  Can.  xxviii.  Harduin.  vi.  p. 

Were  this  true,  this  Lateran  sy-  1683.     Fleury,   Hist.   Eccl.  liv. 

nod  would  have  been  by  far  the  73.  s.  18,  19,  20. 
greatest  ever  held. 


218  Firsts  Second,  Third,  Lateran  Synoda.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

cation,  the  Latin  bishops  only  being  summoned ;  nor 
were  any  bishops  of  the  oriental  churches  present  in 
either  of  them.  In  the  last  a  few  of  the  Latin  bishops, 
whom  the  crusaders  had  placed  in  their  districts,  at- 
tended. The  decrees  of  these  synods  were  never  sent 
to  the  oriental  churches :  nor  have  they  ever  yet  been 
received  or  acknowledged  in  the  East  as  oecumenical 
synods.  In  the  fourteenth  century  the  Eastern  church 
acknowledged  only  six  synods  ^  The  council  of  Con- 
stance in  the  profession  which  was  to  be  made  by  the 
newly-elected  bishop  of  Rome,  only  spoke  of  one  La- 
teran spiod  as  general  \  which  must  be  referred  to  the 
fourth  synod  of  Lateran,  as  this  was  much  the  greatest 
of  the  synods  held  there.  In  the  synod  of  Florence 
the  Greeks  only  received  seven  or  eight  synods  ^.  That 
synod  was  styled  by  its  editor  the  "  eighth  oecumenical," 
and  is  so  termed  in  the  papal  licence  ''.  The  historians 
Platina  and  Nauclerus  do  not  term  either  of  these  La- 
teran synods  general.  Albertus  Stadensis  speaks  of 
the  last  as  a  "  celebrated  synod,"  but  does  not  call  it 
general  or  oecumenical.  Cardinal  Gaspar  Contarenus,  in 
his  "  Summa  of  the  most  famous  Councils,"  dedicated 
to  pope  Paul  III.  in  1562,  does  not  include  these  La- 
teran synods  among  the  oecumenical  councils,  as  he 
styles  the  synod  of  Florence,  the  "  ninth  oecumenical '." 
Thus  these  synods  have  merely  the  authority  of  the 
Western  church,  and  as  such  they  are  not  to  be  ac- 
counted equal  to  the  genuine  oecumenical  synods. 

^  See  Barlaam  cited  above,  '  "  Post  banc  synodum  Flo- 
note  ('),  p.  203.  rentinara     nonam    oecumenicam, 

^  Cone.    Const.    Sess.   xxxix.  teraporibus  nostris   sub   Julio  et 

Harduin.  t.  viii.  p.  859.  Leone  Pontificibus  fuit  synodus 

s  Synodus   Florent.    Sess,    v,  Lateranensis." — Opera   Contare- 

vi,  vii.  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  ix.  ni,  p.  5G3.  ed.  1571.   This  edition 

^    Launoius,    Epistolar.    pars  is  formally  approved  by  several 

viii.  epist.  xi.  doctors  of  the  University  of  Paris. 


SECT.  II.]  Fourth  Ijatcran  Synod.  219 

SECTION  II. 

THE    FOURTH    LATERAN    SYNOD. 

Innocentius  III.  convened  this  synod  (which  some 
modern  authors  style  "  the  twelfth  oecumenical")  in 
1215  :  it  consisted  of  412  bishops,  including  some  of  the 
Latin  patriarchs  of  the  East :  and  a  number  of  ambas- 
sadors of  various  princes  were  present.  Pope  Inno- 
centius published  in  this  synod  a  series  of  decrees, 
the  first  of  which  is  a  confession  of  faith  directed 
against  the  errors  of  the  sects  who  held  the  Manichacan 
heresy.  These  heretics  denied  the  Unity  and  Trinity ; 
maintained  that  there  were  two  principles  ;  denied  the 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  work  of  the  evil 
principle  ;  rejected  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  the  re- 
surrection, the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  eucha- 
rist,  and  marriage  K 

The  confession  of  faith  published  by  Innocentius  ac- 
cordingly confesses  the  doctrine  of  the  triune  God,  the 
only  principle  and  author  of  all  things ;  the  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  our  Lord's  incarnation,  suffer- 
ing, bodily  ascension  into  heaven ;  the  resurrection  of 
the  body ;  the  importance  and  use  of  the  eucharist,  the 
necessity  of  baptism,  and  lawfulness  of  marriage  \ 

This  synod  consisting  only  of  Latin  bishops,  and 
having  never  been  received  by  the  Oriental  churches, 
cannot  be  considered  as  invested  with  the  authority  of 
the  catholic  church.  It  was  not  acknowledged  as 
oecumenical  by  the  first  edition  of  the  synod  of  Flo- 
rence, nor  in  the  license  of  pope  Clement  VII.  for 

'  See    Mosheim's    Eccl.    His-  Maitland  on   the  Albigenses,  p. 

tory,   cent.  xii.  part  ii.  c.  5.     In  237.  308.  319,  347.  355. 
proof  of  their  denial  of  the  real  "^  Fleury,  Hist.  Eecl.liv.  Ixxvii. 

presence  in  the  eucharist,  see  Mr.  s.  45,  46. 


220  Fourth  Later  an  Synod.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

publishing  that  synod  \  nor  by  cardinal  Contarenus  % 
nor  by  the  historians  Platina,  Nauclerus,  Trithemius, 
or  Albertus  Stadensis.  The  general  doctrine  of  the 
decree  on  faith  was,  however,  orthodox  and  laud- 
able :  it  was  directed  against  heretics  who  denied  all 
that  was  most  sacred  in  Christianity.  But  this  decree 
has  not  the  authority  which  might  have  been  expected, 
because  it  appears  not  to  have  been  made  co7iciliariter, 
with  synodical  deliberation,  discussion,  and  giving  of 
suffrages  ;  but  Innocentius  caused  it  to  be  read  with 
many  others  in  the  presence  of  the  synod,  and  the  bi- 
shops seem  to  have  remained  silent ". 

Du  Pin  remarks,  that  "  no  canons  were  made  by  the 
council,  but  some  decrees  were  composed  by  the  Ro- 
man pontiff,  and  read  in  the  council,  some  of  which 
appeared  burdensome  to  many."  He  says  before,  that 
they  were  not  made  conciliariter,  and  that  "many  histo- 
rians testify  that  nothing  could  be  concluded  on  in  that 
council:  thus  Nauclerus  (generat.  4  ad  an.  1215) 
speaking  of  the  council,  observes,  '  Many  things  were 
consulted  of,  but  yet  nothing  could  be  agreed  on,'  and 
again,  '  Yet  some  constitutions  are  found  to  have  been 
published.'  Platina,  in  the  life  of  Innocent  III.,  says 
the  same.  '  Many  things  were  consulted  of,  but  yet 
nothing  could  be  manifestly  decreed,  for  both  the 
people  of  Pisa  and  Genoa  were  engaged  in  warfare  by 
sea,  and  the  Cisalpines  by  land,'  &c.  Godefridus  Viter- 
biensis  (ad  an.  1215)  says:  'In  this  council  nothing 
was  done  worthy  of  mention,  except  that  the  Oriental 
church  submitted  herself  to  the  Roman.'     Certainly  if 

'  Launoii  Epistolse,    liv.   viii,         '"  Opera  Contareni,  p.  563. 
ep.  xi.      This   edition   styled  the  "  Matthagi  Paris   Hist.    Angl. 

synod    of    Florence   the    eighth  ad  an.  1215. 
synod. 


SECT.  II.]  Fourtli  Lateran  Synod.  221 

canons  were  promulgated  in  that  council,  those  which 
are  i)roposed  under  its  name  were  made  by  Innocent 
III.,  not  by  the  whole  council.  Hence  in  the  title  of 
this  council  by  Jacobus  Middemportius  (in  the  works  of 
Innocent  III.,  published  at  Cologne,  1607,  apud  Cho- 
linum),  is  the  following :  '  Sacri  Concilii  Generalis 
Lateranensis,  sub  Domino  Innocentio  Pontifice  maximo 
hujus  nominis  tertio,  celebrati,  anno  Domini  1215. 
Decreta  ab  eodem  Innocentio  conscripta.'  The  same 
appears  from  Matthew  Paris  in  his  History  of  England 
(ad  an.  1215).  'A  universal  synod  was  celebrated  at 
Rome,  the  Lord  Pope  Innocent  III.  presiding,  in  which 
were  412  bishops,  &c.  All  being  assembled,  the  pope 
having  first  delivered  a  word  of  exhortation,  sixty 
canons  were  read  in  full  council,  which  appeared  tole- 
rable to  some,  burdensome  to  others  ;  then  he  com- 
menced a  discourse  on  the  business  of  the  crusade  ".'  " 
Du  Pin  therefore  justly  concludes  that  the  decrees  of 
this  synod  were  not  made  conciliariter. 

This  objection  alone  would  render  the  authority  of 
such  decrees  very  dubious  according  to  Bellarmine, 
Bossuet,  Delahogue,  &ic.^  for  the  promises  of  Christ  to 
aid  his  church  in  determining  the  truth,  always  sup- 
pose the  use  of  ordinary  means.  These  decrees  were 
indeed  known  in  the  Western  church  afterwards, 
rather  under  the  name  of  pope  Innocentius,  than  of 
the  Lateran  synod ''. 


°  Du  Pin,   De  Antiqua  Eccl.  ones  Innocentii  III.  Papae,  &c." 

Discipl.  Dissert,  vii.  p.  572,573.  — Harduin.  Cone.  t.    vii.   p.  15. 

''  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi,  In  the  Decretals  of  Gregory  IX. 

p.  212.  278.  tit.  i.  de  sum.  Trini.  &  fid.  cath. 

•i    One     MS.     referred    to    by  we  find  the  first  canon   headed 

Harduin  does  not  give  these  de-  "  Innocentius  III.  in  concilio  ge- 

crees  any  title,   the  other  is  thus  nerali."     In   the   next    title    we 

headed  :     "  Incipiunt    constituti-  find  "  ex  concilio  Meldensi." 


222  Fourth  Ldferan  SipioiL  [i\  iv.  ch.  xi. 

Hence,  even  if  we  admitted  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  this  synod  to  define  the  modern  Roman  opinion  of 
transnbstantiation  as  "  de  fide,"  it  would  not  follow 
that  its  definition  was  binding  on  the  church :  but 
there  are  very  reasonable  grounds  for  doubting  that  the 
synod  had  such  an  intention.  The  Roman  doctrine  of 
transnbstantiation  supposes  the  ivhole  substance  (in  the 
Aristotelic  sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  accidents)  of 
bread  and  wine,  to  cease,  by  conversion  into  a  different 
substance :  so  that  the  eucharist  cannot  be  called  bread 
after  consecration,  except  in  some  figurative  or  tropi- 
cal sense.  The  decree  made  at  this  synod  uses  indeed 
the  term  "  transnbstantiation"  to  express  the  fjnTaciToi- 
yj^iioaiq^  or  transelementation,  by  which  the  sacramental 
elements  become  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  "^ :  as  the 
fathers  had  used  the  words  mutatio,  transitio,  migratio, 

transfiguratio,  /uErapoXi),  /.i^TappvOfxiaiQ,  ni:Ta(TKiva(JiJ.6g, 
/LiiTaaTOiyj^iwaiQ,    /neraTroirftriQ,   &C.  ^:    but   though  the  term 

"  transnbstantiation,"  as  Bossuet  observes,  naturally 
implies  "  a  change  of  substance  V  this  by  no  means 
settles  the  question ;  for  it  does  not  determine  whether 
"  substance"  is  used  in  the  Aristotelic  or  the  popular 
sense ;  whether  the  change  is  physical ",  and  in  itself 

■"  "  All  the  nE-a(TToi^Eib}(nc.  of  nem,     potestate    divina." — Har- 

the  sacramental  elements  maketh  duin.  Concilia,  t.  vii.  p.  17. 
them  not  to  cease  to  be  of  the  ^  Bishop  Taylor's  Dissuasive, 

same  nature  which  before  they  p.  664.  Oxford  ed.  by  Cardwell. 
were." — Bishop  Pearson  on  the         '  Bossuet,  Variations,   liv.  iii. 

Creed.     Article    III.      Note   on  s.  16. 

Eutychian  heresy.  The  decree  "  "  Ecclesia  Catholica  Orien- 
of  the  Lateran  synod  was  as  fol-  talis  atque  Grseco-Russica,  ad- 
lows  :  "In  qua  (ecclesia)  idem  mittitquidem  vocem  transubstan- 
ipse  sacerdos  et  sacrificium  Je-  tiatio,  Greece  /ierovatwctc,  nun 
sus  Christus,  cujus  corpus  et  physicam  illam  transiihstantlati- 
sanguis  in  sacramento  altaris  sub  onem  et  carnalem,  sed  sacramen- 
speciebus  panis  et  vini  veraciter  talem  et  myslicam ;  eodemque 
continentur,  transubstantiatis  pa-  sensu  hanc  vocem,  transubstan- 
ne  in  corpus,  et  vino  in  sangui-  tiatio,    accipit,    quam    quo    anti- 


SECT.  II.]  Transnhstantiation.  22-3 

corresponding  to  other  changes  whether  natural  or 
miraculous,  or  entirely  sacramental,  spiritual,  and  inef- 
fable ;  in  fine,  whether  it  be  partial  or  total.  Hence 
those  who  employed  the  term  transubstantiation  with 
reference  to  the  mystical  change,  might  quite  consis- 
tently hold  that  the  substance  of  bread  was  not  phy- 
sically changed,  or  that  it  was  only  partially  changed, 
or  that  it  did  not  cease  to  exist,  or  that  it  was  changed 
by  union  with  the  substance  of  Christ's  body,  or  M'ith 
his  soul,  or  with  the  Divine  nature.  All  these  opinions 
are  consistent  with  the  use  of  the  term  transubstan- 
tiation, and  all  are  contradictory  to  the  common  Roman 
doctrine  on  the  subject. 

In  fact  pope  Innocentius  himself,  in  one  of  his  books, 
having  asserted  that  "  the  matter  of  bread  and  wine  .  .  . 
is  transubstantiated  into  Christ's  body,"  continues  thus: 
"  but  whether  parts  change  into  parts,  or  the  ivhole  into 
the  ivhoIe,  or  the  entke  into  the  entire.  He  alone  knows 
who  effects  it.  As  for  me,  I  commit  to  the  fire  what 
remains  ;  for  we  are  commanded  to  believe ;  forbidden 
to  <liscuss  "."  Thus  Innocentius  declares  that  the  total 
change  of  the  substance  is  not  a  matter  of  faith ;  and 
he  mentions,  without  ciny  condemnation,  the  opinion  of 
some  who  held  that  the  bread  and  wine  remain  after 

quissimi  ecclesise  Groecse  patres  vel  sanguis,  sed  materia  panis  et 
has  voces  lueraWayi),  fierddEaLc,  vini  mutatur  in  substantiam  car- 
fXETueTToi^diodiQ  accipiebant."  —  nis  et  sanguinis,  nee  adjicitur 
Plato  Archbishop  of  Moscow,  in  aliquid  corpori  sed  transulistan- 
reply  toM.  Dutens,  ffiuvres  me-  tiatur  in  corpus.  Verum  an  par- 
lees,  part  ii.  p.  171.  This  re-  tes  in  partes,  an  totum  in  totum, 
ply  is  referred  to  as  of  authority  an  totale  transeat  in  totale,  novit 
by  Methodius,  Archbishop  of  Ille  qui  facit.  Ego  quod  residu- 
Twer,  in  the  Preface  to  his  urn  est,  igni  comburo.  Nam  cre- 
"  Liber  Historicus,"  Mosquae,  dere  jubemur,  discutere  prohi- 
1805.  bemur." — Innocentius    III.    De 

''  "  Non  enim    de  pane  vel  de  Myster.  Missa^,  lib.  iv.  c.  7,  8. 
vino    materialiter  formatur    caro 

10 


2-24  Fourth  Lateran  Synod.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

consecration  together  with  the  body  and  blood  ".  He 
reserves  the  charge  of  heresy  for  those  who  held  the 
bread  to  be  only  a  figure  of  Christ's  body  \ 

This  renders  it  very  probable,  that  Innocentiiis  in 
the  synod  of  Lateran  did  not  intend  to  establish  any- 
thing except  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence.  In  fact 
the  question  was  not  then  with  those  who  denied  the 
modern  doctrine  of  transubstantiation :  it  was  with  the 
Manichseans,  who  denied  the  real  presence  of  Christ's 
body  in  the  eucharist.  Nor  M^as  the  term  transubstan- 
tiation introduced  specially  into  the  decree  to  meet  any 
particular  heresy;  as  the  term  " consubstantial"  had 
been  introduced  into  the  creed  at  the  synod  of  Nice, 
expressly  to  exclude  the  heresy  of  Arius.  No  one 
objected  to  this  term  at  the  council  of  Lateran :  no  one 
had  objected  to  it  before  :  nor  does  it  appear  that  it  was 
disapproved  of  by  any  one  till  centuries  afterwards, 
when  it  had  been  abused  by  some  persons.  Hence  I 
conclude  that  the  term  was  employed,  not  with  any 
intention  of  establishing  a  specific  view  of  the  real 
presence ;  but  simply  as  equivalent  to  "  conversion," 
"  transformation,"  "  change,"  &c.  which  had  been  em- 
ployed before,  and  continued  to  be  employed  afterwards 
to  express  the  same  thing. 

That  this  was  so,  and  that  the  whole  Western 
church  believed  the  conmion  opinion  of  transubstan- 
tiation not  to  be  a  matter  of  faith,  may  be  inferred  ab- 
solutely and  conclusively  from  the  fact,  that  while  this 
opinion  was  held  by  the  majority  of  scholastic  theo- 
logians till  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  several  other 
opinions,  entirely  inconsistent  with  it,  were  openly 
held  and  taught  by  writers  of  eminence,  without  any 

"  Ibid.  c.  9.  "  Ibid.  c.  7. 


SECT,  n.]  Tnois/i/jsf(nifi(//i(/N.  2'2.) 

condemnation  or  censure.  Durandus  a  S.  Porciano, 
about  1320,  taught  that  the  matter  of  bread  aud  wine 
rejnahi  after  consecration  \  Nevertheless  he  was  so 
far  from  being  censured,  that  the  pope  made  him  bishop 
of  Annecy,  and  afterwards  of  Meaux  ;  and  lie  is  praised 
by  Trithemius  and  Gerson,  the  latter  of  whom  recom- 
mended his  writings  to  students  in  the  University  of 
Paris  '.  Cardinal  d'Ailly  who  presided  at  the  council 
of  Constance,  a.d.  1415,  says,  that  "although  catholics 
agree  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  the  sacrament,  there 
are  diiferent  opinions  as  to  the  mode.  The  first  is,  that 
the  substance  of  bread  is  Christ's  body ;  the  second,  that 
the  substance  does  not  remain,  but  is  reduced  into 
matter  existing  by  itself  or  receiving  another  form, 
&:c. ;  the  third,  that  the  substance  of  bread  remains ; 
the  fourth,  and  more  common,  that  the  substance  does 
not  remain,  but  simply  ceases  to  exist "."  Thus  we  see 
that  the  common  opinion  of  transubstantiation  was 
only  an  opinion,  and  that  different  opinions  were  held 
by  "  catholics."  In  fine,  the  scholastic  theologians  ge- 
nerally mention  the  different  opinions,  without  imputing 
jieresy  to  those  that  received  them.  From  this  it  ap- 
pears evidently,  that  the  common  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation was  not  defined  by  the  synod  of  Lateran  or 
by  the  Western  church  :  but  at  all  events,  as  Bouvier, 
bishop  of  Mans,  says,  after  Melchior  Canus  and  many 

y  Durand.  Commentar.  in  Sent.  *  See  the  preface  to  Durandi 

lib.  iv.  dist.  xi.  qu.  3.      He  says,  Comment,   in    Sent.    Pet.    I,om- 

"  praedictus  autem   modus   con-  bard.  Antwerp.  ir)G7. 
versionis  sul)stantiae  panis  in  cor-  *  Cardinalis    de    Alliaco   in    t 

pus  Christi  constat  quod  est  pos-  dist.  6,  art.  11.  citedby  Tournelv, 

sibilis.     Alius  autem  modus  qui  De  Eucharistia,  t.  i.  p.  2G5.    See 

coramunius  tenetur  est  intelligi-  also  Field,   Of  the  Church,  Ap- 

bilis,  nee  unus  istorum  est  magis  pendix     to     Part     iii.     c.     17  ; 

per  ecclesiam  approbatus  vel  re-  Bull's  Works  by  Burton,    vol.  ii. 

probatus  quam  alius."  p.  257. 

VOL.  II.  Q 


226  First.  Si/nod  of  Lyona.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

other  of  the  best  theologians,  "  When,  all  circumstances 
considered,  it  remains  doubtful  whether  a  council 
really  intended  to  define  any  doctrine,  then  the  decision 
is  not  dejide;  for  in  order  that  any  jiroposition  should 
pertain  to  the  catholic  faith,  and  be  binding  on  all  the 
faithful,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  it  be  revealed  and  enun- 
ciated in  ani/  manner  ;  but  it  is  requisite  that  it  be  pro- 
posed clearly  and  without  any  doubt,  by  an  infallible 
authority  ^"  On  this  principle  the  common  Roman 
opinion  of  transubstantiation  can  never  be  proved  a 
matter  of  faith  by  the  decree  made  in  the  Lateran 
synod. 

The  decree  beginning  "  Omnis  utriusque  sexus "," 
enjoining  annual  confession  to  a  priest,  and  Easter 
communion,  was  merely  in  a  matter  of  changeable  disci- 
pline, which  a  synod  of  the  western  church  could  not 
render  always  obligatory  on  national  churches. 


SECTION  III. 

THE    SYNODS    AT    LYONS    AND    VIENNE. 

1.  Innocentius  IV.  of  Rome  assembled  the  first 
synod  of  Lyons  in  1245,  at  which  140  bishops  were 
present.  The  pontiff,  in  the  presence  of  the  synod, 
which  listened  in  astonishment,  pronounced  a  sentence 
of  deposal  against  the  emperor  Frederick  ^.  He  also 
enacted  several  regulations  of  discipline.  No  decisions 
in  matters  of  faith  seem  to  have  been  made.  This 
synod  was  not  attended   or  received  by  the  oriental 


''  Bouvier,  De  Ecclesia,  p.  236.  ''  Matthsei  Paris  Hist.  Anglic. 

•^  Canon  xxi.  Harduin.   Cone,     ad  an.  1245,  cited  by  Harduin. 
t.  vii.  p.  35.  t.  vii.  p.  401. 


SECT,  in.]  First  Synod  of  Ijyoiis.  227 

bishops  and  churches,  consequently  it  cannot  be  ac- 
counted oecumenical.  It  was  also  not  acknowledsfed 
as  such  by  the  first  edition  of  the  synod  of  Florence  ' ; 
by  the  historians  Platina,  Flavins  Blondus,  Trithemius, 
Albertus  Stadensis  ;  or  by  cardinal  Contarenus*^  in  the 
sixteenth  century ;  and  although  some  modern  writers 
pretend  that  it  was  the  "  thirteenth  oecumenical  synod," 
"  many  catholics,"  as  Tournely  says,  have  doubted  its 
oecumenicity  for  the  following  reasons  :  "  First,  because 
the  council  of  Florence,  according  to  the  papal  diploma, 
is  entitled  the  eighth  general  council ;  so  that  whatever 
councils  were  celebrated  from  the  time  of  the  seventh 
general  synod,  which  was  the  second  Nicene,  to  the 
time  of  the  council  of  Florence,  were  held  not  to  be 
oecumenical  by  whoever  wrote  the  title  of  the  council 
of  Florence,  or  confirmed  it."  He  also  observes  that 
bishops  were  not  present  from  all  christian  provinces, 
or  even  all  western  provinces,  which  Bellarmine  (Lib.  i. 
de  Conciliis,  cap.  17.)  regards  as  the  last  condition  ne- 
cessary to  a  general  council  when  celebrated  in  the 
west.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  no  bishops 
were  present  from  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Brittany, 
Spain,  Sweden,  Poland.  The  council  of  Constance,  in 
the  formulary  which  it  appointed  to  be  subscribed  by 
the  pontiff  elected,  enumerates  the  general  synods  to 
that  time,  but  only  mentions  one  synod  of  Lyons, 
which  must  have  been  the  second  synod  in  1274,  as 
being  a  much  greater  synod  than  this.  And  in  fine, 
"  the  authors  who  speak  of  it,  as  Matthew  Paris,  Al- 
bertus Stadensis,  Trithemius,  and  Platina,  do  not 
call   it  general.     Onuphrius,    who    lived    in    the    six- 

•  Lauiioii  Epist.  I.  viii.  ep.  xi.  *"  Contareni  Opera,  p.  5G,3. 

q2 


228  Second  Synod  of  Lyons,         [p.  tv.  ch.  xi. 

teenth  century,  first  gives  it  that  title  ^"  Delahogue 
also  observes  that  the  oeeiimenicity  of  this  synod  is 
disputed ''. 

2.  The  second  synod  of  Lyons  was  convened  by 
Gregory  X.  bishop  of  Rome,  in  1274  :  it  was  attended 
by  500  bishops  of  the  Latin  churches.  In  the  fourth 
session  of  the  council,  the  embassadors  of  the  Eastern 
emperor,  viz.  Germanus,  formerly  bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople, and  Theophanes  of  Nicsea,  George  Acropolita, 
&c.  were  present;  when  a  letter  was  read  from  the 
Greek  emperor  Michael,  professing  the  doctrines  of 
the  Roman  primacy,  purgatory,  transubstantiation,  and 
seven  sacraments.  A  letter  from  thirty-five  Greek 
bishops  was  also  read,  in  which  they  expressed  their  wish 
for  union,  and  admitted  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  see  '. 
The  council  did  not  examine  or  formally  approve  these 
letters,  but  not  judging  them  to  be  contrary  to  faith, 
permitted  the  union  of  the  churches  without  requiring 
the  Greeks  to  add  filioque  to  the  creed.  The  only 
decree  in  faith  made  by  Gregory  in  this  synod  was  a 
definition  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  from  one  principle,  and  a  con- 
demnation of  the  contrary  doctrine ''. 

This  synod  was  never  accounted  oecumenical  in  the 
east,  the  eastern  patriarchs  and  bishops  not  having 
sent  any  deputies  to  it ;  and  whatever  consent  some  of 
them  gave  to  the  union,  having  been  extorted  by  the 
violence  of  the  Emperor  Michael  Palseologus,  who  was 
desirous  of  obtaining  the  political  assistance   of  the 


8  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  ii,  '  Harduin.   Concil.    t.    vii.   p. 

p.    435,    436.      See  also  Bailly,  694—698,698—701. 
Tract,  de  Eccl.  t.  ii.  p.  379.  ^  Constitutio  i.  Harduin.  t.  vii. 

^  Delahogue,De  Eccles.  p. 278.  p.  705. 


Sect.  IV.]         Synods  of  Vienne,  Pisa,  Constance.  229 

Roman  see '.  This  synod  was  not  reckoned  oecumeni- 
cal by  the  editors  of  the  synod  of  Florence  "\  by  Cardi- 
nal Contarenus",  or  by  Platina,  Nauclerus,  or  Flavins 
Blondus. 

3.  The  same  observations  apply  to  the  synod  of 
Vienne  of  300  bishops,  assembled  by  Clement  V.  in 
1311  :  none  of  the  oriental  bishops  were  present,  nor 
was  it  ever  acknowledged  in  the  eastern  church.  This 
synod  condemned  the  errors  of  Peter  de  Oliva  and  the 
Beghards,  and  made  decrees  of  doctrine  concerning  the 
nature  of  our  Lord  and  some  other  points,  which  seem 
to  have  been  generally  laudable " :  but  it  cannot  have 
any  just  claim  to  be  accounted  "the  fifteenth  oecume- 
nical synod,"  as  it  is  by  some  modern  theologians.  It 
was  not  styled  oecumenical  by  Platina,  Blondus,  Trithe- 
mius,  the  synod  of  Florence,  or  Contareuus. 

SECTION  IV. 

THE    SYNODS    OF    PISA    AND    CONSTANCE. 

1.  The  synod  of  Pisa  was  assembled  by  the  cardinals 
in  1408,  to  terminate  the  schism  in  the  jDapacy.  It 
consisted  of  twenty- two  cardinals,  eighty-three  bishops, 
and  the  deputies  of  eighty-five  more.  No  decrees  were 
made  in  matters  of  faith  or  discipline.  It  is  not 
usually  accounted  oecumenical  by  Roman  theologians, 
and  was  never  known  in  the  east. 

2.  The    synod    of    Constance   assembled    by   John 

'  Barlaam    declares    that   this  synod  are  contained  in  the  liber 

■was  the  opinion  of  the  Greeks.  Clemen tinorum,   but  are   mixed 

See   Raynald.    Annales   ad    an.  up  with   others,  which  were  not 

1339,  n.   21;     Bzovii   Annales,  made  by  the  synod  of  Vienne. — 

ibid.  c.  xxiv.  Harduin.    vii.    p.    1359.      There 

'"  Launoii  Epist.  viii.  xi.  seem  considerable   difficulties  in 

"  Contareni  Opera,  p.  563.  ascertaining  what  the  precise  de- 

°  The  decisions  made  in  this  crees  of  the  synod  actually  were. 


230  Synod  of  Constance.  [p.  iv.  CH.  xi. 

XXIII.  in  1414,  consisted  of  about  250  Latin  bishops. 
It  decreed  that  a  general  council  was  superior  to  the 
pope%  deposed  one  of  the  rival  popes,  obliged  the 
other  to  relinquish  his  office,  and  elected  a  new  pope. 

The  only  decrees  of  importance  concerning  religion 
are  those  condemning  Wickliffe  and  Huss,  and  approv- 
ing the  administration  of  the  eucliarist  in  one  kind 
only. 

In  the  eighth  session  (1415,)  forty-five  propositions 
taken  from  the  writings  of  Wickliffe,  were  censured  as 
heretical,  erroneous,  scandalous,  blasphemous,  offensive 
to  pious  ears,  rash,  and  seditious  ^  The  first  of  these 
propositions  was,  that  the  substance  of  material  bread 
remains  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  the  second,  that 
the  accidents  do  not  remain  without  a  subject  in  tlie 
same  sacrament.  Amongst  the  other  doctrines  con- 
demned are  many  very  erroneous,  and  even  absurd, 
positions " ;  some  however  are  not  so,  e.  g.  the  38th, 

*    "  Ipsa    synodus    in  Spiritu  et  blasphemos,  quosdam  piarum 

Sancto  congregata  legitime,  gene-  aurium      ofFensivos,       nonnullos 

rale  concilium  faciens,   ecclesiam  eorum  temerarios  et  seditiosos," 

catholicam  militantem  reprassen-  — Sessio    viii.    Harduin.    t.   viii. 

tans,  potestatem  a  Christo  imme-  p.   302.      They  also  condemned 

diate  habet,    cui   quilibet   cujus-  260   other  propositions    selected 

cumque    status     vel     dignitatis,  by  the  University  of  Oxford,  as 

etiam  si  papalis  existat,  obedire  heretical,  seditious,  erroneous,  te- 

tenetur  in  his  quae  pertinent  ad  merarious,  scandalous,  or  insane, 

fidem,     et    extirpationem     dicti  — Ibid. 

schismatis,  etreformationemgene-  '   Wickliffe     certainly     taught 

ralem  ecclesise  Dei  in  capite  et  in  several     serious     errors.        The 

membris."  —  Sess.   iv.   Harduin.  Apology    of    the    Confession     of 

Cone.  t.  viii.  p.  252.  Augsburgh  reckoned  the  Wick- 

^  The  decree  of  condemnation  liffites  as  much  in   error  as  the 

says,  "  quibus  articulis  examina-  Donatists,     "  Satis  clare  diximus 

tis,  fuit  repertum  (prout  in  veri-  nos  improbare  Donatistas 

tate  est)  aliquos  et  plures  ex  ipsis  et  Wicleffistas  qui  senserunt  ho- 

fuisse  et  esse  notorie  hsereticos,  mines  peccare  accipientes  sacra- 

et  a  Sanctis  patribus  dudum  re-  menta  ab  indignis  in  ecclesia.  " 

probatos  ;    alios   non    catholicos,  — Apol.  Conf.  August,  (iv.) 
sed  erroneos ;    alios   scandalosos 


SECT.  IV.]  Synod  of  Constance.  231 

"  that  the  decretal  epistles  are  apocryphal."  This 
article  is  now  generally  received  as  true  in  the  Roman 
obedience.  The  condemnation  of  these  propositions  in 
globo,  without  affixing  any  particular  mark  to  each  pro- 
position, renders  it  impossible  to  affirm  that  the  synod 
of  Constance  meant  to  condemn  this  or  that  particular 
proposition  as  heretical.  They  may  have  only  judged 
the  two  first  propositions  scandalous,  that  is,  likely  to 
excite  disturbance  in  the  church ;  and  propositions  are 
scandalous  at  one  time  which  are  not  so  at  another. 
The  same  observations  apply  to  the  condemnations  of 
the  thirty-nine  propositions  of  Huss  in  the  fifteenth  ses- 
sion. In  the  thirteenth  session  (1415,)  the  synod  made  a 
decree  that,  "  since  it  is  necessary  to  believe  firmly  that 
the  whole  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  contained  in  the 
species  of  bread  ;  the  custom  of  communicating  in  that 
species  only  having  been  long  observed,  should  be 
regarded  as  a  law  which  men  should  not  reject  or 
change  according  to  their  taste,  ivithout  the  authority  of 
the  church^ r  The  doctrine  here  somewhat  crudely 
laid  down  by  the  synod  of  Constance,  was  derived 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  combined  with 
that  of  the  indivisible  unity  of  the  person  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  whence  they  concluded  that  where  hii* 
flesh  truly  existed,  there  his  whole  body  and  blood 
could  not  be  absent.  Nor  has  this  doctrine  been  at 
any  time  reprobated  by  our  catholic  churches :  indeed 
it  might  perhaps  be  gathered  from  those  words  of  our 
Liturgy,  "  He  hath  given  his  Son  otir  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  to  die  for  us,  but  also  to  be  our  spi- 
ritual food  and  sustenance  in  that  holy  sacrament,"  and 
from   the  words  of  the  Article :  "  In  no  wise  are  they 

*  Sess.  xii.   Ilarduin.  Cone.  I.  viii.  p.  381. 


23*2  Synud  of  Constance.  [P.  iv.  cil.  xi. 

partakers  of  Christ ;"  thus  teaching  us,  that  we  receive 
in  the  eucharist,  not  merely  the  flesh  or  the  blood  of 
Christ,  but  Christ  himself,  in  the  unity  of  his  person. 
Hence  it  would  seem  rash  to  affirm  absolutely  that  the 
reception  in  one  kind  rendered  the  sacrament  invalid. 

But,  this  does  not  affect  the  question  of  administer- 
ing in  one  kind  only,  an  abuse  which  was  introduced 
throuo-h  a  misdirected  devotion  for  this  sacrament,  and 
which,  in  order  to  obviate  certain  imagined  irreveren- 
cies  in  its  use,  abrogated  the  practice  which  had  been 
instituted  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  received  univer- 
sally in  the  catholic  church  for  twelve  centuries.  If 
such  an  institution  be  not  obligatory  on  the  church,  it 
is  impossible  to  prove  anything  obligatory  :  and  as  it 
is  even  still  disputed  in  the  Roman  churches,  whether 
more  grace  is  not  derived  from  reception  of  both  kinds  \ 
the  church  is  certainly  bound  to  take  the  safer  side. 
It  is  important  to  observe  also,  that  the  synod  of 
Constance  only  prohibited  the  restoration  of  the  ancient 
custom  by  private  individuals,  without  the  authority  of 
the  church  :  thei-efore  national  churches  are  entirely 
free  from  censure,  in  putting  an  end  to  the  custom  of 
receiving  in  one  kind. 

These  are  the  only  decrees  made  in  the  synod  of 
Constance  which  concern  religion  :  but  we  are  now  to 
consider  its  title  to  the  appellation  of  an  "  oecumenical 
synod." 

This  is  at  once  subverted  by  the  fact  that  the  orien- 
tal churches  were   not  represented  at  this  synod,  nor 

*  Toumely  observes,  from  Pala-  is  maintained  by  Vasquez,  in  3 

vicini,    lib.   xii.    c.    2.    that    the  part,  disput.  215.  qu.  80.  art.  2. 

affirmative  was  maintained  at  the  and  others   referred    to   by  him. 

synod     of    Trent    by     Melchior  Tournely,    De  Euchar.    t.   ii.    p. 

Canus,     Antonius    Ugliva,     and  34. 
Si^ismuud  Fedrius  ;   and   that  it 


SECT.  IV.]  Synod  of  Constance.  '233 

did  tliey  ever  acknowledge  it  as  oecumenical.  The 
editor  of  the  synod  of  Florence,  and  the  pope  who 
licensed  it,  also  excluded  Constance  from  the  title  of 
oecumenical,  as  did  Cardinal  Contarenus.  But  I  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  additional  proofs  from  Alphonso  de 
Ligorio,  bishop  of  St.  Agatha,  who  is  accounted  a  saint 
by  the  Roman  church. 

The  fathers  of  this  synod,  as  we  collect  from  him, 
were  only  those  of  the  obedience  of  John  XXIIT,  and 
did  not  include  those  of  Gregory  XII,  and  Benedict 
XIII.  The  suffrages  were  not  given  separately,  but 
by  nations,  which  John  XXIII.  objected  to,  and  Car- 
dinal D'Ailly,  who  was  present,  proposed  a  doubt  in 
the  synod  whether  its  acts  would  not  be  questioned 
hereafter  as  null  on  this  account.  Hence  Cardinal 
Turrecremata  (lib.  ii.  de  Eccl.  c.  .99,  100),  and  Cajetan 
(p.  1.  de  auct.  Papoe.  c.  8.)  absolutely  assert  that  those 
decrees  are  of  no  moment,  because  the  church  did  not 
interfere  in  making  them  \ 

Bellarmine  ^  Gregory  de  Valentia  ^  and  the  ul- 
tramontanes  generally,  only  admit  the  last  sessions 
of  this  synod  as  oecumenical,  that  is,  after  the  elec- 
tion of  Martin  V.  in  the  forty-first  session,  a.  d.  1417. 
It  should  be  observed  that  the  objection  of  the  ul- 
tramontanes  to  the  oecumenicity  of  the  early  sessions, 
on  the  ground  of  their  comprising  the  prelates  of  only 
one  obedience,  affects  those  sessions  in  which  the  doc- 
trines of  Wickliffe  and  Huss  are  condemned,  and  com- 
munion in  one  kind  authorized  ;  for,  as  Bailly  says,  "  the 
two  obediences  spoken  of  were  not   then  united  with 

^  Alph.   de  Ligorio  Tlieologia     tor.  lib.  ii.  c.  19. 
Moralis,  lib.  i.  art.  129 — 131.  ^  Gregor.  de  Valentia,  Analys. 

8  Bellarminus  de  Concil.  Auc-     Fid.  Cath.  lib.  viii.  c.  7. 


234  Synod  of  Basle.  [p.  iv.  CH.  xi. 

the  third '."  Hence  the  decrees  on  these  matters  are 
of  most  dubious  authority. 

SECTION  V. 

THE    SYNODS    OF    BASLE,    FLORENCE,    AND    LATERAN. 

1.  The  synod  of  Basle  was  assembled  in  1431,  by 
Martin  V.  of  Rome,  and  continued  by  Eugenius  IV. 
It  persisted  to  hold  sessions  till  1443.  This  synod 
declared  the  superiority  of  a  general  council  over  a 
pope,  and  in  1437  Eugenius  published  a  bull  trans- 
lating it  to  Ferrara,  which  the  synod  of  Basle  refused 
to  obey,  and  continued  its  sessions,  in  which  the  prac- 
tice of  communicating  in  one  kind  was  again  confirmed. 
This  took  j)lace  in  the  30th  session  %  and  Bailly  says 
that  no  catholic  admits  the  latter  twenty  sessions,  (out 
of  forty-five)  as  oecumenical.  The  Gallicans  admit  the 
first  twenty-five  or  sixteen  as  oecumenical.  The  ultra- 
montanes,  who  reject  the  entire  council  ^  receive 
none,  Alphonsus  de  Ligorio  says,  "  Louis  Du  Pin, 
who  is  followed  by  some  other  Gallicans,  did  not  blush 
to  call  this  conventicle  of  Basle  an  oecumenical  synod. 

To   refute  their   most   false   suppositions  would 

require  a  long  and  entire  dissertation, ....  but  I  reply 
briefly,  that  this  convention  of  Basle  by  no  means 
deserves  the  name  of  a  general  council  ;  and  this 
appears  manifestly  from  circumstances  which  are  be- 
yond doubt.  The  number  of  bishops  was  so  small, 
that  it  never  could  by  any  means  represent  the  univer- 
sal church The  decrees  were  not  made  by  bishops 

'  Bailly,  Tract  de  Eccl.  t.  ii.  p.     t.  viii.  p.  1244. 
289.^  "  Bailly,    Tract,   de    Ecclesia, 

*  Sessio  XXX.  Harduin.  Concil.     t.  i.  p.  471. 

10 


SECT,  v.]  Si/nach  of  Basle  and  Florence.  235 

only,  as  they  ought,  but  by  a  multitude  of  people  of 

little  value,  and  no  authority ^neas  Sylvius  said, 

'  Among    the    bishops    in    Basle    we    saw    cooks    and 

stable-boys  judging  the  affairs  of  the  world' Papal 

legates  were  not  present,  as  was  essentially  necessary. 

besides,  Eugenius  had  revoked   the  council  after 

the  first  session,  ....  the  suffrages  given  in  the  said 
synod  were  by  no  means  free,  as  Cardinal  Turrecremata 

and  Euffenius  asserted St.  Antoninus  called  this 

synod  of  Basil,  '  a  conventicle  devoid  of  power,  and  a 
synagogue  of  Satan.'  S.  John  de  Capistrano  termed  it 
'  a  profane  synod,  excommunicated,  and  a  den  of  basi- 
lisks.' The  bishop  of  Meaux  called  it  '  a  troop  of 
daemons,'  &c.  &c.  '^  The  synod  of  Basle  can  hardly  be 
viewed  as  oecumenical  after  all  this  :  besides  it  was 
never  known  or  approved  by  the  oriental  churches." 

2.  The  synod  of  Florence  was  first  assembled  at 
Ferrara  by  Eugenius  IV.  who  attempted  to  translate 
the  council  of  Basle  thither  in  1437 ;  but  ineffectually, 
for  only  four  of  the  bishops  left  Basle,  and  the  ambas- 
sadors of  the  christian  princes  still  remained  there ''. 
The  synod  of  Basle  still  continued  to  be  recognized  as 
oecumenical  by  France,  Germany,  and  other  countries. 
The  rival  synod  of  Ferrara  was  transferred  to  Florence, 
A.D.  1439,  where  several  Italian  bishops  assisted.  The 
Greek  emperor,  and  some  bishops  of  the  east,  having 
arrived  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  the  churches,  a 
decree  was  made  in  the  tenth  session,  declaring  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ; 
that  the  sacrament  is  validly  consecrated  in  unleavened 
as  well  as  leavened  bread ;  that  there  is  a  purgatory ; 

«  Alpbons.  de  Ligorio,  Episc         ^  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  cvii. 
S.    Agathse,    Theologia  Moralis,     s.  71.  cviii.  s.  50. 
lib.  i.  nrt.  l;J2,  133. 


236  Synod  of  Florence.  [p.  jv.  ch.  xi. 

and  that  the  Roman  pontiff  is  the  primate  and  head  of 
the  whole  church.  This  decree  was  signed  by  about 
sixty-two  Latin  bishops,  including  some  not  yet  conse- 
crated, and  by  eighteen  eastern  bishops,  some  of  whom 
signed  as  deputies  of  other  bishops  ^  Thus  the  whole 
number  amounted  to  about  eighty — a  small  number 
for  a  synod  pretending  to  be  oecumenical. 

The  synod  of  Florence  was  immediately  rejected  in 
the  eastern  churches,  and  has  never  since  been  recog- 
nized by  them.  It  the  west  its  authority  has  always 
been  doubtful,  because  the  rival  synod  of  Basle  was 
holding-  its  sessions  at  the  same  time,  and  acknow- 
ledged  by  France  and  Germany  as  oecumenical.  Car- 
dinal de  Lorraine  declared  in  the  synod  of  Trent,  1563, 
that  the  university  of  Paris  did  not  hold  the  synod  of 
Florence  as  oecumenical,  because  it  consisted  only  of 
Italian  bishops,  and  Greeks  who  were  schismatics  at 
the  beginning  of  the  synod  \  Launoi  says  that  the 
Galilean  church  does  not  number  it  among  the  general 
councils,  and  cites  Cardinal  Lorraine  to  this  effect  ^. 
Hooke  and  Tournely  admit  that  it  is  doubted  by 
some ''. 

The  decree  for  the  reunion  of  the  Armenians  was 
made  by   Eugenius  IV.    after    the  departure   of   the 

*  Fleury,  liv.  cviii.  s,  39,  40.  sum  quin  Gallus  sim,  &c.    Apud 

^  Fleury,  liv.  clxiv.  s.  74.  Gallos    Constantiense    concilium 

s  "  Gallicana  ecclesia  nee  Flo-  in  partibus  suis  omnibus  ut  gene- 

rentinum  nee  Lateranense  conci-  rale  habetur.     Basiliense  in  auc- 

lium,  quod  Leo  X.  habuit,  uni-  toritatem   admittitur.      Florenti- 

versalibus    conciliis    adnumerat.  num  perinde  ac   nee  legitimum, 

Id    testati     sunt    in    Tridentino  nee  generale   repudiatur :    atque 

concilio    Gallicani    antistites    de  idcirco  Galli  de  vita  potius,  quam 

Florentine,    et    Pio    IV.     Caroli  de  sententia  decedent." — Launoii 

Cardinalis      Lotharingii      opera,  Epist.  lib.  viii.  ep.  xi. 
significavere."     He  adds  the  fol-  ''  Hooke,  Relig.  Nat.  et  Rev. 

lowing    words    of    Cardinal    de  t.    iii.    p.  373.       Tournely,    De 

Lorraine,  "  Ego  negare  non  pos-  Ecclesia,  t.  ii.  p.  309, 


SECT,  v.]  Synods  of  Later  an  ami  Trent.  '2M 

Greeks,  and  teaches  the  doctrine  of  seven  sacraments, 
the  character  impressed  by  three  of  them,  the  necessity 
of  the  intention  of  the  minister,  transubstantiation,  and 
auricular  confession.  This  decree  is  held  by  many 
Roman  authors  not  to  possess  much  authority,  as  it 
was  not  approved  by  the  oriental  bishops '. 

3.  The  synod  of  Lateran  assembled  by  Leo  X.  in 
1512,  and  attended  by  114  Italian  bishops,  made  no 
definitions  in  matters  of  faith ;  and  though  the  nltra- 
montanes  call  it  oecumenical,  Bellarmine  says  that  it 
remained  in  his  days  a  question  among  catholics, 
whether  it  were  truly  so  K 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE    SYNOD    OF    TRENT. 


In  reviewing  the  clear  and  undoubted  decisions  of  the 
western  synods  previously  to  the  reformation,  we  do  not 
observe  any  which  compelled  the  Latin  churches  to 
receive  doctrines  at  variance  with  those  taught  by  our 
catholic  and  apostolic  churches.  The  synod  of  Florence 
alone,  in  the  year  1439,  made  a  definition  of  faith,  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  and  the  papal  supremacy 
appeared ;  but  as  I  have  shown,  the  oecumenicity  of 
this  synod  was  doubtful  even  in  the  western  church. 
The  synod  of  Trent,  however,  in  its  various  sessions 
from  1545  to  1563,  defined  several  doctrines  as  matters 

'  This  is  the  opinion  of  Natalis         J  Bellarminus,  lib.  ii.  de  Cone. 
Alexander,  and  many  others. —     c.  13. 
See  Fleury,  liv.  c.  viii.  s.  103. 


238  Synod  of  Trent.  [part  iv. 

of  faith,  which  we  cannot  approve  ;  and  although  many 
of  its  judgments  are  laudable,  and  others  admit  of  a 
catholic  interpretation  ;  still  there  are  some  which 
render  all  accommodation  impossible,  while  this  synod 
is  acknowledged  by  the  members  of  the  Roman  obe- 
dience, as  oecumenical  and  infallible. 

It  is  admitted  generally  now  by  Roman  theologians, 
that  the  only  final  proof  of  the  oecumenicity  and  in- 
fallibility of  any  synod  is  its  reception  by  the  universal 
church  ^  On  this  ground  Bossuet  concludes  that  who- 
ever does  not  acknowledge  these  qualities  in  the  synod 
of  Trent  is  to  be  accounted  a  heretic,  because  all  the 
bishops,  and  the  whole  catholic  church,  approve  and 
receive  it''.  Denying  the  conclusion,  1  most  fully 
admit  the  principle  of  Bossuet,  properly  understood ; 
and  on  this  principle  proceed  to  prove, 

First,  that  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Trent  were  not 
judgments  of  the  catholic  church. 

Secondly,  that  they  icere  not  judgments  of  the  Roman 
obedience. 

If  these  points  are  established,  it  will  appear  evi- 
dently that  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Trent  are  not 
obligatory  as  matters  of  faith  on  any  part  of  the 
catholic  church,  except  in  those  points  where  they  are 
supported  by  scripture,  by  the  decrees  of  oecumenical 
synods,  or  by  catholic  tradition. 

I.  The  synod  of  Trent  was  not  oecumenical  and  in- 
fallible, because  it  was  not  received  or  approved  by 
the  catholic  church :  for  although  it  was  acknowledged 
by  the  christian  churches  in  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal, 
France,  Flanders,  part  of  Germany,  Poland,  Hungary, 

*  See  above,  Chapter  VII.  Bossuet,  in  the  works  of  Leibnitz 

^    See   the    correspondence    of     by  Dutens, 


CHAP.  XII.]  S//nod  of  "J  rent.  239 

Austria,  Dalmatia,  and  by  the  Maronites  in  Syria,  and 
by  some  few  in  South  America ;  it  was  rejected  or  not 
approved  by  the  churches  and  brethren  throughout 
England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Sweden,  Norway,  Den- 
mark, part  of  Germany,  Russia,  Siberia,  part  of 
Poland,  Moldavia,  Wallachia,  Servia,  Turkey,  Greece, 
the  Archipelago,  Crete,  Cyprus,  Asia  Minor,  Georgia, 
Mingrelia,  Circassia,  Syria,  Palestine,  Egypt ;  nor  has 
it  yet  been  received  by  any  of  these  churches.  Hence 
the  synod  of  Trent  cannot  possibly  have  the  authority 
of  an  oecumenical  synod.  If  a  Romanist  reply  to 
this,  that  the  churches  of  Britain,  and  of  the  east,  and 
the  Lutherans,  were  schismatics  and  heretics  ;  I  deny 
the  fact,  for  they  never  separated  from  the  communion 
of  the  rest  of  the  catholic  church,  nor  did  they  ever 
dispute  any  decrees  of  the , catholic  church " :  and  if  it 
be  alleged,  that  they  were  separated  from  the  Roman 
see,  the  centre  of  unity,  I  reply  that  it  was  not  their 
fault ;  and  if  communion  Mdth  the  Roman  pontiff  be 
simply  and  absolutely  necessary  under  all  circum- 
stances, then  he  must  be  not  only  infallible,  but  im- 
peccable, which  Romanists  themselves  do  not  admit. 
Therefore  as  these  brethren  always  constituted  a  great 
portion  of  the  catholic  church,  their  approbation  was 
essentially  necessary  in  order  to  render  the  decrees 
of  any  synod  truly  binding  on  the  church. 

II.  The  reception  of  the  synod  of  Trent  and  its 
decrees  by  the  churches  of  the  Roman  obedience, 
affords  no  evidence  of  the  judgment  of  those  churches 
on  the  questions  then  in  controversy :  for  it  is  certain 
that  theological  opinions  were  tiniversally  prevalent  at  that 
time  in  the  Roman  churches,  which  obliged  them  to  accept 

•^  See  Part  I.  ch.  ix,   x.   and  Part  IT.  ch.  ii.  vi. 


•240  Sijnod  of  Trvnt.  [part  iv. 

ivithout  any  eicamiiiation  or  judgment,  the  decrees  of  the 
synod  of  Trent. 

The  synod  of  Trent  possessed  all  the  essentials  of  a 
general  synod  according  to  Roman  theologians.  It 
was  summoned  by  a  pope:  all  the  bishops  of  the 
Roman  obedience  (which,  according  to  the  opinion  then 
beyond  all  doubt  universal  in  the  Roman  churches, 
comprised  the  whole  catholic  church),  were  summoned 
to  attend.  The  papal  legates  presided  :  the  council 
proceeded  conciliariter,  examining  and  discussing  the 
various  controversies,  and  deciding  by  the  plurality  of 
votes  :  if  in  most  of  the  sessions  the  number  of  bishops 
was  not  large,  the  latter  sessions  in  which  the  former 
were  approved,  comprised  nearly  two  hundred  bishops. 
In  fine,  the  decrees  of  this  synod  were  formally  ap- 
proved by  the  Roman  pontiff.  Assuming  then,  what 
every  member  of  the  Roman  obedience  believed,  that 
the  catholic  church  was  limited  to  the  papal  com- 
munion ;  the  synod  of  Trent  was  apparently  oecumenical, 
according  to  all  the  received  opinions. 

Now  it  is  certain  that,  during  the  whole  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  till  long  afterwards,  it  was  the 
doctrine  maintained  by  all  members  of  the  Roman 
churches,  that  a  general  council  confirmed  hy  a  pope  was 
infallible ;  that  its  decrees  could  not  be  submitted  to 
examination,  or  disputed  without  heresy.  It  was  taught 
by  the  most  leading  theologians,  without  any  hesi- 
tation, that  whoever  denied  the  infallibility  of  such  a 
synod  was  a  heretic. 

I  might  be  content  to  appeal  in  proof  of  this,  to  the 
well  known  and  indisputable  fact,  that  in  the  sixteenth 
century  the  whole  Roman  obedience  was  divided  into 
two  parties  ;  one  of  which,  the  Ultramontane,  held  the 
infallibility    of  the  pope  and  denied  that   of  general 


CH  A  P.  X I  f .]  Synod  of  Trent.  24 1 

councils  independently  of  the  pope ;  while  the  other, 
the  Galilean,  maintained  the  infallibility  of  general 
councils  even  without  papal  confirmation,  and  denied 
the  infallibility  of  papal  judgments  except  when  they 
were  approved  by  the  universal  church.  But,  what- 
ever were  the  differences  of  these  parties,  both  were 
bound  by  their  principles  to  acknowledge  the  infalli- 
bility of  a  general  council  confirmed  by  a  pope ;  and  thus 
all  members  of  the  Roman  obedience  were  obliged  to 
receive  the  synod  of  Trent  as  indisputable  and  infallible. 
They  could  not,  consistently  with  their  belief,  doubt 
whether  its  decrees  were  really  conformable  to  scripture 
and  tradition :  they  could  not  examine  them,  except 
under  an  invincible  prejudice.  Therefore  their  recep- 
tion of  the  synod  of  Trent  was  neither  an  approbation 
nor  a  judgment,  properly  speaking ;  it  was  a  mere  im- 
plicit submission  to  the  synod,  a  silent  registration  of 
its  decrees. 

Every  bishop  and  theologian  of  the  Roman  obedience 
during  the  sixteenth  century,  whose  opinions  I  have 
been  able  to  ascertain,  held  either  that  the  pope  or  a 
general  council  was  infallible.  Not  a  single  instance 
of  a  contrary  opinion  amongst  them  have  I  ever  seen 
even  alluded  to  by  writers  of  any  party  whatever. 

1.  The  infallibility  of  a  general  synod  confirmed  by 
a  pope  was  held  at  that  time  to  be  a  matter  of  faith, 
so  that  he  who  denied  it  was  accounted  a  heretic. 

Bellarmine  says :  ''All  catholics  agree  in  two  things, 
not  indeed  with  heretics,  but  among  themselves  ;  the 
first,  that  the  pope  with  a  general  council  cannot  err  in 
making  decrees  of  faith  '^."      In  speaking  of  various 

''  "  Catholici  omnes  in  aliis  se.  Primo,  pontificem  cum  ge- 
duobus  conveniunt,  non  quidem  nerali  concilio  non  posse  errare 
cum    haereticis,  sed  solum   inter     in    condcndis    fidei    decretis,   vel 

VOL.  H.  R 


242  Synod  of  Trent,  [part  iv. 

doctrines  as  to  the  authority  of  councils,  he  says :  "  The 
first  is,  that  the  pontiff  even  as  pontiff,  although  he 
should  define  any  thing  icith  a  gene^xd  council,  may  be 
heretical,  and  teach  others  heresy,  ,&c.  ...  Of  these 
four  doctrines,  the  first  is  heretical^"  He  says  else- 
where, "  All  catholics  constantly  teach  that  general 
councils  confirmed  by  the  chief  pontiff  cannot  err, 
either  in  explaining  the  faith,  or  in  delivering  moral 

precepts  common  to  all  the  church It  is  to  be 

held  with  catholic  faith,  that  general  councils  confirmed 
by  the  pontiff  cannot  err  either  in  faith  or  morals  ^" 
Cardinal  Fisher  said :  "  If  any  council  be  assembled  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  authority  of  the  pontiff,  all 
persons  being  admonished  whom  it  concerns  to  attend  ; 
I  firmly  hold  that  such  a  council  cannot  err  in  matters 
of  faith  ^."  Melchior  Canus  says  :  "  A  general  council 
confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  ren- 
ders the  faith  in  catholic  doctrines  certain :  which  con- 
clusion it  is  necessary  to  hold  as  so  undoubted,  as  to 
believe  the  contrary  heretical  '\"  Gregorius  de  Valentia 
affirms,  that  when  the  Roman  pontiff  has  confirmed  a 


generalibus  prseceptismorum," —  Fide  catholica  tenendum  est  con- 

Bellarmin.    De    Romano    Ponti-  cilia  generalia  a  Summo  Pontifice 

fice,  lib.  iv.  e.  2.  eonfirmata,  errare  non  posse." 

*"  Prima  (sententia)  est,  Pon-  s  Fischerus  KofFensis,   Asser- 

tificem,  etiam  ut  Pontificem,  eti-  tionis  Lutheranae  Confutatio,  fol. 

amsi  cum  generali  concilio  defi-  160. 

niret  aliquid,  posse  esse  hsereti-  ^  Melchior     Canus,     De    loc 

cum  in  se,  et  docere  alios  hsere-  Theol.    lib.    v.    c.    4.       "  Tertia 

sim Ex  his  quatuor   sen-  conclusio.       Concilium   generale 

tentiis    prima    est    haeretica." —  confirmatum  auctoritate  Romani 

Ibid.  Pontificis,  certam  fidem  facit  Ca- 

'  Bellarmin.    De    Conciliis    et  tholicorum    dogmatum.       Quam 

Ecclesia,  lib.  ii.  c.  2.      "  Catho-  quidem  conclusionem  ita  explo- 

lici  vero  omnes  constanter  docent  ratam   habere  opus  est,  ut  ejus 

concilia  generalia  a  summo  Pon-  contrariam    haereticam   esse  cre- 

tifice  eonfirmata,  errare  non  posse,  damus." 
nee  in  fide,  nee  in  moribus.  .  .  . 


CHAP,  xii.]  Spwd  of  Trent.  24'^ 

council,  the  whole  church  ought  to  receive  its  decrees : 
"  For  when  will  there  be  any  end  of  controversies  in 
the  church,  if  when  they  have  been  decided  by  the 
church,  and  the  pastor  of  the  church,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ,  in  an  oecumenical  synod,  it  may  still  be  lawful 
for  a  private  individual  to  judge  the  decrees  of  the 
synod  by  the  rule  of  scripture,  that  is  by  his  own 
dreams  of  scripture  ?  .  .  .  Whoever  does  not  acquiesce 
here,  but  chooses  to  arrogate  to  himself  a  further  judg- 
ment on  his  judges,  and  to  dispute  whether  the  defini- 
tions made  by  the  rulers  of  the  church,  by  whom  the 
Holy  Spirit  willed  us  to  be  instructed,  are  true  ;  such  a 
man  does  not  follow,  but  proudly  and  contumaciously 
transgresses  the  mode  of  "  trying  spirits"  prescribed  by 
the  divine  law,  and  is  evidently  proved  to  be  a  heretic^ 
unless  it  be  altogether  denied,  that  there  were  ever 
any  heretics  in  the  woi^ld  '."  Such  has  always  since 
been  the  prevalent  doctrine  of  the  Roman  schools. 
Launoius  cites  Bannes,  Duvallius,  and  other  theologians, 
as  affirming  that  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  a 
council  confirmed  by  the  pope  is  unwersally  JieldK  Bos- 
suet,  in  replying  to  a  passage  from  St.  Augustine  adduced 
by  the  Ultramontanes  against  the  authority  of  general 
councils,  asks  what  is  meant  by  the  objection :  "  Is  it 
meant  that  oecumenical  councils  can  err  in  faith  ?  Im- 
pious !  Heretical !  To  be  detested  by  all  catholics  ** !" 
In  more  modern  times  Dr.  Milner  said  :  "  Let  me  ask 
.  .  .  whether  he  finds  any  catholic  who  denies  or  doubts 
that  a  general  council  with  the  pope  at  its  head  ...  is 


'  Gregorius  de  Valentia,  Ana-  in  fide  errare  possunt?    Impium, 

lysis  Fid.  Cathol.  lib.  viii.  c.  7-  haereticum,     omnibus     catholicis 

J  Launoii  Epistolae,  p.  156.  detestandnm.J"  —  Bossuet,  De- 
ed. Cantabr.  fens.    Decl.  Cler.    Gall.   lib.  viii, 

''  "An  lit  concilia  oecumenica  c.  18. 

R    2 


244  Synod  of  Trent.  [part  i v. 

secure  from  error  ?  Most  certainly  not :  and  hence  he 
may  gather  where  all  catholics  agree  in  lodging  infal- 
libility '." 

The  infallibility  of  the  pope  was  maintained  in  the 
sixteenth  century  by  the  following  theologians  of  the 
Roman  obedience  :  Melchior  Canus,  bishop  of  the  Ca- 
naries, regarded  it  as  de  fide""".  Cardinal  Bellarmine 
affirms  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  almost  all  catholics  ". 
Gregory  de  Valentia  says  it  is  to  be  believed  with  cer- 
tain faith  °.  Suarez  maintains  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
faith  P.  Pighius  held  that  it  was  irrefragable  ^  The 
infallibility  of  the  pope  was  also  taught  by  cardinal 
Cajetan  \  cardinal  Hosius  bishop  of  Warmia ',  cardinal 
Contarenus  *,  John  Eckius  ",  John  Hessels  a  Lovanio  \ 
Ruard  Tapperus  ^  James  Naclantus  bishop  of  Chi- 
ozza  ^  Dominic  Bannes,  Duvallius,  Coriolanus,  Comp- 
tonus  ^  cardinal  Fisher,  Stapleton ',  Harding,  Coch- 
Iseus  %  Sylvester  de  Prierio,  Gretser  ^  besides  pope 
Leo  X. '  and  the  Lateran  synod,  which  taught  this  doc- 
trine, at  least  by  inference. 

'  Milner,  End  of  Controversy,  ''  Jo.  a  Lovanio  Liber  de  perp. 

Lett.  xii.  Cathedrae    Petri    potest.    &c.    c. 

""  Melchior  Canus,  Loo.  Theol.  1 1 . 

lib.  vi.  c.  7.  "'  Tapperus,  Oratio  iii.    Theo- 

°  Bellarminus,  De  Rom.  Pont,  logica. 

lib.  iv.  c.  2.  "  Naclantus  Clugiensis,  Tract. 

°  Gregor.   de  Valentia,   Ana-  de  Potest.  Papae  et  Concilii. 

lysis  Fidei  Cathol.  lib.  viii.  c.  2.  ''  Cited  by  Launoius,  Epistolae, 

''Suarez,  De  Fide,   disput.  v.  p.  L56.  ed.  Cantab, 

s.  8.  n.  4  '  Stapleton,  Oper.  t.  i.  p.  706, 

^     Pighius,     Hierarch.     Eccl.  &c.  ed.  Paris,  1620. 

lib.  iv.  *  Cochlaeus,  De  Canon.  Script. 

■■  Cajetan,  De  Comparat.  auc-  et  Eccl.  Auth.  c.  xi. 

tor.  Papae  et  Concilii.  ''  Gretser,  Def.  Bellar.   lib.  iv. 

'  Hosius,  lib.  ii.  cont.  Brent.  c.  2. 

'    Contarenus,     De    Potestate  "  Leo  X.   Bull.   adv.    Luther. 

Pontificis.  art.   28,   referred  to   by  Gregory 

"    Eckius,  lib.  i.    de    Primat.  de  Valentia,  Analys.  Fid.   Cath, 

Petri,  c.  18.  lib.  viii.  c.  2. 


CHAP.  XII.] 


Synod  of  Trent. 


245 


The  infallibility  of  a  general  council  was  held  in  the 
sixteenth  century  by  the  following  theologians.  Cardinal 
de  Lorraine  and  the  university  of  Paris  held  it  to  be  a 
matter  of  faith,  and  the  Ultramontane  opinion  to  be 
heretical ''.  This  doctrine  was  also  firmly  taught  by  the 
faculty  of  Theology  at  Paris  ^  by  the  provincial  synod 
of  Sens  in  1528^,  by  the  doctors  of  Paris,  and  all  the 
bishops  and  churches  of  France  in  1543^;  by  pope 
Adrian  VI.  ^  Almain ',  Alphonsus  a,  Castro^  archbishop 
of  Compostella,  Jodocus  Clictovaeus  ^  Thomas  Illyricus ', 
cardinal  Campegius "",  Andradius,  Driedo ",  Matthias 
Ugonius,  Victoria,  Celaia,  and  the  bishop  of  Bitonto  in 
the  council  of  Trent  °.  Of  all  the  Galilean  theologians 
in  this  century,  John  Major  alone  held  that  the  in- 
fallibility of  general  councils  was  a  matter  of  pious 
opinion  ■". 

Thus  the  whole  body  of  Roman  theologians  in  the 


^  Launoii  Epistolae,  p.  158. 
ed.  Cantabr. 

*  "  Certum  est  concilium  ge- 
nerale  legitime  congregatum, 
universam  reprsesentans  eccle- 
siam,  in  fidei  et  morum  determi- 
nationibus  errare  non  posse." — 
Sacr.  Facult.  Paris,  in  censura 
Luth.  art.  xxii.  See  Hooke, 
Relig.  Nat.  et  Rev.  t.  iii.  p.  394. 

^  Harduin.  Concilia,  t.  ix.  p. 
1936. 

^  See  Bossuet,  Gallia  ortho- 
doxa,  c.  xxvii,  xxviii. 

''  Bossuet,  Appendix  ad  Def. 
Declar.  lib.  i.  c.  1. 

'  Almain.  De  Auctor.  Eccl.  c 
10.  Tract.de  Potest.  Eccl.  c.  15, 
16. 

J  Alphons.  a  Castro,  lib.  1  adv. 
Hseres.  c.  vi. 

^  Jod.  Clichtovaeus,  Anti-Lu- 
therus,  Paris,  1524. 

'  Illyricus,   Tract,   de   Potest. 


Summi  Pontificis,  1523. 

^  Campegius,  De  Auctor.  SS. 
Conciliorum. 

"  Andradius,  De  General.  Con- 
cil.  Auctor.  lib.  i.  Driedo,  De 
Eccl.  Dogmat.  lib.  iv.  c.  4. 

°  Paolo  Sarpi's  Council  of 
Trent,  by  Courayer,  t.  i.  p.  208. 

P  Job.  Major,  Commentar.  in 
Evang.  S.  Matthaei,  referred  to 
by  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  i.  p. 
363,  where  he  also  says  that 
some  seem  to  have  doubted  the 
infallibility  of  general  councils 
formerly,  as  we  may  collect  from 
Cardinal  de  AUiaco,  in  quaest.  in 
Vesperiis  agitata,  t.  i.  oper.  Ger- 
son  postr.  edit.  p.  622  et  3  part, 
de  Eccl.  Auctor.  c.  i  ;  also  from 
Joannes  Breviscoxa,  Doctore  Pa- 
risiens.  Tract,  de  Fide  Ecclesiae, 
Rom.  Pont,  et  Cone,  general,  t.  i. 
oper.  Gerson,  p.  898.  He  also  re- 
fers to  Waldensis. 


246  Si/nod  of  Trent.  [part  i v. 

sixteenth  century,  held  the  infallibility  of  either  the 
pope  or  a  general  council ;  and  these  different  opinions 
were  not  then  first  invented,  but  had  been  held  by  the 
majority  of  the  Latin  theologians  for  two  or  three 
centuries.  The  Ultramontane  opinion  had  been  re- 
ceived by  St.  Anselm '',  Robertus  Paululus,  J.  Semeca 
the  author  of  the  glossa  ordinaria  on  Gratian's  De- 
cretum  \  by  Jacobus  de  Thermos  \  Augustinus  Tri- 
umphans  \  Alexander  Halensis ",  by  Thomas  Aquinas 
"  the  angelical  doctor  %"  cardinal  Turrecremata  ^,  Tho- 
mas Waldensis%  Antoninus  of  Padua  (who  held  it  to 
be  de  fide),  John  Capistran,  and  many  others.  The 
Gallican  opinion  had  been  held  by  Michael  de  Csesena^ 
in  the  fourteenth  century,  by  cardinal  Peter  d'Ailly, 
Gerson ',  Dionysius  Carthusianus  ^  Nicholas  de  Cle- 
mangis,  ^Eneas  Sylvius  before  he  was  raised  to  the 
papal   throne,  Alphonsus  Tostatus,  Nicholas  de  Cusa. 


'I    Anselm.  p.    41.  391.  430.  pertinet  editio  symboli,   ad  cujus 

oper.  ed.  Paris.  1675.  authoritatem  pertinet^wa/i/er  c?c- 

•■    Glossa    in   24    qu.    1,    voce  terminare  ea  quce  sunt  jidei  ut  ah 

quotiens  ratio  fidei.  omnibus  inconcussa   fide  tenean- 

^  Tissier,    Biblioth.   Cisterc.  t.  tur :   hoc  autem   pertinet  ad  au- 

iv.  p.  261,  thoritatem    sumnii  Pontificis,  ad 

'     Augustinus      Triumphans,  quern  majo'es  et  difficiliores  ec- 

Summa  qu.  i.    art.  i.  qu.  vi.  art.  clesife  quaestiones  referuntur,  ut 

vi.  qu.  X.  art.  i.  iv.  dicitur    in  Decreto,  dist.    17.   c. 

"  "  Apud  Summuni  Pontificem  multis,"  &c. — Aquinas,  Secunda 

est  authoritas  plena  :  cujus  sane-  Secundse,  qu.  i.  art.  x. 

tioni  contradicere  npn  licet:  sicut  *  Joh.  de  Turrecremata,  Sum- 

habetur  11  di.  .  .  Anathemate  in-  ma,  lib.  ii.  c.  109,  110.  lib.  iii.  c. 

nodatur,  qui   dogmata,  mandata.  58. 

interdicta,  sanctiones,  vel  cjetera  ""  Thomas  Waldensis,  Doctri- 

pro  Catholicafide,  vel  ecclesias-  nale  Fidei,  lib.  ii.  c.  47,  48. 

tica  disciplina  ...  a  Sedis  Apos-  ^  Michael    de    Csesena,    Trac- 

tolicEe  prgesule  salubriter  promul-  tatus  contra  errores  Papae,  c.  12. 

gata  contemnit.  25  qu.  2.  Si  quis  '    Gerson,  Considerationes  de 

dogmata.'" — Alexander  Alensis,  Pace,  cons.  4. 

Summa  Theologiae,  pars  iv.  qu.  '■"  Dionysius  Carthus.  Tract,  de 

32.  art.  3.  auctor.    Papse   et    Concilii,    art. 

'■  "  Ad  illius  ergo  authoritatem  xxxii.  fol.  342. 


CHAP.  XII.]  Synod  of  Trent.  247 

It  was  established  by  the  great  synods  of  Constance" 
and  Basle  ^  and  by  the  parliament  of  France  assembled 
at  Bourges  in  1438  ^ 

Such  were  the  authorities  on  which  the  opinion  of 
the  supreme  authority  and  infallibility  of  popes  and 
general  synods  respectively  rested :  and  hence  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  in  the  sixteenth  century  the 
whole  Roman  obedience  embraced  either  one  or  the 
other  of  these  opinions. 

The  opinion  that  a  general  council  confirmed  by  a 
pope  was  not  infallible,  but  needed  the  subsequent 
confirmation  of  the  universal  church,  had  been  held  by 
Ockham  in  the  fourteenth  century  \  and  apparently  by 
Waldensis  ^  and  Picus  Mirandula "  in  the  fifteenth  ;  but 
in  the  sixteenth,  it  was  only  avowed  on  one  occasion 
by  the  parliament  of  Paris '',  and  by  the  Lutherans  and 
others  who  were  esteemed  heretics  by  those  of  the 
Roman  obedience. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  deny  positively,  that 
the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Trent  can  be  regarded 
as  judgments  of  the  churches  of  the  Roman  obe- 
dience. They  are  at  the  utmost  nothing  but  the 
decrees  of  the  pope  and  196  bishops  assembled  at 
Trent,  not  those  of  the  majority  of  the  Roman  bishops 
and  churches.  The  majority  of  those  bishops  and 
churches  cannot  justly   be  accused    of  heresy  in  ac- 


'■  Concil.  Constant.  Sess.  iv.  etiam  concilium   generale  potest 

•^  Sessio  ii.  errare  contra    fidem." — Ockham 

^  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  cvii.  Dialogi,  lib.  iii.  i.  tract,  iii.  partis, 

s.  104.     Bossuet,  Def.  decl.  cler.  c.  5. 

Gall-  *  Thomas   Waldensis,    Doctri- 

*  "  Ex  his,    aliisque   pluribus  nale  Fidei,  lib.  ii.  c.  27. 

colligitur   quia   Concilium  gene-  s  Picus  Mirandula,  Theor.  iv. 

rale  Papa  confirmat,   et  ei  aucto-  *"  Paolo  Sarpi,ConciledeTrente 

ritatem    prsestat.       Papa   autem  par  Courayer,  t.  i.  p.  518. 

potest  errare  contra  fidem  :  igitur 


248  Sijnod  of  Trent.  [part  i  v. 

cepting  the  decrees  of  the  synod.  The  opinions  uni- 
versally prevalent,  prevented  them  absolutely  from 
exercising  that  right,  or  rather  that  solemn  duty  of 
judgment  and  examination,  which  would  alone  have 
made  them  fully  responsible  for  the  errors  which  they 
received.  What  the  amount  of  those  errors  may  be 
I  do  not  here  decide.  Many  things  which  appear  to 
us  to  be  unwisely  expressed,  and  to  convey  heterodox 
meanings,  have  been  explained  by  eminent  Roman 
theologians  in  a  tolerable  sense.  Nor  do  I  here  de- 
termine whether  any  thing  contrary  to  the  faith  be 
found  in  the  decrees  of  that  synod  :  but  at  all  events, 
we  may  believe,  that  the  churches  of  the  Roman  obe- 
dience did  not  obstinately  and  heretically  receive  the 
errors  of  Trent ;  but  were  compelled  to  do  so  by  opi- 
nions, which  though  unfounded,  were  not  in  themselves 
contrary  to  faith;  that  they  submitted  to  what  they 
conscientiously  and  not  absurdly  believed  an  infallible 
authority ;  that  they  were  only  restrained  by  a  reve- 
rential though  mistaken  principle,  from  investigating 
the  truth  :  and  while  we  do  justice  to  their  general  in- 
tention, we  may  wish  that  with  the  spread  of  more 
enlightened  and  discriminative  views  of  the  authority 
of  the  catholic  church,  they  may  be  enabled  to  separate 
their  own  genuine  and  catholic  faith,  from  the  opi- 
nions which  the  synod  of  Trent  unwisely  intermingled 
with  it. 

The  bishop  of  Mans  informs  us  that  "  some"  of  the 
Roman  theologians  "  are  of  opinion  that  the  appro- 
bation of  the  church  confers  its  whole  authority  on  a 
general  synod  ' :"  were  this  opinion  generally  maintained 

'  "  Qiiidam  tamen  theologi  auctoritatem  concilio  generali 
opinantur  haiic  ecclesiae  (dis-  tribuere."  —  Tractatus  de  vera 
pel  See)    approbalionem,    oninem     Ecclesia,  p.  234.  Cenomani,  1826. 


CHAP.  XII.]  Synod  of  Trent.  249 

by  Roman  theologians,  and  were  the  "  approbation"  un- 
derstood in  the  sense  of  a  real  approbation,  a  real 
judgment  with  that  authority  which  Jesus  Christ  has 
conferred  on  the  successors  of  the  apostles  and  the 
whole  church  :  and  were  this  principle  applied  by  our 
estranged  brethren  to  the  synod  of  Trent  and  its  re- 
ception among  themselves ;  the  happiest  results  to 
religion  and  to  the  church  could  not  fail  to  ensue. 
Catholic  truth  could  never  be  impaired  by  such  an  in- 
vestigation, because  even  if  the  synod  of  Trent  were 
not  regarded  as  infallible,  the  great  fabric  of  the  faith 
would  always  rest  securely  on  the  basis  of  scripture,  of 
catholic  tradition,  of  the  genuine  oecumenical  synods 
and  universal  judgments  of  the  church. 

Such  results  however  must  be  rather  the  object  of 
wishes  and  prayers,  than  of  hopes.  The  creed  of  pope 
Pius  IV.  which  every  Roman  bishop  and  priest  is 
obliged  to  profess  on  his  appointment  to  any  benefice, 
and  which  comprises  an  acknowledgment  of  the  synod 
of  Trent  as  oecumenical,  and  a  profession  of  obedience 
to  its  decrees,  forms  an  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  more 
enlightened  opinions,  so  great,  that  it  appears  almost 
insurmountable.  It  is  this  formulary  which  really 
binds  on  the  Roman  churches  those  opinions  of  which 
so  many  among  them  would  gladly  free  themselves. 


*25()  Authority  of  Provincial  St/nods.       \_\\  iv.  tH.  xiii. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ON    THE    AUTHORITY    OF    PARTICULAR    SYNODS,    AND 
OF    THE    ROMAN    PONTIFFS    IN    CONTROVERSIES. 

I  HAVE  already  shown  from  scripture  %  that  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles  in  the  ministry  of  the  holy 
church,  are  peculiarly  authorized  to  judge  in  contro- 
versies of  religion.  This  power,  which  belongs  equally 
to  all  bishops,  is  to  be  exercised  not  merely  in  oecu- 
menical synods,  but  in  provincial  and  national  synods, 
and  even  by  particular  bishops. 

SECTION  I. 

OF    PARTICULAR    SYNODS. 

I  shall  first  consider  the  authority  of  provincial  and 
national  synods.  No  one  supposes  that  such  synods 
are,  by  virtue  of  our  Lord's  promises,  exempt  from  the 
possibility  of  error,  even  in  faith:  but  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  they  have  a  considerable  authority,  when 
they  decide  questions  regularly,  and  in  the  mode  which 
ouffht  alwavs  to  be  observed  in  Christian  synods  ;  that 
is,  with  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  prayer  for  divine 

*  See  above,  p.  98.  103,  &c. 


SFXT.  I.]         Authority  of  Provincial  Synods.  251 

assistance,  diligent  examination  of  the  question  pro- 
posed, and  perfect  freedom  of  suffrage.  There  is  a 
great  probability  that  such  synods,  consisting  of  bishops 
of  the  catholic  church,  will  be  guided  into  truth  ;  for 
the  Lord  declared  to  his  disciples,  "Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  them ;"  and  since  "  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  them  overseers  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which 
he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood,"  it  ought  to  be 
piously  held  that  the  same  Spirit  will  assist  them  to 
maintain  the  truth. 

Such  ought  to  be  the  persuasion  of  christians  gene- 
rally :  but  on  those  who  are  more  immediately  related 
to  the  bishops  of  a  synod,  as  sheep  to  their  shepherds, 
as  children  to  their  spiritual  parents,  a  special  obligation 
devolves.  For  they  are  not  merely  bound  to  view 
such  a  synod  with  respect,  and  to  extend  the  best  and 
most  charitable  construction  to  all  its  proceedings,  but 
they  are  obliged  to  hear  and  obey  its  instructions ;  for 
it  is  written,  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you, 
and  submit  yourselves  ;  for  they  watch  for  your  souls, 
as  they  that  must  give  account '' :"  and,  as  the  martyr 
Cyprian  observes :  "  Christ  saith  unto  his  apostles,  and 
through  them  to  all  ministers  who  succeed  them  by 
vicarious  ordinations,  'he  that  heareth  you  heareth  me, 
and  he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  me '.'  "  The  faith- 
ful are  therefore  bound  to  hear  and  believe  their 
spiritual  pastors  assembled  in  a  synod  ;  and  though  it 
be  true,  that  this  does  not  prevent  them  from  com- 
paring the  decrees  of  that  synod  with  scripture  and 
tradition,  and  in  case  of  its  being  in  error,  from  respect- 
fully  remonstrating;    and   in  case   of  obstinate    error 

""  Hob.  xiii.  17.  *  Cyprianus,  epist.   Ixix.  ed.  Ben. 


252  Authority  of  Procincial  Synods.      [i'.  iv.  CH.  xiii. 

against  faith,  from  appealing  to  the  catholic  church 
elsewhere ;  yet  this  opposition  is  to  be  undertaken  only 
under  a  sense  of  the  peril  of  grievous  sin,  if  it  be  not 
justified  by  most  clear  proof  that  the  synod  has  taught 
what  is  contrary  to  the  revealed  truth.  If  this  be 
manifestly  proved,  there  is  no  obligation  in  the  decrees 
of  the  synod  :  if  it  be  not,  there  is  no  excuse  for  oppo- 
sing them. 

The  brethren  owe  obedience  to  their  own  pastors, 
more  than  to  the  pastors  of  other  churches,  because  the 
latter  are  not  commissioned  by  God  to  be  their  ordi- 
nary teachers.  The  apostles,  under  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  having  established  particular  churches, 
and  given  power  to  presbyters  over  each  church,  esta- 
blished a  special  relation  between  those  people  and  their 
own  pastors,  by  which  the  latter  were  to  "  give  account" 
for  the  "souls'*"  entrusted  to  their  care.  Hence  it 
was  obviously  contrary  to  the  divine  will,  that  any 
pastor  should  intrude  himself  on  the  sphere  of  another's 
vocation.  "  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion  but  of 
peace,  as  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints  ^ :"  but  all 
must  be  confusion,  if  each  pastor  might  instruct  and 
guide  the  flock  of  another  at  pleasure,  and  each  flock 
be  thus  in  doubt  who  was  its  real  pastor  whom  it 
should  hear  and  obey.  For  this  reason  the  universal 
church  decreed,  that  no  bishop  or  presbyter  should  dare 
to  interfere  with  the  clergy  or  people  of  another  juris- 
diction, under  pain  of  being  deposed  or  excom- 
municated ^. 

From  this  special  relation  between  the  faithful  and 
their  own  pastors^  it  follows,  that  the  decree  of  a  pro- 

•>  Heb.  xiii.  17.  Nicen.  16;   Sardic.  14.   18,  19; 

*   1  Cor.  xiv.  23.  Antioch.    13.  22  ;    African.  54  ; 

^   Concil.    Ancyr.    can.     18  ;     Apostol.  16.  36. 


SECT.  I.]  Authority  of  English  Synods.  253 

vincial  or  national  synod  in  matters  of  religion,  ought 
to  have  more  weight  Math  the  churches  which  it  re- 
presents, than  a  contrary  decree  made  by  a  foreign 
synod,  even  though  that  foreign  synod  be  rather  rnore 
numerous.  For  the  obligation  to  hear  and  obey  our  own 
pastors  is  certain  and  imperative,  w^hile  it  is  only  pro- 
bable that  a  larger  synod  of  bishops  may  judge  more 
correctly  than  a  smaller ;  since  the  promises  of  Christ 
to  preserve  his  chui-ch  from  error,  can  only  be  abso- 
lutely reckoned  on  where  there  is  a  judgment  of  the 
universal  church,  morally  unanimous ;  but  do  not  con- 
cern a  small  minority  of  bishops  assembled  in  synod. 
Hence  the  decisions  of  the  English  synods  in  1 562  and 
1571,  by  which  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  doctrine 
were  made  and  confirmed,  and  which  were  approved  by 
nearly  sixty  bishops  of  our  provinces ;  these  decisions, 
I  say,  ought  to  have  had  more  weight  with  the  catholics 
of  these  churches  than  any  rival  decisions  said  to  have 
been  made  at  Trent  by  a  larger  synod,  especially  since 
most  of  those  decrees  were  actually  made  by  a  con- 
vention of  forty  or  fifty  bishops  only  ;  and  since  there 
was  much  probability,  that  the  bishops  who  attended 
in  greater  numbers  in  the  last  sessions,  and  who  then 
confirmed  the  decrees  of  the  former  sessions,  did  so 
without  any  synodical  examination  of  the  question. 
And  the  decrees  of  the  English  synods  having  been 
ever  since  received  and  professed  by  all  the  pastors  of 
our  churches,  they  still  retain  their  special  obligation 
on  us. 

The  obligation  of  the  faithful  in  our  churches  to 
revere  the  doctrines  taught  by  their  synods,  appears 
from  the  admissions  of  our  opponents.  Delahogue 
says,  that  "  the  assent  which  the  faithful  in  every 
diocese  give  to  the  doctrinal  judgments  of  tlioir  l)ishop," 

15 


254  Authority  of  Provincial  Synods,     [p.  iv.  ch.  xii. 

"  may  and  ought  to  be  called/^-w  and  absolute,  although 
revocable,  because  even  the  deepest  persuasion  may  be 
diminished  and  vanish  away,  when  it  is  not  founded  on 
an  evident  motive  or  an  infallible  authority  ^."  Bel- 
larmine  says :  "  It  is  plain  that  a  particular  council, 
not  expressly  confirmed  by  the  pope,  causes  an  argu- 
ment so  probable,  that  it  is  rash  not  to  acquiesce 
therein''."  Tournely,  having  shown  that  Bellarmine 
and  Maldonatus  found  the  authority  of  provincial 
synods  on  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  "  Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,"  &c.  remarks, 
that  "  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  one  to  resist  provincial 
synods  on  the  pretext  that  they  are  only  particular 
councils,  and  of  no  infallible  authority.  Petrus  Aure- 
lius  well  explodes  this  device  in  his  Defence  of  the 
Epistle  of  the  bishops  of  France,  in  these  words: 
*  Which  of  the  heretics  ever  eluded  councils  of  bishops 
only  on  the  pretence  that  they  were  not  infallible  ? 
When  did  Novatus,  Pelagius,  and  the  many  other 
heretics  who  were  first  condemned  in  provincial  sy- 
nods, argue  thus  ?  No  one  employed  this  subterfuge,'  " 
&c.' 

II.  We  are  now  to  enquire  into  the  authority  of  the 
ancient  provincial  synods,  as  affecting  the  universal 
church ;  that  is,  whether  any  of  their  decrees  are 
binding  on  us  as  judgments  of  the  whole  catholic 
church.  Bossuet,  and  some  other  Roman  theologians 
allege,  that  the  synod  of  Antioch  against  Paul  of  Sa- 
mosata,  and  the  synod  of  Orange  against  the  semi- 
pelagians,  were  approved  by  the  universal  church,  and 
thus    are    of  equal    authority    with    the    oecumenical 

s  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi,     et  Ecclesia,  lib.  ii.  c.   10. 
p,  108.  '  Tournely,   De  Ecclesia,  t.  i. 

^    Bellarminus,    De    Conciliis     p.  357. 


SECT.  I.]     Heresies  condemned  hy  Provincial  Synods.  255 

synods^.  It  seems  to  me,  that  the  decrees  of  the 
ancient  provincial  synods  are  of  more  authority  as  di- 
rected against  heresies,  than  as  positively  defining  the 
truth. 

If  any  doctrine  was  condemned  as  heretical  by  pro- 
vincial synods,  or  even  by  particular  churches  ;  and  the 
whole  church  immediately,  and  ever  after,  accounted 
those  who  maintained  that  doctrine  as  heretics  :  the 
judgment  of  the  universal  church  was  manifestly 
opposed  to  that  doctrine.  Thus  Victor  and  the  Ro- 
man church  expelled  Theodotus,  Artemon,  and  their 
followers,  who  blasphemously  taught  that  our  Lord 
Christ  was  a  mere  man.  Cerdo  the  Gnostic  was 
rejected  by  the  Roman  church.  Praxeas,  who  first 
taught  that  there  was  no  distinction  of  persons  in  the 
blessed  Trinity,  was  condemned  in  Rome  and  Africa. 
Noetus,  who  held  the  same  heresy,  was  rejected  from 
the  church  at  Ephesus.  Sabellius,  who  followed  in 
their  footsteps,  was  condemned  by  a  council  at  Rome, 
and  in  Egypt.  Paul  of  Samosata,  for  teaching  that 
Christ  was  only  a  man,  was  expelled  from  the  church 
by  the  synod  of  Antioch  ;  as  were  the  Novatians,  who 
denied  repentance  to  the  lapsed,  by  another  synod  at 
the  same  place.  The  Eustathians,  who  blamed  marriage 
and  the  use  of  meats,  were  condemned  by  a  synod  at 
Gangra :  Photinus  of  Sirmium,  who  followed  the  Sa- 
bellian  heresy,  by  councils  at  Antioch,  Milan,  and 
Sirmium  :  Apollinaris,  who  denied  that  our  Lord 
possessed  a  human  reasonable  soul,  by  councils  at 
Rome  and  Antioch :  the  Messalians,  who  esteemed  the 
whole  of  religion  to  consist  in  prayer,  who  rejected  the 
sacraments,  and  maintained  the  doctrine  of  sinless  per- 

j  See  above,  p.  155. 


256  Authority  of  Pi'ovincial  Synods,     [p.  iv.  <:ii.  xiii. 

fection,  by  councils  at  Antioch  and  in  Pampliylia. 
The  Pelagian  heresy,  denying  original  sin,  and  the  need 
of  divine  grace,  was  rejected  by  the  synods  of  Carthage, 
Milevis,  and  several  in  the  East ;  as  the  semi-pelagian 
was  by  the  synod  of  Orange. 

All  these  sentences  were  so  far  ratified  and  acted  on 
in  the  universal  church,  that  those  who  held  the  con- 
demned doctrines,  were  accounted  heretics  by  all  chris- 
tians :  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  i30sitive  defi- 
nitions of  these  synods  concerning  religion,  were  ever 
included  by  the  universal  church  among  those  which 
authentically  and  authoritatively  represented  her  faith. 
This  privilege  was  reserved  to  the  decrees  of  the  oecu- 
menical synods,  which  have  always  possessed  a  single 
and  undivided  authority  in  the  catholic  church.  When 
Gregory  the  Great  professed  his  adherence  to  the  cecu- 
menical  synods  as  to  the  four  gospels,  he  added  nothing 
of  provincial  synods.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  only  ap- 
peals to  the  oecumenical  synods  in  proof  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  church.  The  oath  taken  by  the  bishops  of 
Rome  professes  obedience  only  to  the  oecumenical 
synods  :  nor  do  the  oriental  bishops  receive  any  other 
at  their  ordination.  In  fine,  the  oecumenical  synods 
themselves  appeal  only  to  the  authority  of  preceding- 
oecumenical  synods.  It  appears  to  me  altogether  very 
evident,  that  the  catholic  church  has  always  viewed 
the  decrees  of  provincial  synods,  however  laudable  and 
orthodox  they  may  be  in  themselves,  yet  as  of  an  autho- 
rity altogether  different  from  that  of  oecumenical 
synods. 

With  regard  to  synods  rejected  by  the  universal 
church,  as  all  the  synods  of  the  Arians  and  other 
heretics  were,  it  is  needless  to  say,  .that  they  are  of  no 
weight.     Councils  also  which  were  met  by  counter  de- 


SECT.  II.]  Papal  and  Patriarchal  Judgments.  21)7 

cisions  are  not  of  irrefragable  authority  ;  as  for  instance, 
the  synods  of  Carthage,  of  Iconium,  and  Synnada,  in  the 
question  of  heretical  baptism,  were  counteracted  by  the 
decrees  of  a  Roman  synod,  by  the  council  of  Aries, 
and  by  an  African  synod  ;  and  the  question  has  remained 
in  some  degree  disputed  ever  since.  It  should  be  ob- 
served also,  that  no  synod  held  in  the  east  or  west 
since  the  division  in  1054,  can  even  pretend  to  repre- 
sent the  judgment  of  the  universal  church. 

SECTION  II. 

THE    AUTHORITY    OF    PAPAL    AND    PATRIARCHAL    DECREES. 

The  archbishop  of  Rome  being  one  of  the  successors 
of  the  apostles,  had  by  divine  right  the  power  of 
making  judgments  in  faith ;  and  being  bishop  of  the 
principal  church  in  Christendom,  and  patriarcli  of 
several  provinces,  his  judgment  could  not  fail  to  have 
more  weight  in  the  universal  church  than  that  of 
any  bishop  or  metropolitan.  The  patriarchs  of  Alex- 
andria, Antioch,  and  Constantinople  also  were  so 
nearly,  if  not  entirely,  equal  in  dignity  and  power  to 
the  patriarchs  of  Rome,  that  it  is  difficult  to  draw  any 
distinction  between  the  authority  of  their  judgments.  It 
is  clear  that  no  judgments  in  faith  made  by  the 
Roman,  or  by  any  other  patriarch,  since  the  division  of 
the  Eastern  and  Western  churches,  can  be  in  any 
degree  binding,  as  representing  the  judgment  of  the 
catholic  church.  Previously  to  that  time  the  decrees 
of  the  Roman  pontiffs  were,  with  few  exceptions,  made 
in  provincial  or  patriarchal  synods  ;  and  as  I  have 
already  observed,  such  synods  have  never  been  held 
equal  in  authority  to  the  oecumenical  synods.  But  at 
all   events,   the    decrees    of  the   several   patriarchs  of 

VOL.  II.  s 


258  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [part  i  v. 

Rome,  Constantinople,  &c.  in  matters  of  faith,  how- 
ever they  were  made,  were  never  included  by  the 
universal  church  among  those  high  and  sacred  decisions 
which  exhibited  the  judgment  of  the  whole  christian 
world.  The  church  indeed  viewed  with  respect  what- 
ever emanated  from  such  great  bishops;  examined 
their  judgments  by  the  light  of  scripture  and  tradition  ; 
approved  those  that  were  good,  without  making  them 
rules  of  her  faith  ;  rejected  those  that  were  heterodox  ; 
and,  in  fine,  reserved  to  scripture,  to  catholic  tradition, 
and  to  the  decisions  of  the  oecumenical  synods,  the 
supreme  and  undivided  sway  over  the  belief  of  all 
nations. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

ON  THE  ARTICLES  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  LONDON,   1  562. 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  religion  were,  as  it  is  well 
known,  agreed  upon  by  the  metropolitans,  the  bishops, 
and  the  whole  clergy  in  the  synod  of  London,  1562. 
In  the  first  session  (January  19),  the  most  reverend 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  as  Me  learn  from  the  Acts, 
"  proposed  that  the  articles  published  in  the  synod  of 
London  in  the  time  of  king  Edward  VI.  should  be 
given  to  certain  select  theologians  of  the  lower  house 
of  convocation,  to  be  diligently  viewed,  examined, 
considered,  and,  as  they  may  judge  fit,  corrected  and 
reformed,  and  to  be  presented  in  the  next  session  ^" 

*    "  Ulterius    proposuit,    qiaod  clam  aliis    viris    ex   coetu    dictae 

Articuli,  in    synodo    Londinensi  domus    inferioris    ad    hoc    etiam 

tempore    nuper    Regis    Edwardi  electis,    ut  eos  diligenter  perspi- 

sexti    editi,  traditi   sint    quibus-  ciant,  examinent,  et  considerent, 


CHAP.  XIV.]  The  XXXIX  Articles.  259 

"These  articles  concerning  the  holy  religion  of  Christ, 
were  treated  of,  always  with  previous  prayer,  on  the 
20th,  22d,  25th,  27th  days  of  the  month  of  January, 
in  the  collegiate  church  of  St.  Peter,  Westminster, 
and  in  St.  Paul's  church,  London  ;  until,  on  the  29th 
of  the  same  month,  certain  articles  of  orthodox  faith 
were  unanimously  agreed  on  by  the  bishops,  whose 
names  are  subscribed  to  them  ''."  The  articles  them- 
selves are  then  inserted  in  the  acts,  after  which 
the  subscriptions  of  the  bishops  follow  in  this  form: 
"  These  articles  of  christian  faith,  containing  in  the 
whole  nineteen  pages,  &c.  . .  .  We  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  of  both  provinces  of  the  realm  of  England, 
legitimately  assembled  in  provincial  synod,  do  receive 
and  profess ;  and,  by  the  subscription  of  our  hands,  do 
approve,  as  true  and  orthodox  ;  on  the  29th  day  of  the 
month  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  mdlxii, 
according  to  the  computation  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land ;  and  the  fifth  year  of  the  most  illustrious  princess 
Elizabeth  ^"  Then  follow  the  signatures  of  both  arch- 
bishops  and  all  the   bishops.     The   clergy  afterwards 

ac  prout  eis  visum  fuerit,   corri-  nores  sequuntur,"  S:c.      Ibid.  p. 

gant  et  reforment,  ac  in  proxima  233. 

sessione    etiam     exliibeant.  "  —  •"   "  Hos  articulos  fidei  Christ- 

Wilkins,  Concilia,  t.  iv.  p.  232.  ianse,  continentes  in   universnm 

^   "  De    hisce    articulis  sacro-  19  paginas,   &c Nos  archi- 

sanctam  Christi  religionem    con-  episcopi     et    episcopi    utriusque 

cernentibns,     20.     22.     25.     27,  provinciae  regni  Anglite,  in  sacra 

diebus    niensis  Janiiarii    tarn    in  synodo  provinciali  legitime  con- 

ecclesia  coUegiata  D.  Petri  West,  gregati,  recipimus  et  profitemur, 

quam  in    ecclesia  D.  Pauli  Lon-  et    ut    veros,    atque  orthodox os, 

don.  domo  capitulari,   prgemissis  manuum  nostrarum   subscriptio- 

semper  precibus,   tractatum  fuit :  nibus  approbamus  29  die  mensis 

donee  29     die    ejusdem     mensis  Januarii  a.d.    secundum   compu- 

tandem  super  quibusdam  articu-  tationem      ecclesiae      Anglicanae 

lis  orthodoxse  fidei  inter  episco-  mdlxii.     et    illustrissimas     prin- 

pos,  quorum  nomina  eis  subscri-  cipis  Elizabethoe  quinto." — Ibid, 

buntur,      unanimiter     convenit ;  p.  234. 
quorum  quidem  articulorum   te- 

s2 


260 


The  XXXIX  Articles.         [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv 


subscribed  in  this  form  :  "  Those  whose  names  folloM', 
have  subscribed  with  their  own  hands  to  the  book  of 
articles  transmitted  by  the  most  reverend  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  and  the  bishops  of  the  province  of  Can- 
terbury, to  the  lower  house  of  convocation,  February  5, 

MDLXII." 

In  1571  the  book  of  articles  was  examined,  cor- 
rected, and  subscribed  in  the  synod '' ;  and  the  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  of  both  provinces  enacted  canons, 
by  which  all  persons  obtaining  faculties  as  preachers, 
were  bound  first  to  subscribe  the  articles  approved  in 
the  synod,  and  promise  to  uphold  and  defend  the  doc- 
trine contained  in  them,  as  most  accordant  to  the 
truth  of  God's  word^  Another  canon  enjoined  the 
same  subscription  on  all  persons  to  be  admitted  into 
holy  orders  ^ :  a  regulation  which  was  also  made  at  the 


^  Wilkins,  Concilia,  t.  iv.  p. 
261,  262. 

*  "  Episcopus  quisque  ante 
calendas  Septembris  proximas, 
advocabit  ad  se  omnes  publicos 
concionatores.  .  .  .  deinde  delectu 
illorum  prudenter  facto,  .  •  .  illis 
novas  facultates  ultro  dabit ;  ita 
tamen  ut  prius  subscribant  arti- 
culis  Christianas  religionis  publice 
in  synodo  approbatis,  fidemque 
dent,  se  velle  tueri  at  defendere 
doctrinam  earn,  quae  in  illis  con- 
tinetur,  ut  consentientissimam 
veritati  verbi  divini."  —  Ibid, 
p.  263.  "  Inprimis  vero  vide- 
bunt,  ne  quid  unquam  doceant 
pro  concione,  quod  a  populo  re- 
ligiose teneri  et  credi  velint,  nisi 
quod  consentaneum  sit  doctrinse 
Veteris  aut  Novi  Testamenti, 
quodque  ex  ilia  ipsa  doctrina 
catholici  patres  et  veteres  epis- 
copi  collegerint.  Et  quoniam 
articuli  illi  religionis  christianae, 


in  quos  consensum  est  ab  epis- 
copis  in  legitima  et  sancta  sy- 
nodo, jussu  atque  auctoritate 
serenissimse  princijiis  Elizabethae 
convocata  et  celebrata,  baud 
dubie  selecti  sunt  ex  sacris  libris 
Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti,  et 
cum  coelesti  doctrina  quae  in  illis 
continetur,  per  omnia  congruunt. 
Quoniam  etiam  liber  publicarum 
precum,  et  liber  de  inauguratione 
archiepiscoporum,  episcoporum, 
presbyterorura,  et  diaconorum, 
nihil  continent  ab  illaipsa  doctrina 
alienum  ;  quicumque  mittentur 
ad  docendum  populum,  illorum 
articulorum  auctoritatem  etfidem, 
non  tantum  concionibus  suis,  sed 
etiam  subscriptione  confirma- 
bunt.  Qui  secus  fecerit,  et  con- 
traria  doctrina  populum  turbave- 
rit,  excommunicabitur." — Can. 
de  Concionatoribus.  Ibid.  p.  267. 
"^  "  Quivis  minister  ecclesiae 
antequam  in  sacram  functionem 


SECT.  I.]  Nature  of  the  XXXIX  Articles.  261 

same  time  by  the  act  of  the  civil  legislature^.  The 
synod  of  London,  in  1603  or  1604,  again  solemnly 
confirmed  and  subscribed  these  articles  '' ;  and  enacted 
that  every  person  to  be  ordained  should  subscribe  a 
declaration  of  his  approbation  of  the  articles '.  In 
1634,  the  national  synod  of  Ireland  also  adopted  them  ; 
and  they  were  subsequently  accepted  by  the  synods  of 
Scotland  and  of  America,  as  the  profession  of  those 
catholic  churches. 

The  principal  questions  concerning  the  articles  may 
be  reduced  to  four.  I.  The  nature  of  the  articles ; 
II.  the  right  of  the  church  to  demand  a  profession  of 
them  from  her  ministers  ;  III.  the  rule  by  which  they 
are  to  be  interpreted  ;  and  IV.  the  meaning  of  sub- 
scription. 

SECTION  I. 

ON    THE    NATURE    OF    THE    ARTICLES. 

In  considering  the  nature  of  the  articles,  we  must 
guard  equally  against  the  opposite  errors  of  supposing 
that  none,  or  that  all  of  them  are  matters  of  faith. 
The  former  error  would  involve  a  denial  of  the  neces- 
sity of  belief  in  some  of  the  most  holy  doctrines  of 
Revelation ;  for  although  the  articles  be  human  com- 
positions, the  doctrine  itself  which  some  of  them  convey 
is  divine.  For  instance,  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity, 
the  incarnation,  the  sufferings,  death,  resurrection, 
atonement  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  original  sin,  and 

ingrediatur,    subscribet   omnibus  sentiat." — Ibid.  p.  265. 

articulis  de  religione  Christiana,  ^  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12. 

in  quos  consensum  estin  synodo;  "^  Bennet's  Essay  on   XXXIX 

et  publice  ad  populum,  ubicum-  Articles,  p.  358  ;  Wilkins,  Con- 

que  episcopus  jusserit,  patefaciet  cilia,  t.  iv,  p.  379, 

conscientiam  suam,  quid  de  illis  '  Canon  xxxvi. 

articulis     et     universa     doctrina 


262  The  XXXIX  Articles.         [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

other  doctrines  manifestly  contained  in  the  articles,  are 
matters  of  faith,  taught  by  Scripture,  by  the  decrees 
of  oecumenical  synods,  and  by  catholic  tradition,  and 
which  it  would  be  heretical  to  dispute  or  deny.  There- 
fore to  assert  that  none  of  the  articles  contain  matters 
of  faith,  would  be  pernicious  and  anti-christian. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  were  asserted,  that  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  articles  are  matters  of  faith,  so  that 
whoever  held  a  different  opinion  in  any  point,  is  to  be 
viewed  as  a  heretic ;  we  should  not  only  be  obliged  to 
condemn  rashly  and  uncharitably  a  large  part  of  the 
christian  a\  orld,  but  should  be  unsupported  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  church  of  England  herself,  and  opposed 
to  the  sentiment  of  our  theologians  generally.  The 
articles  comprise  not  only  doctrines  of  the  faith,  but 
theological  and  historical  verities,  and  even  pious  and 
catholic  opinions. 

1.  It  is  historically/  and  theologically  true,  that  the 
particular  churches  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch, 
have  erred  in  faith.  It  is  theologicalli/  true,  that  the 
book  of  consecration  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons, 
contains  all  things  necessary  to  a  valid  ordination  ; 
that  the  bishop  of  Rome  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the 
realm  of  England  ;  that  the  Homilies  contain  sound 
doctrine.  All  these  are  absolutely  certain  truths ;  but 
they  are  not  properly  articles  of  faith,  necessary  to 
salvation,  because  they  all  involve  questions  of  fact 
and  of  human  reasoning,  which  are  not  self-evident, 
and  on  which  men  may  be  divided,  without  doubting 
the  doctrine  of  Revelation  itself.  E.  g.  If  some  mem- 
bers of  foreign  churches  doubted  whether  the  book  of 
Homilies  does  in  fact  contain  sound  doctrine,  through 
some  mistake  of  its  meaning  in  some  point ;  and  even 
supposed  that  it  contradicts  the  revealed  truth ;  this 


SECT.  1.1       Catholic  Opinions  in  XXXIX  Articles.  263 

would  be  an  error,  not  a  heresy,  because  the  revealed 
truth  itself  would  be  still  believed.  It  would  also  be 
a  scandalous  error  to  deny  that  our  bishops  are  validly 
consecrated,  and  one  which  the  church  could  not 
permit  any  of  her  members  to  advance ;  but  if  some 
persons,  over  whom  she  had  no  jurisdiction,  should  for 
a  time  fall  into  this  error,  imagining,  from  want  of 
sufficient  information,  that  some  essential  rite  was 
omitted  in  the  English  ordinations,  there  would  indeed 
be  every  reason  to  lament  their  very  injurious  error, 
but  not  to  esteem  them  absolutely  heretics.  In  the 
same  way  we  should  not  account  the  oriental  churches 
heretical  in  refusing  to  approve  the  expressions  in  our 
creeds  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the 
Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father,  because,  through  a 
mistake  of  fact,  they  suppose  that  these  expressions 
interfere  with  the  doctrine  of  one  Principle  in  the  ever- 
blessed  Trinity. 

2.  It  is  a  pious,  probable,  and  catholic  opi?iion,  that 
the  wicked  eat  not  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist, 
because  our  Lord  himself  said,  "  He  that  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life  :"  but 
since  these  words  may  possibly  refer  to  a  imrthy  par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  since  many  in  the 
church  have  held  that  the  wicked  do  in  ftict  receive 
the  body  of  Christ,  though  to  their  condemnation; 
this  doctrine  is  taught  by  the  church  of  England  as 
the  more  pious  and  probable  opinion,  not  as  a  mat- 
ter of  faith,  necessary  to  be  believed  by  all  men ;  for 
this  would  amount  to  a  condemnation,  not  only  of 
the  Roman  churches,  but  of  the  Lutherans,  as  hereti- 
cal ;  which  has  never  been  the  doctrine  of  this  church. 

Thus  the  articles  comprehend  not  only  doctrines  of 


264  The  XXXIX  Articles.         [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

faith  and  morals,  but  historical  and  theological  verities, 
and  pious,  catholic,  and  probable  opinions. 

This  is  the  sentiment  of  our  theologians,  Hall  % 
Laud  ^  Bramhall ',  Stillingfleet '',  Sparrow  %  Bull  ^, 
Burnet  %  Nicholls  ^  Randolph  ',  Cleaver  \  &c.  who 
maintain  that  all  the  doctrines  of  the  articles  are  not 
fundamental  or  necessary  to  salvation,  or  articles  of 
faith. 

SECTION  IL 

ON    THE    RIGHT    OF    THE    CHURCH    TO    DEMAND    ADHESION 
TO    THE    ARTICLES. 

I  shall  consider  first  the  right  of  the  church  to 
demand  from  those  who  are  to  be  ordained,  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  articles  of  faith ;  secondly,  her  right 
to  demand  from  them  the  profession  of  the  other  truths 
and  opinions  comprised  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

I.  The  common  obligation  imposed  on  all  christians 
of  "  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints  ^ ;"  and  their  duty  of  "  observing  all  things 
which  Christ  commanded  them  ^ ;"  of  "  remaining  sta- 
blished  in  the  faith  as  they  have  been  taught " ;"  and 
of  holding  no  communion  with  those  "  who  bring  not 

*  Hall,   Catholic  Propositions,  s      Burnet,       Exposition      of 

cited  by  Bull,   Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  XXXTX  Articles,  p.  7.  ed.  1737. 

212.  ed.  Burton.  ^  Nicholls,  Commentary  on  the 

^  Laud,  Conference,  s.  14.  Articles. 

•^   Bramhall,   Schism   guarded,  '  T.  Randolph,  Charge  on  the 

Works,  p.  348.  Reasonableness  of  requiring  Sub- 

''  Stillingfleet,  Grounds  of  Pro-  scription,  1771. 

testant  Religion,  part  i.  ch.  2.  J  Cleaver,   Sermon  on  the  de- 

'  Sparrow,   Preface  to  Collec-  sign   and  formation   of  the  Arti- 

tion  of  Canons,  &c.  cles,  1802.  p.  1. 

^    Bull,    Vindication     of    the  *  Jude  3. 

Church  of  England,  Works,  vol.  ^  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 

ii.  p.  211.  ed.  Burton.  ^  Col.  ii.  7. 


SECT.  11.]      Snhscription  to  Articles  justly  required.  265 

the  doctrine  of  Christ  ** ;"  infer  the  necessity  of  sound- 
ness in  faith  on  the  part  of  those,  who  are  appointed 
to  be  their  teachers.  The  very  office  of  "  a  minister  of 
Christ,  a  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God  ',"  "  a  pastor 
and  teacher"  of  Christ's  flock  \  implies,  as  one  of  its  first 
requisites,  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ :  "  It  is 
required  in  stewards,  that  a  man  be  found  faithful  ^." 
He  who  is  to  be  "  an  example  to  the  believers  in 
faith'';"  he  whose  "faith"  they  are  to  "follow';"  he 
whom  they  are  to  "obey"  as  their  "  ruler  ^"  in  things 
spiritual ;  ought  to  be  able  and  willing  to  witness  sound 
and  uncorrupted  doctrine.  Accordingly  the  direction 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  Timothy  is  :  "  The  things  thou 
hast  heard  of  me  .  .  .  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also  ^ :'"'  and  his 
direction  for  the  choice  of  a  bishop  includes  the  con- 
dition of  his  "  holding  fast  the  faithful  word  as  he 
hath  been  taught  ;  that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doc- 
trine both  to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers '." 
For  which  reason  among  others,  St.  Paul  enjoined 
Timothy  to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man  '"."  Hence 
arises  the  right  or  duty  of  examining  the  faith  of  those 
Avho  are  designed  for  the  sacred  ministry  ;  a  duty 
which  has  always  been  actually  fulfilled  by  the  church, 
and  which  all  sects  likewise  acknowledge  and  act  on. 

The  principle  of  examination  being  once  admitted, 
the  particular  method  is  of  minor  importance.  Verbal 
or  written  declarations  or  professions  of  faith  made  by 
the  candidate ;  his  personal  examination  by  way  of 
question  and  answer ;  or  the  presentation  of  a  formu- 

'^  2  John  9,  10.  '  Heb.  xiii.  7. 

^  I  Cor.  iv.  1  J  Heb.  xiii.  17. 

*  Eph.  iv.  11.  ^2  Tim.  ii.  2. 

e  1  Cor.  iv.  2.  '  Tit.  i.  9. 

^  1  Tim.  iv.  12.  ■"  1  Tim.  v.  22. 


266  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [i\  iv.  CH.  xiv. 

lary  by  the  church  to  be  subscribed  by  him,  are  merely 
different  modes  of  attaining  the  same  object,  any  one  of 
which  the  church  may  adopt  as  she  judges  most 
expedient. 

Thus  the  church  is  justified  in  demanding  from  can- 
didates for  orders  a  subscription  to  the  doctrines  of 
faith  contained  in  tlie  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

II.  Besides  the  duty  of  preserving  the  faith  revealed 
by  Jesus  Christ,  the  church  is  also  bound  to  maintain 
peace  and  unity  among  her  members. 

The  prayer  of  Christ,  that  his  disciples  might  be 
"  perfectly  one ","  and  the  apostolic  injunction,  "  that 
ye  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no 
divisions  among  you ;  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined 
together  in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judg- 
ment  °,"  obviously  render  it  desirable  that  controver- 
sies on  points  which  are  not  articles  of  faith,  and  which 
generate  party-spirit  and  mutual  alienation  among  the 
faithful,  should  not  be  permitted  to  continue  always  in 
the  church,  diverting  the  attention  of  the  brethren 
from  the  sacred  duties  of  religion  to  superfluous  and 
interminable  wranglings.  The  church  has  a  duty  to 
christian  peace  and  harmony,  as  well  as  to  revealed 
truth :  and  in  points  where  the  catholic  faith  is  not 
compromised,  she  is  bound  to  adopt  measures  to  pre- 
vent, as  far  as  possible,  any  disturbance  among  the 
brethren.  In  such  cases  the  church  may  impose  silence 
on  opposite  parties  under  pain  of  excommunication,  or 
if  she  judges  it  more  conducive  to  peace,  she  may 
adopt  the  opinion  she  judges  more  probable,  demand 
acquiescence  from  her  ministers,  and  suppress  all  open 
maintenance    of  the    contrary    opinion,    without  con- 

"  John  xvii.  11—23.  "  1  Cor,  i.  10. 


SECT.  II.]       Subscription  to  Articles  justly  required.  267 

demning  those  who  privately  hold  it.  This  power  of 
suppressing  needless  disputes  is  certainly  vested  in  the 
church,  for  otherwise  she  would  be  exposed  without 
remedy  to  the  most  imminent  danger  of  destruction 
from  ignorant  and  fanatical  incendiaries,  who,  proud  of 
their  imaginary  wisdom,  and  secretly  excited  by  the 
evil  spirit  of  earthly  ambition,  might,  in  their  frenzy, 
consummate  the  most  irreparable  mischiefs.  The 
church  cannot  be  without  authority  even  to  expel  from 
her  communion  those  who  should  obstinately  offend 
against  charity,  by  maintaining  as  articles  of  faith  what 
are  only  matters  of  probability  or  opinion,  and  by 
charging  with  heresy  those  brethren  who  do  not  sub- 
mit to  their  ignorant  or  fanatical  dogmatism.  But  if 
she  judges  it  more  advisable,  in  such  a  case,  to  adopt 
the  milder  measure  of  requiring  from  those  who  are 
admitted  to  sacred  orders,  a  sincere  adhesion  to  the 
opinion  she  judges  most  pious  and  probable ;  no  one, 
except  he  who  is  inveterately  prejudiced,  can  deny  that 
she  exercises  a  laudable  and  pious  discretion.  If  in- 
deed that  opinion  were  contrary  to  faith,  it  would  be 
unlawful  either  to  impose  or  to  adhere  to  it :  but  if  it 
be  not  opposed  to  faith,  then  the  church  is  amply  justi- 
fied, in  case  of  protracted  and  dangerous  controversies, 
in  acting  as  I  have  described. 

Thus  the  church  of  England  is  justified  in  exacting 
from  her  ministers  a  sincere  adhesion  even  to  matters 
of  opinion  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

Such  a  proceeding  ought  to  be  altogether  free  from 
any  imputation  of  an  undue  assumption  of  authority, 
or  of  being  calculated  in  any  degree  to  impair  the 
unity  of  the  catholic  church,  or  to  divide  our  churches 
from  those  in  which  different  opinions  may  prevail. 
Members  of  the  Roman  obedience  especially  should 

15 


268  The  XXXIX  Articles.        [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

not  impute  any  fault  to  us  in  this  conduct,  because  it 
has  been  adopted  with  much  utility  among  themselves. 
Thus  the  controversies  concerning  predestination  and 
grace,  which  had  violently  disturbed  the  Roman 
churches,  were  prudently  suppressed  by  Sixtus  V.  in 
1588,  who  forbad  any  disputation  on  those  points 
whether  in  public  or  private,  leaving  the  contending 
parties  in  possession  of  their  respective  opinions.  In 
the  following  century,  the  disputes  on  the  same 
subject  between  the  Jesuits  and  Dominicans,  were  also 
suppressed  by  Paul  V. 

The  proceedings  in  the  Roman  churches  on  the  con- 
troversy concerning  the  immaculate  conception,  or 
freedom  of  the  holy  Virgin  from  original  sin,  afford  a 
direct  justification  of  the  church  of  England  in  the 
present  point.  It  is  admitted  by  all  Roman  theolo- 
gians, in  accordance  with  the  several  decisions  of  the 
Roman  pontiffs  and  of  the  synod  of  Trent,  that  the  im- 
maculate conception  is  not  a  point  of  faith,  but  a  pious 
and  catholic  opinion.  Nevertheless,  in  consequence  of 
the  violent  disputes  and  disturbances  on  this  subject, 
the  Roman  pontiffs  adopted  this  opinion,  and  imposed 
silence  on  all  who  did  not  believe  it,  while  various 
universities  and  churches  exacted  from  their  members 
an  adhesion  to  the  doctrinCc  Thus  Sixtus  IV.  in 
1483,  having  approved  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate 
conception,  imposed  excommunication  ipso  facto  on  all 
who  taught  that  either  that  or  the  contrary  opinion 
was  heretical.  Pius  V.  in  1570,  decreed  that  who- 
ever should  dispute  publicly  on  this  question  on  either 
side,  should  be  susi)ended  ipso  jure,  and  ipso  facto 
deprived  of  every  degree,  dignity,  and  administration, 
and  for  ever  disabled  from  the  like.  Paul  V.  in  1616, 
forbad  any  one  under  the  same  penalties  to  assert  in 


SECT.  II.]       Subscription  to  Articles  justly  required.  269 

public  lectures,  sermons,  conclusions,  or  other  public 
acts,  that  the  Virgin  was  conceived  in  original  sin. 
Gregory  XV.  in  1622,  extended  the  same  prohibition 
to  discourses  and  writings.  Alexander  VII.  in  1661, 
again  approved  the  opinion  of  the  immaculate  con- 
ception, which,  he  says,  is  adojjted  by  many  celebrated 
universities,  and  by  almost  all  catholics.  He  renewed 
the  decrees  of  Sixtus  IV.,  Paul  V.,  and  Gregory  XV., 
published  in  favour  of  it ;  and  in  addition,  declared 
that  all  persons  who  should  interpret  them  so  as  to 
frustrate  the  favour  shown  by  them  to  the  said  opinion, 
or  who  should  dispute  against  it,  or  in  any  way,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  by  word  or  writing,  speak,  preach, 
or  discourse  against  it,  either  by  assertion,  by  bringing 
arguments  against  it,  and  leaving  them  unanswered,  or 
in  any  other  imaginable  way,  should  not  only  suffer 
the  penalties  denounced  by  Sixtus  IV.,  but  be  deprived 
ipso  facto  of  all  power  to  preach  and  publicly  teach, 
and  of  all  voice,  active  or  passive,  in  any  elections  ^ 

Yet  the  doctrine  thus  firmly  upheld,  was  admitted 
all  along  to  be  only  a  matter  of  pious  opinion.  The 
obvious  justification  of  these  proceedings  was,  that  they 
were  necessary  for  the  peace  of  the  church.  On  the 
same  principle  alone,  is  it  possible  to  justify  the  uni- 
versity of  Paris  for  its  continual  practice  even  in  the 
time  of  Bossuet,  of  exacting  an  oath  from  every  person 
who  was  to  be  received  into  the  faculty  of  theology,  to 
uphold  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception  ^ : 


*  See    Hoornbeeck,    Examen  Scholastica,    Tract,     de    Peccat. 

BullEeUrb.  VIII.  p.  250,  &c.  ed.  Origin,  t.  vii.    p.    142—160.  ed. 

1631.     All  the  above  particulars  1752. 

are  stated  by  Ligorio,  Theologia  ''  See  Richerius,   Hist.    Coiic. 

Moralis,  lib.  vii.  c.   ii.  n.  244 —  Gen.  lib.   iii.   p.  124,  125.  129  ; 

263  ;   and   by    Eusebitis  Amort,  Bossuet,  Q^uvres,  t.  xv.  p.  20. 
Theologia  Eclectica,    Moralis,  et 


270  The  XXXIX  Articles.         [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

a  rule  which  in  the  Spanish  universities  is  extended  to 
every  graduate,  and  which  is  even  enforced  in  all  cor- 
porations and  guilds,  civil  and  religious,  on  the  admis- 
sion of  new  members  \  The  Roman  churches  in  sanc- 
tioning these  practices,  evince  their  belief  that  it  is 
lawful  to  require  assent  to  a  pious  and  probable  opi- 
nion, provided  it  is  not  imposed  as  an  article  of 
faith.  Bossuet  justifies  the  oath  prescribed  by  the 
faculty  of  theology  at  Paris,  only  as  implying  a  pro- 
mise to  hold  the  opinion  of  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion as  tJie  more  probable,  or  at  most,  as  theologically 
certain  '^. 

Hence  altogether  it  is  evident,  that  the  Romans 
cannot  object  to  the  princii^le  of  requiring  adhesions  to 
pious  and  catholic  opinions,  when  the  peace  of  the 
church  would  otherwise  be  endangered. 

III.  If  the  church  has  a  right  to  suppress  disturb- 
ances within  her  borders,  by  exacting  adhesions  to 
pious  and  catholic  opinions,  she  has  still  more  right  to 
prescribe  the  adoj^tion  of  theological  verities  certainly/ 
true :  more  especially,  if  the  denial  of  those  verities  in- 
volves condemnation  of  herself  as  heretical  or  sinful, 
ojiposition  to  her  legitimate  regulations  for  the  welfare 
of  religion,  denial  of  her  rightful  authority,  or  infringe- 
ment of  those  liberties  which  she  holds  immediately 
from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  the  denial  of  certain 
truths,  not  actually  revealed,  lead  to  these  results ;  and 
if  there  be  imminent  danger  of  the  growth  of  doctrines 
so  injurious,  then  the  church  is  bound  to  take  effectual 

•^  See  Doblado's  Letters  from  ther  discussion    of  these  difficul- 

Spain,  p.  25.  ties  see  Launoii   Prsescriptiones 

''  Bossuet,  CEuvres,  t.  xxxviii.  de    Conceptu    B.     Marise    Virg. 

p.   SIT) — o20,    where    he    meets  Opera,   t.    i.  ed.    Colon.   Allobr. 

the  difficulties    as    to    this    oath  1731. 
raised  by  M.  Bertin.      For  a  fur- 


SECT.  II.]       Subscription  to  Articles  justlij  required.  271 

measures  for  the  suppression  of  controversies  on  these 
points  within  her  own  borders,  in  order  that  the  cause 
of  equity,  of  truth,  and  of  enlightened  piety  may  be 
sustained,  and  that  the  souls  of  the  faithful  may  not 
be  needlessly  disturbed,  and  their  piety  scandalized  by 
rash  and  dangerous  disputations.  And  still  more  is 
she  bound  to  see,  that  those  who  are  weak  and  infirm 
in  the  faith,  and  who  have  not  their  senses  exercised 
to  discern  good  and  evil,  shall  not  be  caused  to  fall 
away  from  the  catholic  church  into  schism  or  heresy, 
by  the  unsettled  doctrine  of  any  of  her  own  ministers. 

To  apply  this  to  our  articles  of  religion.  If  any  one 
asserted  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  church,  he 
would  necessarily  condemn  these  catholic  churches  as 
heretical,  because  they  do  not  receive  all  points  which 
the  Roman  church  has  decided.  If  he  asserted  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  pontiff  over  the  church  of 
England,  he  would  infringe  the  rights  of  that  church, 
besides  condemning  her  for  resuming  the  powers 
which  she  had  delegated  to  the  Roman  patriarch.  If 
he  asserted  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  the  worship  of 
images,  &c.  he  would  render  nugatory  the  regulations 
of  these  catholic  churches  in  such  points ;  besides 
charging  them  with  error  or  heresy,  and  doing  an  in- 
jury to  sound  and  pure  religion.  If  he  denied  the 
power  of  national  churches  to  ordain  and  change  rites 
and  ceremonies,  he  would  deny  the  lawfulness  of  our 
existing  worship,  &c.  If  the  validity  of  the  form  of 
ordination  was  disputed  or  doubted,  the  minds  of  the 
faithful  would  be  needlessly  disturbed.  I  might  pro- 
ceed to  show  that  the  same  evil  results  arise  from  con- 
tradictions to  the  other  theological  verities  contained  in 
the  articles :  and  it  is  plain  that  these  are  results  of 
such  a  kind  as  no  branch  of  the  catholic  church  could 


27-2  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [i'.  iv.  CH.  xrv. 

permit  her  own  ministers  to  bring  about.  For  this 
reason  the  church  of  England  most  justly  requires  all 
who  are  to  minister  in  sacred  things,  to  profess  sin- 
cerely the  theological  verities  contained  in  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  which  are  essentially  necessary  to  her 
own  peace,  security,  and  liberty.  And  on  the  same 
principle  she  denounces  excommunication  ipso  facto 
against  any  even  of  her  lay  members,  who  shall  pre- 
sume to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church  by  asserting 
that  any  of  her  articles  are  superstitious  or  erroneous '. 

It  is  not  from  any  hostility  to  other  churches,  nor 
from  any  fretful  jealousy  of  her  rights,  that  she  provides 
against  foreign  aggressions  on  her  liberty ;  but  in  obe- 
dience to  the  apostolic  precept,  "  stand  fast  therefore 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free  V 
and  admonished  by  the  apostle's  conduct  to  those 
"  false  brethren  unawares  brought  in,  who  came  in 
privily  to  spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ 
Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into  bondage."  "  To 
whom,"  says  the  apostle,  "  ive  gave  place  hy  subjection, 
no,  not  for  an  hour,  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel  might 
continue  with  you  ^T  We  are  fully  persuaded  by  ex- 
perience, of  the  W'isdom  of  the  holy  synod  of  Nice, 
which  decreed  that  "  ancient  customs  should  be  re- 
tained," and  "  the  privileges  of  churches  be  preserved  ^ ;" 
and  of  the  accordant  judgment  of  the  holy  synod  of 
Ephesus,  that  "  every  church  should  preserve  the  rights 
which  it  possessed  from   the   beginning"  ..."  lest  the 


®  Canon  v.   a.d.    1603.     Du  ostendi    posset    exemplis." — De 

Pin  says:  "Siprivatus  quispiam  Antiq.  Eccl.  Discipl.  p.  268.   ed. 

adversus     plurium     ecclesiarum  l(i86.                        , 

aut  etiam  adversus  ecclesiae  suae  ^  Gal.  v.  1. 

eonsuetudinem    insurgat,    merito  s  (Jal.  ii.  4,  5. 

punitur   et    excommunicatur,   ac  ''  Canon  vi.  Harduin.  Cone.  t. 

schismaticus   audit,   ut  sexcentis  i.  p.  32o. 


SECT.  II.]  Siihs^criptioii  to  Artlch's  jiiHth/  rcfpdred.  27o 

canons  of  the  fathers  be  transgressed,  and  the  pride  of 
worklly  domination  shoukl  come  in  under  the  guise  of 
the  sacred  ministry  ;  and  lest  we  should  imperceptibly 
lose  the  liberty  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  purchased 
for  us  with  his  own  blood '." 

But  I  proceed  to  show,  that  the  principle  of  exacting 
adhesions  to  doctrines  such  as  I  have  mentioned,  is 
also  adopted  by  the  Roman  churches.  The  Ultra- 
montane churches  required  their  instructors  to  main- 
tain the  Ultramontane  doctrines  :  the  Galilean  im- 
posed the  Galilean  doctrines  on  theirs.  De  Barral 
archbishop  of  Tours  says,  that  Almain,  who  lived  at  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  testifies  that,  "as  at  Rome 
no  one  was  permitted  publicly  to  sustain  the  doctrine 
of  the  school  of  Paris,  so  in  the  Sorbonne  it  was  not 
allowed  to  defend  that  of  the  Ultramontanes  ^."  He 
afterwards  speaks  thus  :  "  At  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
and  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  laws  of 
a  strict  and  rigorous  policy  prohibited  at  Rome  the 
maintenance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  school  of  Paris, 
Mdiile  at  the  Sorbonne  it  was  not  permitted  to  sustain 
the  Ultramontane  opinions.  I  say  laws  of  policy,  and 
of  a  policy  purely  temporal,  although  at  Rome  they 
emanated  from  the  authority  of  the  sovereign  pontiff; 
for  the  laws  of  the  church  permitted  equally  the  main- 
tenance of  the  two  opinions,  neither  of  which  was  re- 
garded as  contrary  to  the  dogmas  of  the  catholic 
church.  These  laws  of  temporal  policy  are  known  to 
us  by  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  contemporary 
theologians,  particularly  James  Almain  and  John 
Major,  from    whom  passages  have  been  cited.      The 

'  Decretum  de  Episcopis  Cypri.     bertes   de  I'Eglise    Gallic.ine,  p. 
—Harduin.  t.  i.  p.  1619.  77.  ed.  1817. 

J  De  Barral,   Defense  des  Li- 

VOL.  II.  T 


'274  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

canonist  Navarrus  informs  us,  that  at  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century  these  laws  subsisted  in  all  their 
force,  since,  in  his  time,  one  of  these  opinions  was 
maintained  e.vcluswelij  at  Paris,  and  the  other  at  Rome. 
In  good  faith,  does  the  anonymous  writer  think,  that 
under  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  XI.  it  would  have 
been  lawful  for  a  Roman  theologian  to  teach  or  sustain 
publicly  that  the  popes  are  not  infallible  nor  superior 
to  general  councils?  Let  him  only  recollect  the  in- 
terdict signified  to  the  Pere  Buhy  by  this  inflexible 
pope,  for  having  sustained  at  Paris  propositions  incon- 
testibly  true,  or  at  least  evidently  tolerated  by  the 
church  *"." 

There  cannot  be  any  doubt  of  the  truth  of  these 
statements :  and  thus  we  find  that  while  in  the  Roman 
church  no  one  was  permitted  to  infringe  the  supposed 
privileges  of  the  Roman  pontiff  by  denying  his  infalli- 
bility, his  superiority  to  general  councils,  &c. ;  the 
opposite  doctrines  were  equally  prohibited  in  the  Gal- 
ilean church,  lest  her  rights  and  liberties  should  be 
exposed  to  invasion  by  the  popes.  Therefore  the 
church  of  England  is  equally  justified  in  prohibiting 
the  maintenance  of  doctrines  which  tend  to  the  sub- 
version of  her  liberties  or  maxims  :  and  whether  this 
be  done  by  simple  injunction,  or  by  demanding  the 
profession  of  the  true  doctrine  on  these  points,  is 
merely  a  question  as  to  the  mode  of  effecting  her  ob- 
ject, not  as  to  the  object  itself. 

But  the  conduct  of  the  Galilean  church  in  the  se- 
venteenth century  affords  a  precise  parallel  to  that  of 
the  English  in  the  preceding  century.  The  Roman 
pontiffs  having  shown  a  disposition  to  infringe  on  the 

"  De  Barral,  p.  171. 


SKCT.  II.]  Gallican  Articles.  275 

liberties  of  France,  in  1681,  f(n-ty  bishops,  after  a 
lengthened  investigation  of  all  the  circumstances, 
petitioned  king  Louis  XIV.  to  assemble  a  national 
council,  or  general  convocation,  "  in  which  the  church 
of  France  represented  by  her  deputies,  might  examine, 
and  adopt  resolutions  suitable  to  the  important  matters 
in  debate  '."  "  The  king,  in  deference  to  the  request 
of  the  bishops,  permitted  the  general  assembly  or  con- 
vocation of  all  the  clergy  of  the  kingdom,  and  in 
consequence  ordered  the  convocation  of  the  provincial 
assemblies,  in  order  to  give  '  the  necessary  powers  to 
those  who  should  be  deputed  to  the  general  assembly, 
to  examine  and  deliberate  on  the  matters  contained  in 
the  proces-verbal  of  the  assembly  of  bishops  held  pre- 
viously.' Thus  all  the  ecclesiastical  provinces  were 
assembled,  and  gave  to  their  deputies,  as  well  of  the 
first  as  of  the  second  order,  procurations  conveying 
power  to  deliberate  on  all  the  subjects  mentioned. 
We  see,  in  effect,  by  the  discourse  of  the  president,  on 
the  day  of  the  first  session  of  the  general  assembly, 
that  the  deputies  are  assembled  for  three  things,  '  1°  for 
the  promotion  of  peace,  2°  for  the  observance  of  the 
canons  of  the  church,  3°  to  maintain  our  maxims  ;  and 
that  this  plan  is  traced  out  for  them  in  the  procurations 
of  the  provinces.'  The  desire  of  all  the  clergy  of  the 
kingdom  for  the  maintenance  of  the  maxims  of  France, 
was  even  so  formal,  that  the  provinces,  '  by  an  unani- 
mous consent,  borne  in  all  the  procurations,  demand 
that  tlie  assembly  should  labour  to  confirm  the  maxims 
and  the  liberty  of  the  Gallican  church  "'.'  " 

Thus  solemnly  convened,  and  vested  with  these  spe- 
cific   powers,    the    general    assembly    of   the   Gallican 

'  De  Barral,  p.  123.  >"  Ibid.  p.  124,  12.5. 

T  2 


•276  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

church  met  in  1682  ",  and  after  due  deliberation  agreed 
on  the  celebrated  declaration  comprising  four  articles^ 
which  formed  the  doctrine  of  their  churches ;  viz.  that 
the  pope  has  no  power  over  princes  in  temporal  matters ; 
that  princes  are  not  subject  in  temporals  to  any  eccle- 
siastical power ;  that  they  cannot  by  the  authority  of 
the  keys  directly  or  indirectly  be  deposed  ;  nor  their  sub- 
jects absolved  from  their  faith  and  obedience,  or  their 
oath  of  allegiance ;  that  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of 
Constance  concerning  the  superiority  of  a  general  synod 
to  the  pope  shall  remain  in  force  and  unshaken ;  and 
that  those  who  infringe  their  authority,  or  wrest  their 
meaning  only  to  the  time  of  schism,  are  disapproved  by 
the  Gallican  church  ;  that  the  exercise  of  the  papal 
power  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  canons  of  the  universal 
church ;  that  the  ancient  customs  and  institutions  of 
the  Gallican  church  shall  remain  unshaken  ;  in  fine, 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  see  in  matters  of 
faith  is  not  infallible  °. 

The  general  assembly  having  agreed  on  these  arti- 
cles, addressed  an  encyclical  letter  to  all  the  bishops 
of  France,  informing  them  of  the  result  of  their  delibe- 
rations, and  transmitting  the  "  Articles  of  their  doc- 
trine,^' in  order  that  by  the  unanimous  approbation  of 
all  the  bishops  of  France,  they  may  "  become  to  the 
faithful,  venerable  and  imperishable  canons  of  the 
Gallican  church  p."  The  assembly,  of  which  the  great 
Bossuet  was  a  conspicuous  member,  thus  evidently 
expressed  its   belief  that   the  general   consent  of  the 

"    "    Nusquam    visus   est    in  Bouvier,  De  Vera  Eccl.  p.  367. 

Gallia     coetus     episcoporum     et  "  See  Bouvier,  De  Vera  Eccl. 

presbyterorum    numerosior,    vir-  p.  369  ;    De  Barral,  p.  40,  &c.  ; 

tutibus    ac    scientia    commenda-  Leslie,  Case   stated  between  the 

tior,   inquit   D.    de    Bausset,   in  Church  of  Rome,  &c. 

historia  Bossuet  (t.ii.  p.  121)." —  •"  "  Rogamus   porro    fraterni- 


SECT.  11.]  Gallican  Articles.  277 

churches  of  France,  would  in  fact  invest  these  articles 
with  canonical  authority.  And  those  churches,  thus 
fully  aware  of  the  result  of  their  conduct,  did  in  fact, 
without  any  opposition,  unanimously  approve  the  four 
articles.  As  the  bishop  of  Mans  observes :  "  All  the 
Gallican  clergy  morally  subscribed  to  them  ''."  Thus 
they  were  invested  with  the  authority  of  the  whole 
Gallican  church ;  and  as  such  all  the  Gallican  theolo- 
gians defended  them  up  to  the  French  revolution,  and 
in  1765,  the  assembly  of  the  clergy  caused  them  to  be 
reprinted  and  sent  to  every  diocese  in  France  '. 

Thus  far  we  have  seen  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of 
these  articles,  let  us  now  see  their  confirmation  by  the 
state.  In  168'2,  Louis  XIV.  issued  an  edict  commandinfi- 
them  to  be  registered  in  all  parliaments,  universities, 
faculties  of  theology  and  canon  law  in  the  kingdom, 
forbidding  all  clergy,  secular  and  regular,  from  teach- 
ing or  writing  anything  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
these  articles,  ordering  that  all  persons  chosen  to  teach 


tatem    pietatemque  vestram,    re-  Romanae  synodi  patrum  consen- 

verendissimi  praesules,   lit  quon-  tione  Constantinopolitanauniver- 

dain  concilii   Constantinopolitani  salis      et      oecumenica     synodus 

primi    patres   rogabant   Romanas  effecta  est,   ita  et  communi  nos- 

synodi  episcopos,  ad  quos  syno-  trum    omnium    sententia,    noster 

dalia  sua  gesta  mittebant ;   ut  de  consessus    fiat    natlonale    totius 

iis   quae    ad    ecclesise    Gallicanas  regnl   concilium,   et  quos  ad  vos 

perpetuo  sartam   tectam   conser-  mittimus    doctrince  nostrce   arti' 

vandam  pacem  explicuimus,  no-  culi,  fidelibus  venerandi   et  nun- 

bis  congratulemini,  et  idem  nobis-  quam  intermorituri  ecclcsice  Gal- 

cum  sentientes,  earn  quam  com-  licance  canonex  evadanl." — Epis- 

muni  consilio  divulgandam  esse  tola    Conventus   Cler.    Gall,    ad 

censuimus,   doctrinam,  in  vestris  Univers.    Eccl.    Gall,    prsesules. 

singulis     ecclesiis,    atque     etiam  De  Barral,  p.  423,  424. 
universitatibus  et  scholis  vestras  "^    "  Omnis   clerus    Gallicanus 

pastorali    curse    commissis,     aut  moraliter   ei    (declarationi)    sub. 

apud  vestras   diceceses   constitu-  scripsif." — Bouvier,     De    Vera 

tis,  ita  procuretis  admitti  ut  nihil  Eccl.  p.  372. 
unquam  ipsi  contrariuin  docealur.  ■"  De  Barral,  p.  3G0. 

Sic    eveniet    ut,    quemadmodum 


278  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

theology  in  universities,  shall  subscribe  the  same  pre- 
viously, and  teach  the  doctrine  explained  there ;  that 
where  there  are  several  professors,  one  of  them  shall 
every  year  teach  the  said  doctrine,  and  where  there  is 
but  one,  he  shall  be  obliged  to  teach  it  every  third 
year ;  that  no  one  shall  be  admitted  to  degrees  in 
theology  or  canon  law  unless  he  sustains  the  said  doc- 
trine in  one  of  his  theses.  In  fine,  he  exhorts  and 
enjoins  all  the  archbishops  and  bishops  to  employ  their 
authority  to  cause  this  doctrine  to  be  taught  through- 
out the  whole  extent  of  their  dioceses  ^ 

Such  was  the  authority  of  the  articles  of  the  church 
of  France  in  1682,  presenting  a  perfect  parallel  to  that 
of  the  English  articles  in  the  ])receding  century.  Both 
were  made  and  confirmed  by  a  national  church  :  each 
comprised  the  doctrine  and  maxims  of  a  national 
church  :  each  sustained  the  liberties  of  a  national 
church  :  each  was  designed  by  its  authors  to  be  a  rule  of 
doctrine  :  each  was  confirmed  by  the  temporal  power, 
made  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  to  be  sub- 
scribed by  those  who  were  to  teach  theology.  It  is 
true  that  the  Gallican  church  did  not  oblige  all  the 
clergy  to  subscribe  their  articles :  but  she  sanctioned 
their  subscription  by  those  who  were  to  teach  the  clergt/^ 
which  was  in  fact  accomplishing  the  same  object  in- 
directly. 

Another  striking  point  of  resemblance  is,  that  as 
the  church  of  England  was  slandered  and  traduced  as 
schismatical,  under  the  false  pretence  that  she  put 
forward  all  her  articles  as  matters  of  faith  ;  so  the 
Gallican  clergy  were  styled  heretics  and  schismatics, 
and    incurred   the    most   furious    opposition   from    the 

^  Ibid.  p.  419,  420. 


SECT.  11.]  Galilean  Articles.  279 

pope  and  all  the  Ultramontane  party,  under  the  very 
same  pretence.  Bossuet  and  the  Galilean  theologians 
justified  themselves  by  declaring  that  "  the  clergy  do 
not  propose  the  articles  of  their  declaration  as  dogmas, 
which  it  is  necessary  to  believe:  they  propose  them 
because  they  believe  them  certain,  conformable  to  the 
common  and  ordinary  doctrine  of  the  Galilean  church, 
useful  to  the  universal  church,  and  drawn  from  ancient 
sources  *."  This  justified  them  in  the  opinion  of  all 
reasonable  members  of  the  Roman  obedience :  but  it 
is  in  vain  that  all  our  most  eminent  theologians  have 
again  and  again  protested  the  very  same  thing  of  our 
articles :  the  old  calumny  is  perpetuated  against  us  by 
a  spirit  of  ignorance  or  malevolence,  which  seems  in- 
capable of  amelioration.  One  reason  of  this  distinc- 
tion perhaps  may  be,  that  the  church  of  England  has 
not  been  intimidated  or  deluded  by  the  outcries  of  the 
papal  party,  so  as  to  waver  in  her  resolution  to  uj^hold 
her  own  liberties  and  the  truth  :  Avhile  in  France 
symptoms  of  apprehension  and  concession  were  mani- 
fested. Thus  in  1692  Louis  XIV.  wrote  to  the  pope 
Innocent  XII.  to  inform  him  that  he  had  directed  the 
execution  of  the  clauses  in  his  decree  which  had  given 
offence,  to  be  suspended  ".  Several  of  the  clergy  named 
to  bishoprics  by  Louis  XIV.,  and  to  whom  the  popes 
had  refused  institution  unless  they  retracted  the  arti- 
cles of  the  assembly  of  1682,  at  which  they  had  been 
present,  addressed  a  letter  to  Innocent  XII.  in  which 
they  declared  that  the  articles  of  that  assembly  should 
be  held  as  ''7iot  decrecd\"    The  expression  is  equivocal, 


*  Bossuet,  Append,  ad  Defens.  tives,  n.  ix. 

Decl.  Cler.  Gall.  lib.  i.  c.  1.    De  *  "  Quidquid  in  iisdem  comi- 

Barral,  p.  127.  tiis  circa  ecclesiasticam   potesta- 

"  De  Barral,   Pieces  Justifica-  tern  et  pontificiam  auctoritatem 


280  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  CH.  xiv. 

and  may  imply  as  Bossiiet '",  De  Barral  ^  Bouvier  \ 
and  others  assert,  that  the  Gallican  articles  were  "  not 
defined  as  matters  of  faith  ;"  still  it  was  apparently  a 
concession  to  the  papal  power,  and  has  been  repre- 
sented by  the  Ultramontanes  as  a  recantation. 

Notwithstanding  the  complimentary  expressions  of 
Louis  XIV.,  however,  the  four  articles  "  were  taught  by 
professors  in  all  the  universities  of  France,  and  almost 
all  theologians  who  treated  of  the  church  in  their 
writings,  maintained  them  ^"  They  have  ever  since 
remained  the  law  of  France.  Bouvier  says  that,  as  the 
edict  of  Louis  XIV.  in  1682,  "was  not  expressly  re- 
voked, the  jjarliaments  always  considered  it  as  a  law 
properly  so  called,  even  to  the  beginning  of  the  French 
revolution ;  and  strictly  attended  to  its  observance  ^." 
In  the  organic  articles  enacted  by  the  French  govern- 
ment in  1801,  there  was  an  express  provision  that  the 
four  Gallican  articles  should  be  acknowledged  by  all 
heads  of  seminaries.  The  same  provision  was  made  by 
the  Emperor  Napoleon  in  establishing  the  university 
of  France  in  1808^.  An  imperial  edict  in  1810, 
declared  these  articles  the  law  of  the  empire,  and 
ordered  them  to  be  observed  by  all  archbishops,  bishops, 
universities,  directors  of  seminaries,  and  schools  of 
theology ".  The  Bourbons,  on  their  restoration,  or- 
dered them  to  be  taught.  The  French  ministers  of 
the  Interior  obliged  the  directors  of  seminaries  to  sub- 
scribe  a  promise   to   teach   the   doctrine   contained   in 

decretum  ceiiseri  potuit,  pro  non  ^  Bouvier,    De   Vera  Eccl.    p. 

decreto    habemus    et     habendum  373. 

esse  declaramns.  .  .  Mens  quippe  ^  Ibid,  p.  375. 

nostra    non    fuit    quidquam    de-  *  Ibid. 

cernere." — Bouvier,  p.  373.  ^  Memoires   Eccl.   de    France, 

*  Bossuet,    Gallia  Orthodoxa,  t.  ii.  p.  268. 

s.  6.  '  Ibid.  p.  363. 

^  De  Barral,  p.  354. 


SECT.   111.]  Interpretation  of  the  Articles.  281 

these  articles.  In  18*26,  the  royal  court  of  Paris, 
declared  that  they  formed  part  of  the  fundamental 
laws  of  the  kingdom  '*.  Such  in  fact  was  the  judgment 
of  the  civil  power ;  thougli  Bouvier,  bishop  of  Mans, 
did  not  see  how  the  Gallican  declaration  could  have 
the  force  of  a  civil  law  *■.  However,  this  prelate  in 
reply  to  the  question,  "  whether  it  is  lawful  to  subscribe 
this  declaration,"  observes  :  "  First,  it  is  certain,  as  we 
have  said,  that  it  is  altogether  lawful  to  hold  and 
teach  the  doctrine  contained  in  it :  it  does  not  appear 
therefore,  why  it  should  be  unlawful  to  subscribe  to  it, 
not  as  a  doctrinal  judgment,  but  as  an  exposition  of 
opinions.  . .  .  Secondly,  it  is  certain  that  those  who 
subscribe  to  it,  merit  no  censure,"  &c. '  This  most 
fully  justifies  the  clergy  of  England  for  subscribing  to 
some  doctrines  which  are  not  matters  of  faith. 

SECTION  111. 

ON    THE    INTERPRETATION    OF    THE    ARTICLES. 

That  the  meaning  of  a  great  part  of  the  articles  is 
clear,  is  not  denied,  I  believe,  by  any  one  :  but  as  some 
parts  of  them  are  understood  differently,  it  is  a  matter 
of  some  ijnportance  to  ascertain  by  what  general  rules 
we  should  be  guided  in  their  interpretation.  It  has 
been  suggested  by  some  writers,  that  the  sentiments  of 
the  compilers  of  the  articles  furnish  the  true  key  ;  but 
this  view  seems  to  involve  us  in  very  considerable 
diflficulties.  First,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  say  who 
really  compiled  the  articles.  The  convocation  of  1562 
may  lay  a  fair  claim  to  this  office,  because,  although 

^    La    Mennais,     Affaires    de     379. 
Rome,  p.  52,  53.  '  Ibid.  p.  379,  380. 

'  Bouvier,    De    Vera  Eccl.  p. 


282  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

they  adopted  certain  articles  of  1552  as  their  basis, 
they  examined,  corrected,  and  reformed  those  articles  % 
and  thus  in  fact  made  them  their  own  ;  and  though 
they  doubtless  agreed  in  general  with  those  who  com- 
piled the  former  articles,  they  may  not  have  held  the 
same  views  on  every  point.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  wrote  in  1552,  certainly  composed  the  ground- 
work of  the  existing  articles ;  and  it  may  be  said  that 
where  their  work  was  not  altered,  their  sense  was  pre- 
served ;  or  that  their  sense  in  general  was  approved  by 
the  convocation  of  1562,  and  the  corrections  were 
merely  in  the  modes  of  expression,  not  in  the  doctrine 
itself.  But  this  is  not  all :  for  the  articles  of  1552 
appear  to  have  been  based  on  a  body  of  thirteen 
articles,  agreed  on  in  1538,  during  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII.  by  some  of  the  English  bishoj^s,  together  with 
certain  Lutheran  theologians,  who  were  engaged  in 
a  negotiation  for  a  more  perfect  union  with  our 
churches  ^  The  views  of  the  compilers  of  these  arti- 
cles, if  known,  might  probably  give  a  new  complexion 
to  the  discussion.  Besides  this,  it  is  a  matter  of 
extreme  difficulty,  if  not  totally  impossible,  to  pro- 
nounce what  the  sense  of  these  respective  bodies  of 
compilers  was  mdividualli/,  when  they  composed  their 
articles.  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  were 
not  all  perfectly  united  in  opinion.  The  majority  of 
the  synod  of  1562  probably  have  left  no  record  of 
their  individual  sentiments  on  any  one  doubtful  point 
in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  Besides,  those  individuals 
whose  books  remain,  may  not  have  been  exactly  in 
the  same  mind  when  they  composed  the  articles,  as 

*  Wilkins,    Concilia,   t.  iv.   p.     kyns,  vol.  iv.  p.  273.     See  also 
232,  233.  Mr.    Jenkyns'   Remarks,   vol.   i. 

''  Cranmer's    Works    by   Jen-     p.  xx — xxiv. 


SKCT.  in.]  Interpretatiun  of  the  Articles.  '283 

when  they  wrote  their  books.  In  fine,  it  is  uncertain 
who  actually  composed  the  articles  of  1552.  Several 
bishops,  as  Crannier,  Ridley,  and  Latimer,  are  said  to 
have  had  a  considerable  share  in  it,  but  various  other 
theologians  (we  know  not  how  many)  were  also  con- 
sulted, and  aided  in  the  work  \  There  is  the  same 
uncertainty  as  to  the  compilers  of  the  articles  of  1538. 
Hence  it  appears  to  me,  that  there  can  be  nothing  but 
a  mere  vague  probability  attained,  by  deriving  the  ex- 
position of  the  articles  from  the  sentiments  of  one  or 
more  theologians  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

It  has  been  said  with  more  reason,  that  the  true 
sense  of  the  articles  is  that  designed  by  the  imposers, 
or  by  the  authority  which  proposes  them  for  adoption 
and  subscription :  and  in  this  opinion,  rightly  under- 
stood, I  concur.  The  question  first  arises,  '  By  whom 
are  the  articles  thus  proposed  V  First :  it  is  not  the 
individual  prelate  who  receives  subscriptions  to  the 
articles,  for  he  only  discharges  an  obligation  imposed 
on  him  by  the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers.  Se- 
condly, the  clergy  are  obliged  to  profess  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  by  the  act  of  parliament  made  in  1571, 
which  being  unrepealed,  the  power  of  the  state  im- 
poses the  articles :  but  the  state  then  and  now  could 
not  have  had  any  intention  of  imposing  them  in  a 
sense  different  from  that  of  the  church  of  England. 
Thirdly,  they  are  imposed  by  the  church  of  England  ; 
for  the  canon  of  the  synod  of  1571,  renewed  and  con- 
firmed by  that  of  1(304,  has  always  since  remained  in 
force ;  and  therefore  the  articles  are  proposed  for  sub- 
scription by  the  whole  church  of  England.  The  sense 
of  the  church  of  England,  therefore,   is  the  sense  in 

•^  Todd's   Cranmer,   vol.   ii.  p.     kyns,  vol.  i.  p.  cvii. 
288  ;   Cranmer's  Works  by  Jen- 


284  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

which  the  articles  are  to  be  understood,  and  the  church 
has  always  understood  them  as  she  did  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  because  she  has  never,  by  any  act  whatsoever 
since  that  time,  expressed  any  change  of  interpreta- 
tion. In  still  continuing,  without  remark,  the  same 
law  which  she  enacted  in  the  sixteenth  century,  she 
has  afforded  a  pledge  of  her  retaining  the  same 
sense  she  then  had.  How  then  is  this  sense  of  the 
church  to  be  ascertained  ?  I  reply  first,  that  the  arti- 
cles being  designed  to  produce  unity  of  opinion,  the 
meaning  of  a  large  part  of  them  is  doubtless  plain  and 
clear,  as  every  one  admits  it  to  be.  This  will,  in  itself, 
furnish  one  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  the  remain- 
der :  viz.  that  it  shall  not  be  contradictory  to  what  is 
elsewhere  clearly  stated  in  the  articles  themselves. 
Secondly,  the  formularies  of  public  worship,  comprising 
creeds,  solemn  addresses  to  God,  and  instructions  of 
the  faithful,  which  have  been  also  approved"^,  and 
always  used  by  these  catholic  churches,  furnish  a  suffi- 
cient testimony  of  their  doctrine:  for  they  could  never 
have  intended  that  their  articles  should  be  interpreted 
in  a  sense  contrary  to  the  doctrine  clearly  and  uni- 
formly taught  in  their  other  approved  formularies. 
Thirdly,  since  it  is  the  declaration  of  the  church  of 
England,  that  "  a  just  and  favourable  construction 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  all  human  writings,  especially 
such  as  are  set  forth  by  authority  %"  it  is  apparently 
her  desire,  that  where   any  doubt  shall  remain  of  her 


'^  Synod,  1571.   Can.  de  Con-  defiance  of  the   clear  and  mani- 

cion.    Wilkins,    Cone.    t.    iv,   p.  fest  orthodoxy,  not  only  of  those 

267  ;    Synod,     1604,     Can.     iv.  formularies,    but    of   our    creeds 

xxxvi.     This  rule  was  violated  and     ritual.  —  See    Waterland's 

by  Clarke  and   the  Arian  party,  case  of  Arian  subscriptions, 
who  attempted  to  force  an  Arian         *  Preface  to  Book  of  Common 

interpretation  on  the  Articles,  in  Prayer,  &c. 


SECT.  IV.]  Iiderpretatum  of  the  Articles.  285 

real  sense,  that  sense  may  be  always  understood  to  be 
the  best,  i.  e.  the  sense  most  conformable  to  scripture 
and  to  catholic  tradition,  which  she  acknowledges  as 
her  guides.  The  very  convocation  of  1571,  which 
originally  enjoined  subscription  to  the  articles,  declared 
at  the  same  time  the  principle  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, that  nothing  should  be  taught  as  an  article  of 
the  faith,  except  what  was  supported  by  the  authority 
of  scripture  and  catholic  tradition  ^. 

In  fine,  it  appears  to  be  the  persuasion  of  the  most 
learned  men,  and  it  is  consistent  with  the  practice  of 
these  churches  to  suppose,  that  they  have  in  some 
disputed  points,  especially  in  the  article  on  predestina- 
tion, employed  language  wdiich  is  designed  to  teach 
simply  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  without  offering  any 
decision  on  certain  differences  of  private  opinion  :  and 
this  should  lead  us  carefully  to  avoid  imposing  on  the 
articles,  any  doctrines  except  what  they  actually  teach, 
either  expressly  or  by  necessary  consequence ;  and  to 
view  with  charity  and  forbearance  those  who  may 
differ  from  us  on  points  which  have,  for  many  cen- 
turies, been  debated  in  the  universal  church. 

SECTION  IV. 

ON    SUBSCIUPTIGN    TO    THE    ARTICLES. 

I  have  above  shewn  the  right  of  the  church  to 
demand  a  sincere  adhesion  to  her  articles  of  faith, 
doctrine,  and  opinion.  The  particular  mode  in  which 
this  is  effected,  is  by  suhscriptmi.  It  remains  to 
examine  the  lawfulness  and  meaning  of  this  practice. 

The  meaning  of  subscription  to  a  body  of  articles,  in 

^  See  above,  p.  2(50. 


286  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xiv. 

the  case  of  a  person  at  the  age  of  reason,  is  an  acknow- 
ledcpnent  that  the  doctrines  comprised  in  them  are  sin- 
cerely those  of  the  subscriber.  As  the  signature  of  a 
letter  implies  that  the  letter  conveys  the  sentiments  of 
the  person  signing ;  as  the  subscription  of  a  prince  to 
an  edict  or  a  proclamation,  attests  that  it  is  the  act  of 
that  prince;  so  subscription  to  articles  implies  their 
entire  adoption  as  the  profession  of  the  subscriber.  If 
any  person  should  accidentally  discover  a  confession  of 
faith  and  doctrine  formally  subscribed  by  some  other 
individual,  he  would  infallibly  regard  it  as  the  confes- 
sion of  that  individual's  own  belief  and  persuasion. 

The  inscription  of  each  apostolical  epistle,  com- 
prising the  name  of  the  apostle,  and  the  particular 
subscription  which  was  sometimes  added  %  testified 
that  that  epistle  contained  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle. 
Thus  also  the  prefixing  of  the  names  of  bishops  to  the 
synodical  epistles  of  the  early  synods  ^  expressed  their 
union  in  those  acts.  Wherever  we  find  instances  in 
subsequent  ages  of  subscriptions  to  articles,  the  mean- 
ing always,  either  expressed  or  understood,  was  that  of 
a  real  adoption  and  approbation  of  those  articles,  not  a 
mere  submission  to  them  as  articles  of  peace.  At  the 
first  oecumenical  synod  of  Nice  all  the  bishops,  accord- 
ing to  Eusebius,  confirmed  the  faith  by  their  subscrip- 
tions ^  Socrates  says  that  they  approved  and  adopted 
it  ^    and  that  at   length   Eusebius  of  Caesarea   agreed 


"    2    Thess,    iii.    15  ;     1    Cor.  ra  kqivy)  ltloyp.ii'a. 

xvi.  20.  ^  TavTTjy  rip'  Ttriariv  rpiaicomot 

^  E.    g.    the    Synods    of    Car-  p.ii'   Trpog   toIq    cekuoktu)  tyinocrav 

thage   and  Antioch   in   the   third  re    icai   'la-rep^av  K-at    wc   <pr]fTiy    6 

century.  Evcr£/3toc,       ofiofoJi'i'icrayTiQ      nal 

*=  Euseb.  Vita   Const,   lib.   iii.  ofxocoHiaavTtQ  (.ypacpoy. —  Socrat. 

c.    14.     'EKvpoiiTO    h"  if^T]    Kdi  h  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  8. 
ypcKpij  ^i     vTro(7T)f^£iu)rreiog    etcaarov 


SECT.  IV.]  Import  of  Suhscription.  287 

with  the  others  and  subscribed '.  The  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  had  exhorted  all  to  be  of  one  mind  and  subscribe 
the  doctrine '.  In  all  these  instances  subscription  is 
understood  as  equivalent  to  confirmation,  agreement,  or 
assent  to  the  doctrine  subscribed.  Subscription  was 
viewed  in  the  same  light  by  those  who  refused  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius,  and  to  the 
creed  of  Ariminum.  They  believed  that  it  would  iden- 
tify them  with  proceedings  which  they  disapproved. 
Several  persons  went  into  exile  rather  than  subscribe 
the  decree  of  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Ephesus, 
against  Nestorius,  which  was  enjoined  by  the  civi) 
power  ^.  In  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Chalcedon,  the 
bishops,  having  approved  the  epistle  of  S.  Leo,  said, 
"He  who  does  not  subscribe  the  epistle  to  which  the 
synod  has  consented,  is  a  heretic  ^"  Flavianus,  patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  was  obliged  to  excommunicate 
several  monks  who  refused  to  subscribe  the  con- 
demnation of  Eutyches  by  the  synod  at  Constantino- 
ple '.  Subscriptions  were  exacted  to  the  decrees  of 
the  fifth  oecumenical  synod  against  Theodore,  &c.,  when 
Facundus  Hermianensis  complained  of  the  demand  of 
subscription,  "  as  if,"  he  says,  "  no  one  could  be  a 
catholic  without  pronouncing  anathema  against  Theo- 
dore of  Mopseuestia  ''."  In  those  ages  subscription  was 
always  considered  equivalent  to  a  real  approbation  and 
adoption  of  what  was  subscribed,  and  therefore  who- 


*  Ourwc  "/^a  To'iQ  TzoXkoiq  iraai  &c.     Baluzii    Coll.    Cone.    t.    i. 

avvrivtaiv  re    Kal    irvvviriypaypEi'.  ed.  1683. 
Ibid.  ''  Actio  iv.   Hard.  Cone.   t.  ii. 

'    Ilu^Tac    crvyKaTadeffdai     Kal  p.  418. 
vTToypa^fiv     To'iQ     SoyfxatTi,     Kal         '  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  ii.  p.  234. 
<TV[ji(j)(i)ruv  TovToii-  avToiq  irapEKe-  ^   Facundus   Hermianens.   lib. 

XevETo.      Ibid.  iii.  c.  1.  ed.  Sirmond.  p.  472. 

sSynodicon  c.  148.  179.  183, 


288  The  XXXIX  Articles.  [p.  iv.  cri.  xiv. 

ever  objected  to  the  doctrine,  refused  to  subscribe.     1 
shall  not  multiply  similar  instances. 

The  forms  of  subscription  to  the  decrees  of  councils, 
and   to   formularies  of  doctrine  generally,  testify   the 
same   thing.     We  find,   intermingled   with  the  signa- 
tures of  bishops  who  subscribed  simply,  those  of  many, 
who  expressed  in   the  very  form  of  subscription  their 
approbation  of  the  preceding  formulary.     According  to 
Socrates,  Hosius  subscribed  the  Nicene   decree  thus : 
"  I,  Hosius,  believe  as  is  above  written  '."     A  frequent 
form  is  :  "  Ego  N.  consentiens  subscripsi."     The  same 
form  is  observed  in  the  signatures  to  the  confessions 
of  the  Reformation.     The  articles  of  Smalcald  are  suc- 
ceeded by  subscriptions  in  this  form  :  "  All  consenting 
profess   that   they   think  according  to   the  articles,   &c. 
and  that  they  approve  the  article,   (Sec.      Therefore  they 
subscribe  their  names  ""."     The  Formula  Concordiae  ter- 
minates thus,  "  In  the  sight  of  the  omnipotent  God, 
and  before  all  the  church  of  Christ,  &c,  we  openly  and 
expressly  testify  that  this  declaration  ...  is   truly  our 
doctrine,  faith,  and  confession.  Sec.  ...  In  it,  the  Lord 
helping  us,  we  will  jDersevere  constantly  to  the  end  of 
our  lives.     Tn  assurance  of  which,  with  mature  delibera- 
tion, &c.  ...  we  have  subscribed  this  declaration  with 
our  own   hands "."     Those  who   objected   to  the  doc- 
trine of  such  articles  refused  to  subscribe  them  :  thus 

^"OfTiog   tTTiaKOTvoQ   Kovdpovjii^Q  sentientes    profitentur,    se   juxta 

'unrat'iag,  oiiTdjQ  ttkttevu)  cjq  Trpo-  articulos  .  .  .  sentire.  ..  .  Profiten- 

yiypaTTTai.  ■ —  Socr.   Hist.   Eccl.  tur  etiam   se  articulum  de   pri- 

lib.  i.   c.  13.  matu  papse  .  .  .  approbare.     Ideo 

■"  De    mandate    illustrissimo-  nomina  suasubscribunt." — Artie, 

rum  principum,  &c.  .  .  relegimus  Smalcald. 

articulos    confessionis    exhibitaj         "  "  Clara  voce  et  diserte  testa- 

imperatori    in   conventu   Angus-  raur,  quod  declaratio  ilia  nostra 

tano,    et    Dei    beneficio,     omiies  de  omnibus  commemoratis  con- 

concionatores  qui  in  hoc  Smacal-  troversis  articulis,  et  nulla  pror- 

densi  conventu  interfuerunt,  con-  sus  alia,    revera  sit    nostra   doc- 


SEcr.  IV.]  Intport  of  Suhsrripfioii.  '289 

Peter  Martyr  and  Zanchius  were  obliged  to  leave 
Strasburg,  because  they  would  not  subscribe  the  con- 
fession of  Augsburgh,  at  least,  without  some  limitation. 
The  Arminians  Mxmt  into  banishment  rather  than  sub- 
scribe the  doctrines  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  which  they 
disbelieved.  The  puritans  refused  to  subscribe  the 
English  articles  which  related  to  discipline. 

The  forms  of  subscription  to  the  English  articles  by 
the  convocations  in  1562,  1571,  and  1604,  all  equally 
and  formally  expressed  their  assent,  approbation,  and 
adoption  of  those  articles  as  true  and  consonant  to  the 
word  of  God.  The  form  subscribed  by  all  the  clergy 
in  obedience  to  the  synod  of  1603 — 4,  and  practised 
ever  since,  even  to  this  day,  declares  that  all  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  are  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God, 
and  that  the  subscriber  allows  them  all ".  This  form 
evidently  implies  an  approbation  and  adoption  of  all 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

It  may  be  concluded,  therefore,  from  the  reason  of 
the  thing,  and  the  universal  sense  of  christians  from 
the  earliest  ages,  that  the  subscription  to  the  articles 
given  by  the  clergy,  implies  a  real  and  sincere  pro- 
fession and  adoption  of  the  doctrines  contained  in 
them,  and  an  undertaking  to  profess  those  doctrines 
on  all  fitting  occasions  :  but  it  by  no  means  implies 
the  adoption  and  inculcation  of  all  these  articles  as 
matters  of  faith,  or  obliges  us  to  consider  as  heretica 
members  of  other  churches,  who  may  in  some  points 
differ  from  them  :  for  that  only  is  matter  of  faith,  which 
is  clearly  proved  by  scripture  and  catholic  tradition. 

trina,  fides,  et  confessio  ...  in  ea,  timore    Dei     et    noniinis    ipsius 

Domino  nos  bene  juvante,  usque  invocatione,     propriis      manibus 

ad  vitas  finem  constantes  perse-  huic  declarationi  subscripsimus." 

verabinuis.       In    ejus   rei  Jidem,  — Formula  Concordiae. 

matura     cum     deliberatione,     in  "  Canon  xxxvi. 

VOL.  II.  U 


290  Autliority  of  the  Church  [paut  iv. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ON    THE    AUTHORITY    OF    THE    CHURCH    CONCERNIXG 
DISCIPLINE    AND    RITES. 

I  HAVE  elsewhere  shown  the  lawfulness  of  instituting 
discipline  and  rites  which,  though  not  expressed  in  scrip- 
ture, are  not  contrary  to  its  precepts  ''.  It  only  remains 
to  consider  more  particularly  the  power  of  the  church 
to  make  regulations  on  such  points,  and  the  obligation 
of  those  regulations  on  individuals  and  churches. 

I.  I  am  now  speaking  of  catholic  churches  as  distinct 
from  all  heresies,  and  therefore  assume  all  the  essentials 
of  rites  and  discijiline,  transmitted  from  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles,  to  be  preserved.  We  also  suppose  that 
other  general  and  lawful  regulations  of  discipline  have 
been  transmitted  from  former  times.  Supposing  that 
at  any  time  alterations,  not  affecting  essential  points, 
are  proposed :  the  first  question  is,  by  what  members 
of  the  church  they  may  be  enacted  :  that  is,  whether 
by  bishops  alone,  or  conjointly  with  others  ? 

I  reply  that  bishops  are  invested  with  the  right  of 
making  regulations  in  such  points,  w^ithout  the  addition 
of  any  other  members  of  the  church  :  for  being  chief 
pastors  of  the  church,  and  succeeding  to  the  place  of 
the  apostles,  it  is  virtually  said  to  them,  as  it  was  to 
the  apostles  themselves,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind 
on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  :"  "  He  that  hear- 

»  See  Part  HI.  Ch.  IV. 


CHAP,  XV.]  Concerning  Discipline  and  Rites.  291 

eth  you  heareth  me:"  and  "As  my  Father  hath  sent 
me,  even  so  send  I  you."  And,  therefore,  as  the  apostles 
were  commissioned  not  only  to  teach,  but  to  make 
regulations  of  good  order :  and  as  they  not  only  exer- 
cised this  power,  but  transmitted  it  to  others,  ("  For 
this  cause  have  I  left  thee  at  Ephesus,  that  thou 
mightest  set  things  in  order '' :")  this  power  was  to 
descend  to  all  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  The 
same  is  confirmed  by  the  practice  of  the  universal 
church  in  her  oecumenical  and  particular  synods,  when 
bishops  alone  most  commonly  made  enactments  con- 
cerning rites  and  discipline. 

But  since  the  authority  of  bishops  is  paternal,  and 
is  not  designed  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  an  earthly 
domination,  because  the  apostle  says,  that  they  should 
not  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage  %"  nor  have  they 
"  dominion  over  our  faith  ** ;"  it  has  always  been  held 
both  wise  and  right,  that  in  making  regulations  for  their 
particular  churches,  they  should,  if  possible,  act  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  discreet  and  holy  brethren, 
in  order  that  all  things  might  proceed  with  more  grace- 
fulness and  facility.  The  faithful  in  each  particular 
church  are  bound  to  obey  their  bishop  in  all  lawful 
regulations,  that  is,  in  those  which  are  not  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God  ;  by  the  apostolical  rule  "  Obey  them 
that  have  the  rule  over  you  and  submit  yourselves,  for 
they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give 
account  \" 

II.  May  particular  bishops  and  churches  make  and 
adopt  regulations  in  matters  of  discipline  and  rites  ? 

I   reply,  that   this   power   is   originally   inherent  in 
every  particular  church  :  and  has  been  repeatedly  exer- 
ts Tit.  i.  5.  ^  2  Cor.  i.  24 
'^  1  Pet.  V.  .3.           -  *  Heb.  xiii.  17. 

U  2 


•292  Authority  of  the  Church  [part  iv. 

cised  in  all  ages,  as  we  may  see  by  the  canons  of 
diocesan  synods,  and  by  the  various  rituals  and  litur- 
gies which  still  exist  in  all  parts  of  the  church.  But 
while  this  power  is  inherent  in  particular  churches, 
they  often,  by  ancient  custom  or  formal  enactment, 
are  united  by  provincial  or  national  association,  and 
agree,  for  many  good  reasons,  to  refrain  from  exercis- 
ing their  inherent  powers,  and  to  adopt  uniformity  of 
rites  and  discipline.  And  where  this  custom  has  been 
long  continued,  and  no  valid  reason  can  be  assigned 
for  altering  it,  there  is  an  obligation  of  charity  on 
particular  bishops  and  churches  to  obey  the  ancient 
rule,  lest  jealousies  and  schisms  might  be  excited 
by  their  transgressing  it.  But  where  no  such  rule 
exists,  particular  churches  may  exercise  their  natural 
liberty. 

III.  Are  provincial  and  national  churches  bound  by 
the  regulations  concerinng  discipline  and  rites  made  by 
the  bishops  of  more  numerous  churches,  and  accepted 
by  those  churches  ? 

I  reply  that  they  are  not  bound,  except  when  those 
regulations  are  essentially  necessary  to  maintain  the 
divine  and  apostolical  institutions,  to  reform  abuses 
prejudicial  to  piety,  or  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
church  without  compromising  the  christian  truth.  In 
such  cases  there  is,  indeed,  an  obligation  to  adopt  re- 
gulations, whether  made  by  general,  national,  or  pro- 
vincial synods ;  and  on  this  ground  we  might  easily 
show,  that  some  regulations  adopted  by  our  national 
church,  are  obligatory  on  the  churches  of  the  Roman 
obedience.  But  where  there  is  no  such  special  reason, 
the  regulations,  even  of  oecumenical  synods,  in  rites 
and  discipline,  are  not  obligatory  on  national  or  parti- 
cular churches.     Some  canons   of  the  synods  of  Con- 


CHAP.  XV. J         Concerning  Discipline  and  Rites.  293 

stantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  were  not  adopted 
by  the  western  churches.  In  the  code  of  canons  of 
the  universal  church,  approved  by  the  oecumenical 
synod  of  Chalcedon,  are  many  regulations  which  were 
not  practised  in  the  west.  More  recently  we  have 
seen  several  of  the  Roman  churches  not  accepting  the 
discipline  of  the  synod  of  Trent,  which  they  acknow- 
ledge to  be  an  oecumenical  synod.  Therefore  it  is 
clear,  that  the  regulations  of  oecumenical  synods  con- 
cerning variable  rites  and  discipline,  are  not  binding 
on  national  churches  except  by  their  own  approbation 
and  adoption  of  them. 

IV.  It  is  very  true  that  the  power  of  making  re- 
gulations concerning  rites  and  discipline  may  be  injudi- 
ciously exercised.  God  does  not  always  vouchsafe, 
even  to  men  of  good  intentions,  the  gifts  of  wisdom 
and  moderation,  and  an  insight  into  the  practical  con- 
sequences of  things  ;  and  thus  He  did  not  interfere  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  several  rites  into  His 
church,  which,  though  arising  in  some  instances  from  a 
spirit  of  devotion  and  humility,  yet  were  found  by 
experience  to  be  prejudicial  to  piety,  and  as  such  were 
removed  by  the  authority  of  our  catholic  churches.  It 
is  also  true  that  this  power  may  be  too  largely  exer- 
cised :  and  that  the  multiplication  of  rites,  in  themselves 
harmless,  may  become  tso  great,  that  the  church  may 
be  obliged  to  prune  away  their  redundancy.  This  also 
was  done  by  our  churches  in  the  sixteenth  century,  as 
the  preface  to  the  Prayer-book  teaches  us  ^ :  for  we 
should  be  greatly  mistaken,  if  we  supposed  that  the 
church  of  England  meant  to  censure  or  condemn  as 
superstitious,  all  the  rites  which  she  dispensed  with  at 


*  "  Some  are  put  away,  be-  in  these  latter  days,  that  the 
cause  the  great  excess  and  mul-  burden  of  them  was  intolerable  ; 
titude  of  them  hath  so  increased      whereof    St.   Augustine    in    his 


294  Exercise  of  Discipline.         [p.  iv.  ch.  xvi. 

that  time.  Vague  and  general  charges  of  this  kind 
would  be  equally  inconsistent  with  christian  charity, 
and  with  the  truth. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

ON    THE    EXERCISE    AND    SANCTIONS    OF    ECCLESIASTICAL 
DISCIPLINE. 

In  examining  the  general  principles  of  practical  disci- 
pline in  the  church,  or  the  mode  in  which  transgres- 
sions against  faith  and  morality  are  to  be  treated,  I 
shall  first  consider  the  tribmials  in  particular  churches 
for  the  judgment  of  offences  ;  secondly,  the  censures 
wdiich  they  are  empowered  to  inflict ;  thirdly,  restora- 
tion by  penitence  and  absolution ;  and  fourthly,  the 
censure  of  churches  by  other  churches. 

.SECTION  I. 

ON    ECCLESIASTICAL    TRIBUNALS. 

The  oiFences  of  christians  against  the  divine  laws  of 
brotherly  love,  holiness,  and  faith,  were  by  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  placed  under  the  cognizance  of  their 
particular  churches  in  the  first  instance ;  as  we  may 
easily  gather  from  the  following  texts.  "  If  thy  bro- 
ther shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his 
fault,  &c.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell 
it  unto  the  church  ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the 
church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a 


time  complained,  that  they  were  counselled    that  such    yoke    and 

grown    to    such    a  number,  that  burden    should    be   taken    away, 

the  estate  of  christian  people  was  as    time   would    serve   quietly  to 

in   worse    case    concerning     that  do  it." 
matter  than  the  Jews.     And  he 


SECT.  I.]  Ecclesiastical  Tribunals.  295 

publican  ^"  "  Do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within  f 
But  them  that  are  without  God  judgeth.  Therefore 
fut  aimy  from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  person  ^" 
"  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  that 
are  spiritual  restore  such  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness '."  "  Of  some  have  compassion,  making  a  diffe- 
rence :  and  others  save  with  fear,  pulling  them  out  of 
the  fire  ;  hating  even  the  garment  spotted  by  the 
flesh  ''."  These  precepts  were  addressed  to  the  church  in 
common,  consisting  of  both  pastors  and  people.  And 
accordingly  we  find  from  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  that 
the  judgments  of  causes  in  the  church  were  attributed 
not  only  to  the  clergy,  but  to  the  brethren  also  \ 

The  error  of  the  Independents  in  this  point  con- 
sists in  their  vesting  the  whole  authority  in  the  laity, 
and  in  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  their  judging  per- 
sonally in  every  case.  The  scripture  lays  down  no 
such  rule  :  on  the  contrary  we  find  that  the  apostle 
sanctioned  the  appointment  of  one  individual  to  judge 
in  a  church.  "  If  then  ye  have  judgments  of  things 
pertaining  to  this  life,  set  them  to  judge  who  are  least 
esteemed  in  the  church.  I  speak  to  your  shame.  Is 
it  so  that  there  is  not  a  wise  man  among  you  ?  No 
not  one  that  shall  be  able  to  judge  between  his  bre- 
thren?' Thus  churches  were  empowered  to  delegate 
their  power  of  judging  to  individuals :  and  on  whom 
could  this  power  more  properly  and  reasonably  de- 
volve, than  on  those  pastors  who  were  made  overseers 
of  the  church  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  whom  the 
faithful  were  bound  to  obey  in  all  spiritual  matters  ; 
and  who  were  invested  with  peculiar  powers  above  all 
the  rest  of  the  brethren. 

*  Matt,  xviii.  15— 17.  '    See    Uu   Pin,    De   Antiqua 

b  1  Cor.  V.  12,  13.  Eccl.  Discipl.  Dissert,  iii.  c.  1. 
'  Gal.  vi.  1.  ^1  Cor.  vi.  4,  5. 

"  Jude  22,  23. 


'296  Exercise  of  Discipline.         [p.  iv.  CH    xvi. 

Since  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the 
mysteries  of  God,  were  commissioned  to  teach,  and  to 
be  an  example  of  all  believers,  it  is  plain  that  they 
were,  by  the  very  nature  of  their  office,  given  the  chief 
and  leading  part  in  all  judgments  concerning  religion. 
But  it  seems  that  their  power  went  further  than  this  ; 
and  that  they  were  invested  with  the  inherent  right  of 
judging  and  censuring,  independently  of  the  people, 
when  ihey  judged  it  necessary.  Thus  our  blessed  Saviour, 
not  only  said  to  the  church,  consisting  of  his  ministers 
and  people,  "  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall 
be  bound  in  heaven  ^ ;  but  he  said  to  the  apostles  only, 
and  through  them  to  their  successors  in  the  sacred 
ministry,  "  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted, 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained  *'." 
Hence  St.  Paul  alone  "  delivered  Hymenseus  and 
Alexander  to  Satan,  that  they  might  learn  not  to 
blaspheme ' :"  and  to  Timothy  he  said,  "  A  man  that  is 
a  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  re- 
ject ''."  It  was  probably  by  observing  these  circum- 
stances, that  christians  were  induced  universally  to 
devolve  the  judgment  of  all  causes  on  their  chief 
pastors,  the  bishops  of  the  catholic  church,  who,  how- 
ever, usually  judged  with  the  advice  of  their  clergy  ', 
and  at  length  deputed  a  portion  of  their  power  to 
their  vicars,  chancellors,  and  archdeacons. 

The  cognizance  of  the  causes  of  the  clergy  was 
specially  reserved  to  the  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  by 
St.  Paul,  who  MTites  to  Timothy  :  "Against  a  presbyter 
receive  not  an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses "","  thus  constituting  him  the  judge  of  the  pres- 


s  Matt,  xviii.  18.  '    Du    Pin,   De    Antiq.    Eccl. 

"  John  XX.  23.  Discipl.  Dissert,  iii.  p.  249. 
'  1  Tim.  i.  20.  '"  1  Tim.  v.  19. 

"  Tit.  iii.  10. 


SECT.  II.]  Ecclesiastical  Tribunals.  297 

byters  at  Ephesus.  It  would  not  have  been  decorous 
indeed,  that  the  sheep  shoukl  judge  their  shepherds, 
the  children  their  spiritual  parents,  those  who  are 
ruled  their  rulers  :  and  the  same  principle  of  fitness  and 
decency  requires  that  those  who  preside  in  every 
church  should  not  be  judged  by  the  inferior  clergy 
and  laity  of  their  churches,  but  by  those  who,  like 
themselves,  succeed  to  the  principal  and  apostolical 
power. 

The  judgments  of  particular  churches  in  the  causes 
of  laity  and  clergy,  were  not  final  ;  an  appeal  was 
allowed  to  provincial  synods ",  and  in  later  times  from 
the  bishop  to  the  metropolitan. 

For  many  ages  the  judgments  of  the  church  were 
conducted  according  to  fixed  rules  indeed,  but  without 
the  formality  of  juridical  proceedings.  It  was  not 
until  the  twelfth  century,  that  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion in  courts  proceeding  according  to  the  forms  of  the 
Roman  law,  was  introduced  into  the  church  °. 

SECTION  II. 

ON    ECCLESIASTICAL    CENSURES. 

The  ecclesiastical  censures  mentioned  in  scripture 
are  public  rebuke,  or  admonition,  and  the  greater 
excommunication,  or  anathema. 

The  former  is  authorized  by  the  following  passages, 
"  A  man  that  is  a  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second 
admonition,  reject  ^"  "  Rebuke  them  sharply  that  they 
may  be  sound  in  the  faith  ^"  "  Them  that  sin  rebuke 
before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear '."     These  passages 


"  Du  Pin,    ut   supra,   p.    248.  "  Tit.  iii.  10. 

See  also  vol.  i.  p.  66.  *"  Tit.  i.  13. 

"  Van  Espen,   Tract,  de  Cen-  "^  1  Tim.  v.  20. 
suris,  cap.  ii. 


y**^e^y*. 


298  Exercise  of  Discipline.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xvi. 

41'      authorize  not  only  verbal  admonitions,  but  formal  epis- 
ir«^      copal  censures  of  books,  propositions,  and  persons. 
/i  The   second   censure   is  mentioned  in   the  following 

;^  texts :  "  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man,  and  a  publican.  Verily, 
J  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth 
'  shall   be  bound   in   heaven;  and   whatsoever  ye   shall 

^^ '  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven  ^"  "  Whoseso- 
^^^  ever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and 
^^/  '^  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  are  retained  ^"  "  I  verily, 
v'**  as  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit,  have  judged 
'-  /i*^  already . . .  concerning  him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed, 
^-W/'  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are 
t^  ^ti.  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of 
/^^^  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto 
^u     Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit 

/^^^,   may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus Purge 

/       out  therefore  the  old  leaven  .  .  .  put  mvay  from  among 
'  "    '    yourselves  that  wicked  person  *."     "  A  man  that  is  an 
heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  rejecter 
'  ^^      «  WTq  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
^  ^*^  Jesus  Christ,   that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
?n.fL^  brother    that   walketh    disorderly,    and    not    after   the 
/(.^  .    tradition  which  he  received  from  us  ''."     "  I  would  they 
^       were  even  cut  o^that  trouble  you '."     "  Some  concern- 
ing faith  have  made  shipwreck,  of  whom  is  Hymenseus 
^    and  Alexander,   whom   I  have  delivered   unto  Satan, 
■  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme  ."     From  these 
passages   we  learn   that  the  judgment   of  the   church 
against  an  obstinate  and  impenitent  offender,  declaring 
'  z/^^'  i  him  to  be  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  publican,  is  ratified 

/irf/^i^         ^  Matt.  xvii.  17,  18.  •>  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  7. 

^  John  XX.  23.  '  Gal.  v.  12. 

y^<i.    ^         .  1  Cor.  V.  3,  &c.  ''  1  Tim.  i.  19,  20. 
;   jU^iC         '  Tit.  iii.  10. 


SECT.  II,]  Ecclesiastical  Censures.  299 

by  God  himself:  and  that  he  who  is  rightly  excommu- 
nicated, clave  non  errante,  is  cut  off  from  the  way  of 
salvation  :  so  that  unless  he  receive  the  grace  of  re- 
pentance, he  will  certainly  perish.  The  awful  nature 
of  this  censure  obviously  renders  it  necessary,  not  only 
that  the  most  conscientious  diligence  be  employed  in 
investigating  any  case  to  which  it  may  be  applied,  but 
that  its  use  be  sparing,  and  only  in  extreme  cases  '. 

The  external  effects  of  anathema  are,  an  exclusion 
from  the  sacraments,  from  all  christian  privileges,  from 
all  religious  intercourse  with  christians,  and  from  all 
other  intercourse  as  far  as  possible,  except  between 
relations,  whose  reciprocal  duties  are  imposed  by  the 
Divine  law ;  as  rulers  and  subjects,  parents  and  chil- 
dren, &c. 

Since  the  church  is  empowered  to  inflict  these  penal- 
ties collectively,  on  great  and  obstinate  offenders  against 
the  Divine  law,  she  has  also  the  power  of  inflicting  a 
portion  of  them  when  the  offence  is  inferior  :  the 
greater  power  including  the  less.  Hence  arose  the 
other  censures,  viz.  the  lesser  excommunication,  inter- 
dict, suspension,  irregularity,  degradation,  all  of  which 
are  partial  exclusions  from  christian  privileges.  The 
lesser  excommunication  consists  in  a  suspension  from  the 
sacraments  or  offices  of  the  church,  in  order  to  bringf 
the  offender  to  repentance.  It  is  the  opinion  of  some 
persons,  that  excommunications  latce  scntentice,  or  to 
be  incurred  ipso  facto,  (introduced  in  the  middle  ages  "",) 
are  always  to  be  understood  of  the  lesser  excommuni- 
cation ".     Interdict  Mas  a  censure   introduced  in  the 


'  See   August,    lib.    iv.    c.   1.  suiis,  c.  i.  s.  4. 
Contr.    Epistolam    Parmeniani  ;  "    Taylor's    Ductor    Dubitan- 

Fleury,    Instit.    au    Droit    Eccl.  tium,   book    iii.    c.    4.   Rule  ix. 

p.  iii.  c.  20.  p.  618. 

'"  Van  Espen,  Tract,  de  Ccu- 


300  Exercise  of  Discipline.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xvi. 

middle  ages,  prohibiting  the  celebration  of  public  ser- 
vice °.  Suspension  is  an  interdiction  to  a  clergyman  to 
exercise  ministerial  functions  for  a  limited  time,  and 
does  not  seem  to  have  existed  very  early  in  the 
church  ^  Irregidariti/  is  incurred  by  any  clergyman 
under  suspension  who  performs  any  ministerial  act :  it 
consists  in  an  incapacity  to  receive  superior  orders,  or 
to  obtain  benefices  \  Degradation,  or  deposition,  is  the 
perpetual  deprivation  of  all  right  to  exercise  minis- 
terial functions,  or  to  possess  any  privileges  or  emolu- 
ments attached  to  them  '.  These  are,  as  I  have  ob- 
served, partial  exclusions  from  christian  privileges ;  and 
the  church,  which  is  given  the  power  of  the  greater 
excommunication  in  cases  of  obstinate  sin,  is  reason- 
ably believed  to  be  invested  with  the  power  of  inflict- 
ing milder  censures  where  there  is  a  probable  hope 
of  amendment.  Accordingly  the  church  universal  has 
exercised  the  discipline  of  the  suspension  of  penitents 
from  the  sacraments,  and  deposition  of  the  clergy, 
apparently  from  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

SECTION  III. 

ON    PENITENCE    AND    ABSOLUTION. 

The  object  of  the  church's  censures,  being  "  edifica- 
tion and  not  destruction  %"  the  recovery,  not  the  mere 

°  See  Van   Espen,    Jus.  Eccl.  c.     4.      the     modern     canonists 

Universum,  pars    iii.    tit.   xi.   c.  reckon   only  three   sorts  of  cen- 

ix  ;    Tractatus    de    Censuris,    c.  sure,  suspension,  excommunica- 

ix  ;   Fleury,    Institut.   au   Droit  tion,  and  interdict. 

Eccles.  part  iii.  c.  21.  ■"  See  Gibson,  Codex  Tit.  xlvi. 

P    Van     Espen,     Jus,     Eccl.  According  to  Fleury,   c.  19,  the 

Univers.   pars  ii.    tit.  x  ;   Tract,  solemn  degradation  of  ecclesias- 

de  Censuris,  c.  x  ;  Fleury,  c.  19.  tics,  which   required    the   assist- 

■i  Irregularity  is  rather  an  in-  ance  of  several  bishops,  has  long 

capacity  than  a  censure,  but  it  is  been  disused  in  France. 

a   consequence    of   ecclesiastical  "  2  Cor.  xiii.  10. 
censures.      See    Fleury,    part   i. 


SECT,  in.]  Absolution frmn  Censures.  301 

punishment  of  sinners,  she  must  be  willing  to  receive 
those  who  sincerely  repent.  Accordingly  the  apostle 
exhorted  the  Corinthian  church  to  receive  him  whom 
she  had  excommunicated  :  "  Ye  ought  rather  to  forgive 

him  and   comfort  him Wherefore,   I   beseech  you, 

that  ye  would  confirm  your  love  toward  him. ...  To 
whom  ye  forgive  any  thing,  I  forgive  also  *"." 

The  sincerity  of  the  offender's  repentance  was  the 
only  condition  essentially  necessary  to  readmission  to 
the  church  and  its  privileges.  It  was  as  a  test  of  this 
sincerity,  that  the  primitive  churches  adopted  such 
lengthened  courses  of  penitence,  which,  however,  were 
gradually  diminished,  and  various  other  tests  intro- 
duced. Whenever  the  church  judges  repentance  to  be 
sincere,  she  is  to  restore  the  penitent  to  christian 
privileges. 

To  deny  the  church  the  power  of  absolving  the  peni- 
tent, w^ho  had  fallen  into  sin  after  baptism,  was  the 
heresy  of  Novatian,  which  the  catholic  church  con- 
demns. The  power  of  absolution  is  proved  by  the 
words  of  St.  Paul  above  cited,  and  by  the  following  : 
"  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which 
are  spiritual  restore  such  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness ^"  When  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  speaking  of  the 
power  of  the  church  to  remove  an  obstinate  offender 
from  her  communion,  adds,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,"  &c.  and  where  He 
declares  to  His  ministers,  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit 
they  are  remitted,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they 
are  retained,"  we  see  the  power  of  absolution  and 
remission  conveyed.  And  this  absolution  being  the 
reversal  of  excommunication,  it  brings  an  individual 
who  has  been  anathematized  rightly  as   far  as  we  can 

''  2  Cor.  ii.  7,  8.  10.  *  Gal.  vi.  i. 


302  Exercise  of  Discipline.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xvi 

judge,  from  the  state  of  a  heatlien  man  and  a  publican, 
into  the  visible  kingdom  of  God. 

SECTION  IV. 

ON  CENSURES  OF  CHURCHES  BY  OTHER  CHURCHES. 

Since  all  particular  churches  are  but  portions  of  one 
body,  and  are  not  by  their  constitution  designed  to  be 
independent  of  each  other,  but  to  co-operate  in  bro- 
therly love,  it  is  certain  that  no  church  can,  on  pre- 
tence of  its  independency,  teach  a  strange  doctrine 
different  from  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  case  any 
church  becomes  heretical,  the  rest  of  the  church  is 
bound,  after  due  admonition,  to  reject  it  from  the 
christian  community  by  anathema.  But  when  the 
offence  is  not  so  great,  churches  have  been  content  to 
rebuke  and  admonish  other  churches,  by  withdrawing 
one  or  more  of  the  signs  of  fraternal  communion,  with- 
out denouncing  the  extreme  sentence  of  the  greater 
excommunication. 

The  sims  of  external  communion  between  churches, 

o 

from  the  earliest  period,  were  chiefly  the  transmission 
of  letters  of  communion,  the  fraternal  reception  of 
brethren  who  came  with  commendatory  letters  %  the 
assembling  together  in  councils,  and  in  later  times,  men- 
tion in  the  diptychs  of  the  principal  bishops  to  whom 
many  churches  were  subject.  When  churches  have  had 
serious  contentions,  not  actually  concerning  the  christ- 
ian faith,  they  have  sometimes  imitated,  in  some 
degree,  the  example  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  when  "  the 
contention  Mas  so  sharp  between  them,  that  they  de- 
parted asunder  one  from  the  other '' ;"  and  have  with- 


»   Du    Pin,    De    Antiq.    Eccl.  ^  Acts  xv.  ;^9. 

Discipl.  Diss.  iii.  p.  25.'5. 


OB.JFXT.]  Censures  of  Churches.  303 

drawn  several  of  the  signs  of  external  communion, 
without  actually  pronouncing  anathema.  It  is  in  this 
manner  that  communion  has  been  interrupted  between 
the  eastern  and  western  churches  ^ 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  tares  are  to  be  left  "  until  the  harvest '' :" 
therefore  it  is  unlawful  for  the  church  to  expel  offenders 
from  her  communion. 

Answer.  Our  Lord  speaks  not  in  this  place  of  those 
who  are  manifest  offenders,  but  of  those  who  are  false 
and  hypocritical  members  of  the  church,  and  do  not 
openly  resist  God's  law.  The  church  cannot  excom- 
municate such :  but  when  the  offence  is  manifestly 
proved,  the  scripture  empowers  her  to  excommuni- 
cate. 

II.  Our  Lord  did  not  excommunicate  Judas  Iscariot. 

Answer.  He  was  not  a  manifest,  but  a  secret  offen- 
der :  and  the  church  was  not  fully  established  till  after 
the  death  of  our  Lord. 

HI.  The  church  at  first  could  discover  miraculously 
the  truth  of  any  alleged  crime  ;  therefore  her  acts 
then  can  afford  no  precedent  for  later  ages,  when  this 
power  of  discerning  has  ceased. 

Aiisiver.  There  is  no  proof  that  all  churches  had  this 
power  at  first  ;  and  the  church  may  be  suflficiently 
assured  of  the  truth  of  any  alleged  fact  by  good  tes- 
timony. 

IV.  Ecclesiastical  excommunications  are  injurious 
to  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate.  They  may  in- 
terfere with  the  laws  of  the  land. 

Answer.  Excommunication,  as  such,  does  not  affect 
temporal  rights,  properties,  privileges,  kc.  but  merely 

*^  See  above,  Part  I.  c.  iv.  s.  2,  3.  '*  Matt.  xiii.  30, 

10 


304  -  Exercise  of  Discipline.  [p.  iv.  ch.  xvii. 

spiritual  or  christian   privileges,  which   are  not  at  the 
disposal  of  temporal  magistrates. 

V.  "  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles 
exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are  great 
exercise  authority  upon  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so 
among  you,"  &c. '  Therefore  all  authority  in  the  church 
is  unlawful. 

Ansiver.  The  assumption  of  authority  in  the  sense 
of  domination  or  earthly  jurisdiction  is  unlawful :  but 
authority,  in  the  sense  of  power  conferred  by  Christ 
himself,  is  lawful ;  and  Christ  Himself  gave  His  church 
the  power  of  excommunicating  or  expelling  obstinate 
offenders. 

VI.  The  ecclesiastical  courts  inflict  excommunica- 
tions for  insufficient  causes,  or  in  order  to  support 
their  own  authority  in  matters  essentially  temporal ! 

Ansiver.  It  is  probable  that  such  excommunications 
are  null  in  point  of  internal  effect,  because  the  greater 
excommunication  should  never  be  inflicted,  except  in 
case  of  disobedience  to  the  law  of  Christ. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

ON    THE    POWERS    OF    UNIVERSITIES    IN    THEOLOGICAL 
QUESTIONS. 

The  right  of  universities,  which  possess  a  faculty  of 
theology,  to  determine  theological  questions,  and  cen- 
sure theological  propositions,  arises  from  the  very  fact 

*  Matt.  XXV.  26.  whenever   they  can    be   enforced 

''   The   council   of   Trent    pro-  by    temporal    constraints.       See 

hibited  all   ecclesiastical  judges  Fleury,     Inst,     au    Droit    Eccl. 

from    employing    excommunica-  part  iii.  c.  20. 

tions  to  enforce  their  ordinances, 


CHAP.  XVII.]  Powers  of  Universities.  305 

of  their  being  authorized  to  teach  theology,  and  confer 
degrees  in  that  faculty.  This  privilege  at  once  invests 
them  with  the  right  of  determining  what  doctrines 
shall,  and  what  shall  not,  be  taught  by  their  members, 
and  of  enforcing  their  determination,  either  by  refus- 
ing: decrees  to  those  who  will  not  undertake  to  main- 
tain  the  doctrines  approved  by  their  university,  or  by 
censuring,  degrading,  or  expelling  from  the  society 
those  who  assert  doctrines  contrary  to  its  decrees. 

These  are  privileges  and  powers  which  have  been 
exercised  for  many  centuries  by  all  the  universities  of 
Europe,  which  possessed  theological  faculties.  Nor  is 
there  any  unreasonable  assumption  of  authority  in 
exercising  them  ;  for  the  bishops,  and  all  the  western 
church,  from  the  thirteenth  century,  approved,  sanc- 
tioned, and  recommended  such  proceedings :  and  uni- 
versities did  not  pretend  by  their  censures  to  determine 
controversies  with  the  authority  of  the  church,  or  to 
expel  offenders  from  christian  communion  ;  but  to 
declare  their  own  judgments,  and  to  remove  offenders 
from  their  own  societies  and  peculiar  privileges,  leaving 
them  finally  to  the  judgment  of  the  church. 

Thus  we  find  in  1277,  the  bishop  of  Paris,  with  the 
advice  of  the  masters  in  theology  at  Paris,  condemn- 
ing various  errors  in  faith  *.  Du  Boulay  mentions 
other  censures  of  the  university  of  Paris,  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,  made  either  conjointly  with  the  bishop 
of  Paris  or  separately  ^  In  the  succeeding  centuries 
these  censures  were  very  numerous,  and  were  held  of 


^  Bulaei   Hist.   Univers.   Pari-  out  the  bishops,  became  common 

siensis,  t.  iii.  p.  397.  433.  in  the  fourteenth  century.     Vet. 

^  Ibid.  p.  24.  548,  &c.      Tho-  et  Nov.  Ecclesiae  Disciplin;i,  pars 

massin    says    that   the   doctrinal  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  lOi. 
judgments  of  the  university  with- 

VOL.  n.  A 


300  Powers  of  Unirorsities.  [i'art  iv. 

SO  much  authority  in  the  church,  that  tliey  ahnost 
supplied  the  place  of  the  judgments  of  provincial 
synods.  The  censures  of  the  university  of  Paris  are 
found  in  the  Avritings  of  Du  BouJay  and  Du  Pin  \  and 
have  been  published  in  several  volumes.  According 
to  Launoy,  this  university  exercised  invariably  the 
right  of  judging  in  questions  of  doctrine,  and  of  imposing 
its  judgments  under  the  penalty  of  loss  of  degrees  in 
case  of  refusal  to  recant  errors  or  to  sustain  the  oppo- 
site truths  '*.  They  also  obliged  those  admitted  to 
degrees  to  subscribe  previously  articles  defined  by  the 
university  ^  The  same  sort  of  power  was  exercised 
by  all  similar  universities.  Thus  the  writings  of  Luther 
were  condemned  by  the  universities  of  Louvain,  Co- 
logne, and  others,  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

Universities  were  also  frequently  consulted  by  princes 
and  others  in  diflficult  questions  of  doctrine  or  mora- 
lity. Philip  the  Fair,  king  of  France,  consulted  the 
university  of  Paris,  previously  to  the  suppression  of  the 
order  of  knights-templars.  The  duke  of  Orleans  con- 
sulted them  in  1410,  concerning  certain  theses  pub- 
lished against  his  deceased  father  \  In  the  same 
manner  king  Henry  VIII.  consulted  the  universities 
of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  Paris,  Bologna,  &c.  on  the 
question  whether  marriage  with  a  deceased  brother's 
wife  was  contrary  to  the  divine  law.  He  also  con- 
sulted the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  whe- 
ther the  bishop  of  Rome  has,  by  divine  right,  any 
jurisdiction  in  England,  and  they  determined  in  the 
negative.      The   universities   were  invested   with   such 


"  Du  Pin,    Biblioth.   des  Aut.  '  Ibid.  c.  Ixi.  art.  7. 

Eccl.  Cent,  xiv,  xv,  &c.  '  Bulaei  Hist.  Univ.  Paris,  t. 

''  Launoius,   De   Scholis  Cele-  iii.  p.  570. 
brioribus,  cap.  lix — Ixi. 


CHAP,  xvii.]  Powera  of  Universities.  307 

great  prerogatives  by  the  vvesterji  eliurclies,  that  their 
authority,  in  all  religious  questions,  could  not  fail  to 
be  very  considerable.  They  sent  representatives  to 
general  synods  of  the  west  ^ ;  and  the  universities  of 
Oxford ''  and  Cambridge,  were  empowered  to  licence 
preachers  throughout  England. 

The  university  of  Oxford  has  exercised  her  un- 
doubted privilege  of  censuring  errors  in  doctrine,  at 
least,  from  the  fourteenth  century.  In  1314,  eight 
articles  of  false  doctrine  were  censured  by  the  univer- 
sity'.  In  1368,  several  articles  were  condemned  by 
the  order  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury'.  The  doc- 
trines of  Wickliffe  were  censured  by  the  chancellor 
and  doctors  in  1371,  and  forbidden  to  be  taught  under 
pain  of  incarceration  and  suspension  from  university 
acts^  In  1411,  delegates  were  appointed  to  examine 
the  books  of  the  Wickliffites  and  select  propositions 
from  them,  which  were  condemned'.  In  1425,  the 
university  censured  the  doctrine  of  Russell  against 
personal  tithes,  and  prescribed  an  oath  against  it,  to 
be  taken  by  all  persons  admitted  to  degrees'".  In 
1482,  some  persons  having  maintained  the  errors  of 
the  Mendicants,  were  deprived  of  their  degrees,  and 
expelled  from  the  university".  In  1530  and  1534, 
the  questions  concerning  king  Henry's  marriage,  and 
the  Papal  jurisdiction  were  determined  °.  In  1609, 
Edmond  Campian,  having  taught  that  subjects  might 

^  Launoius,  ut  supra.  '     Ant,    Wood,     Hist.     Univ. 

^    The    university    of   Oxford  Oxon.  p.  152. 

received  from   the  pope  the  pri-  J  Ibid.  p.  183. 

vilege  of  licensinj;^   preachers  ia  ^  Ibid.  p.  189. 

1490. — See  Wood,    Hist.   Univ.  '  Ibid.  p.  206. 

Oxon.  p.  235.    Fuller's  history  of  "'  Ibid.  p.  21 '- . 

the  University  of  Camln-idge,  is  "  Ibid.  p.  232. 

too  brief  to  enter  into  such  par-  "  Burnet,  llist    Reformation, 
ticulars, 

X  2 


308  Powers  of  Universities.  [fakt  iv. 

lawfully  take  up  arms  against  their  sovereign  for  the 
cause  of  religion,  was  comj3elled  to  retract  p.  In  1 609, 
a  person  was  forced  to  recant  some  Popish  errors ''.  In 
1622,  many  erroneous  propositions  were  condemned'. 
In  1647,  the  solemn  league  and  covenant  was  cen- 
sured. At  the  end  of  the  same  century,  Dr.  Bury's 
Socinian  writings  were  condemned  by  the  university 
and  publicly  burnt,  and  he  was  himself  expelled  ;  and 
in  1836,  Dr.  Hampden  was  suspended  from  certain 
privileges  in  consequence  of  the  theological  errors  ad- 
vanced in  his  writings '. 

Thus  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  that  universities 
which  possess  a  theological  faculty,  have  a  just  and 
prescriptive  right  of  censuring  the  writings,  proposi- 
tions, and  persons  of  their  members,  and  if  needful,  of 
enforcing  their  judgments,  by  demanding  subscription 
to  articles  and  declarations,  or  by  exacting  recanta- 
tions, under  the  penalty  of  suspension,  degradation, 
or  expulsion. 

p  Wood,    Hist.    Univ.    Oxon.  Vice-Cancellario  in  qusestionem 

p.  315,  vocetur,    secundum    Tit.   xvi.    § 

"I  Ibid.  p.  .317.  11  '•  quum  vero   qui    nunc  pro- 

"■  Ibid.  p.  327.  fessor    est,     scriptis    quibusdam 

^  The  decree  in  this   case  was  suis   publici  juris  factis,  ita  res 

as  follows  :  "  Quum  ab  Universi-  theologicas  tractaverit,  ut  in  hac 

tate  commissum  fuerit  S.  Theo-  parte   nullam  ejus  fiduciam  ha- 

logiae    professori  regio,    ut  unus  beat  Universitas  :  statutum    est, 

sit  ex  eorum  numero,  a  quibus  quod  munerum  praedictorum  ex- 

designantur  selecti  concionatores,  pers   sit  S.  Theologiae   professor 

secundum  Tit.    xvi.   §    8  ;  nee-  regius,    donee  aliter  Universitati 

non  ut   ejus  consilium  adhibea-  placuerit." 

tur,    si  quis    concionator   coram 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  V. 


ON  THE  RELATIONS  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


A    TREATISE 

ON 

THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

PART  V. 

ON  THE   RELATIONS    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Amongst  the  various  questions  connected  with  the 
church,  few  are  of  more  intricacy  than  those  which 
concern  her  relations  with  the  civil  magistrate,  and 
few  are  of  more  importance,  at  least  theoretically.  In 
the  present  day  we  need  scarcely  prepare  ourselves  to 
combat  the  doctrine  of  Augustinas  Triumphans,  Al- 
varns  Pelagius,  Hostiensis,  Panormitanus,  Sylvester, 
Hugo  S.  Victor,  Durandus,  Turrecremata,  Pighius,  Sta- 
pleton,  Bellarmine,  and  the  modern  Ultramontane 
party,  that  the  pretended  spiritual  monarch  of  Rome 
is  invested  with  a  superiority  in  temporals  above  the 
kings  and  princes  of  the  world  ;  that  he  is  entitled  to 
judge,  depose,  create  sovereigns,  to  exact  homage  from 
them,  and  to  absolve  subjects  from  their  allegiance. 
This  doctrine  has  been  so  completely  refuted  by  Bos- 
suet  %   and  by  all   the  great  writers    of  the   Galilean 

''III  his  gi'eat  work,  the  Defensio  Declarationis  Clcri  Gallicani. 


312  Relatio/is  of  Church  and  State.  [part  V. 

church,  and  is  so  little  likely  to  come  into  controversy, 
that  we  may  lay  it  aside. 

There   is  more  danger  in  the  present  day  from  the 
principle  of   Hobbes,    Tindal,    and    other    enemies    of 
Christianity,  who  pretend,  that  religion  may  be  dictated 
by  the  civil  power,   and   that  the  church  is  the  mere 
creature  of  the  state.     A  learned  bishop  has  observed, 
that  "  Infidelity  in  later  times  has  been  em])loyed  in 
endeavouring  to  subvert  Christianity,  by  first  merging 
its   authority   in  that   of  the  state.      Hobbes,   in   the 
seventeenth   century,  made  this   the  foundation  of  his 
grand  attack  upon  the  christian  religion  ;  which  he  en- 
deavoured to  subvert,  by  inculcating  that  all  religion 
depended  on  the  civil  power,  and  had  no  other  claim  to 
respect  and  obedience  than  as  being  sanctioned  by  the 
will  of  the  magistrate.     The  deists  of  the  last  century 
almost  all  argue  upon  the  same  principle,  though  not 
so  openly  avowed.     The  French  revolutionists  effected 
their  diabolical  purpose  by  similar  means  :  and  to  this 
day,  scarcely  any  attack  is  made  upon  revealed  religion, 
which  does  not  proceed  upon  the  implied  principle  that 
religion   is  purely  a  creature   of  the   state,  a  political 
engine  for  keeping  mankind  in   subjection,  and  which 
may  be  lawfully  upholden   or  overthrown  at  pleasure, 
by  the  civil  power  ^" 

Another  principle  equally  dangerous  and  untrue,  is 
that  of  Locke,  Hoadly,  and  the  modern  dissenters, 
that  the  office  of  the  christian  magistrate  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  religion :  that  he  cannot,  without 
interfering  with  the  office  of  Christ  himself,  either  sup- 
port the  church  by  law,  or  protect  its  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline :  that  he  ought  to  treat  all  religions  with  a  ju^t 

^  Van  Mildert,  Boyle  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  50-1.    3(1  ed. 


iNTROD.]  Helatlons  of  C/itirch  ami  State.  313 

and  impartial  indifference,  and  permit  the  propagation 
of  heresy  even  within  the  churcli. 

The  doctrine  of  Warburton  and  Palej,  that  the  civil 
magistrate  is  bound  to  establish  the  largest  sect,  without 
reference  to  the  truth  of  its  faith,  is  also  a  very  dan- 
gerous and  erroneous  position,  which  is  derived  from 
the  principles  of  Locke  and  Hoadly,  that  the  civil  ma- 
gistrate has  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  and  that  all 
opinions  are  equally  acceptable  to  God.  In  fine,  the 
doctrine  maintained  by  the  Ultramontane  party  amongst 
the  Romanists,  and  by  the  Presbyterians  %  and  too 
much  countenanced  by  some  of  the  non-jurors,  divests 
the  civil  magistrate  of  his  reasonable  privileges  in  the 
church,  renders  him  the  mere  executor  of  its  decrees, 
and  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, the  existing  constitution,  and  therefore  the  general 
interests  of  the  catholic  and  apostolic  churches  esta- 
blished in  these  realms. 

Such  are  the  different  opinions  between  which  we 
must  endeavour  to  trace  the  path  of  truth  :  a  task  pe- 
culiarly arduous,  because,  as  the  learned  De  Marca, 
archbishop  of  Paris,  says,  "  By  the  constitution  of 
things,  these  powers  (of  church  and  state)  are  in  such 
close  proximity,  that  it  is  difficult  even  for  a  very  wise 
man  to  discriminate  in  each  case  their  disputed  boun- 
daries. Certain  qeneral  rules  indeed  may  be  assigned, 
by  which  they  may  be  separated,  but  many  things  hap- 
pen to  be  specifically  laid  before  us,  which  may  deceive 
the  most  skilful  judges ''." 

"   Taylor,    Ductor    Dubitaiit.         ''    De    Marca,    De    Concordia 
p.  545,  ed.  1676.  mentions  their     Sacerdotii  et  Imperii,  Prsefatio. 
principal  writers. 


314  Indcpaidcna'  of  the  State.  [i'AKT  v. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON    THE    ORIGINAL    INDEPENDENCE    OF    CHURCH    AND 

STATE. 

I.  That  the  sovereign  power  in  every  state  is  esta- 
blished by  the  divine  ordinance,  and  that  it  is  in  all 
civil  and  temporal  matters  to  be  obeyed  by  every  wor- 
shipper of  the  true  God,  is  a  doctrine  most  continually 
inculcated  by  holy  scripture,  as  in  the  following  pas- 
sages. "  By  me  kings  reign  and  princes  decree  jus- 
tice "."  "  He  removeth  kings  and  setteth  up  kings  ^" 
The  prophet  Daniel  says  to  the  king  of  Babylon, 
"  Thou  O  king,  art  a  king  of  kings  :  for  the  God  of 
heaven  hath  given  thee  a  kingdom,  powei',  and  strength, 
and  glory.  And  wheresoever  the  children  of  men 
dwell,  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  the  fowls  of  the 
heaven,  hath  he  given  into  thine  hand,  and  hath  made 
thee  ruler  over  them  all "."  And  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  no  degree  diminished  the  dignity  or  power  of 
temporal  rulers,  in  the  establishment  of  his  spiritual 
kingdom ;  but  testified  as  well  by  his  precept  and  ex- 
ample, as  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  apostles,  that  it  is 
the  will  of  God  that  the  faithful  should  be  obedient  to 
the  temporal  powers.      Thus  we  find   our    Lord   de- 

'"  Prov.  viii.  15.  *>  Dan.  ii.  21.  '  Dan.  ii.  37,  38. 


CHAP.  I.]  Independence  of  the  State.  315 

daring  that  "  his  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ^" 
refusing  to  be  "  a  judge  or  a  divider'"  of  inheritance, 
forbidding  his  disciples  to  assume  the  authority  and 
domination  of  earthly  princes ',  or  to  take  the  sword  in 
his  own  defence  ^  and  enjoining  us  to  "  render  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  be  Csesar's,  and  to  God  the  things 
that  be  God's  ^"  And  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles 
was  exactly  the  same.  "  Submit  yourselves  to  every 
ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake ;  whether  it  be  to 
the  king  as  supreme  ;  or  unto  governors,  as  unto  them 
that  are  sent  by  him ''."  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject 
unto  the  higher  powers ;  for  there  is  no  power  but  of 
God ;  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Who- 
soever therefore  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordi- 
nance of  God;  and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to 
themselves  damnation.  ...  He  is  the  minister  of  God, 
a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil. 
Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for 
wrath  but  also  for  conscience  sake '."  "  I  exhort 
therefore,  that  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  inter- 
cessions, and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men  ; 
for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in  authority  :  that  we  may 
lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godliness  and 
honesty  ^" 

It  is  needless  to  add  to  these  passages  the  accordant 
testimony  of  catholic  tradition  in  proof  of  the  universal 
duty  of  obedience  to  the  temporal  rulers  in  all  civil  and 
temporal  matters.  It  is  evident  that  every  one  is 
bound  to  obey  the  temporal  rulers,  and  therefore  that 
they  are  in  all  civil  matters  supreme,   and  not  subject 


«*  John  xviii.  36.  "   1  Pet.  ii.  13. 

*  Luke  xii.  14.  '  Rom.  xiii.  1  —  5. 

f  Mark  x.  42,  43.  J   1  Tim*,  ii.  1,  2. 
s  Matt.  xxvi.   52. 


316  Independence  of  the  Churcli.  [part  v. 

to  or  dependant  on  any  ecclesiastical  power,  whether  in 
their  own  dominions  or  elsewhere.  And  this  is  con- 
firmed by  the  fact,  that  the  state  with  its  proper  go- 
vernment existed  in  the  world  before  the  Christian 
church  was  founded  ;  and  that  it  remained  for  centuries 
afterwards  unconnected  with  the  Christian  religion,  and 
in  some  parts  of  the  world  continues  so  to  the  present 
day. 

II.  The  church  was  originally  and  essentially  inde- 
pendent of  the  state.  For  it  was  not  founded  by  any 
human  power,  but  by  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  his 
apostles  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  All 
that  is  essential  to  this  spiritual  society  was  of  Divine 
institution.  The  doctrines  which  were  to  be  believed, 
the  duties  to  be  performed,  the  system  and  mode  of 
association,  its  ministry,  and  rites,  were  all  dictated  by 
God  himself,  by  whose  will  and  commandment  this 
divine  religion  was  to  be  propagated  amongst  all  nations, 
as  the  way  by  which  men  should  attain  his  favour. 
The  church  therefore  was  not  originated  by  the  state  ; 
on  the  contrary  it  was  propagated  for  several  centuries 
in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the  temporal  government, 
which  in  its  ignorance  attempted  to  suppress  a  religion 
calculated  to  confer  the  highest  l^lessings  on  humanity. 
It  is  certain  however,  that  the  church  even  while  in  a 
state  of  persecution,  possessed  every  essential  character- 
istic of  the  true  church.  Its  divine  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline were  sustained,  heretics  and  schismatics  were  ex- 
pelled, councils  were  held,  offences  against  the  divine 
law  judged,  the  succession  of  its  legitimate  pastors  pre- 
served, and  the  promise  of  Christ,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,''  verified.  It  may  be  added,  that  in  every  sub- 
sequent age,  the  church  in  some  part  of  the  world  has 
been  unprotected  by  the   temporal    power,   nay  even 


CHAP.  II.]  J^iif'l  of  Magisfratcx  to  Rclifjion.  317 

persecuted  ;  and  therefore,  tliougli  it  is  admitted  that 
the  protection  and  assistance  of  the  civil  government  is 
of  very  great  advantage  to  the  cause  of  religion,  it  is 
evident  that  the  church  does  not  derive  its  origin,  its 
religion,  its  powers  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  its  general 
laws,  or  in  fact  any  part  of  its  essential  characteristics, 
from  the  state.  To  assert  that  it  does  so,  would  be  to 
contradict  the  plain  f^icts  recorded  in  holy  scripture, 
and  the  promises  of  our  Lord  himself;  and  therefore  no 
christian  can  admit  such  a  position. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   RIGHT    AND   DUTY    OF  THE   STATE   TO   PROTECT   THE 
TRUE    RELIGION. 

The  end  of  civil  government  is  not  only  the  preserva- 
tion of  life  and  property,  but  the  general  welfare  of  the 
communiti/  entrusted  to  its  care.  This  is  proved  by  the 
universal  sense  of  mankind,  and  by  the  practice  of 
governments,  which  have  never  held  themselves  limit- 
ed to  the  mere  duty  of  punishing  offences  or  remedy- 
ing evils,  but  have  adopted  such  regulations  as  were 
calculated  to  promote  virtue,  intelligence,  order,  wealth, 
and  population. 

In  furtherance  of  such  objects,  it  is  undoubtedly  the 
right  of  the  state  to  encourage  societies  which  are 
established  with  a  particular  view  to  the  inculcation  of 
virtue  and  religion,  and  which  have  efficient  means  for 
accomplishing  their  end.  If  a  state  may  encourage 
and  protect  associations  for  the  increase  of  education, 
literature,  wealth,  it  has  surely  a  right  to  protect  those 


318  Duti/  of  Maf/istrafcs  to  Religion.  [part  v. 

which  promote  virtue  and  religion,  on  which  alone  the 
fabric  of  society  is  securely  based,  and  which  tend 
beyond  all  others,  to  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  a 
community. 

It  is  certain  that  Christianity  is  eminently  qualified 
to  promote  such  ends.  Even  its  enemies  admit  that 
the  morality  inculcated  by  the  Gospel  is  exceedingly 
pure  and  exalted  ;  while  the  motives  and  sanctions 
which  it  conveys,  are  peculiar  to  itself,  and  calculated 
to  have  a  powerful  effect  on  the  conscience.  Its  con- 
stitution, as  a  society,  enables  it  very  effectually  to 
promote  habits  of  virtue  and  religion  ;  it  has  a  decided 
superiority  in  these  respects  over  false  religions :  and, 
in  fine,  christians  universally  believe,  that  the  aid  of 
divine  grace  is  given  to  assist  their  feeble  efforts  after 
godliness. 

Christianity,  therefore,  being,  in  its  essential  consti- 
tution, as  a  religious  society,  eminently  qualified  to 
sustain  and  encourage  virtue  and  religion,  and  inculca- 
ting, as  it  does,  a  most  faithful  obedience  to  the  law  of 
the  civil  magistrate,  it  vas  evidently  for  the  interest  of 
the  state,  it  was  within  the  duties  of  the  temporal 
government,  to  protect  and  encourage  the  christian 
society  by  all  just  and  equitable  means :  and  under 
this  view,  even  an  unbelieving  prince  might  undertake 
the  care  of  religion.  This  reasoning,  however,  would 
afford  an  inadequate  view  of  the  duty  of  the  state  to 
support  religion,  and  of  the  special  duty  of  a  christian 
prince  to  support  the  christian  religion.  It  would  be  a 
narrow  and  a  contracted  theory  of  government  to  say 
the  least,  which  left  out  of  its  calculations  the  fact 
that  this  world  is  under  the  supreme  government  of  its 
Creator ;  and  that  the  fates  of  nations,  exemplified  by 


CHAP.  II.]  Duty  of  Maf/istrates  to   Religion.  319 

the  history  of  many  apces,  are  ultimately  subject  to  the 
disposal  of  the  Almighty  Author  and  Governor  of  the 
universe.  No  people,  however  ignorant,  has  failed  to 
believe  in  this  Supreme  power,  and  to  endeavour  to 
propitiate  His  favour,  by  all  the  means  which  religion, 
whether  true  or  false,  has  dictated.  And  hence  too, 
blasphemy,  and  impiety  towards  God,  have  been  in  all 
ages,  regarded  as  crimes  against  the  state,  being  cal- 
culated to  draw  down  the  Divine  vengeance  on  those 
who  permitted  and  sanctioned  them. 

Since  this  world,  and  all  that  is  therein,  is  governed 
by  an  Almighty  Being,  the  favour  of  that  Being  ought 
to  be  an  object  of  the  highest  moment  to  every  indi- 
vidual, and  therefore  to  every  nation  ;  and  consequently 
the  religious  means  by  which  this  favour  is  to  be 
attained,  ought  to  be  adopted  and  cultivated  by  each 
individual  and  by  each  nation  in  their  respective  capa- 
cities, in  the  one  case  by  personal  efforts,  in  the  other 
by  public  and  legal  encouragement.  It  is  the  especial 
duty  of  nations  to  act  thus  in  their  collective  capacity, 
and  to  endeavi)ur  that  irreligion  may  be  suppressed  in 
the  state,  because  according  to  the  rule  of  God's  moral 
government,  the  virtuous  are  sometimes  involved  in 
the  temporal  punishments  of  the  wicked,  and  therefore 
it  is  the  real  interest  of  the  community,  that  all  its 
members  shall  be  virtuous  and  acceptable  to  God. 

Those  to  whom  God's  Revelation  and  true  reli- 
gion are  made  known,  Avill  find  these  truths  delivered 
by  the  unerring  authority  of  holy  scripture.  The 
supreme  power  of  God,  his  actual  government  of  the 
world,  and  his  especial  interference  in  the  affairs  of 
nations,  are  alluded  to  in  the  following  passages,  "  The 
Lord  looketh  from  heaven  :  he  beholdeth  all  the  sons 
of  men.  .  .  .  He  fashioneth  their  hearts  alike ;  he  con- 

10 


320  Diifi/  of  Mnt/istrafcs  to  Rdk/ion.  [part  v. 

sidereth  all  their  works.  There  is  no  king  saved  by 
the  multitude  of  an  host :  a  mighty  man  is  not  de- 
livered for  much  strength. .  .  .  Behold  the  eye  of  the 
Lord  is  upon  them  that  fear  him,  upon  them  that  hope 
in  his  mercy  :  to  deliver  their  soul  from  death,  and  to 
keep  them  alive  in  famine  ""."  "  In  whose  hand  is  the 
soul  of  every  living  thing,  and  the  breath  of  all  man- 
kind. Behold  he  withholdeth  the  waters,  and  they 
dry  up  :  also,  he  sendeth  them  out,  and  they  overturn 
the  earth.  AVitli  him  is  strength  and  wisdom,  the 
deceived  and  the  deceiver  are  his.  He  leadeth  coun- 
sellors away  spoiled. . .  He  leadeth  princes  away  spoiled, 
and  overthroweth  the  mighty.  . .  .He  encreaseth  nations, 
and  destroyeth  them  :  he  enlargeth  the  nations,  and 
straiteneth  them  again  ^'."  "  He  turneth  rivers  into  a 
wilderness,  and  the  water-springs  into  dry  ground ;  a 
fruitful  land  into  barrenness,  for  the  wickedness  of 
them  that  dwell  therein "."  "  At  what  instant  I  shall 
speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom, 
to  pluck  up  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  it ;  if 
that  nation,  against  whom  I  have  pronounced,  turn 
from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought 
to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  instant  I  shall  speak 
concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to 
build  and  to  plant  it ;  if  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it 
obey  not  my  voice,  then  will  I  repent  of  the  good 
wherewith  I  said  I  would  benefit  them  '^." 

Religion,  and  obedience  to  God's  commandments, 
are  therefore  the  means  of  obtaining  his  favour  to 
nations  ;  and  as  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  Christ   should   be   preached  to,   and  observed 


»  Psalm  xxxiii.  13—19.  "^  Psalm  cvii.  33,  34. 

''  Job  xii.  10  — "25.  '*  Jerem.  xviii.  7 — 10. 


CHAP.  II.]  Duty  of  Maglslratcs  to  Religion.  321 

by,  "  all  nations " ;"  and  as  those  who  reject  it  are 
subject  to  the  wrath  of  God,  for  "  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned  V  it  is  the  most  bounden  duty  of 
the  christian  magistrate,  as  well  from  a  sense  of  sub- 
mission to  the  will  of  the  Supreme  Ruler,  "  by  whom 
kings  reign,"  as  by  the  obligation  of  promoting  the 
welfare  of  the  community,  and  obtaining  the  divine 
protection  and  blessing  for  it,  to  protect,  to  uphold, 
and,  as  far  as  sound  policy  permits,  to  propagate  the 
divine  system  of  Christianity  amongst  his  people. 

The  word  of  God  says  to  all  princes,  and  especially 
to  those  who  have  received  the  true  religion  of  His 
Son :  "  Be  wise  now,  therefore,  O  ye  kings ;  be  in- 
structed ye  judges  of  the  earth.  Serve  the  Lord  with 
fear,  and  rejoice  w^th  trembling,"  on  which  St.  Augus- 
tine observes,  "  How  do  kings  serve  the  Lord  in  fear, 
but  by  forbidding,  and,  by  a  religious  severity,  punish- 
ing those  things  which  are  done  against  the  Lord's 
commandments  ?  For  he  serves  Him  in  different  re- 
spects as  a  man,  and  as  a  king.  As  a  man,  he  serves 
Him  by  living  faithfully  :  as  a  king  he  serves  Him  by 
establishing  laws  commanding  righteousness  and  for- 
bidding the  contrary.  So  did  Hezekiah  serve  God,  by  de- 
stroying the  groves  and  the  idol  temples,  and  those  high 
places  which  were  built  against  the  commands  of  God. 
In  the  like  manner  king  Josiah  served  God,"  &c.  ^ 
The  example  of  the  godly  kings  in  the  Old  Testament 
was  also  referred  to  by  the  Emperor  Charlemagne,  in 
the  preface  to  his  Capitulare,  where  he  says  to  the 
bishops,  "  Let  no  one,  I  pray  you,  think  this  admoni- 
tion presumptuous,  which  arises  from  piety,  and  by 
which  we  endeavour  to  correct  errors,  to  remove  super- 

^  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  ^  August.  Epist.  50  ad  Bonifac. 

*  Mark  xvi.  16. 

VOL.  II.  Y 


322  Duty  of  Magistrates  to  Religion.  [part  v. 

fluities,  and  to  establish  what  is  right ;  but  rather  let 
him  receive  it  with  benevolence  and  charity.  For 
we  read  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  how  the  holy  Josiah 
endeavoured  to  restore  the  kingdom  given  to  him  by 
God,  by  going  through  it,  correcting  and  admonishing  ^" 
Bellarmine  himself,  argues  the  duties  of  christian 
princes  from  the  "godly  kings"  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture ';  and,  in  short,  this  appears  to  have  been  the 
general  opinion  of  the  church,  until  De  Marca,  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  objected  to  arguments  drawn 
from  the  conduct  of  the  Jewish  kings,  in  order,  as  he 
said,  to  deprive  the  English  of  their  principal  argument 
for  the  royal  supremacy. 

The  christian  magistrate  is  bound  to  protect  Christ- 
ianity, because  he  knows  it  to  be  the  only  true  religion, 
the  only  method  by  which  God  wills  that  men  should 
serve  him,  and  gain  his  favour.  I  am  not  here  engaged 
in  examining  the  duty  of  heathen,  infidel,  and  hereti- 
cal magistrates  to  religion,  or  how  far  they  are  bound 
to  support  the  false  religion  which  they  may  judge  to 
be  true.  It  is  certain  that  no  false  religion  can  have 
the  same  proofs  of  a  divine  origin  as  catholic  Christ- 
ianity. It  is  not  to  be  admitted  as  possible  by  any 
christian.  But  in  so  far  as  it  is  possible  that  any  per- 
son can  be  excused  for  not  believing  Christianity  to  be 
true,  and  in  preferring  some  other  religion  to  it ;  in  so 
far  only  is  he  excused  for  upholding  and  propagating 
the  latter. 

Hence  the  doctrine  of  Warburton  and  Paley,  that 
the  civil  magistrate  is  bound  to  support  and  establish 
the  largest  sect,  is  to  be  rejected :  because  it  can  never 


^    Harduin.    Cone.    t.    iv.    p.  '    Bellarminus    de     Membris 

825.  Eccl.  Militantis,  lib.  iii.  c.  18. 


CHAP.  III.]  Nature  of  Protection  afforded  by  Magistrates.    323 

tend  to  the  welfare  of  the  community  to  estalilish  a 
false  religion,  a  heresy,  or  a  schism,  which  being  no 
portion  of  the  christian  church,  and  inheriting  no  pro- 
mises from  God,  but  rising  in  impious  opposition  to 
the  divine  will,  is  so  far  from  drawing  down  the  divine 
blessing  on  its  professors,  that  it  is  rather  calculated 
to  bring  evil  on  the  people  amongst  whom  it  prevails. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON  THE  EXTENT  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  PROTECTION 
AFFORDED  BY  THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

In  order  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  protection  to 
be  afforded  to  Christianity  by  the  christian  magistrate, 
we  must  remember  the  object  with  which  this  protec- 
tion is  given.  It  is  because  the  church  of  Christ  is 
best  qualified  to  promote  the  ends  of  civil  society,  and 
because  the  divine  blessing  rests  on  it  alone,  that  the 
church  ought  to  be  supported  by  those  princes  who 
know  its  divine  origin.  Therefore,  the  protection 
aiforded  by  the  state  rests  on  the  fundamental  con- 
dition of  maintaining  all  that  is  essential  to  the  church, 
and  not  depriving  it  of  any  one  of  those  characteristics 
which  Christ  willed  never  to  be  separated  from  it. 
Hence  a  prince  would  violate  the  very  principle  on 
which  he  is  bound  to  support  the  church,  if  he  obliged 
her  to  profess  doctrines  contrary  to  those  revealed  by 
God,  or  to  relinquish  any  of  her  essential  rites  or  dis- 
cipline. In  so  doing,  he  would  deprive  her  of  the 
character  of  a  divine  institution,  would  impair,  if  not 
destroy,  her  influence  in  promoting  morality  and  reli- 

y2 


324  Nature  uf  Profcitum  afforded  hy  Magistrate,    [part  v. 

gion,  and  thus  disqualify  her  from  bringing  the  divine 
blessing  on  the  nation. 

The  christian  magistrate  originally,  in  becoming  the 
protector  of  the  true  church,  could  only  lawfully  have 
undertaken  this  office,  with  the  intention  of  preserving 
the  definite  system  of  religion  which  God  had  revealed, 
and  which  the  catholic  church  had  received.  And 
from  the  office  of  protection,  thus  limited,  may  be  de- 
duced the  supremacy  and  all  the  powers  of  the  christian 
maofistrate  in  the  true  church. 

These  powers  may  be,  in  some  degree,  gathered 
from  those  which  the  state  exercises  with  regard  to 
any  society  whatever,  whose  constitution  and  ends  it 
judges  to  be  of  high  importance  to  the  public  wel- 
fare, and  to  which  it  is  desirous  of  giving  effectual 
support  and  encouragement.  The  first  and  most  ob- 
vious act  of  protection  is,  to  give  security  to  the  per- 
sons and  property  of  its  individual  members,  so  that 
the  fact  of  their  membership  shall  not  induce  legal 
penalties  or  any  other  danger.  Further  encourage- 
ment is  afforded,  by  giving  facilities  for  the  increase 
of  that  society  by  pecuniary  assistance  if  necessary 
to  extend  its  operations,  by  protection  to  the  funds 
destined  to  its  uses,  or  even  by  conferring  special 
marks  of  favour  and  confidence,  on  some  or  all  of  its 
members.  This  protection  relates  to  the  external  con- 
dition of  the  society  ;  but  it  may  also  be  extended  to 
its  internal  condition.  In  this  respect  it  infers  the 
legal  establishment  of  all  the  essential  principles  and 
features  of  the  society,  and  therefore  the  suppression 
of  any  attempts  to  introduce  innovations  subversive  of 
those  essential  principles.  It  also  infers  the  legal 
enforcement  of  the  established  rules  and  practices  on 
all  the  members  of  the  society,  so  that  its  peace  may 


CHAP.  III.]    Oriyiii  of  Estaldishincid.)  and  Supremacy.  325 

not  be  disturbed,  or  its  salutary  action  injpeded  by 
internal  disorganization.  It  infers  the  remedying  of 
abuses  inconsistent  with  the  laws  or  customs  of  the 
society,  or  abuses  in  those  laws  themselves,  calculated 
to  impair  the  perfection  and  efficiency  of  the  whole 
system.  And,  in  fine,  it  implies  the  exercise  of  these 
various  powers  by  means  and  in  modes  consistent  with 
the  preservation  of  the  essential  constitution  of  the 
society  itself. 

The  protection  of  the  state,  thus  exercised  in  rela- 
tion to  the  christian  society,  gives  rise,  at  once,  to  that 
state  of  things,  which  is  commonly  called  the  "  estab- 
lishment," and  "the  supremacy"  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate. The  christian  magistrate  relieves  the  church 
from  legal  persecution  ;  gives  security  to  the  persons 
and  property  of  its  individual  members  ;  aiFords  legal 
protection  to  the  property  devoted  by  pious  individuals 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  christian  ministry,  guards 
the  churches  from  violation,  affords  the  necessary  pecu- 
niary assistance  for  the  spread  of  religion,  and  in  some 
countries  confers  temporal  power  and  dignity  on  its 
chief  pastors.    Thus  the  church  becomes  "  established." 

The  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  the  christian  magis- 
trate consists  in  his  general  right  of  protection  to  the 
church  and  to  its  essential  principles. 

He  is  to  defend  the  faith  of  the  catholic  church, 
and  therefore  to  repress  all  attempts  to  introduce  here- 
sies and  errors.  He  is  to  enforce  and  execute  the 
discipline  of  the  church,  and  to  prevent  any  of  its 
members  from  resisting  the  spiritual  powers  constituted 
by  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  to  preserve  the  peace  and 
unity  of  the  church,  procuring  the  termination  or  sup- 
pression of  controversies.  He  is  to  see  that  the  minis- 
ters of  the    church  fulfil   the  office  of  their   vocatior.. 


326  Origin  of  Royal  Supremacy.  [part  v. 

that  ecclesiastical  tribunals  do  not  themselves  trans- 
gress the  laws  of  the  church ;  that  abuses  and  imper- 
fections injurious  to  the  efficiency  of  the  church  be 
removed. 

In  effecting  these  objects,  he  is  to  act  in  such  a 
manner  as  does  not  violate  the  essential  characteristics 
of  the  church.  He  is  invested  with  the  power  of 
summoning  synods  to  deliberate  on  the  affairs  of  the 
church,  and  to  judge  questions  of  doctrine.  He  has 
the  right  of  making  injunctions  or  ecclesiastical  laws 
confirmatory  of  the  catholic  doctrine  and  discipline, 
with  the  advice  of  competent  persons;  and  he  may 
enforce  his  decrees,  not  by  the  spiritual  penalty  of 
excommunication  %  but  by  temporal  penalties. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  the  magistrate  may  abuse  his 
power,  the  church  has  the  remedy  of  refusing  obe- 
dience when  her  essential  constitution  is  infringed. 
These  are  the  points  which  are  now  to  be  considered 
more  in  detail. 


^   All    our   writers    deny    the  1825.     The  Necessary  Doctrine, 

power  of  excommunication  to  the  p.  278,  also  ascribes  the  right  of 

prince.       The    Institution    of    a  excommunication  to  the  sacerdo- 

Christian  Man,  approved  by  the  tal  office.      Dean    Nowell   says, 

bishops  of  England,  1538,  says,  that  in  all  sermons  and  writings, 

"  We  may  not  think  that  it  doth  we  make  a    distinction  between 

appertain  unto  the  office  of  kings  the  functions  of  kings  and  priests, 

and  princes  to  preach  and  teach,  not  giving  the  former  the  power 

to  administer  the  sacraments,  to  of  administering  the  sacraments, 

absolve,  to  excommunicate,  and  preaching,  excommunicating,  ab- 

such  other  things   belonging   to  solving,  and  such  like.     Reproof 

the  office  and  administration  of  of  Mr.   Dorman's    book,    1565. 

bishops  and  priests. "     Formula-  fol.  123. 
ries  of  Faith,  p.  121.      Oxford, 


CHAP.  IV.]     Temporal  Establishment  of  the  Church.  327 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  THE  TEMPORAL  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  temporal  establishment  of  the  church  by  chris- 
tian magistrates,  consists  very  much  in  the  protection 
of  its  property,  and  in  conferring  on  it  certain  tempo- 
ral powers  and  privileges.  But  it  is  disputed  by  some, 
whether  the  church  may  lawfully  receive  any  property 
or  exercise  any  of  the  rights  of  property  towards  those 
who  are  without  her  pale,  and  whether  her  ministers 
may  receive  any  temporal  jurisdiction. 

I.  It  has  been  pretended  by  some  modern  sectaries, 
that  the  ministers  and  the  offices  of  religion  ought 
always  to  be  supported  by  the  temporary  contributions 
of  the  faithful,  and  that  all  permanent  endowments  are 
inconsistent  with  scripture.  This  seems  to  be  founded 
on  a  view  of  the  original  condition  of  the  church  as 
represented  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  history 
of  the  first  two  or  three  centuries,  during  which  time 
the  church  seems  to  have  possessed  no  permanent 
endowments.  But  this  affords  no  valid  objection  to 
their  lawfulness,  because  the  church  was,  at  that 
time,  persecuted  by  the  civil  magistrate,  and  was 
therefore  unable  to  possess  endowments.  And  since 
there  is  no  precept  whatever  in  the  New  Testament  % 

*  See  Part  iii.  chap.  iv.  for  the     not  forbidden  in  Scripture, 
lawfulness  of  rites  and  discipline 


328  Temporal  Establishment  of  the  Church.       [part  v. 

forbidding-  the  faithful  to  provide  perinanently  for  the 
maintenance  of  religion,  by  donations  of  their  lands  or 
other  property ;  (and  "  Avhere  no  law  is,  there  is  no 
transgression  ;")  since  in  the  church  of  God  under  the 
former  dispensation,  lands  and  tithes  were  given  in 
perpetuity  to  the  sacerdotal  tribe ;  since  the  church, 
from  the  moment  in  which  it  received  the  protection 
of  the  civil  magistrate,  universally  and  without  scruple, 
received  endowments :  and,  in  fine,  since  all  sectaries 
which  support  a  ministry,  and  preserve  an  external 
face  of  religion,  gladly  and  joyfully  avail  themselves  of 
any  endowment  for  their  own  religion :  it  is  obvious, 
that  the  acquisition  of  temporal  property  by  tlie  church 
is  perfectly  lawful,  as  tJie  christian  church  has  always 
believed  it  to  be.  The  contrary  error  was  long  ago 
advanced  by  Wickliffe,  and  was  most  justly  condemned 
by  the  western  cliurches. 

From  the  right  of  the  church  to  possess  endow- 
ments or  property,  it  follows  that  she  may  exercise 
her  right  even  with  respect  to  persons,  who,  under 
the  pretence  of  dissenting  from  her  doctrine  or  commu- 
nion, would  relieve  themselves  from  discharging  their 
pecuniary  obligations  to  her.  For  were  this  pretext 
to  be  allowed,  her  possession  of  property  would  be 
merely  nominal ;  and  an  encouragement  would  be  held 
out  to  forsake  her  communion,  which  she  believes  to 
be  the  way  of  salvation  ^.  Therefore,  she  could  not, 
without  sin,  admit  the  validity  of  any  such  plea. 

If  it  be  alleged  that  it  is  the  duty  of  christians  to 
take  patiently  the  spoiling  of  their  goods,  by  those 
texts,  "  I  say  unto  you  that  ye  resist  not  evil,"  "  charity 
sufferetli  long  .  . .  seeketh  not  her  own  . . .  endureth  all 

''  See  Part  I.  chap,  i.  sect.  iii. 


CHAP.  IV.]     Temporal  Establishment  of  the  Church.  329 

things,"  &c. ;  I  reply  that  these  precepts  refer  to  the 
general  temper  and  spirit  in  which  true  christians 
should  act  towards  their  enemies  :  they  are  not  to 
employ  force  against  force,  not  to  contend  eagerly  for 
every  point  of  their  rights  and  properties,  but  to  resort 
in  case  of  great  oppression  to  the  constituted  tribunals 
for  relief.  It  Avas  not  the  intention  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  that  those  who  pretended  to  be  His  disciples, 
should  use  violence  to  the  brethren,  and  then  hypo- 
critically exhort  them  on  the  duties  of  christian  charity. 
Our  Lord  Himself  prescribes  a  mode  of  obtaining  re- 
dress in  such  cases ",  and  St.  Paul  again  mentions  it ; 
intimating,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  reason  for  which 
christians  were  not  to  go  to  law  before  the  civil  tribu- 
nals, was  only  because  those  tribunals  were  heathen  '^. 
If  individual  christians  are  justified  in  seeking  redress 
of  their  private  wrongs  before  the  civil  tribunals,  much 
more  is  the  church  entitled  to  plead  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  that  property  which  is  set  apart  for  the  sup- 
port of  public  worship,  and  of  the  ministers  of  religion. 

II.  That  the  church  has  not  herself  by  the  divine 
institution,  any  temporal  jurisdiction,  or  any  power 
of  coercive  force,  has  been  already  observed  :  but  it 
has  been  alleged,  that  she  cannot  lawfully  receive 
earthly  dignities  or  jurisdiction  even  by  the  gift  of  the 
state :  because  our  Lord  declared  that  "  his  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world."  If  this  argument  were  well 
founded,  it  would  prove,  not  merely  that  the  ministers 
of  religion  ought  to  refuse  such  temporal  privileges,  but 
that  they  are  unlawful  for  evcri/  christian,  which  is  uni- 
versally denied.  If  it  be  alleged  that  "  no  man  that 
warreth  entano-leth  himself  with  the  affairs  of  this  life," 


"O' 


<■  Matt,  xviii.  15,  &c.  '^   1  Cor.  v.  1,  &c. 


330  Temporal  Establishment  of  the  Church.      [part  v. 

and  therefore  that  tlie  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  ought 
to  avoid  secular  occupations,  I  reply  that  they  certainly 
ought  to  do  so  as  much  as  possible,  and  only  to  engage 
in  those  which  neither  entangle  them  in  the  affairs  of 
the  world,  nor  prevent  them  from  discharging  the 
duties  of  their  high  and  sacred  mission,  but  which  are 
reasonably  supposed  to  contribute  to  the  influence  of 
religion  on  the  community.  And  such  appear  to  be 
the  tendencies  of  the  temporal  dignity  and  privileges 
enjoyed  now  and  for  so  many  ages  in  this  country,  by 
the  chief  ministers  of  the  catholic  and  apostolic 
church. 

III.  The  state  is  therefore  perfectly  justified  in  per- 
mitting the  endowment  of  the  church  with  permanent 
property,  in  protecting  that  property,  and  in  case  of  ne- 
cessity, in  contributing  by  its  liberality  to  the  general 
establishment  and  maintenance  of  christian  worship. 
The  protection  of  ecclesiastical  property  is  indeed  so 
important  a  duty  of  the  civil  government,  if  it  possess 
the  means  of  doing  so,  that  its  neglect  would  at  once 
prove  the  absence  of  any  real  desire  to  uphold  the 
church.  On  the  same  principle  the  state  would  be 
justified  in  declaring  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  to  be 
established  courts  of  law ;  in  attributing  to  their  cogni- 
zance certain  temporal  causes,  such  as  those  relating  to 
testaments,  and  to  the  property  of  the  church  ;  some 
causes  of  a  mixed  nature,  as  those  of  marriages ;  and  in 
adding  temporal  penalties  to  the  excommunications 
which  they  denounce.  I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that 
the  protection  of  the  church  by  the  state  necessarily 
infers  these  privileges,  or  that  they  are  all  useful  to  the 
church  under  all  circumstances,  but  only  that  they  are 
lawful  for  the  state  to  give  and  for  the  church  to 
receive. 


c;hap.  v.]       Temporal  Establishment  of  the  Church.  331 

It  may  be  added,  that  as  all  temporal  jurisdiction 
emanates  from  the  state ;  as  all  courts  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings recognized  by  the  state  derive  at  least  their 
external  and  coercive  power  from  it ;  as  all  legal  right 
to  property  emanates  from  the  state ;  as  every  thing 
which  has  civil  obligation  or  authority  is  in  some  sort 
derived  from  the  state ;  therefore  ecclesiastical  courts, 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  even  the  powers  of  order  in 
the  ministers  of  the  church,  may  be  said  in  a  certain 
sense  to  be  given  by  or  derived  from  the  prince  ;  that 
is,  in  so  far  as  they  are  legally  established,  and  externally 
coercive ;  not  as  they  are  internal,  spiritual,  and  binding 
on  the  conscience  only. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON    THE    DUTY    OF    THE    SOVEREIGN    TO    DEFEND    THE 
CHRISTIAN    FAITH    AND    DISCIPLINE. 

I  NOW  proceed  to  prove  that  it  has  been  always  held  by 
the  catholic  church,  that  christian  princes  are  bound  to 
defend  the  faith  and  to  enforce  the  canons  by  the 
"  civil  sword."  Christian  princes  and  states  from  the 
time  of  Constantine  have  invariably  acted  on  this 
principle  :  heretics  and  schismatics  have  always  imitated 
their  example  whenever  they  were  able  to  do  so. 
Therefore  it  is  certain  that  christian  princes  have  a 
right  and  a  duty  to  protect  the  christian  faith  and  dis- 
cipline by  temporal  power. 

The  sentiments  of  the  christian  church  and  of 
christian  princes  on  this  point  are  no  where  more 
clearly  manifested  than  in  the  history  of  the  (ecumenical 

10 


33'2  Princes  Defenders  oftlie  Church.  Fpart  v. 

synods.  The  first  oecumenical  synod  was  convened  by 
the  emperor  Constantine,  who  was  himself  present 
during  its  proceedings,  and  who,  at  the  close  of  them  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  all  churches,  exhorting  them  to 
receive  the  decrees  of  the  council ;  and  enacted  laws 
that  Arius  and  his  followers  should  be  accounted  in- 
famous and  bear  the  name  of  Porphyrians ;  that  their 
writings  should  be  burnt  ;  that  whoever  concealed 
those  writings  should  suffer  capital  punishment ;  and 
that  the  Arians  should  pay  ten  times  the  usual  amount 
of  taxes".  The  second  oecumenical  synod  of  150 
bishops,  in  their  synodical  epistle  to  the  emperor  Theo- 
dosius,  having  informed  him  of  their  decrees  in  faith 
and  discipline,  said,  "  We  therefore  entreat  your  piety 
to  ratify  the  decision  of  the  synod,  that  as  you  have 
honoured  the  church  by  letters  of  convocation,  so  also 
you  would  seal  the  definition  agreed  on '' ;"  and  accord- 
ingly the  emperor  made  laws  commanding  all  the 
churches  to  be  delivered  to  those  bishops  wdio  confessed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  were  in  communion 
with  Nectarius  bishop  of  Constantinople,  Timothy  of 
Alexandria,  Pelagius  of  Laodicea,  and  other  orthodox 
prelates ;  that  all  who  did  not  agree  with  them  in  faith 
should  be  driven  from  the  churches  as  manifest  heretics  ; 
that  no  assemblies  of  heretics  should  be  permitted,  and 
that  they  should  not  build  churches  anywhere  under 
pain  of  confiscation  of  their  goods''.  The  third  oecu- 
menical synod  of  Ephesus,  of  200  bishops,  in  their 
synodical  epistle  to  the  emperors  Theodosius  and  Va- 
lentinian,  applauded  those  princes  for  commanding  the 
metropolitans  and  bishops  to  assemble  in  synod  ;   and 


*  Fleury,  Hist.   Eccl.  liv.   xi.  ''  Harduin.  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  808. 

s.  24.  *  Fleury,  liv.  xviii.  s.  9. 


CHAP,  v.]  Prhicps  DrfouJers  of  the  Clrurch.  333 

having  announced  to  them  their  approbation  of  the 
Nicene  faith,  and  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Cyril,  and  their 
deposal  of  Nestorius,  they  conclude  thus  :  "  We  en- 
treat your  majesty  to  command  all  his  (Nestorius) 
doctrine  to  be  banished  from  tlie  holy  churches,  and  his 
books,  wherever  found,  to  be  burnt ;  in  which  books  he 
endeavours  to  render  of  none  effect  the  grace  of  God, 
who  became  man  through  his  love  towards  man,  which 
Nestorius  regards  not  as  such,  but  as  an  insult  to  the 
Divinity.  And  if  any  one  despise  your  sanctions,  let 
him  apprehend  the  indignation  of  your  majesty.  For 
thus  the  apostolic  faith  will  remain  unhurt,  confirmed 
by  your  piety,  and  we  all  shall  offer  earnest  prayers  for 
your  majesty,"  &c. ''  Accordingly  the  emperor  Theo- 
dosius,  having  confirmed  the  council,  passed  a  law  com- 
manding the  Nestorians  to  be  termed  Simonians,  order- 
ing their  books  to  be  suppressed  and  burnt  publicly, 
and  forbidding  them  to  assemble  under  penalty  of  con- 
fiscation of  their  goods  ^  John,  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
also  obtained  orders  from  the  emperor,  that  those 
schismatical  bishops  who  refused  to  communicate  with 
him,  should  be  expelled  from  their  churches  by  the  civil 
power,  and  driven  into  exile  ^ 

The  sixth  session  of  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Chal- 
cedon  furnishes  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  church,  with  reference  to  the  powers  and  duties  of 
christian  princes.  The  emperor  Marcian  with  his  con- 
sort, attended  by  all  the  great  officers  of  state,  were 
present  ^.  ]\Iarcian  having  made  an  allocution  to  the 
council,  declaring  his  intention  in  assembling  it  to  have 
been  the  confirmation  of  the  catholic  faith  against  all 

''  Ilarduin.    Concilia,   t.    i.    p.  *  Ibid.  liv.  xxvii.  s.  28 — 33. 

1444.  s  Ilarduin.  Cone.  t.  ii.  p.  463. 

*  Fleurv,  liv.  xxvi.  s.  31. 


334  Princes  Defenders  of  the  ChurcJi.  [part  v. 

heresies  ;  the  archdeacon  of  Constantinople,  by  order  of 
the  emi^eror,  read  aloud  the  decree  of  the  synod,  with 
the  subscriptions  of  470  bishops.  The  emperor  then 
demanded  whether  the  council  unanimously  approved 
of  that  definition ;  and  having  heard  the  acclamations 
of  all  the  bishops  to  that  effect,  he  decreed,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  synod  itself,  that  since  the  true  faith  had 
been  made  known  by  that  holy  oecumenical  synod,  it 
was  right  and  expedient  to  remove  all  further  conten- 
tion: and  therefore  that  any  person  who  should  collect 
assemblies  to  dispute  concerning  faith,  should  be  ba- 
nished from  the  city,  if  a  private  individual,  and  if  a 
soldier  or  a  clergyman,  should  be  in  danger  of  losing 
his  office,  besides  being  subject  to  other  penalties''. 
This  decree  was  received  by  all  those  holy  bishops  with 
the  loudest  acclamations  of  gratitude  and  satisfaction. 

It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to  carry  this  exami- 
nation through  the  acts  of  other  councils,  which  were 
confirmed  and  enforced  by  the  laws  of  christian  em- 
perors. The  codex  of  Justinian  comprises  laws  con- 
firmatory of  the  catholic  faith  and  discipline  and  the 
sacred  canons,  enacted  by  all  the  orthodox  predecessors 
of  that  emperor  from  the  time  of  Constantino  ',  as 
well  as  by  himself;  and  the  Novelise  comprise  many 
others. 

The  emperor  Charlemagne  and  his  successors  made 
laws  confirmatory  of  the  sacred  canons  \  The  Saxon 
kings  of  England  followed  the  same  pious  example  ^. 


*"  Ibid.  p.  487.  tius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

'  The  first  Book  of  tlie  Codex  where  the  imperial  laws  on  eccle- 

is  well    worthy  of  a   perusal  by  siastical    affairs     are     connected 

those     who    wish    to    know    the  with  the  canons, 

powers  exercised  by  the  christian  ■*  See  their  capitulars    in    the 

emperors  in  the  primitive  church,  collections  of  the  councils. 

See  also  the  Nomo-canon  of  Pho-  ^  Bramhall  mentions  the  ec- 


CHAP.  V,]  Princes  Defenders  of  the  Church.  335 

The  Norman  kings  made  ecclesiastical  laws '.  Every 
christian  state  from  those  days  to  the  present,  has  sup- 
ported the  faith  and  discipline  of  the  church  by  tem- 
poral enactments.  The  Reformation  universally  recog- 
nized this  right  in  the  civil  magistrate.  The  Lutherans 
and  the  Calvinists  alike  invoked  the  assistance  of  the 
temporal  power  to  enforce  the  religion  of  the  Gospel 
and  repress  dissentients.  Even  the  sects  which  arose 
at  that  time  adopted  the  same  principle.  The  Brown- 
ists  declared  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  to 
establish  their  religion  and  to  expel  that  of  the  catholic 
church  "".  The  Presbyterians  would  not  tolerate  the 
worship  of  these  catholic  churches  which  they  had  over- 
thrown in  the  great  rebellion.  The  Anabaptists  in  their 
city  of  JNIunster  forbad  all  exercise  of  a  religion  diffe- 
rent from  their  own.  The  Independents  of  America 
acted  on  exactly  the  same  principle.  As  for  those 
small  sects  which  deny  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate 
to  support  the  christian  doctrine  and  discipline  by  tem- 
poral means,  they  are  obviously  influenced  only  by  a 
desire  to  weaken  and  subvert  the  churches  from  which 
they  have  separated. 

The  right  and  duty  of  the  prince  to  employ  the  civil 
sword  in  defence  of  the  faith  and  discipline  of  the 
catholic  church,  is  most  fully  admitted  even  by  those  who 
limit  his  authority  in  ecclesiastical  matters  so  far,  as  to 
render  him  rather  the  servant  than  the  protector  of 
the  church.  The  papists  of  the  ultramontane  party 
allow  that  kings  are  bound  to  do  so.     Thus  Champney 


clesiastical   laws     of  Ercotnbert,  See  Wilkins,  Concilia  Mag.  Brit. 

Ilia,    Withred,    Alfred,    Edward,  t.  i. 

Athelstan,       Edmond,       Edgar,  '  Bramhall,  ut  supra. 

Athelred,   Canute,    and    Edward         '"  See  Vol.  I.  p.  403. 

the  Confessor. — Works,    p.    73. 


336  Princes  D<^enders  of  the  Church.  [part  v. 

says :  "  No  one  denies  that  kings  in  their  own  order 
and  degree  govern  ecclesiastical  affairs ;  that  is  to  say, 
in  making  laws  for  the  church,  according  to  the  tenor 
of  the  canons  and  the  judgment  of  bishops ;  indeed  this 
is  their  chief  office,  for  which  they  are  given  the  power 
of  the  sword  by  God  °."  Stapleton  says,  that  a  prince 
has  the  power  "  of  making  laws  for  the  yeace  of  the 
church ;  of  proclaiming,  defending,  and  vindicating 
doctrines  against  violation  °."  Bellarmine  proves  at 
length,  that  magistrates  are  bound  to  defend  religion, 
and  to  do  their  utmost  to  cause  the  faith  of  the  catholic 
bishops  and  the  Roman  pontiff  to  be  held  p.  The  same 
doctrine  was  maintained  by  the  puritans.  Cartwright 
said,  that  the  civil  magistrate  hath  to  see  that  the  laws 
of  God  touching  his  worship,  and  touching  all  matters 
and  orders  of  the  church,  be  executed  and  dulv  ob- 
served ;  and  to  see  that  every  ecclesiastical  person  do 
that  office  whereunto  he  is  appointed,  and  to  punish 
those  which  fail  in  their  office  accordingly ''.  Tenner, 
another  puritan,  acknowledged  that  "  the  magistrate 
may  lawfully  uphold  all  truth  by  his  sword,"  &c. ""  The 
non-jurors,  though  little  favourable  to  the  regal  supre- 
macy, did  not  deny  this  power  to  the  magistrate. 
Leslie  says  it  was  not  his  meaning  that  "  temporal 
governments  ,  .  .  should  not  exercise  the  civil  sword 
for  the  good  of  men's  souls  \"  Hickes  approves  the 
doctrine  of  certain  Presbyterians,  that  "  it  pertains  to 

"  Champngeus  de  Vocat.    Mi-  c.  iv. 

nistr.  c.  16.  "J  T.  C.  lib.  i.  p.  192.  cited  in 

°  Stapleton,  Princip.    Doctrin.  Hooker's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  443. 

lib.  V.  c.  17-  ed.  Keble. 

P    Bellarminus    de     Membris  ■"  Fanner's     Defence     of     the 

Eccl.  Milit.  lib.  iii.   c.   18.      See  godly  Ministers.   Ibid, 

also  Richerius  de  Eccl.  et  Polit.  *  Leslie,    Supplement    to    the 

Pot.  p.  76.  ed.  1 683  ;  De  Marca,  Regale    and    Pontificate,    p.    4. 

De  Concord.   Sac.   et   Imp.  1.  iv.  2d  ed. 


CHAP,  v.]  Princes  Defenders  of  the  Church.  337 

the  office  of  a  christian  magistrate  to  fortify  and  assist 
the  godly  proceedings  of  the  church  ;  to  assist  and  main- 
tain tlie  disci2:)line  of  it,"  &;c. ' 

In  fine,  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  these  catholic 
and  apostolic  churches,  and  of  our  christian  sovereigns 
from  the  earliest  ages,  have  always  been  conformable  to 
that  universally  received.  The  Anglo-Saxon  and  Nor- 
man kings,  as  I  have  said,  made  laws  in  defence  of  re- 
ligion and  ecclesiastical  discipline.  The  church  was 
united  to  the  state,  and  the  christian  religion  became  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land  ",  and  when  in  the  sixteenth 
century  the  church  of  England  withdrew  the  jurisdiction 
which  she  had  for  a  time  delegated  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  and,  resuming  her  original  liberties,  reformed  the 
abuses  which  had  been  suffered  to  increase  amongst 
us,  the  state  lent  the  benefit  of  its  support  to  these 
salutary  and  catholic  proceedings.  The  doctrine  of  the 
church  at  that  time  is  shown  by  the  "  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man,"  approved  by  the  bishops  of  England  in 
1538  ;  in  which  it  is  declared  that  christian  kings  have 
a  special  right  by  God's  commandment  "  to  defend 
the  faith  of  Christ  and  his  religion,  to  conserve  and 
maintain  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ  .  .  .  and  to  abolish 
all  abuses,  heresies,  and  idolatries,  which  be  brought  in 
by  heretics  and  evil  preachers,  and  to  punish  with  cor- 
poral pains  such  as  of  malice  be  occasioners  of  the 
same ;  q,nd,  finally,  to  oversee  and  cause  that   the  said 

'  Hickes,      Christian      Priest-  imperii  unionem  ac  coiifoederati- 

hood,  p.  256.  ed.  1  707.  onem  manifestum  est  at  confes- 

"  So  it  was  also  in  other  chris-  sum  ;  tamque  esse  intimam  uni- 
tian  countries.  The  relations  of  onem  hanc,  ut  evangelium  sit  lex 
church  and  state  in  France  be-  regni,  et  religio  catholica  sit  re- 
fore  the  Revolution  are  thus  de-  ligio  Gallorum  nationalis." — Re- 
scribed  by  Hooke,  doctor  of  the  lig.  Nat.  et  Rev.  Princip.  t.  iii. 
Sorbonne  :  "  Existove  in  Gallia  p.  .593. 
ecclesiae  christiana^  catholicas    et 

VOL.  II.  Z 


338  Princes  Defenders  of  the  Church.  [part  v. 

priests  and  bishops  do  execute  their  said  power,  office, 
and  jurisdiction  truly,  faithfully,  and  according  in  all 
points  as  it  was  given  and  committed  unto  them  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles :  which  notwithstanding,  we 
may  not  think  that  it  doth  appertain  unto  the  office  of 
kings  and  princes  to  preach  and  teach,  to  administer 
the  sacraments,  to  absolve,  to  excommunicate,  and 
such  other  things  belonging  to  the  office  and  adminis- 
tration of  bishops  and  priests,"  &c. "  The  very  same 
expressions  are  repeated  in  the  "  Necessary  Doctrine," 
approved  in  1543  by  the  bishops  of  England  ^  It  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England  at  this  moment, 
that  "  the  king's  majesty  hath  the  same  authority  in 
causes  ecclesiastical  that  .  .  .  christian  emperors  of  the 
primitive  church''  possessed ;  the  denial  of  this  position 
involving  excommunication  ipso  facto ".  The  same 
doctrine  is  taught  by  the  thirty-seventh  Article,  which 
declares  that  godly  princes  have  the  power  to  "  rule  all 
estates  and  degrees  committed  to  their  charge  by  God, 
whether  they  be  ecclesiastical  or  temporal,  and  restrain 
with  the  civil  sword  the  stubborn  and  evil  doers.'"  And 
the  law  of  England  most  certainly  recognizes  this 
principle,  since,  by  existing  acts  of  parliament,  temporal 
penalties  are  imposed  on  any  persons  who,  professing  to 
be  members  of  the  church,  either  establish  a  worship 
different  from  hers,  or  dare  to  violate  their  obligation 
as  her  ministers  by  teaching  doctrines  contrary  to  those 
which  she  approves.  The  conclusion  which  I  draw 
from  all  these  facts  is,  that  christian  princes,  members 
of  the  true  church,  have  a  right,  and  are  bound  in  duty 
when  necessary,  to  defend  the  faith  and  discipline  of  the 


"  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  121.  "  Ibid.  p.  287. 

Oxford  ed.  "^  Canon  ii. 


CHAP,  v.]  Princes  Defenders  offhe  Church.  339 

true  churcli  existing  in  their  dominions,  by  obliging-  its 
professing  members  to  acquiesce  in  the  one  and  to  sub- 
mit to  the  other,  by  means  of  temporal  power. 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  conclusion,  that  several 
persons  of  note  in  modern  times  have  held  a  contrary 
opinion.  Those  who  do  so  are  obliged  to  admit  that  it 
M^as  never  heard  of  till  the  seventeenth  century  after 
Christ:  nor  should  we  regard  the  authority  of  JiOcke 
and  Warburton  in  this  matter ;  for  it  is  plain  that  they 
omitted  in  the  theory  of  government  on  which  they 
based  their  doctrine,  the  great  truth,  that  this  world 
is  subject  to  the  supreme  government  of  God,  and  that 
he  disposes  and  determines  the  fate  of  nations  accord- 
ing to  His  good  pleasure  ^.  These  writers  overlooked 
a  truth,  which  even  the  heathens  themselves  remem- 
bered ;  and  framed  their  theories  as  to  the  duty  of  civil 
government  towards  religion,  not  on  an  examination  of 
the  word  of  God,  or  of  the  universal  sentiment  and 
practice  of  men  of  all  ages,  but  on  merely  abstract  phi- 
losophical reasonings  from  the  laws  of  nature,  of  policy, 
or  of  expediency. 


^  See   Locke's  Letter   on  Toleration,   and  Warburton's   Alliance  of 
Church  and  State. 


z  2 


340  On  the  Regal  Siipremaci/.  \  PAirr  v. 


CHAPTER  yi. 

ox  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 
SOVEREIGN. 

It  lias  been  shown  above  that  christian  princes  have  a 
right  to  protect  the  catholic  faith  and  discipline.  Let 
us  now  consider  more  particularly  the  means  and 
ends  of  this  ])rotection,  which  will  at  once  develope 
the  doctrine  of  the  regal  supremacy  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs  ^. 

It  is  necessary  to  premise,  that  since  the  duty  of  the 
christian  magistrate  is  to  protect  and  not  to  subvert 
the  church ;  to  enforce,  not  to  derange  the  discipline 


*  The  regal  supremacy  and  the  Eccl.     Supremacy,     1698.      See 

relation  of  church  and   state  are  also  De  Marca,  De  Concordia  Sa- 

treated  of  by  Nowell,  Reproof  of  cerdotii    et    Imperii;     Edmund. 

Mr.    Dorman's  book,    1565.  fol.  Richerii    Tract.    De     Eccles.    et 

123;   Hooker,  book  viii  ;  Whit-  Polit.  potest.  Colon.  1683  ;  Rech- 

gift,  Defence   of  Answer  to  Ad-  berger,     Enchiridion    Jur.    Eccl. 

monition,    tract,   xx  ;     Bancroft,  Austriaci ;  Van  Espen,  Tractatus 

Survey  of  pretended  holy  disci-  de  Recursu  ad  Principem,  Tract, 

pline ;    Bilson,    True    Difference  De  Promulgatione  Leg,    Eccl. ; 

between  Christian  subjection,  &c.  Hooke,  Religionis  Nat.  et  Revel. 

1585  ;    Andrewes  Tortura  Torti,  t.  iii ;   De  Hontheim,    Febronius 

p.  162,  &c.  ;  Mason,  De  Minister,  de  Stat,  praesenti  Ecclesiae.  Tay- 

Anglic.  ;   Field,    Of  the  Church,  lor,   in   his  Ductor  Dubitantium, 

b.   V.  c.  53  ;    Bramhall,    Schism  furnishes    considerable    informa- 

guarded,   &c.  ;    Stillingfleet,    Of  tion  ;  but  his  views  of  the  royal 

Eccl.  Jurisdiction,  Works,  vol.  iii;  prerogative  in  church  and  state 

Wake,   Appeal    on    the    King's  apparently  exceed  the  truth. 


CHAI'.  vj.J  On  the  Tteffal  Supremacy.  341 

established  in  it  by  Jesus  Christ ;  it  follows  that  he  is 
not  entitled  to  intrude  on  the  duties  of  the  christian 
ministry.  He  has  no  right  to  make  definitions  in  faith 
or  morals,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  to  excommu- 
nicate or  absolve,  or  to  perform  any  act  whatever 
reserved  to  the  christian  ministry  by  scripture  or  by 
the  universal  and  immemorial  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
because  this  would  be  in  violation  of  the  very  principle 
of  ])rotecting  the  church. 

1.  The  first  immediate  end  of  this  protection  is  to 
preserve  unchangeably  the  existing  catholic  faith  and 
discipline  of  the  church.  Hence  the  prince  has  the 
right  to  repress  heresies  and  schisms  contrary  to  this 
doctrine  and  discipline.  iVnd  in  consequence  he  is 
entitled  to  convene  synods  for  the  determination  of  con- 
troversies, to  confirm  and  execute  their  decrees,  to  make 
injunctions  or  ecclesiastical  laws  derived  from  the  canons 
and  decrees  of  councils  ;  and  in  fine,  to  repress  the 
attempts  even  of  clergy  or  of  particular  synods,  to  alter 
the  orthodox  doctrine  and  discipline. 

Accordingly,  christian  emperors  and  kings  have  al- 
ways exercised  the  right  of  convening  national  synods. 
The  genuine  ojcumenical  councils  even  were  all 
assembled  by  command  of  the  christian  emperors  ^ 
The  kings  of  France  assembled  national  synods  ^  The 
canons  of  the  churches  of  England  and  Ireland  acknow- 
ledge the  right  of  the  king  to  call  national  synods ''. 

Christian  kings  have  also  confirmed  synods.  The 
general  synods  were  confirmed  by  the  emperors.     The 

•^  See  Part  IV.  chaijter  ix.  See    Bramhall,   Works,    p.    318, 

"  E.  g.  the  synod  of  Frankfort  319. 

convened  by  Charlemagne.     See  "^  Synod  1603-4,    Canon  139; 

Pari  IV.    chapter    x.    section  iv.  Synod   of  Dublin,    1634,  Canon 

Also  those  of  Tours,  Cabilon,  and  100. 
others,  assembled  by  that  prince. 


342  On  the  Ihijal  Supremacy.  [part  v. 

Spanish  synods  were  confirmed  by  the  Gothic  kings  of 
Spain.  The  decree  of  the  Gallican  synod  of  1682  was 
confirmed  by  Louis  XIV.  Those  of  the  English  synod 
in  1562  and  1571  were  confirmed  by  queen  Elizabeth: 
the  synod  in  1603-4  by  James  the  first:  the  synods  of 
Ireland  in  1634  and  1711  by  Charles  the  first,  and 
queen  Anne.  And  this  power  of  princes  may  also  be 
exercised  in  rejecting  the  decrees  of  a  synod  if  it  be  in- 
jurious to  the  catholic  discipline,  to  the  privileges  of  the 
church,  or  to  the  laws  of  the  state  \  Accordingly  the 
kings  of  France,  Spain,  Germany,  he.  refused  to  permit 
the  publication  of  the  decrees  even  of  general  synods  in 
their  realms,  except  with  such  qualifications  as  were 
necessary  to  secure  the  liberties  of  the  church  and 
state. 

The  right  of  making  ecclesiastical  laws  I  shall  pre- 
sently notice  further.  The  power  of  repressing  inno- 
vations was  exercised  by  the  great  queen  Elizabeth 
Avlien  some  of  the  clergy,  sanctioned  by  some  of  the 
prelates,  established  irregular  meetings  called  "  prophe- 
cyings  ;"  and  when  certain  persons  attempted  to  publish 
articles  of  doctrine  on  predestinarian  points. 

2.  Another  end  of  the  state's  protection  of  the 
church,  is  the  preservation  of  unity  and  subordination 
in  the  church.  Hence  it  is  reasonable  that  the  prince 
should  have  a  right  to  command  superfluous  controver- 
sies to  cease,  a  power  which  was  abused  by  the  empe- 
rors Heraclius  and  Constans  in  issuing  the  Ecthesis  and 
Typus ;  and  which  the  emperor  Charles  V.  exercised  at 


*  This  privilege,  which  is  exer-  Van  Espen,  De  Promulg.  Legum 

cised  by  all  the  princes  of  the  Eccl.      See  also  Hooke,    Relig. 

Roman   Obedience   is  called  the  Nat.  et  Rev.  t.  iii.  p.  596.  598  ; 

royal    Placet.     See  Rechberger,  Febronius,  cap.  v.  s.  ii. 
Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austr.  §  271  ; 


CHAl'.  VI.]  On  the  Reyal  Supremacy.  343 

one  time  during  the  Reformation,  as  Joseph  II.  did  in  the 
eighteenth  century  ',  and  king  James  the  first  in  the  early 
part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  that  royal  procla- 
mation which  still  is  printed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles.  Of  course  the  prince  has  also  a 
right  to  urge  the  prelates  of  the  church  to  suppress 
superfluous  controversies,  and  to  give  them  any  tem- 
poral assistance  requisite  for  the  purpose.  The  guard- 
ianship of  the  church's  peace  also  renders  it  fit  that  the 
christian  prince  should  receive  appeals  from  the  tribunals 
of  the  church,  when  it  is  alleged  that  the  laws  of  the 
church  have  not  been  adhered  to,  and  that  the  ecclesi- 
astical judge  has  abused  his  powder.  This  right  has 
been  acknowledged  from  the  time  of  Constantino  the 
great,  who  received  the  appeal  of  the  Donatists,  or- 
dered their  cause  to  be  reheard  by  a  different  tribunal, 
and  at  last  condemned  them  himself.  In  almost  every 
state  of  Europe  under  the  Roman  dominion,  the  tem- 
poral courts  or  the  state  take  cognizance  of  appeals 
"  ab  abusu"  and  compel  the  ecclesiastical  judges  to 
correct  their  proceedings  by  means  of  temporal  pe- 
nalties °.  The  parliaments  of  France  fined  and  impri- 
soned those  who  refused  to  administer  the  rites  of  the 
church  to  the  appellants  from  the  bull  Unigenitus  *". 
Thus  also,  the  sovereign  of  England  receives  ajDpeals 
from  the  highest  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  delegates 
judges  ecclesiastical  and  lay  to  rehear  the  cause,  and  do 
justice. 

3.  Another  end  of  the  sovereign's  protection  of  the 
church  is  the  reformation  of  abuses  and  defects  which 
render  our  discipline  less  perfect,  or  which  are  in  any 

'  See  Vol.  I.  p.  4/4.  Droit  Eccl. 

8  Van   Espen,  Tract,  de  Re-         ''  Vol.  I,  p.  327. 
cursu     ad     Principem.     Fleury, 


344 


On  the  Regal  Supremacy. 


[part  v. 


respect  prejudicial  to  christian  piety  or  religion.  This 
again  shows  the  right  of  the  sovereign  to  assemble 
synods,  and  to  exhort  the  bishops  and  clergy  to  cor- 
rect these  evils,  as  the  emperor  Charlemagne  and  his 
successors  did  in  France  and  Germany,  when  disci- 
pline was  so  far  collapsed :  a  proceeding  which  they 
justified  by  the  example  of  Josiah  and  the  other  pious 
kings  of  Judah.  It  also  infers  the  right  of  sovereigns  to 
make  ecclesiastical  injunctions',  as  Justinian ^  Charle- 
magne, Charles  the  Bald  ^  Sigismund ',  Charles  V."',  the 
kings  of  France,  St.  Louis",  Philip  IV.^  Charles  Vl.f, 
Charles  VII.^  Charles  IX/,  Henry  VIII.  of  England, 
and  Elizabeth  did,  in  times  when  their  interposition  was 
eminently  called  for  by  prevailing  abuses.     They  have 


'  Rechberger,  chancellor  uf 
Lintz,  says  tliat  christian  princes 
have  not  only  frequently  con- 
firmed the  canons  of  the  church, 
"  but  have  also  of  their  own  ac- 
cord enacted  laws  on  disciplinary 
matters  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  welfare  of  the  state," 
&c. — Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austr. 
§  38.  p.  28.  See  also  Febronius, 
c.  V.  s.  2  ;  c.  ix.  s.  6. 

J  Justinian's  Novelise  were  re- 
ceived with  great  approbation  by 
the  church. — See  De  Marca,  1.  ii. 
c.  11. 

^  See  their  Capitulars  in  the 
Collections  of  the  Councils. 

'  See  his  Reformation  contain- 
ing 37  chapters  respecting  the 
pope,  cardinals,  and  bishops,  suf- 
fragans, abbots,  monks,  friars, 
nuns,  &c.  made  in  1436. — Gold- 
ast.  Const.  Imp.  part  i.  p.  1 70. 

"^  The  Interim,  published  in 
1548. 

"  His  Pragmatic  Sanction, 
1*268,  related  to  elections,  promo- 


tions, collations  of  benefices,  &c. 
—  See  the  Table  Chronologique 
des  Loix  Eccles.  at  the  end  of 
Fleury,  Droit  Eccl.  ed.  1767- 

°  On  the  union  of  benefices  in 
his  gift  (1330).   lb. 

'■  That  ecclesiastics  shall  not 
take  cognizance  of  the  crime  of 
adultery  (1388).   lb. 

1  That  no  strangers  can  pos- 
sess benefices  in  France  (1431). 
The  Pragmatic  Sanction,  made  in 
the  parliament  at  Bourges  in 
1438,  established  various  points 
of  discipline  of  the  synod  of 
Basil,    lb. 

"■  The  ordonnance  made  by  this 
king  and  the  assembly  or  parlia- 
ment assembled  at  Orleans,  1560, 
contains  29  articles  relating  to 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  In  one 
of  them  the  payment  of  Annates 
is  prohibited. — See  Fleury,  Hist. 
Eccl.  liv.  civ.  s.  12.  Other  ec- 
clesiastical regulations  were  made 
in  the  parliament  at  Moulins, 
1566. 


CHAP.  VI.]  On  the  lleyal  Supraiiucy.  345 

even  reformed  abuses  and  made  regulations  in  public 
worship '.  On  the  same  principle  the  sovereign  may, 
if  necessary,  urge  the  bishops  and  clergy  to  resi- 
dence, and  to  a  more  zealous  discharge  of  their  sacred 
duties. 

4.  Since  the  state  is  bound  to  give  the  greatest 
efficiency  possible  to  the  church,  a  christian  king- 
may,  with  the  advice  of  bishops,  found  and  endow  new 
bishoprics,  and  call  on  the  church  to  consecrate  pastors 
for  them,  and  to  assign  them  a  suitable  jurisdiction. 
The  right  of  erecting  sees  was  exercised  by  the  em- 
perors Charlemagne  '  and  Louis ",  by  the  Greek  empe- 
rors, (who  were  even  held  by  the  oriental  canonists  to 
have  the  sole  power  of  erecting  new  sees")  by  the 
English  kings  Henry  I.'",  Henry  VIII.,  and  Charles  I." ; 
and  it  is  vested  by  law  in  the  emperors  of  Austria  ^ 
&c.  The  power  of  ordering  a  new  circumscription  of 
ancient  dioceses  when  necessary,  seems  to  be  a  proper 
exercise  of  this  same  power  ^     It  can  seldom  be  neces- 


'  Thus  Justinian,  in  his  137th  vigils,   and    also    appoint  public 
Novella,    cominanded     that    the  prayers    in    calamitous   times. — 
canon  of  the  Liturgy   should  be  Sect.  279.  p.  219. 
repeated  aloud  by  the  officiating  '  See  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  236. 
minister.     Charles  V.,  in  the  In-  "  He  erected  the  archbishopric 
terim,    reserves    to    himself  the  of  Hamburgh.  —  See  Adam.  Bre- 
right  of  making  such  regulations  mens.  Hist.  Eccl.  c.  17. 
as  he  may  judge  fit,  where  abuse  *  Thomassinus  de  vet.   et  nov. 
has  crept  into  the  administration  Eccl.  Discipl.  P.  i.  1.  i.  c.  56. 
of  the  sacraments.      The  empe-  "    "  Rex    Henricus   abbatiam 
ror  Charlemagne,  and   the  kings  Eliensem  in  episcopalem   sedem 
of  Spain   introduced   the  Roman  commutavit." — M.  Paris,  1119. 
liturgy  into  their  dominions.  The  "^  See  his  charter  founding  the 
emperor  Joseph  II.  made  several  see  of  Edinburgh,  in  Keith's  Scot- 
regulations      concernmg      public  tish  bishops, 
worship. — See  vol.    i.   p.   330 —  "^  Rechberger,Jur.  Eccl.  Austr. 
832.      Rechberger   says,  by   the  §  274.  p.  214. 
Austrian   law   the  emperor  may  ^  Ibid.    Joseph    II.    exercised 
limit  religious  rites,  such  as  feast  this  power. — See  vol.  i.  p.  'd'3'2. 
days,    processions,     pilgrimages, 


•346  On  the  Reyal  Supremacy.  [v.  v.  ch.  vi. 

sary  to  suppress  sees,  because  it  is  not  often  that  the 
number  of  the  faithful  is  so  reduced  in  any  church  as 
to  render  it  expedient  to  unite  them  with  another 
church ;  but  if  such  a  suppression  be  really  calculated 
on  the  whole  to  confer  benefit  on  the  catholic  church, 
it  seems  that  the  christian  prince  may  M'ith  the  advice 
of  qualified  advisers  unite  churches,  and  call  on  the 
church  to  confirm  the  act  by  their  future  proceedings  ". 

We  may  now  see  how  reasonable  and  catholic  was 
the  oath  of  regal  supremacy  prescribed  by  the  parlia- 
ment of  queen  Elizabeth,  and  still  subscribed  by  the 
clergy  of  England.  This  formulary  declares  that  "  the 
king's  majesty  under  God  is  the  only  supreme  governor 
of  this  realm,  and  all  other  his  highness's  dominions 
and  countries,  as  well  in  all  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical 
things  or  causes  as  temporal ''."  Now  it  is  certain  that 
the  christian  kings  of  England  have,  like  other  christian 
princes,  the  right  of  protecting  the  church's  faith  and 
discipline,  making  laws  conformable  to  them,  convening 
synods,  presiding  in  them,  confirming  them,  and  obliging 
by  the  civil  sword  all  members  of  the  church,  both 
clergy  or  laity,  to  profess  its  doctrines  and  remain  in 
unity  and  subordination.  This  is  a  power  which  may 
most  justly  be  called  government,  and  it  is  this  power 
to  which  the  oath  of  supremacy  refers.  The  thirty- 
seventh  Article  also  ascribes  to  the  prince  the  "  chief 
government  of  all  estates  of  this  realm,  whether  they 


"^  The  suppression  of  bishoprics  which  might  have  arisen  from  the 

in  Ireland  some  years  ago,  being  want  of  unanimity  in  the  church 

obviously   intended  not   for    the  herself  on    that  occasion,    could 

welfare  but  for  the  injury  of  the  have  imposed  on  that  church  any 

church,  was  an  act  to  which  this  obligation  of  yielding  to  so  un- 

rule   could  not  apply.     Nothing  just  an  act. 

but    the    apprehension    of   still  ''  Canon  xxxvi. 
greater  evils,  and  especially  those 


APPKNo.  I.]  On  the  Regal  Supremacy.  347 

be  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  in  all  causes ;"  and  the  riglit 
to  "  rule  all  estates  and  degrees  committed  to  tlieir 
charge  by  God,  whether  they  be  ecclesiastical  or  tem- 
poral ;  and  restrain  with  the  civil  sword  the  stubborn 
and  evil  doers."  This  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
church  of  England,  as  to  the  authority  of  the  christian 
magistrate  in  reliction  ;  in  which  she  does  not  teach  us 
that  the  prince  may  impose  on  his  people  false  doc- 
trines, or  discipline  injurious  to  religion ;  or  deprive  the 
churches  of  their  ancient  rights  ;  or  abrogate  the 
canons ;  or  make  definitions  in  faith ;  or  usurp  the 
sacerdotal  office ;  or  do  any  thing  else  injurious  to  the 
sanctity,  the  purity,  and  the  efficiency  of  the  church. 
She  gives  him  only  the  power  of  befriending  religion, 
and  of  exercising  an  external  government  by  temporal 
means,  which  cannot  fail  to  be  of  great  use  in  repress- 
ing the  disorders  of  those  who  would  otherwise  neglect 
or  despise  the  sacred  discipline.  And  this  indeed  is  a 
power  which  could  not  be  refused  even  to  a  monarch 
not  united  to  the  church.  So  that,  even  if  the  throne 
were  occupied  by  a  heretic  or  schismatic,  as  James  the 
second  was,  the  church  might  still  very  justly  admit  his 
ecclesiastical  supremacy,  that  is,  his  right  to  protect 
the  faith  and  discipline  of  the  catholic  church  esta- 
blished amongst  us,  and  to  use  the  civil  sword  to  oblige 
all  its  members  to  unity  and  obedience. 

APPENDIX  I. 

ON  THE  EXPULSION  OF  BISHOPS  BY  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

The  civil  magistrate  not  being  invested  with  the 
power  to  punish  by  spiritual  censures,  as  all  our  theo- 
logians hold,  he  is  only  to  use  the  "  civil  sword"  in  pro- 
tecting  and  supporting  the   church  as  above.     It  has 


348  Expulsion  of  Bishops  by  the  Prince,     [p.  v.  ch.  vi. 

been  disputed  whether  under  any  circumstances  he  may 
expel  bishops  from  their  sees.  This  question  was 
argued  with  mucli  warmth  in  the  reign  of  king  Wil- 
liam, when  several  bishops  were  expelled  from  their 
sees  by  the  temporal  power,  in  consequence  of  their 
refusal  to  take  the  oaths  to  the  new  government,  en- 
joined by  law. 

It  appears  to  me  on  the  whole,  that  though  the  only 
regular  and  ordinary  mode  of  removing  a  bishop  is  by 
an  ecclesiastical  judgment,  there  are  particular  cases  in 
which  the  temporal  power  is  justified,  even  without  any 
previous  sentence  by  the  ordinary  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunal, in  expelling  a  bishop  from  his  see.  First,  the 
right  will  not  be  denied  in  a  case  where  the  occupant  of 
a  see  is  a  usurper  or  intruder,  uncanonically  appointed. 
Secondly,  the  practice  of  the  church  seems  to  favour 
the  opinion,  that  when  a  bishop  is  manifestly  heretical, 
when  he  manifestly  and  obstinately  opposes  the  judg- 
ment of  the  catholic  church,  when  he  is  manifestly  and 
notoriously  guilty  of  any  crime  which  by  the  law  of  the 
catholic  church  involves  his  degradation,  and  when 
there  is  urgent  necessity  for  his  immediate  removal, 
or  difficulty  in  assembling  a  synod  ;  then  a  christian 
prince  may  justly  ecVj^el  and  drive  him  from  his  see  by 
temporal  force,  and  procure  the  ordination  of  another 
bishop  in  his  place.  This  however  is  a  temporal  punish- 
ment, and  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an  usurpation  of 
the  spiritual  office  of  degradation,  which  can  only  be 
performed  by  bishops  according  to  the  immemorial 
custom  of  the  catholic  church.  Indeed  the  New  Tes- 
tament does  not  exactly  prescribe  the  tribunal  which  is 
to  deprive  unworthy  ministers  of  the  gospel.  The  Old 
furnishes  us  with  the  case  of  Solomon  "  thrusting  out 


APPEND.   I.J     Expulsion  of  Bishops  hit  the  Prince.  '349 

Abiatliar  from  being  priest  unto  the  LorcP,"  in  conse- 
quence of  his  treasonable  practices :  "  and  Zadok  the 
jmest  did  the  king  put  in  the  room  of  Abiathar''." 
Whatever  explanation  he  offered  of  this,  the  fact  re- 
mains, that  Solomon  expelled  one  who  had  been  priest, 
and  put  another  in  his  place.  Whether  the  christian 
emperors  in  the  primitive  church  were  influenced  by  this 
example  I  know  not ;  but  certain  it  is,  that  the  eccle- 
siastical laws  of  the  emperor  Justinian  and  his  prede- 
cessors, repeatedly  threaten  expulsion  or  deprivation 
of  their  offices,  to  those  bishops  and  clergy  who  should 
transgress  the  canons  ^  The  emperor  Marcian  de- 
clared in  the  presence  of  the  council  of  Clialcedon,  that 
any  clergy  who  disputed  further  after  the  decision  of 
that  synod,  should  lose  their  offices*.  The  emperor 
Theodosius,  at  the  request  of  John,  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
gave  orders  to  expel  by  temporal  force  from  their  sees, 
those  schismatical  bishops  who  refused  to  communicate 
with  that  patriarch  ^.  In  subsequent  ages  the  eastern 
emperors  exercised  this  power  continually,  and  some- 
times most  scandalously  abused  it  \  The  archbishops 
and  bishops  of  England  in  the  "  Necessary  Doctrine" 
published  a.  d.  1543,  held  this  doctrine;  admitting  that 
christian  kings  have  the  right  to  see  that  bishops  and 
priests  execute  their  pastoral  office  truly  and  faithfully, 
&c.  "  and  if  they  obstinately  withstand  their  prince's 
kind  monition,   and   will   not  amend  their  faults,  then 

'   1  Kings  ii.  27.  ''  See  Hody's   "  Case  of  sees 

d  Verse  35.  vacant  by  an  unjust  or  uncanoni- 

*  Justinian.  Novella  123.  See  cal  deprivation,"  1693,   the  tract 

also    De   Marca,    De    Concordia  by    Nicephorus    Callistus,    piib- 

Sacerdot.  et  Imperii,  lib.  iv.  c.  i.  lished  by  Hody  1C91,  and  that  of 

art.  vi.  c.  18.  Methodius  in  the  third  volume  of 

^  Harduin.   Concilia,    t.  ii.    p.  the  Ancient  Remains  by  Angelo 

487.  jNIaio,  p.  247,  &c. 

s  Fleury,  liv.  xxvii.  s.28  — 33. 


350  Expulsioyi  of  Bishops  hy  the  Prince,     [p.  v.  ch.  vi. 

and  in  such  case  to  put  other  in  their  rooms  and 
places '." 

These  facts  seem  to  me  to  furnish  very  probable 
reasons  for  thinking-,  that  in  the  case  of  manifest  offences 
which  merit  degradation,  and  where  there  is  a  great  ne- 
cessity, the  christian  prince  may  justly  expel  bishops 
from  their  sees.  It  is  true  that  this  power  may  be 
abused :  so  may  every  other  branch  of  the  ecclesiastical 
supremacy  without  exception:  and  so  also  may  the 
power  of  the  church  itself.  But  the  safeguards  to  the 
church  in  this  and  similar  matters  are  first,  the  obli- 
gation of  the  catholic  prince  to  have  only  in  view  the 
welfare  of  the  catholic  church,  and  therefore  his  bounden 
duty  to  consult  the  most  learned  and  orthodox  prelates, 
before  he  takes  any  important  steps  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs ;  and  secondly,  the  right  of  the  church  to  remon- 
strate, and  finally,  in  case  of  extreme  danger  to  religion, 
or  extreme  injustice,  to  disobey  the  will  of  the  tem- 
poral prince. 

If  there  were  so  extreme  an  injustice  in  the  expulsion 
of  bishops  by  the  temporal  power,  that  christian  charity 
would  forbid  the  church  to  lend  her  countenance  to  it, 
and  that  the  security  of  religion  were  at  stake  ;  the 
church  would  neither  consecrate  new  bishops  for  the 
sees  thus  vacated,  nor  communicate  with  any  who  might 
be  intruded  into  them  by  temporal  force.  Where  she 
does  not  offer  any  such  opposition,  she  judges  that  the 
act  is  either  laudable  or  tolerable,  and  dispenses  with 
any  irregularity. 

It  is  most  highly  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that 
any  case  should  occur  in  which  a  catholic  prince,  with 
the  advice  of  bishops,  should   make  regulations  which 

'  Formularies  of  Faitli,  p.  287. 


APPKND.  1.3     Expulsion  of  Bishops  hy  the  Prince.  351 

the  catholic  church  of  his  country  woukl  judge  to  be 
subversive  of,  or  dangerous  to  the  cliristian  faith  or  dis- 
ciphne  :  but  if  such  a  case  should  occur,  the  church 
woukl  be  bound  to  suffer  any  temporal  penalties  rather 
than  yield  to  the  commands  of  the  prince.  When 
there  is  no  such  manifest  danger,  the  church  ought  to 
exhibit  a  willingness  to  comply  with  the  injunctions  of 
the  temporal  sovereign,  "not  only  for  wrath  but  for 
conscience  sake,"  who  on  his  part  would  act  most  wisely 
by  avoiding  even  the  appearance  of  arbitrary  domination, 
or  of  needless  interference  in  spiritual  affairs,  which 
could  not  fail  to  diminish  the  influence  of  religion,  and 
to  excite  dissension  and  dissatisfaction  in  the  com- 
munity. 

If  it  be  objected  that  by  claiming  for  the  church  the 
right  to  disobey  the  command  of  the  temporal  ruler, 
in  any  case,  an  '  impernmi  in  imperio  is  established,  I 
reply,  that  even  by  the  English  law  no  one  of  those 
bodies  in  whom  the  power  of  the  state  is  vested,  ought 
to  attempt  to  annihilate  the  essential  powers  and  pri- 
vilege of  any  other.  The  king  is  bound  to  preserve  the 
powers  of  his  parliament :  the  commons  cannot  right- 
fully invade  the  privileges  of  the  lords.  In  case  of  any 
such  attempt  each  estate  would  be  entitled  to  maintain 
its  essential  rights  even  against  the  regal  authority.  If 
this  bo  the  case  in  a  temporal  constitution  which  is 
based  only  on  human  custom  and  human  law ;  how 
much  more  right  has  the  church  to  retain  and  defend 
those  sacred  institutions  which  God  himself  has  en- 
trusted to  her  care,  which  the  Almighty  King  of  kings 
has  commanded  her  to  observe  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world. 

It  should  be  remarked  however,  that  the  church  is 
by  no  moans  bound  to  insist  on  every  occasion  on  the 
10 


352  Royal  Nvmination  to  BisJwprics.     [p.  v.  ch.  vi. 

full  exercise  even  of  her  undoubted  rights  and  privi- 
leges :  still  less  is  she  bound  to  oppose  the  will  of 
christian  sovereigns  because  there  may  be  some  infor- 
mality in  the  mode  of  proceeding,  some  apparent  want 
of  respect  for  her  constituted  authorities.  Many  things 
have  been  done  irregularly  in  various  ages,  wliich  the 
church  has  tolerated,  and  even  approved  afterwards: 
and  the  truth  is,  that  she  has  not  unfrequently  been 
obliged  to  submit  patiently  to  invasions  of  her  rights, 
which  she  much  lamented,  and  would  gladly  have 
avoided. 

APPENDIX  II. 

ON    NOMINATION    TO    BISHOPRICS,     AND    ON    SYNODS    AND 
CONVOCATIONS. 

1.  It  may  be  reasonably  questioned  whether  the 
right  of  nomination  to  bishoprics  is  enjoyed  by  the 
kings  of  England  and  most  other  catholic  monarchs  by 
virtue  of  their  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  It  is  certain 
that  for  a  long  time  the  church  elected  her  own  pas- 
tors :  nor  does  it  seem  that  if  she  had  continued  to  do 
so,  the  general  supremacy  of  the  christian  prince  would 
have  been  in  any  degree  afFectedc  However,  tiie 
church  has  certainly  very  frecjuently  consented  that  the 
prince  should  nominate  bishops^  ;  reserving  of  course 
her  own  right  to  decline  accepting  any  persons  of  un- 
sound faith  or  morals,  or  in  any  respect  disqualified  by 
the  law  of  God.     Nor  perhaps  would  it  be  easy  to  find 

J  The  kings  of  England  have  point  to    all    archbishoprics   and 

for  many    ages  nominated  to  bi-  other   dignities. — See   Bramhall, 

shoprics.     The   Saxon  and  early  Works,    p.   75.       Therefore    the 

Norman  kings  certainly  did  so. —  Statute    in    the    reign    of  Henry 

See  vol.  i.  p.  464.      The  Statute  VIII.    was    only    declaratory    of 

of  provisors,  25  Edward  III.  en-  the  ancient  law  of  England, 
acted  that  the  king  should  ap- 


APPEND.  II;]  Engliah  Synods.  353 

a  more  convenient  system  under  existing  circumstances, 
though  it  could  never  be  just  or  righteous  to  force 
bishops  by  the  penalties  of  prcemimire  to  consecrate 
persons  against  whose  faith  or  character  just  exceptions 
might  be  taken.  "  A  bishop  must  be  blameless^  and 
this  scriptural  rule  ought  to  be  recognized  by  the  law 
of  every  christian  state,  as  well  as  practically  and  in 
fact. 

2.  It  may  also  be  most  reasonably  questioned,  whe- 
ther the  supremacy  of  the  temporal  power  infers  not 
merely  the  right  of  assembling  synods,  but  the  ea^clusive 
right  of  calling  them.  The  universal  practice  of  the 
church  for  many  centuries  is  opposed  to  the  notion  that 
all  synods  must  be  convened  either  by  the  Roman 
pontiff  or  by  the  temporal  sovereign.  The  canons  re- 
quired provincial  synods  to  be  held  twice  every  year : 
it  is  plain  that  the  emperors  and  kings  were  not 
troubled  with  requests  to  hold  such  synods,  but  that  the 
metropolitans  of  every  province  assembled  them  by 
their  own  writ.  Such  was  certainly  the  case  in  Eng- 
land, where,  as  archbishop  Wake  says,  "  the  provincial 
synod  was  held  by  the  sole  power  of  the  metropolitan : 
the  king  might  sometimes  approve  of,  or  advise  the 
calling  of  it ;  but  I  believe  it  will  be  hard  to  find  out  any 
one  instance  wherein  he  required  the  archbishop  by  any 
royal  writ  to  assemble  such  a  council ''."  To  these  pro- 
vincial synods  the  bishops  alone  were  of  necessity  sum- 
moned ',  and  they  only  had  a  decisive  voice.  Their 
office  was  to  take  cognizance  of  appeals  from  particular 
dioceses,  to  judge  bishops  and  metropolitans,  and  to  enact 
canons  for  the  province.     This  latter  power,  which  had 

■^  Wake,  State  of  the  Church     202. 
and   Clergy,    p.   27.       See   also         '  Ibid.  p.  107,  108.   lll,&c. 
Kennett,  Eccles.  Synods,  p.  201, 

VOL.  II.  A   a 


354  English  Synods.  [y.  v.  ch.  vi. 

frequently  been  exercised  by  provincial  synods  without 
seeking  the  permission  of  the  crown,  was  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  the  eighth  relinquished  by  the  clergy  so  far  as 
related  to  enacting  new  canons  without  the  royal  consent : 
a  submission  which  was  only  consistent  with  the  har- 
monious co-operation  of  church  and  state,  and  which  is 
in  fact  enforced  by  every  sovereign  in  Europe,  with  or 
without  the  consent  of  the  clergy. 

But  it  is  a  different  question,  whether  provincial 
synods  may  not  meet  simply  by  the  writ  of  the  metro- 
politan, and  proceed,  without  making  new  canons,  to 
act  on  the  old  canons.  It  is  true  that  Coke '"  and  other 
lawyers  assert  that  no  such  synod  can  meet  without 
the  king's  writ,  basing  themselves  on  the  submission  of 
the  clergy  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  on  the 
common  law  or  ancient  customs  of  England  evidenced 
by  authentic  history ;  but  I  doubt  not  that  a  constitu- 
tional lawyer,  less  anxious  to  extend  the  prerogative  of 
the  crown  than  to  give  due  consideration  to  justice,  and 
to  the  genuine  voice  of  history,  might  be  able  to  prove 
that  the  right  of  the  English  metropolitans  to  assemble 
provincial  synods  without  the  royal  writ,  is  still  in  fact 
the  common  law  of  England. 

With  regard  to  the  submission  of  the  clergy,  in 
which  they  declared  that  "  all  convocations  had  been, 
and  ought  to  be  assembled  by  the  king's  writ,  and  pro- 
mised i7i  verho  sacerdotii  never  for  the  future  to  enact 
any  new  canons  in  their  convocations  without  the 
king's  license  ^"  it  appears  to  me  that  this  submission, 
and  the  act  which  comprises  it,  relate  to  convocations 
only,  not  to  provincial  synods,  because  it  is  as  notorious 
that  the  former  have  always  been  summoned  by  the 

"»  Coke,  4  Inst.  322,  323.  "  Act  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19. 


APPEND.  II.]  English  Synods.  355 

king's  writ,  as  it  is  that  the  hitter  were  not  so.  The 
whole  clergy  and  the  whole  parliament  of  England  could 
scarcely  have  been  so  devoid  of  information  or  of  ve- 
racity as  to  affirm,  that  provincial  synods  had  always 
been  assembled  by  the  king's  writ ;  it  would  seem 
therefore  that  they  must  in  this  submission  and  act 
have  only  meant  to  refer  to  convocations  properly  so 
called ".  In  Ireland  the  clergy  made  no  such  sub- 
mission, and  provincial  synods  have  continued  to  be 
held  by  the  metropolitans  without  the  king's  writ  even 
to  the  present  day ''. 

The  church  never  flourished  more,  nor  was  the  au- 
thority of  christian  princes  ever  more  revered,  than 
when  provincial  or  national  synods  of  bishops  assembled 
every  year  to  enforce  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Yet, 
strictly  speaking,  the  assembly  of  such  synods  is  not 
absolutely  essential  to  maintain  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
or  even  to  the  introduction  of  reforms  and  improve- 
ments in  the  church :  for  the  former  may  be  effected  by 
each  bishop  in  his  own  diocese,  while  the  bishops 
themselves  may  be  responsible  to  the  metropolitan  and 
other  bishops,  and  to  the  king :  and  the  latter  may  be 
effected  by  means  of  royal  injunctions  or  ecclesiastical 
laws  made  with  the  advice  of  bishops,  and  accepted  by 

*'  Atterbury  limits  it  to  parli-  years,  to  exercise  the  right  ;  and 

amentary  meetings  of  the  clergy,  that  he  had  himself  held  such  a 

— On    Convocation,    p.   82.    ed.  synod,  which  in  his  opinion  even 

1700.      If  the  term   "  convoca-  possessed   the  power  of  making 

tions"  were  taken  to  mean  any  canons.     Bishop  Bedel  made  ca- 

meeting  of  the  clergy,   it  would  nons   in  the  diocesan    synod    of 

be  illegal  even  for  a  bishop  to  Kilmore,   a.d.    1638,  for  which 

hold  his  visitation.  see  Wilkins's  Concilia,  t.  iv.  p. 

P  I  learned  from  the  late  emi-  537.     The  lord  deputy   of  Ire- 

nent    metropolitan,     archbishop  land,  it  seems,  was  unable  legally 

Magee,  that  the  provincial  synod  to  prevent  this  or  to  trouble  the 

of  Dublin   has  usually  been  as-  bishop. — See   Burnet's    Life    of 

sembled  at  intervals  of  30  or  40  Bedel. 

A  a  2 


356  Eiu/lish  Convocations.  [p.  v.  ch.  vr. 

the  church  dispersed.  For  as  the  bishops  and  pastors  of 
the  church  have  always  the  authority  of  successors  of 
the  apostles,  whether  they  be  assembled  in  synod  or 
not :  as  particular  churches  may  accept  and  act  on  the 
decrees  and  regulations  of  synods  in  which  they  have 
not  been  actually  represented :  as  the  authority  of  the 
oecumenical  synods  themselves  rests  finally  on  their 
acceptance  by  the  church  dispersed ;  it  follows  that  regu- 
lations of  discipline  in  themselves  lawful,  and  made  by 
the  authority  of  the  crown,  whether  with  or  without 
the  confirmation  of  parliament,  may  be  adopted  and 
executed  by  the  church  ;  and  if  they  are  so  accepted, 
they  are  invested  with  the  canonical  authority  of  other 
ecclesiastical  laws  and  customs. 

3.  The  convocations  or  assemblies  of  the  clergy  in 
England,  France,  Germany,  Sweden  '^,  were  called  to- 
gether by  the  king  for  temporal  purposes,  chiefly  in 
order  to  furnish  pecuniary  aids  to  the  crown. 

The  English  convocations  seem  to  have  arisen  in  the 

o 

following  manner.  After  the  Norman  conquest  the  na- 
tional councils,  styled  variously  conventus,  placihmi,  con- 
cilium, syfiodus,  colloquium,  and  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury parlamentum,  consisted  of  bishops,  abbots,  earls, 
and  barons ;  the  commons  and  inferior  clergy  being  not 
yet  summoned  by  the  king's  writ. 

It  was  in  the  thirteenth  century  when  the  Roman 
pontiffs  began  to  demand  taxes  on  ecclesiastical  bene- 
fices, that  the  convocation,  comprising  the  inferior 
clergy,  took  its  rise  \  Taxes  were  now  to  be  imposed 
not  only  on  lands,  but  on  tithes  and  oblations,  to  which 
the  consent  of  their  owners  was  necessary.     In  1246 

"1  See  this  subject  discussed  by         '  White  Kennett,   Eccles.  Sy- 
Thomassin.  Vet.  et  Nov.   Eccl.     nods,  p.  124. 
Discipl.  P.  ii.  1.  iii.  c.  45 — 57. 


APPEND.  II.]  English  Convocations.  357 

the  archdeacons  were  called  together  by  the  king's  writ 
to  consult  of  a  subsidy  for  the  crusade,  which  the 
council  of  Lyons  had  ordered  to  be  paid  by  all  the 
clergy",  and  in  1256,  on  occasion  of  another  exaction, 
they  were  ordered  by  the  archbishop  to  bring  procura- 
torial  letters  from  the  clergy '.  It  was  not  till  about 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  that  the  inferior 
clergy  were  called  to  parliament.  In  1282,  king  Ed- 
ward the  first,  having  summoned  to  the  parliament  of 
Northampton,  bishops,  abbots,  and  the  proctors  of  deans 
and  chapters,  they  refused  to  grant  aid  unless  a  fuller 
assembly  of  the  clergy  was  called  "  more  debito ;"  and  in 
the  meeting  so  called  were  deans,  archdeacons,  proctors 
of  chapters  and  of  the  clergy  ".  In  1295  they  were 
again  summoned  to  parliament,  and  for  the  first  time  by 
the  clause  ^^ prcEvnunientes'"  inserted  in  the  writ  of  each 
bishop,  by  which  he  was  admonished  to  bring  certain 
clergy  of  his  diocese  to  parliament ". 

When  the  bishops,  deans,  archdeacons,  proctors  of 
chapters  and  clergy  attended  the  parliament,  and  when 
they  sat  in  a  congregation  or  chamber  apart  from  the 
rest,  the  convocation,  properly  so  called,  was  complete 
in  its  general  outline. 

For  a  long  time  the  convocation  formed  one  house. 
On  various  occasions  however  from  a.  d.  1376,  the  in- 
ferior clergy  were  desired  to  withdraw,  while  the 
bishops  deliberated  on  the  grievances  and  other  affairs 
of  the  church.  In  1415  the  inferior  clergy  seem  first 
to  have  elected  a  prolocutor  to  be  their  spokesman  with 
the  bishops  and  others  ^.  It  became  their  custom  to 
withdraw  at  the  beginning  of  convocation  into  a  lower 


»  Hody,  Hist.  English  Coun-  "  Hody,  p.  378.  381  ;  part  ii, 

cils,  p.  328.  p.  138,  139. 

'   Kennett,    p.     125  ;     Hody,  "  Hody,  p.  38r)— 3f)2. 

part  ii.  p.  108.  '"  Ibid,  part  ii.  p.  256. 


358  EnglisJi  Convocations.  [p.  v.  CH.  vi. 

house,  being  the  chapel  under  the  church  of  St.  Paul'i^, 
to  elect  their  prolocutor,  and  consider  of  their  griev- 
ances ;  but  they  afterwards  assembled  in  the  chapter- 
house of  St.  Paul's,  with  the  bishops  and  abbots,  and 
it  does  not  seem  that  they  formed  a  chamber  perma- 
nently apart  from  the  greater  j)relates  till  late  in  the 
fifteenth  century. 

Though  convocations  were  summoned  for  temporal 
objects,  still  when  assembled  they  were  virtually  pro- 
vincial synods,  as  they  comprised  all  their  members, 
and  therefore  they  sometimes  acted  as  such,  and  even 
took  the  title.  In  fact  there  seems  no  reason  why 
bishops  who  are  assembled  for  a  temporal  purpose, 
should  be  disqualified  from  taking  cognizance  of  spi- 
ritual affairs  if  necessary,  and  thus  acting  in  a  synodical 
capacity.  It  is  their  authority  as  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  successors  of  the  apostles,  which  gives  them 
a  right  to  make  decisions  in  a  synod ;  not  the  mere 
mode  or  reason  of  their  assembling.  Therefore  it  does 
not  appear  essential  to  a  synod,  that  it  should  have 
been  formally  convened  as  a  synod.  We  find  that  a 
convocation  in  1400  judged  in  a  case  of  heresy  \ 
Bishop  Kennet  says,  that  no  canons  were  made  by 
convocations  till  the  reign  of  Henry  VII  ^.  However 
the  submission  of  the  clergy  and  the  act  of  parliament 
both  suj^pose  that  convocations  may  make  canons  with 
the  royal  permission ;  and  in  fact,  the  various  reform- 
ations made  in  these  churches  from  that  time,  have 
been  generally,  if  not  always,  effected  by  convocations, 
which  were  styled  by  themselves  and  by  the  temporal 
power,  "  provincial"  or  "  national  synods  ^"  The  same 
thing  has  also  occurred  in  France. 


"  Hody,  part  ii.  p.  247.  ^  The   Gallican  assemblies   of 

''  Kennett,  p.  57.  df'rgy  or  convocations  made  re- 


APPEND,  ir.]  English  Convocations.  359 

The  power  6f  the  crown  with  regard  to  convocation 
is  very  great.  It  is  its  undisputed  prerogative,  not  only 
to  assemble  convocation,  but  to  prevent  its  delibe- 
rations, prorogue,  and  dissolve  it  ^at  pleasure.  The 
assembly  of  the  Galilean  clergy  was  subject  to  the  same 
influence  as  ours.  The  king  of  France  convoked  it, 
prescribed  the  subjects  of  debate,  and  terminated  it 
when  he  pleased  ^.  With  regard  to  the  constitution  of 
convocation  in  England,  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to 
observe,  that  were  it  desirable  that  so  large  a  body 
should  be  permitted  to  deliberate  on  the  affairs  of  the 
church  generally,  and  that  the  principle  of  a  formal 
representation  of  the  clergy  of  the  second  order  should 
be  adhered  to,  it  would  be  necessary  as  a  preliminary, 
to  determine  the .  respective  privileges  of  the  two 
houses  of  convocation :  nor  does  it  seem  that  under  the 
constitution  of  that  assembly  at  present,  the  parochial 
clergy  are  so  fully  represented,  as  the  numbers,  the  learn- 
ing, the  orthodoxy,  and  the  high  principle  of  that  admi- 
rable body  of  men  so  amply  entitle  them  to  be. 

In  concluding  these  observations  on  the  royal  supre- 
macy, I  must  again  protest,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
church  of  England  on  this  point  is  not  to  be  deter- 
mined by  preambles  of  acts  of  parliament,  by  the  asser- 
tions of  lawyers,  or  by  the  sentiments  and  actions  of 
princes  in  modern  times.  We  are  not  bound  to  admit 
the  soundness  of  all  those  doctrines,  or  the  rectitude  of 
all  those  acts.  We  subscribe  only  to  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  taught  by  the  church  of  England  in  her 
articles  and  canons,  and  will  not  consent  to  be  tried 
except  by  them  and  by  the  principles  they  lay  down. 


gulations  in  discipline  and  doc-     157.  s.  35,  36.)  and  in  1682. 
trine  in.  1561  (see   Fleury,   liv.         *  See  Vol.  I.  p.  464. 


360  Powers  of  Princes  in  the  Roman  Obedience,     [fart  v. 

Whatever  we  may  have  to  complain  of  in  such  matters, 
is  not  pecuhar  to  these  churches.  Those  who  claim 
greater  independence  than  we  do  generally,  have  in 
fact  been  obliged  to  content  themselves  with  less. 
Bouvier,  bishop  of  Mans,  may  well  say,  "  Whoever  is 
not  altogether  ignorant  of  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 
the  last  century,  cannot  be  unaware  of  the  many  modes 
in  which  the  civil  authority  injured  the  spiritual  power 
of  the  (Galilean)  church,  under  the  name  of  '  Liberty.' 
The  most  zealous  defenders  of  our  liberties  have  more 
than  once  complained  bitterly  of  the  royal  officers  and 
magistrates,  who  thus  transgressed  their  legitimate  au- 
thority ^"  Bossuet  wrote  to  cardinal  d'Estrees,  "  I 
have  proposed  two  things  to  myself;  first,  in  speaking  of 
the  liberties  of  the  Galilean  church,  to  do  so  without 
diminishing  the  real  grandeur  of  the  holy  see  ;  secondly, 
to  explain  them  as  they  are  understood  by  the  bishops, 
and  not  as  they  are  understood  by  the  magistrates  ^"  Fe- 
nelon  said,  "The  king  in  practice  is  more  the  head  of 
the  church  in  France  than  the  pope.  Liberties  with 
regard  to  the  pope,  servitudes  with  regard  to  the  king. 
The  authority  of  the  king  devolved  to  lay  judges: 
those  laymen  rule  the  bishops.  The  enormous  abuses 
of  the  appel  d'abus,"'  &c. ''  Fleury  says,  "  But  the 
great  servitude  of  the  Galilean  church,  if  I  may  say  so, 
is  the  excessive  extent  of  the  secular  jurisdiction." 
"  A  bad  Frenchman  might  make  a  treatise  on  the 
servitudes  of  the  Galilean  church,  as  they  have  done  on 
its  liberties,  and  he  would  not  be  in  want  of  proofs '." 


''  Bouvier,  De  Vera  Ecclesia,  ''  Cited  by   Bouvier  from  the 

p.  386.     See  proofs  of  this,  Vol.  Life  of  Fenelon  by  De  Bausset; 

I.  p.  327.  Pieces  justific.  du  livre  vii.  no.  8. 

*^  Histoire  de  Bossuet,  t.  ii.  p.  *     Nouveaux    Opuscules     de 

125,  cited  by  Bouvier,  p.  387.  Fleury,  p.  89.  97.     Ibid. 


CHAP.  VII.]     A  Christian  Prince  and  Heretical  People.         361 

I  merely  adduce  this  to  show  that  our  case  is  not,  at 
least,  worse  than  that  of  other  nations :  and  that  what- 
ever chagrin  may  be  felt  on  any  such  points,  is  not 
heightened  but  soothed  by  comparison  with  the  con- 
dition of  other  churches  supported  by  the  state.  The 
value  of  this  support  is  of  no  small  moment  to  the 
church  :  it  is  not  lightly  to  be  thrown  away.  The 
most  holy  bishops  in  every  age  have  approved  it,  and 
even  borne  with  patience  the  defects,  the  faults,  the 
interference  of  temporal  magistrates.  It  is  the  duty  of 
the  faithful  to  pray  that  their  princes  and  magistrates 
may  be  inspired  with  greater  zeal  for  the  faith,  and  in 
the  mean  while  to  hope  that  the  Divine  Head  and 
Governor  of  the  church  will,  in  due  time,  cause  better 
and  happier  days  to  arise. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

CERTAIN    DIFFICULTIES   SOLVED. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  I  have  only  been  contem- 
plating the  case  of  christian  princes  of  the  catholic 
church  :  I  do  not  pretend  to  deduce  from  the  gospel  the 
duties  of  heathen  or  heretical  princes  towards  the  true 
religion.  But  it  remains  to  consider  here  the  cases  of 
a  christian  king  with  a  heathen  or  heretical  people,  and 
of  a  christian  people  with  a  heretical  or  infidel  king. 

If  a  christian  king  should  be  placed  at  the  head  of  a 
heathen  or  heretical  people,  his  duty  should  lead  him 
to  encourage  the  spread  of  true  religion  without  vio- 
lence or  compulsion,  because  it  was  not  the  command- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ  that  his  religion  should  be  pro- 

10 


362  A  Christian  Church  and  Infidel  Prince.        [part  v. 

pagatecl  by  weapons  of  carnal  warfare;  and  converts 
made  by  temporal  force  are  never  likely  to  be  sincere 
adherents  to  the  catholic  faith.  A  christian  sovereign 
may  even  promise  to  defend  the  property  and  other 
legal  rights  of  an  established  sect  (as  our  monarchs  do 
with  reference  to  the  presbyterian  community  in  Scot- 
land), and  ought,  in  that  case,  to  adhere  to  his  promise 
in  good  faith  ;  but  he  could  not,  without  a  violation  of 
his  duty  to  God  and  to  the  nation,  preclude  himself 
from  benefitting  and  promoting  the  cause  of  the  true 
church. 

If  the  christian  church  in  any  country,  having  been 
neglected  or  persecuted  by  an  unbelieving  prince, 
should  receive  from  that  prince  an  offer  of  relief  and 
sujDport,  on  condition  that  he  was  permitted  to  exercise 
certain  privileges  in  the  church,  it  would  be  entirely  in 
the  power  of  the  church  to  decide  whether  the  adop- 
tion of  such  a  proposal  would  leave  an  abundant  secu- 
rity for  the  catholic  faith  and  discipline ;  and  if  she 
judged  either  to  be  endangered,  she  would  be  at  perfect 
liberty  to  reject  the  proposal :  because  her  first  duty  is 
to  maintain  the  ordinances  of  God. 

If  a  christian  church  which  had  formerly  been  pro- 
tected by  the  zeal  and  piety  of  christian  princes,  should 
in  the  course  of  ages  behold  the  power  of  heretics  or 
infidels  influencing  the  state,  and  estranging  it  from 
her :  if  she  beheld  a  weak  government  consenting,  or 
a  wicked  government  labouring  to  withdraw  those  safe- 
guards with  which  ancient  piety  and  wisdom  had  sur- 
rounded her  :  what  should  be  her  duty  except  to  offer 
respectful  and  christian  remonstrance  while  she  is  al- 
lowed to  offer  it ;  to  bear  with  patience  and  humility 
what  must  be  borne,  in  the  hope  of  better  times ;  to  be 
cautious  that  injuries  shall  not  excite  her  to  imprudent 


CHAP,  viii.]  On  Toleration.  363 

acts  which  might  only  increase  her  difficulties ;  and  in 
fine,  to  guard  with  unshaken  fidelity,  the  faith  and  the 
discipline  which  she  has  received  from  scripture  and 
catholic  tradition. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON    TOLERATION. 

I  HAVE  already  observed  that  it  was  not  the  will  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  his  church  should  compel  unbe- 
lievers to  unite  themselves  to  her  communion  by  force 
of  arms.  He  neither  conferred  any  temporal  power  on 
his  ministers,  nor  willed  that  any  but  believers  should 
be  baptized.  It  would  be  entirely  alien  to  the  christian 
spirit  to  use  harshness  or  cruelty  to  any  human  being, 
even  to  idolaters  or  infidels.  On  the  contrary,  chris- 
tians are  bound  to  "  do  good  to  all  men,"  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  live  at  peace  with  them.  But  while  this  is 
most  fully  admitted,  it  seems  not  unnecessary  to  con- 
sider briefly  the  question  of  toleration,  and  the  principles 
on  which  it  is  sometimes,  indeed  too  frequently,  advo- 
cated ;  because  it  affects  not  only  the  character  of  the 
christian  church  and  christian  sovereigns  from  the  age 
of  Constantine,  but  the  very  laws  under  which  these 
churches  have  so  long  flourished. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  laws  now  existing,  which 
establish  the  discipline  and  doctrine  of  this  catholic 
church.  By"  the  act  1st  Elizabeth,  any  minister  of  the 
church  rejecting  the  use  of  the  book  of  common- 
prayer,  or  employing  different  forms  and  ceremonies,  is 
liable  to  forfeit  the  yearly  profit  of  his  benefice,  and  to  be 


364  On  Toleration.  [pakt  v. 

imprisoned  for  six  months  for  the  first  offence  ;  to  suffer 
imprisonment  for  a  year  and  be  deprived  ipso  facto  of 
his  benefices  in  case  of  a  second  offence ;  and  for  a 
third,  to  suffer  imprisonment  for  life,  besides  losing-  his 
benefices.  Any  person  libelling  the  Book  of  Common- 
Prayer,  or  forcing  a  clergyman  to  use  any  other  form, 
forfeits  a  hundred  marks.  On  a  repetition  of  the  of- 
fence, he  forfeits  four  hundred  marks  ;  on  a  third  offence 
forfeits  his  goods  and  chattels,  and  suffers  imprison- 
ment for  life.  A  person  absent  from  the  service  of  the 
church  without  reasonable  excuse,  forfeits  twelve 
pence.  By  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  14  Car.  II.  every 
minister  of  the  church  is  bound  to  declare,  on  his  ap- 
pointment, his  assent  and  consent  to  the  Book  of 
Common-Prayer,  on  pain  of  deprivation.  He  is  also 
(if  resident)  to  perform  certain  duties,  under  a  penalty 
of  five  pounds.  No  one,  except  he  be  episcopally  or- 
dained, can  hold  a  benefice :  nor  can  any  person  not 
ordained  a  priest,  celebrate  the  eucharist,  under  the 
penalty  of  one  hundred  pounds.  Heads  of  colleges  are 
to  subscribe  the  Articles  and  Book  of  Common- 
Prayer,  on  pain  of  deprivation.  Persons  preaching 
without  proper  faculties  are  to  suffer  three  months' 
imprisonment.  By  the  act  13th  Elizabeth,  any  mi- 
nister of  the  church  teaching  doctrines  contrary  to  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  is  deprived  of  his  preferments. 
These  are  a  few  of  the  principal  laws  by  which  the  state 
protects  the  authority  and  unity  of  the  church:  the 
number  might  easily  be  enlarged. 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  involved  in  these 
laws,  and  in  the  Articles  and  Canons  of  the  church  of 
England,  I  maintain  firmly  that  the  state  has  a  right, 
when  necessary,  to  oblige  the  members  of  the  church, 
by  temporal  penalties,  to  submit  to  her  ordinances,  and 


CHAP.  VI I r.]  0«  Toleration.  365 

neither  establish  a  different  worship,  nor  teach  diffe- 
rent doctrines  from  hers.  It  has  a  right  to  prevent 
persons  from  separating  from  her  communion,  and 
from  troubling  the  faithful,  sowing  dissension  in  the 
community,  and  misleading  the  ignorant  and  weak- 
minded  brethren.  It  is  not  that  the  prince  has  a  right 
to  dictate  his  oivn  opinions  to  the  people,  nor  that  he  is 
specially  bound  by  his  otfice  to  save  souls :  but  because 
he  is  bound  to  believe  that  God  is  the  governor  of  this 
world,  that  religion  propitiates  His  favour,  that  He  has 
revealed  a  relierion  and  established  a  church  in  which 
He  wills  that  men  should  seek  Him  ;  because  it  is  cer^^ 
tain  that  God  has  not  left  His  church  without  signs 
which  distinguish  it  clearly  from  all  false  religions ; 
and  in  fine,  because  the  church  in  the  supposed  case,  is 
manifestly  a  branch  of  that  true  and  divine  church  :  it 
is  for  these  reasons  that  the  christian  prince  has  a  right 
to  exercise  his  temporal  power  for  the  welfare  of  the 
nation,  by  protecting  the  church  from  "  the  gathering 
together  of  the  froward,  and  the  insurrection  of  evil- 
doers." 

But  when  temporal  penalties  are  applied  by  the 
christian  prince  in  preventing  rebellion  against  the 
church,  it  should  ever  be  remembered,  that  the  object 
is  not  vengeance  or  cruelty,  but  the  welfare  of  the 
church  and  nation.  And  therefore,  if  experience  show 
that  penalties  have  in  vain  been  employed  to  secure 
obedience  :  if  a  schism  be  formed  and  established :  if  it 
be  obviously  in  vain  to  expect  any  good  results  from 
measures  of  compulsion  :  christian  charity  and  submis- 
sion to  the  divine  will,  as  well  as  sound  policy,  would 
enjoin  the  toleration  of  incurable  errors.  Therefore 
the  state  of  England  acted  well  in  relieving  papists  and 
other  sectaries  from  the  operation  of  laws  which  could 


366  On  Toleration.  [p.  v.  ch.  viii. 

no  longer  be  useful  with  respect  to  them.  But  though 
sects  may  be  tolerated  by  a  christian  state,  they  ought 
never  to  receive  from  it  favour,  encouragement,  or  the 
means  of  injuring  the  true  church  established. 

Locke's  theory  of  Toleration,  which  has  been  adopted 
by  Warburton  and  others,  is  built  on  three  fundamental 
errors,  which  pervade  the  entire  of  it.  First,  that  the 
sole  concern  of  the  civil  magistrate  is  with  civil  affairs ; 
and  that  he  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  religion  : 
secondly,  that  the  true  religion  and  church  are  not 
clearly  distinguishable  from  heresies  and  schisms :  and 
thirdly,  that  the  only  end  which  the  civil  magistrate 
can  have  in  enforcing  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of 
the  church,  is  the  salvation  of  those  who  are  disobedient 
to  them.  From  these  principles  Locke  deduces  con- 
clusions subversive  of  the  regal  supremacy,  and  con- 
demnatory of  the  existing  laws  in  favour  of  the  orthodox 
religion.  I  shall  briefly  notice  some  of  his  principal 
assertions  and  arguments  in  the  objections. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  He  who  follows  Christ,  embraces  his  doctrine,  and 
wears  his  yoke,  though  he  may  separate  from  the  public 
assemblies  and  ceremonies  of  his  country,  is  not  to  be 
accounted  a  heretic  and  punished. 

Answer.  Separation  from  the  church  of  Christ  is  in- 
ea^cusable^,  nor  is  it  possible  that  he  who  does  so  can 
follow  Christ. 

II.  If  any  one  compels  others  by  temporal  force  to 
profess  certain  doctrines,  or  attend  a  certain  worship, 
he  cannot  intend  to  compose  a  truly  christian  church 
by  such  means. 

*  See  Part  I.  chapter  iv,  sect.  2. 


OBJECT.]  On  Toleration.  367 

Answer.  No  magistrate  could  intend  to  compose  a 
church  by  such  means,  but  he  may  render  those  who 
rebel  against  the  church  comparatively  innoxious,  and 
even  bring  them  ultimately  into  the  right  way. 

III.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  did  not  use  carnal 
weapons,  though  they  might  easily  have  had  them  if 
they  desired. 

Ansioer.  The  ministers  of  the  church  are  never  to 
employ  such  weapons,  but  the  christian  magistrate  is 
given  the  power  of  the  civil  sword. 

IV.  The  whole  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  relates 
to  civil  matters,  such  as  life,  liberty,  health,  and  pro- 
perty :  it  does  not  relate  to  the  salvation  of  souls. 
Therefore  he  has  no  right  to  interfere  in  matters  of 
religion. 

Answer.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  to  consult 
for  the  general  welfare,  by  promoting  virtue  and  re- 
ligion, and  thus  seeking  the  blessing  of  God  on  the 
nation.  I  admit  that  his  office  is  not  to  take  care  of 
souls  :  this  is  entrusted  to  the  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

V.  The  magistrate  cannot  have  the  care  of  souls,  be- 
cause he  cannot  compel  men  to  believe.  He  cannot 
influence  their  view  and  persuasion. 

Ansiver.  He  may  however  prevent  unbelievers  and 
heretics  from  openly  assailing  religion,  and  subverting 
the  faith  of  many.  St.  Paul  says,  "  There  are  many 
unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  whose  mouths 
must  be  stopped ;  who  subvert  whole  houses,  teaching 
things  which  they  ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre's  sake  ^." 
If  the  christian  magistrate  silences  such  brawlers  is  he 
to  be  blamed  ? 

^  Tit.  i.  11. 


368  On  Toleration.  [p.  v.  cfi.  viii. 

VI.  There  is  but  one  truth,  one  way  to  heaven  : 
there  would  be  no  hope  that  more  persons  should  be 
led  into  it,  if  they  were  under  a  necessity  to  embrace 
the  religion  of  their  rulers,  whatever  it  may  be.  Sal- 
vation in  this  case  would  depend  on  the  place  of 
nativity. 

Answer.  There  is  but  one  truth  and  one  church, 
which  God  has  distinguished  from  falsehood  and  error 
by  manifest  signs.  The  magistrate's  right  only  extends 
to  the  defence  and  propagation  of  this  true  religion : 
the  subject's  duty  of  obedience  is  also  limited  to  it. 

VII.  The  church  is  a  purely  voluntary  society,  for 
no  man  is  by  nature  a  member  of  the  church.  He 
joins  the  society  he  judges  most  acceptable  to  God, 
and  if  he  finds  any  thing  wrong  in  it,  he  ought  to  be  at 
liberty  to  leave  it. 

Answer.  No  man  can  forsake  the  church  without 
committing  a  grievous  sin.  The  civil  magistrate  may 
reasonably  restrain  such  men  by  temporal  penalties,  in 
order  to  prevent  them  from  disturbing  the  weak 
brethren,  and  troubling  the  church. 

VIII.  From  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  church  it 
follows  that  its  laws  must  be  made  by  itself  alone. 

Answer.  Are  all  voluntary  societies  exempted  from 
the  authority  of  the  state,  and  unprotected  by  the  law  ? 
It  is  certain  that  many  voluntary  associations  for  various 
objects  are  both  protected  and  regulated  by  the  state. 

IX.  No  sect  has  a  right  to  assume  dominion  over 
another :  nor  is  it  to  be  said  that  the  orthodox  have 
authority  over  the  heretical ;  because  each  asserts  itself 
to  be  orthodox,  and  there  is  no  earthly  judge  to  de- 
cide on  their  claims. 

Answer.  The  church  never  claims  dominion  over 
those  "that  are  without,"  but  she  has  authority  over 


OBJECT.]  On  Tohrntion.  360 

her  own  children  wlien  tliej  rebel.  God  has  himself 
distinguished  his  true  religion  and  church  sufficiently 
from  all  heresies.  To  assert  the  contrary  would  be  to 
deny  in  fact  that  God  designs  his  church  to  be  the  way 
of  salvation,  and  to  dispute  whether  there  be  any  true 
church. 

X.  The  points  in  discussion  between  the  church  and 
those  who  separate,  are  frequently  matters  of  small  im- 
portance, concerning  rites,  habits,  &c.  Why  should 
men  be  blamed  for  omitting  such  trifling  matters? 

Answer.  Because  they  reject  them  on  the  principle 
that  all  human  rites  in  religious  service  are  sinful:  and 
thus  condemn  the  church  universal  in  all  ages,  and 
*'  spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus, 
that  they  may  bring  us  into  hondager  Therefore  we 
are  bound,  in  defence  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
the  church,  not  "  to  give  place  by  subjection"  to  such 
men,  "  no  not  for  an  hour." 

XI.  Since  churches  are  free  societies,  and  since  what 
is  practised  in  them  is  only  justifiable  in  so  far  as  it  is 
believed  by  those  who  practise  it  to  be  acceptable  to 
God,  the  magistrate  has  no  right  to  enforce  any  rites  or 
ceremonies  in  the  worship  of  God.  Therefore  the  Acts 
of  Uniformity  are  unjust. 

Answer.  The  church  only  adopts  such  rites  and  cere- 
monies as  she  judges  pleasing  to  God,  or  lawful :  the 
civil  magistrate  enforces  them,  in  order  to  confirm  her 
resolutions  and  to  support  her  authority. 

XII.  Speculative  articles  of  faith  ought  not  to  be 
imposed  on  any  church  by  law ;  because  it  is  not  in 
man's  power  to  believe  at  pleasure,  and  a  mere  external 
profession  cannot  put  men  in  the  way  of  salvation. 
Therefore, the  act  enjoining  subscription  to  the  Articles 
is  unjust. 

VOL.  II.  B  b 


370  On  Toleration.  [p.  v.  CH.  vni. 

Answer.  It  may  be  very  useful  to  the  cliurch  that 
evil  men  shall  not  be  permitted  to  teach  errors,  espe- 
cially Mithin  her  communion,  which  (if  allowed)  would 
often  involve  her  in  great  difficulties  and  dangers.  The 
repression  of  such  men  is  not  so  much  for  their  benefit, 
as  for  that  of  the  coramunitv. 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST, 


PART  VL 


ON  THE  SACRED  MINISTRY. 


Bb  2 


A   TREATISE 


THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  VI. 

ON    THE    SACRED    MINISTRY. 


CHAPTER  1. 

ON      THE      EPISCOPATE. 

I  HAVE  elsewhere  proved  ^  that  the  office  of  the  sacred 
ministry  is  essential  to  the  christian  church,  and  have 
briefly  noticed  some  of  its  characteristics :  but  I  am 
now  to  examine  more  particularly  the  constitution  of 
this  priesthood,  its  various  degrees,  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  are  to  receive  and  to  transmit  it,  the  rites 
by  which  it  is  conferred ;  and  to  apply  these  considera- 
tions to  existing  circumstances. 

The  British  churches,  together  with  the  infinite 
majority  of  professing  christians  throughout  the  world, 
acknowledge  three  ranks  or  degrees  of  the  sacred 
ministry  as  of  apostolical  antiquity.  The  preface  to 
the  Ordinal  says  :  "  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have 
been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church ; 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  ;"  and  a  distinct  form  of 
ordination  with  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  is  there 

"  See  Part  I.  chap.  viii. 


/J74  Number  of  Sacred  Orders.  [part  vi. 

appointed  for  those  presbyters  who   "  are  called  to  the 
work  and  ministry  of  a  bishoji." 

In  this  chapter  I  propose  to  prove,  that  episcopacy, 
or  the  superiority  of  one  pastor  in  each  church,  vested 
with  peculiar  powers,  is  of  apostolical  institution  ;  and 
that  all  churches  are  bound  to  adhere  to  this  rule. 

This  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  general  discipline 
of  the  church,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  contend,  that 
the  difference  between  the  first  and  second  degrees  of 
the  sacred  ministry,  resembles  that  between  the  second 
and  third ;  or  that  there  are  three  orders  of  the  minis- 
try equally  distinguished  from  each  other.  If  we  divide 
the  sacred  ministry  according  to  its  degrees  instituted 
by  God,  and  understand  the  word  "  order"  in  the  sense 
of  "  degree,"  we  may  very  truly  say  that  there  are  three 
orders  of  the  christian  ministry ;  but  if  we  distribute  it 
according  to  its  nature,  we  may  say  that  there  are  only 
two  orders,  viz.  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  deacons  ;  for 
pastors  of  the  first  and  second  degree  exercise  a  minis- 
try of  the  same  nature.  Both  are  ministers  of  Christ 
and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God  :  both  are  in- 
vested with  the  care  of  souls  and  the  government  of 
the  church,  in  their  respective  degrees :  both  are  sent 
to  teach  and  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ ;  to  make 
disciples  by  baptism  ;  to  celebrate  the  eucharist ;  to 
bless  the  congregation  ;  to  offer  prayers  and  spiritual 
sacrifices  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people ;  even  to 
seal  with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  confirmation  *".  In  the 
power  of  ordination  alone,  do  the  ministers  of  the  first 


^  Presbyters  administer  confir-  they  have  no  such  power,  and  it 

mation  ordinarily  in  the  eastern  is  even  disputed  by  many  theo- 

churches   with    chrism   hallowed  logians  whether  the  church  could 

by  the  bishop.     Habert.  Pontifi-  commission  them  to  exercise  it. 
cale  Graec.  p.  709.     In  the  west 


CHAP.  I.]  Number  of  Sacred  Orders.  375 

degree  differ  absolutely  from  those  of  the  second :  and 
therefore  they  may  be  considered,  in  general,  as  of  the 
same  order. 

On  the  other  hand,  deacons  are  plainly  of  a  different 
order ;  their  ministry  being,  according  to  the  Scripture, 
the  practice  of  the  church  generally,  and  the  sentiment 
of  the  church  of  England  in  particular,  limited  to 
duties  of  a  temporal,  or  at  least  a  very  inferior  cha- 
racter. They  are  only  permitted  to  baptize  and  preach  : 
the  church  has  before  now  given  the  same  permission 
to  laymen  in  case  of  necessity :  they  are  not  given  the 
care  of  souls,  or  any  of  the  other  higher  offices  of  the 
ministry. 

If  it  were  adviseable  to  enter  on  this  question  at  any 
extent,  it  might  be  easily  shown,  that  there  is  very 
considerable  authority  from  tradition,  in  favour  of  the 
identity  in  order  of  the  first  and  second  degrees  of 
the  ministry.  I  mean,  that  the  title  of  bishop  or 
presbyter  might  be  applied  to  both,  though  the  bishops 
or  presbyters  of  the  first  class  are  distinguished  from 
those  of  the  second,  y^re  divino.  We  find  that  Clement 
of  Rome,  Polycarp,  Ireneeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Tertullian,  Firmilian,  and  others,  sometimes  only  speak 
of  two  orders  in  the  church,  i.  e.  bishops  or  presbyters 
and  deacons ;  or  else  mention  the  pastors  of  the  first 
order  under  the  title  of  presbyters.  Besides  this,  many 
writers  employ  language  and  arguments,  which  go 
directly  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  first  and  second 
degrees  of  the  ministry  in  order.  Amongst  these  may 
probably  be  mentioned,  Jerome,  Hilary  the  deacon, 
Chrysofstom,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  Sedulius,  Prima- 
sius,  Isidore  Hispalensis,  Bede,  Alcuin,  the  synod  of 
Aix  in  819,  Amalarius,  and   others,   quoted  by  Mori- 


.')7G  Nutnbtr  of  Sacred  Orders.  [part  vi. 

iius  ''.  To  these  may  be  added  the  great  body  of  the 
schoolmen,  Hugo  S.  Victor,  Peter  Lombard,  Alexander 
Alensis,  Bonaventura,  Albertus  Magnus,  Thomas  Aqui 
nas,  Scotus,  Abulensis,  Turrecremata,  Cajetan, &c.  Many 
teach  that  the  episcopate  is  only  an  extension  of  the 
sacerdotal  order,  such  as  Durandus,  Paludanus,  Domi- 
nic Soto,  &c.  ^  In  fine  the  synod  of  Trent  seems  rather 
to  favour  this  view,  since  it  does  not  reckon  the  episco- 
pate as  a  distinct  order  from  the  priesthood  \  though  it 
denounces  anathema  against  those  who  deny  that  there 
is  a  hierarchy,  divinely  instituted,  consisting  of  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  ministers  ^.  Such  too  seems  to  have 
been  the  sentiment  of  the  bishops  of  England  in  "  the 
Institution  of  a  Christian  JMan,"  1536  %  and  "  the  Ne- 
cessary Doctrine,"  1543  ^  where  only  the  two  orders  of 
bishops  or  priests,  and  deacons  are  reckoned  of  divine 
institution.  It  seems  too,  that  many  of  the  Reformers 
in  the  sixteenth  century  entertained  this  opinion,  and 
several  theolosfians  of  our  churches  in  that  and  the  fol- 
lowing  ages,  have  been  cited  in  favour  of  it. 

But  we  should  greatly  mistake,  if  we  supposed  that 
these  writers,  because  they  reckoned  only  two  orders 
in  the  sacred  ministry,  regarded  the  chief  presbyters,  to 
whom  the  church  has  limited  the  title  of  bishops,  as 
invested  with  no  greater  prerogatives  than  other  pres- 
byters jure  divino.  On  the  contrary  they  held,  that 
bishops  were  established  in  all  churches  by  the  Apos- 

"    Morinus    de   Sacris    Ordin.  matter.       See   also    Hallier,   De 

par.   iij.   exerc.  iii.  c.    2.     Vas-  Ordin.  p.  372,  &c.  413. 

quez,  in  iii    part.  Disput.    240,  ^  Synod.  Trident.  Sess.  xxiii. 

c.  2.  cap.  2. 

**  Morinus,  par.  iii.   exerc.  iii  "^  Ibid.  Can.  6,  7. 

c.     1.     states     all    the     various  =  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  105, 

opinions  of  the  scholastic  doctors  Oxford  ed. 

and  Roman   theologians  on  this  ''  Ibid.  p.  231. 


CHAP.  1.]  The  Episcopate  ApostolicaL  377 

ties,  with  a  superiority  of  jurisdiction  to  the  other 
presbyters ;  and  that  tlie  power  of  ordination  was  so 
vested  in  them,  that  mere  presbyterian  ordinations 
were  null  and  void.  This,  I  say,  has  always  been  the 
general  doctrine  of  the  church,  though  there  were  some 
few  individuals  in  the  middle  ages,  who  thought  that 
the  Roman  pontiff  might  commission  simple  presbyters 
to  ordain '. 

Having  premised  these  general  observations,  I  now 
proceed  to  show  that  episcopacy,  or  the  superiority  of 
one  presbyter  in  each  church,  was  established  by  the 
Apostles  ;  and  that  it  is  obligatory  on  the  whole  church \ 

I.  The  authentic  records  of  history  inform  us,  that 
from  the  present  day,  even  to  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
every  church  has  been  governed  by  a  succession  of 
bishops  or  chief  presbyters.  Every  one  admits  that 
episcopacy  was  universal  in  the  fourth  and  third  cen- 
turies. Let  us  now  trace  it  back  from  the  end  of  the 
second  century  to  the  apostles.  I  maintain,  that  as  far 
as  it  is  possible  to  discover  the  state  of  the  church  in 
those  times,  episcopacy  was  as  universally  received  as 
the  sacraments  of  Christianity.     Every  church  seems  to 

'  Morinus   de  Ordin.   pars  iv.  duties  of  the  Clergy  ;   the  writ- 

exerc.  iii.  c.  3.  ings    of    Bovvden,     Cooke,    and 

^  Amongst  the  writers  on  this  Onderdonk,  in  "Works  on  Epis^ 

subject      may    be      mentioned,  copacy"  published  at  the  Episco- 

Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,   book   vii ;  pal  press,  New  York,  1831.  Sin- 

Bilson,  Perpetual  Government  of  clair's  Dissertation  on  the  church 

Christ's  Church,  ch.  xii.  and  xiii;  of    England,    (on    Episcopacy). 

Field,  Of  the  Church,  b.  V  ;   Hall  See    also    Tournely,    Tract,     de 

on  Episcopacy  ;  Taylor  on  Epis-  Ordin.  ;    Thomassinus,   Vet.    et 

copacy  ;    Chillingworth,    Apost.  Nov.  Eccl.  Discipl.    P.  I.  lib.  i. 

Institut.  of  Episcopacy  ;  Leslie,  c.51 — 53  ;  Petavius  deHierarch. 

on  the  qualifications  requisite  to  Eccl.   ;      Habertus,      Pontificale 

administer  the  Sacraments  ;  Pot-  Grsec.  ;  Morinus  de  Ordin.  ;  Hal- 

ter     on     Church     Government  ;  lier,  De  Sacr.  Elect,  et  Ordin.  ; 

Bingham,     Orig.     Eccl.     b.    ii  ;  Vasquez,   Comment,  in  iii.  part. 

Skinner  on  Episcopacy  ;  Rose  on  S.  Thomae. 
the  Commission  and  consequent 


378  Tlie  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [part  vi. 

have  been  subject  to  one  chief  pastor,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  to  the  contrary. 

About  A.  D.  J  96,  Victor  was  "  president  of  the  Roman 
church  V  Irenseus  reminded  him  of  "  the  presbyters 
who  had  presided  over  that  church""'  before  him. 
Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphorus,  and  Xystus, 
obviously  regarding  each  of  them,  like  Victor,  as  the 
chief  pastor  of  the  Roman  church.  We  know  that 
about  A.  D.  :250,  the  bishop  of  Rome  presided  over 
iorty-four  presbyters  ",  and  no  doubt  the  number  was 
large  even  at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  About 
the  same  time  as  Victor,  "  Demetrius  undertakes  the 
ministry  of  the  church  of  Alexandria.  .  .  .  Scrapie,  the 
eighth  bishop  of  the  church  of  Antioch  from  the  apos- 
tles was  still  known.  .  .  .  Theophilus  presided  over  the 
church  of  Csesarea.  .  .  .  Narcissus  in  like  manner  .  .  . 
had  the  ministry  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem.  Bachyl- 
lus,  at  the  same  time,  was  bishop  of  that  at  Corinth 
in  Greece,  and  Polycrates  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  °." 
Eusebius  mentions  that  many  synods  of  "  bishops,"  by 
whom  he  doubtless  means  such  presidents  of  churches 
as  he  has  spoken  of,  were  held  in  Palestine,  Rome, 
Pontus,  Gaul,  Osroene,  Corinth,  Asia,  &c.  ^  At  the 
same  time  we  read  of  "  Cassius,  bishop  of  the  church 
of  Tyre,  and  Clarus  of  that  at  Ptolemais ""."  Polycrates 
in  his  epistle  to  Victor,  mentions  many  Asiatic  bishops 
then  deceased  ^ 

Before  this  time,  about  177,  "Irenseus  undertakes 
the  episcopate  of  the  church  of  Lyons,  which  Pothinus 
had  governed ;"  the  latter  having  died  in  prison  at  the 

'  '0/XEv  tT)q  'Pwjuai'wj'  TTpotGTwc  "  Eiiseb.  vi.  43. 

B/ic-oip. — Eus.  V.  24.  ""  Euseb.  v.  22. 

'"   Kai   01    Trpo    Sw7->7poc    7rp£(7-  ''  Ibid.  23,  24. 

ftdnpoi  01  irpoarai'Tst;   Tf/g   ekk\7]-  ''  Ibid.  25. 

(TiciQ  iii:  rvv  ti(j)vyrj. — Ibid.  '  Ibid.  24. 

10 


CHAP.  1.]  The  Episcopate  Apostolical.  379 

age  of  ninety  ^  Irenseus  furnishes  a  catalogue  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome,  in  which  he  says,  that  "  the  apostles 
delivered  the  ministr?/  of  the  episcopate  to  Linus.  .  .  . 
Anencletus  succeeds  him ;  and  after  him,  in  the  third 
place  from  the  apostles,  Clemens  obtains  the  episco- 
pate. .  .  .  Evarestus  succeeds  this  Clemens,  and  is  fol- 
lowed by  Alexander,"  &c.  *  He  also  says  that  Polycarp, 
w^th  whom  he  was  acquainted,  was  made  bishop  of 
Smyrna  b?/  the  apostles ". 

About  the  year  168,  w^hen  the  heresy  of  Montanus 
appeared,  we  read  that  it  Avas  opposed  by  Zoticus, 
bishop  of  Comana,  Julian  of  Apamsea ",  Serapion 
of  Antioch,  Apollinarius  of  Hierapolis,  and  "  many 
other  bishops  '^"  Before  this,  Melito  was  "  bishop  of 
Sardis,  and  Apollinarius  of  Hierapolis  %"  Theoj^hilus 
of  Antioch,  and  Philip  of  Gortyna  \  Still  earlier, 
Dionysius  was  "  entrusted  with  the  episcopal  throne  of 
the  church  of  Corinth.  .  .  .  He  mentions  Quadratus, 
who  after  the  martyrdom  of  Publius,  was  appointed 
bishop  of  the  Athenians.  .  .  .  He  relates  also  how 
Dioni/sius  the  Areopagite  . .  .first  undertook  the  hishopric 
of  the  church  of  Athens, .  .  .  Writing  to  the  church  of 
Gortyna,  ...  he  commends  Philip  their  bishop.  .  .  . 
Writing  to  the  church  of  Amastris,  and  the  others  in 
Pontus  .  .  .  mentioning  their  bishop  Palm  as  by  name, 
he  admonishes  them,"  &c.  There  is  also  an  epistle  to 
the  Gnossians,  in  which  he  exhorts  "  Pinytus  bishop  of 
that  church  ;"  and  another  to  the  Romans  "  addressed 
to  Soter  bishop  at  that  time  ^" 

*  Ibid.  5.  "  Euseb.  lib.  v.  c.  16. 

'  Ibid.  6.  "  Ibid.  19. 

"  'AXXa    Kal    viro    ' ATToarokdJv  "  Lib.  iv.  c.  26. 

KuTaaraQiiQ  (Iq  rfiv  'Atrlat'  it'   rij  ^  Ibid.  24,  25. 

iv    ^jivpvT)     iKicXricTif^     iTviffKOTZOQ.  ^  Ibid.  23. 
— Euseb.  lib.  iv.  c.  14. 


380  Tlie  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [part  vi. 

About  158,  Hegesippus  came  from  the  east  to  Rome, 
and  his  history  states  that  he  had  "conversed  with 
many  bishops  on  his  journey."  He  says,  "  the  church 
of  the  Corinthians  remained  in  the  sound  faith  even  to 
the  episcopate  of  Primus  in  Corinth  :  with  whom  I 
conversed  when  journeying  to  Rome,  and  spent  many 
days  at  Corinth  ^"  He  also  mentions  that  in  the  time 
of  Domitian,  about  a.  d,  93,  certain  relatives  of  our 
Lord,  according  to  the  flesh,  having  been  interrogated 
by  the  emperor  and  dismissed,  afterwards  "  7niled 
churches,  as  being  at  once  martyrs  and  relatives  of  the 
Lord ''."  He  states  that  after  the  martyrdom  of  James 
the  Just,  "  Simon,  the  son  of  Cleopas,  is  appointed  bishop, 
whom,  being  a  relation  of  the  Lord,  all  preferred  as 
the  second"  bishop".  About  the  same  time  as  Diony- 
sius,  Polycarp,  who  had  been  appointed  bishop  of 
Smyrna  by  the  apostles,  came  to  Rome  to  confer  with 
Anicetus  bishop  or  presbyter  of  that  city,  as  Irenseus 
informs  us  ''.  Justin  Martyr,  about  a.  d.  148,  describ- 
ing the  public  worship  of  the  christians,  observes,  that 
the  commentaries  of  the  apostles,  or  the  writings  of 
the  23rophets,  are  read  as  long  as  the  time  permits ;  that 
wdien  the  reader  has  ceased,  "  the  president  in  a  dis- 
course exhorts"  the  people  ;  and  that  when  the  bread 
and  wine  are  offered,  "  the  president  offers  prayers  and 
thanksgivings  ^" 

With  Polycarp,  who  had  been  made  bishop  of 
Smyrna  by  the  apostles,   were   in   part  contem2)orary, 

"  Euseb.  1.  iv.  c.  22.  voxiQiaiav  /cat    irpoKXtfcnv  rrjc  rCJy 

^  Lib.   iii.  c.  20.      See   Routh,  kuXwv   tovtwv   jjifii'icTEuje    ttouItcu 

Reliquiae  Sacrse,  t.  i.  p,  198.  ...  6  TrpoearTWQ   ti^og  ojuoiwg  kqI 

'^  Lib.  iv.  22.  fi/^ajtxaT-i'ac,-     vari     ovvajxiQ     avrw, 

''  Lib.  iv.  14.  V.  24.  dianeinrti.  —  Just.    Mart.    Apol. 

'■  '()    TvpotaTioQ    Cia  Xoyov   rijv  1.  p.  97,  98.  ed.  Thirlby. 


CHAP.  I.]  The  Ejjisi'oj/afc  Aposfollcai.  381 

Papias  "  bishop  of  the  church  of  Hierapolis ',"  who 
conversed  with  the  apostles;  and  Ignatius,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  about  A.  D.  107,  and  had  been  constituted 
bishop  of  Antioch  by  the  apostles  ^.  Ignatius,  as  we 
learn  from  Eusebius,  addressed  epistles  to  several 
churches,  and  mentioned  in  them  "  Onesimus  pastor  of 
the  church  of  Ephesus,"  "  Damas  bishop"  of  Magnesia, 
Polybius  "  ruler  of  the  church  of  Tralles,"  and  Poly- 
carp  "  prelate  of  Smyrna  ''."  This  was  very  soon  after 
the  death  of  St.  John,  who  lived  at  Ephesus  till  the 
end  of  the  first  century. 

All  the  great  churches  preserved  catalogues  of  their 
bishops  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  as  we  may  see 
in  Eusebius.  Rome  traced  her  succession  from  Linus, 
Cletus,  and  Clement,  who  were  appointed  bishops  by 
the  Apostles.  Antioch  traced  hers  from  Evodius  and 
Ignatius,  who  were  also  successively  made  bishops  by 
the  apostles.  Jerusalem  in  like  manner  commenced 
her  catalogue  with  James  the  Lord's  brother  :  Alexan- 
dria traced  her  oi-igin  to  Mark  the  Evangelist,  M'ho 
constituted  Anianus  his  successor.  Athens,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  governed  by  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  Smyrna  by  Polycarp,  Ephesus  by 
Onesimus,  probably  the  friend  of  St.  Paul. 

As  far  therefore  as  we  are  informed  of  the  state  of 
the  church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  it  appears 
evident,  that  in  every  church  there  was  one  presiding 
presbyter  or  bishop.  It  is  not  only  in  the  greater 
churches  that  this  discipline  is  found  :  nor  is  it  observed 


'  Euseb.  lib  iii.  c.  36.  Irenseus  Apost.    vii.    46.    Burton's    Lec~ 

adv.  Haeres.  v.  33.  tures   on     Eccl.     Hist.     i.     367. 

s  Euseb.   ut    supra.      Origen.  Pearsoni   Annot.    in   Ignat.  Ed. 

in  Luc.  Horn.  vi.  Chrysost.  Orat.  Smith,  p.  1,  &c, 
xlii.  Theodoret.  Dial.  1.   Const.         ^  Ibid. 


382  The  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [paim'  vi. 

merely  in  some  parts  of  tlie  world.  The  very  smallest 
and  most  insignificant  churches  were  governed  by 
bishops,  and  every  country  where  Christianity  then  pre- 
vailed, furnishes  examples  of  episcopacy.  From  Osroene 
in  the  east  to  Gaul  in  the  west,  from  Pontus  in  the 
north  to  Egypt  in  the  south,  all  churches  whose  consti- 
tution we  can  trace,  had  been  subject  to  bishops  from 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  up  to  the  time  of 
the  apostles.  It  was  the  persuasion  of  christians  in  the 
second  century  that  the  apostles  had  instituted  episco- 
pacy. The  history  of  Christianity,  in  short,  is  the  his- 
tory of  episcopacy  :  they  are  found  united  from  the 
very  first ;  nor  is  there  less  evidence  for  the  prevalence 
of  this  form  of  government  in  the  primitive  church, 
than  there  is  of  the  reception  of  the  scriptures,  or  the 
use  of  the  sacraments  in  those  times.  In  fine,  the 
adversaries  of  episcopacy  have  never  been  able  to  pro- 
duce a  single  instance  of  a  church  subject  to  a  presby- 
tery without  a  chief  pastor,  (except  during  temporary 
vacancies  of  sees,)  during  the  first  fifteen  centuries 
after  Christ. 

II.  The  existence  of  episcopacy  is  mentioned  in 
scripture.  The  christian  ministry  was  only  gradually 
developed  by  the  apostles  as  the  church  required  it. 
We  read  first  of  the  apostles  instituting  deacons  at 
Jerusalem,  in  consequence  of  a  dispute  between  the 
Greeks  and  Jews.  The  original  institution  of  presby- 
ters is  nowhere  recorded ;  but  there  were  presbyters 
at  Jerusalem  about  a.  d.  43,  and  Barnabas  and  Paul 
afterwards  ordained  them  in  all  the  churches  of  those 
districts  where  they  were  labouring.  In  like  manner 
we  do  not  find  the  origin  of  episcopacy  exactly  re- 
corded :  though  there  are  proofs  enough  that  it  existed 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles. 


CHAP.  I.J  riu'  Episcopate  Apostolical.  383 

It  is  probable  that  the  apostles  at  first  appointed 
several  presbyters  of  equal  authority  in  each  church,  re- 
serving the  chief  authority  themselves,  and  thus  acting 
as  the  first  bishops.  But  as  the  apostles  drew  near  the 
close  of  their  labours,  we  find  evidences  of  their  de- 
puting this  power  to  others,  and  constituting  them  in 
their  own  place  to  preside  over  the  churches.  This  is 
exemjdified  in  the  case  of  Titus,  whom  the  apostle  Paul 
left  in  Crete  to  "  set  things  in  order,  and  ordain  presby- 
ters in  every  city."  It  is  still  more  strongly  exemplified 
in  his  fixing  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  probably  about  a.  d.  63 
or  64,  in  the  very  latter  part  of  this  apostle's  life,  with 
the  powers  given  to  him  over  presbyters.  These  cases, 
r  say,  furnish  a  strong  evidence  of  the  provision  which 
the  apostles  were  making  for  the  government  of  the 
church  after  their  own  departure.  And  accordingly, 
when  we  next  see  the  state  of  the  church  in  scripture, 
about  thirty  years  after,  we  find  that  in  every  church 
mentioned,  there  was  one  chief  pastor,  entitled  in  the 
Book  of  Revelations  its  "  Angel."  Connecting  this  with 
the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  history  already  adduced, 
to  the  fact  that  bishops  were  positively  instituted  by  the 
apostles ;  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  epis- 
copacy was  really  established  by  them. 

How  is  it  possible  indeed  to  suppose  that  such  a  pre- 
eminence could  have  prevailed  universally  in  the  second 
century  without  any  objection,  if  it  had  not  been  insti- 
tuted by  the  apostles?  We  know  the  disturbances 
which  arose  in  the  church  on  the  time  of  keeping 
Easter :  how  improbable  is  it,  that  episcopacy  could 
have  been  introduced  into  all  churches  by  merely 
human  authority,  without  exciting  opposition  in  some 
quarter. 

III.  The  weight  of  facts  has  indeed  obliged  many 


h. 


384  The  Episcopate  Apostolical  [part  vi. 

opponents  of  episcopacy  to  acknowledgments  fatal  to 
their  cause.  According  to  Blondel,  the  senior  presbyter 
had  a  precedence  over  the  other  presbyters  even  in 
the  apostles'  time,  "  the  apostles  themselves,  if  not  openly 
favouring,  at  least  not  opposing  it ' ;"  he  admits  in  fact 
that  this  precedence  existed  'from  the  beginning  ^"  He 
says  that  from  these  presbyters,  as  "  heads  of  the  whole 
clergy,  the  chnrches  were  reckoned,  and  the  successions 
were  deduced  ',"  a^^d  that  such  a  theory  alone  enables 
us  to  avoid  being  "  overwhelmed  with  unexpected  diffi- 
culties," in  contemplating  the  records  of  the  ancient 
churches  of  Rome,  Antioch,  &c. "  Salmasius,  another 
presbyterian,  allows  that  the  difference  between  bishops 
and  presbyters  is  most  ancient ;  only  that  it  did  not 
exist  in  the  time  of  the  apostles ",  but  was  introduced 
after  the  death  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  \  Campbell, 
an  opponent  of  episcopacy,  says,  "  that  the  distinction" 
between  bishop  and  presbyter  "  obtained  generally  before 
the  middle  of  the  second  century^''  that  is  within  fifty 
years  of  the  apostolic  age.  He  even  regards  it  as  pro- 
bable, not  only  that  the  "  angels  of  the  churches"  in  the 
Apocalypse  were  presbyters,  who  had  a  sort  of  ])re- 
sidency  over  the  rest,  after  the  example  of  the  Jewish 
sanhedrim ;  but  even  that  this  distinction  had  prevailed 
from  the  beginni^ig,  though  too  inconsiderable  to  be  no- 
ticed in  history  ^  Accordingly,  the  puritans,  who  pro- 
fessed to  do  nothing  without  the  authority  of  scripture, 
acknowledged  that  there  might  be  a  president  or  mode- 

'  Blondellus,  Apol.  pro  Sent.          p  Campbell's  Lectures  on  Eccl. 

Hieron.  p.  5.  Hist.  lect.  vi. 

^  Ibid.  p.  38.  ^  Ibid.  lect.  v.    The  dissenters 

'  Ibid.  p.  6.  in  their  Eccl.  Library  (Essay  on 

■"  Ibid.  p.  7.  Episcopacy,     196.     198.)    adopt 

"  Walo  Messalinus,  p.  7.              these  views  of  Campbell's. 
"  Ibid.  p.  181. 


CHAP.  I.]  The  Episcopate  Apostolical.  385 

rator  in  the  presbytery,  though  they  objected  to  invest- 
ing any  one  with  it  permanently "". 

IV.  It  was  the  universal  tradition  that  the  episcopate 
is  of  apostolical  and  divine  institution.  Ignatius  says, 
"  It  becometh  you  not  to  take  advantage  of  the  bishop's 
age,  but  according  to  the  iwwer  of  God  the  Father  to  pay 
him  all  reverence,  as  I  know  your  holy  presbyters  do,  not 
considering  his  age,  which  to  appearance  is  youthful. 
...  It  will  therefore  befit  you  with  all  sincerity  to  obey 
your  bishop,  in  honour  of  Him  whose  pleasure  it  is  that 
ye  should  do  so '."  Clement  of  Alexandria :  "  There 
are  other  precepts  (in  scripture)  Avithout  number,  which 
concern  men  in  particular  capacities;  some  of  which 
relate  to  presbyters,  others  to  bishops,  and  others  to 
deacons  *."  Origen  :  "  If  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God 
is  subject  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  shall  not  I  be  subject 
to  the  bishop  who  is  of  God  ordained  to  be  my  father  ? 
Shall  not  I  be  subject  to  the  presbyter  who  by  the 
Lord's  vouchsafement  is  set  over  me  "  ?"  Cyprian  : 
"The  ordination  of  bishops,  and  constitution  of  the 
church  so  descends  through  successions  and  ages,  that 
the  church  should  be  founded  on  the  bishops,  and  every 
ecclesiastical  act  be  regulated  by  the  same  governors. 
Since  this  therefore  is  piwided  in  the  divine  law,  I 
marvel  that  some  have  written  to  me  with  audacious 
temerity,  in  such  a  manner,"  (Sec. "     Athanasius :  "  If 


■■  Hooker's  Works,  by  Keble,  Clem.  Alex.   Paedagog.  1.  iii.  c. 

vol.   iii.   p.    181;    Field,   Of  the  12.  t.  i.  Oper.  p.  309.  ed.  Potter. 
Church,  b.  v.  c.  27.  "  "  Si  Jesus  Filius  Dei  subjici- 

^  Ignat.  Epist.  ad   Magnes.  c.  tur  Joseph  etMariae,  ego  npn  sub- 

iii.  jiciar  episcopo,  qui  mihi  a  Deo  or- 

'   Mvpi'oi  ^£   oaai  vKoBiiKui,  eiQ  dinatus  est  Pater  ?   Non  subjiciar 

TTpoiTWTra     IkXektu     huxTiivovtrai,  presbytero,  qui  mihi  Domini  dis;- 

tyypu^arai     tcuq     /3//3Aotc     toIq  natione  praepositus  est  ?" — Ori"-. 

ay iaiQ- a'l  f.uv  TrpEffjivripniQ'  al  ce  Horn.  xx.  in  Luc.  Op.  iii.  956. 
iiriffKOTruig'     at     ce     ^mkovoic. —  *   "  Tnde  per  temporum  et  suc- 

VOL.  11.  C   C 


386  Tlie  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [part  vi. 

the  government  of  the  churches  do  not  please  you, 
and  you  think  the  office  of  a  bishop  has  no  reward, 
thereby  making  yourself  a  despiser  of  our  Saviour 
WHO  DID  INSTITUTE  IT  ;  I  beseecli  you,  surmise  not  any 
such  thing's  as  these,  nor  entertain  any  who  advise  such 
things,  for  that  were  not  worthy  of  Dracoutius  :  for  what 
things  the  Lord  did  institute  by  his  apostles,  those  things 
remain  both  honourable  and  sure  ^."  Hilary  the  deacon  : 
"  The  bishop  is  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  and  represents 
his  person  '\"  "  Because  all  things  are  from  one  God  the 
Father,  he  decreed  that  each  church  should  be  governed 
by  one  bishop  ^."  Jerome  :  "  James,  after  the  passion  of 
our  Lord,  was  immediately  by  the  apostles  ordained 
bishop  of  Jerusalem  \"  Chrysostom  :  "  Paul  saith  in 
his  epistle  to  Timothy,  '  fulfil  thy  ministry,'  being  then 
a  bishoji ;  for  that  he  was  a  bishop  appears  by  Paul's 
writing  thus  unto  him,  '  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man  ^' " 


cessionum  vices,  episcoporum  or-  Domini  est,  propter  reatus  origi- 

dinatio  et  ecclesise  ratio  decurrit,  nem    subjecta    debet    videri." — - 

ut  ecclesia  super   episcopos  con-  Hilar,    in    1    Cor.    xi.    10.   inter 

stitnatur,  et  omnis  actus  ecclesise  Ainbrosii  Opera. 

per   eosdem    pragpositos    guber-  ^  "  Et  quia  ab  uno  Deo  Patre 

netur.     Cum  hoc    itaque  divina  sunt   omnia,    singulos    episcopos 

lege  fundatum   sit,  miror    quos-  singulis  ecclesiis  praeesse  decre- 

dam    audaci  temeritate  sic  mihi  vit." — Comment,  in   1   Cor.  xii. 

scribere    voluisse,"    &c.  —  Cypr.  28. 

Epist.  27-  al.  33.  ^  "  Post  passionem  Domini  sta- 

"  Et  he  Tu)v  EKtcXrjmwp  >/   Sia-  tim  ab  apostolis   lerosolymorum 

ra^ic   ovK  a.pi(TK£i   aoi,  ovSe  vo}ii-  episcopus     ordinatus."  —  Hier. 

f eic  TO  TYJQ  ETTiaicoTrfjQ  XeiToiipyrjiJLci  Script.    Ecel.  Catalogus  Oper.  t. 

^L(rdovt')(e.Li', aWa  KaTa<ppoveiv  Tov  iv.  pars  ii.  p.  102. 

ravTd  ciara^ajjiivov   (riorrjpoQ   tte-  ^  Aia  rovro  ypcK^wv   ical  Tifxo- 

TTolrjKac  iravTor  .  .  o  yap  o  Kuptoe  Qio)  tXtye'  Ti}v  ciaKoriav  aov  ttXt)- 

Cih  TiLv airoTToXiov  T(TVTrii)K£,TUVTa  pochoprirroy,  £7ri(T/co7r&)  im.  on  yap 

KaXci   Kcii  lJEj3aia  iiii'ei. — Athan.  STrifTKOTrog    i)v,    dyrjal    Trpog   avrov, 

Epist.  ad  Dracont.  t.  i.  p.  264.  ^(flpae  ra')(^E(i)Q  fxri^EvX  eTriridti. — 

"  "  Episcopus  personam  habet  Chrysost.  Horn.  i.  in  Phil.  Oper. 

Christi.  Quasi  ergo  ante  judicem,  t.  xi.  p.  195. 
sic  ante  episcopum,  quia  Vicarius 


cii-U>.  I.]  Bishops  Successors  oftlie  Aposths.  387 

V.  It  was  also  the  general  doctrine  of  the  church, 
that  bishops  were  successors  of  the  apostles,  and 
therefore  supreme  in  the  church.  Irenaeus  says,  "  We 
can  enumerate  those  who  were  appointed  by  the 
apostles  bishops  in  the  churches,  and  their  successors 
even  to  us,  who  have  taught  no  such  thing,  neither 
have  they  known  what  is  idly  talked  of  by  these 
(heretics).  For  if  the  apostles  had  known  any  hidden 
mysteries,  which  they  taught  apart  and  secretly  to  the 
perfect,  they  would  have  delivered  them  to  those  espe- 
cially, to  whom  they  committed  even  the  churches 
themselves.  For  they  wished  those  to  be  very  perfect 
and  irreprehensible  in  all  things,  whom  they  left  as  their 
successors,  delimring  to  them  their  own  place  of  govern- 
ment^.^'' He  then  mentions  the  succession  of  bishops 
in  the  Roman  churcii  as  an  illustration  of  his  meaning. 
Tertullian,  speaking  of  heresies,  says,  "  Let  them  de- 
clare the  origin  of  their  churches :  let  them  unfold  the 
catalogue  of  their  bishops  so  descending  by  successions 
from  the  beginning,  that  the  first  bishop  had  some  one 
of  the  apostles,  or  of  the  apostolic  men  who  remained 
united  with  the  apostles,  as  his  ordainer  and  prede- 
cessor "."  Firmilian  says,  the  power  of  remitting  sins 
was  granted  to  the  apostles,  "  and  to  those  bishops  who 
succeeded  them,  in  a  due  and  regular  course  of  vicarious 
succession  '^."  Cyprian,  in  writing  to  Cornelius  of 
Rome,  remarks,  that  the  bishops  are  successors  of  the 


^  "  Valde    enim    perfectos    et  ''  "  Potestas  ergo  peccatorum 

irreprehensibiles  in  omnibus  eos  remittendorum  apostolis  data  est 

volebant    esse,   quos    et    succes-  et    ecclesiis  quas    illi    a    Christo 

sores  relinquebant,  suum  ipsorum  missi  constituerunt,  et  episcopis 

locum    magisterii    tradentes." —  qui  eis  ordinatione   vicaria    suc- 

Iren.  cont.  Hasres.  lib.  iii.  c.  3.  cesserunt."  —  Cypr.     Epist.    75. 

"  Tertull.  de  Praescript.  c.  32.  Routh,  Opuscula,  t.  i.  p.  233. 
See  Vol.  I.  p.  175. 

c  c  2 


388  Bishops  Snccessoj-s  of  the  Apostles.  [part  vi. 

apostles '.  Claras,  bishop  of  Muscula,  in  the  synod  of 
Carthao-e :  "  The  Avill  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
manifest,  in  sending  his  apostles,  and  transmitting  to 
them  alone  the  power  given  to  himself  by  the  Father : 
to  ivhom  ive  have  succeeded,  governing  the  church  of  God 
with  the  same  power  ^"  Jerome :  "  The  power  of 
wealth,  or  the  lowliness  of  poverty,  renders  a  bishop 
neither  more  nor  less  exalted ;  but  all  are  successors  of 
the  apostles'":'  Pacianus,  bishop  of  Barcelona,  also 
speaks  of  bishops  as  "  occupying  the  chairs  of  the 
apostles '." 

VI.  It  mil  be  proved  elsewhere  J,  that  according  to 
the  universal  doctrine  and  jiractice  of  the  church,  ordi- 
nations by  presbyters  without  bishops  are  null ;  while 
ordinations  by  bishops  without  presbyters  are  valid  and 
regular.  Therefore  the  bishops  or  chief  presbyters  are 
superior  to  others. 

VII.  We  may  now  draw  our  conclusion  in  favour  of 
episcopacy  and  its  permanent  obligation.     Since  then, 


^  "  Laborare  debemus  ut  uni-  iv.  pars  ii.  p.  802, 
tatem  a  Domino  et  per  apostolos         '    "   Episcopi    apostoli  nomi- 

nobis      successoribus      traditam,  nantur,    sicut    de     Epaphrodito 

quantum  possumus,  obtinere  cu-  Paulus    edisserit  :     Fratrem    et 

ramus." — Cypr.  Epist.  42.al.  45.  commilitonem,    inquit,     raeum  ; 

g    "  Manifesta    est    sententia  vestrum    autem   apostolum.      Si 

Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  apos-  ergo  lavacri  et  chrismatis  potes- 

tolos  suos  mittentis,  et  ipsis  solis  tas,  majorum  et  longe  charisma- 

potestatem    a  Patre    sibi    datam  turn,  ad  episcopos  inde  descendit ; 

permittentis,   quibus  nos  succes-  et  ligandi  quoque  jus  adfuit  at- 

simus  eadem  potestate  ecclesiam  que    solvendi.      Quod    etsi    nos, 

Domini   gubernantes."  —  Concil.  ob  nostra  peccata,  temerarie  vin- 

Carthag.  apud  Cypr.  See  Routh,  dicamus :    Deus    tamen  illud    ut 

Reliquiae  Sacrse,  t.  iii.  p.  105.  Sanctis  et  apostolorum    cathedris 

^    "   Potentia    divitiarum,     et  tenentibus     nou     negabit,      qui 

paupertatis  humilitas,   vel   subli-  episcopis  etiam  unici  sui  nomen 

miorem  vel  inferiorem  episcopum  indulsit." — Pacian.   Epist.    1   ad 

non  facit.  Cagterum  omnes   apos-  Sympronian.  Ribl.  Pdtr.  t.  iv. 
tolorum     successores      sunt." —         ■*  Chapter  IV. 
Hier.  Epist.   ad  Evang.  Oper.  t. 


CHAP.   I.]  Kpisropary  Ohlifjatonj.  389 

it  is  morally  certain,  that  from  the  eiid  of  the  second 
century  up  to  the  time  of  the  apostles,  one  chief  pres- 
byter presided  in  each  church  ;  since  it  was  the  belief 
in  those  times  that  this  discipline  was  instituted  by  the 
apostles ;  since  there  are  manifest  traces  of  this  insti- 
tution in  scripture  itself;  since  the  very  opponents  of 
episcopacy  are  compelled  by  the  force  of  truth,  to  ac- 
knowledge its  early  universality  and  its  apostolical 
oricfin ;  since  it  was  the  tradition  of  the  catholic  church 
that  it  was  established  by  the  apostles  according  to  the 
divine  command  ;  and  that  it  did  not  consist  in  a  mere 
nominal  precedence,  but  in  a  sujjerior  })ower,  especially 
in  the  point  of  ordination  ;  we  may  reasonably  conclude, 
that  episcopacy  was  universally  established  by  the 
apostles,  either  personally  or  by  injunction.  And  this 
being  so,  it  is  always  binding  on  the  church ;  because  a 
discipline  which  appears  to  have  been  universally 
taught  or  established  by  the  inspired  apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ,  without  any  intimation  that  it  was  merely  tem- 
])orary  or  non-essential,  cannot,  without  extreme  rash- 
ness, be  rejected.  If  episcopacy,  though  universally 
established  by  the  apostles,  were  not  obligatory,  pres- 
byters and  deacons  might  be  dispensed  with ;  com- 
munion in  both  kinds  would  not  be  obligatory  ;  preach- 
ing and  reading  of  scripture  in  the  church  might  be  re- 
linquished. In  fact,  it  would  be  hard  to  say  to  what 
extent  such  a  principle  might  carry  us.  The  perma- 
nent obligation  of  episcopacy  was  not  only  testified  by 
the  catholic  church,  which  in  all  ages  continued  the 
succession  of  bishops ;  but  even  the  ancient  sects  and 
heresies  followed  her  example.  The  Gnostics,  Nova- 
tiaus,  Donatists,  Meletians,  Arians,  Eunomians,  Apolli- 
narians,  Macedonians,  Nestorians,  Eutychians,  Mono- 


390  Presbyterian  Theories  refuted.  [part  vi. 

llieliteii;,  Albigenses,  and  many  other  heretics,  all  re- 
cog'iiized  the  episcopate  in  their  societies. 

At  the  period  of  the  Reformation  the  episcopate  was 
not  only  venerated  by  all  the  ancient  churches  and  sects 
of  the  East,  and  by  the  Roman  and  the  British  churches ; 
but  it  was  preserved  in  the  Lutheran  Swedish  church, 
and  highly  approved  of  by  the  Lutherans  generally,  who 
are  not  to  be  blamed  for  not  instituting  bishops  among 
themselves  at  first,  because  they  were  appellants  to  a 
oeneral  council,  and  looked  forward  to  reunion  with  the 
bishops  of  Germany.  Calvin  himself  acted  as  a  bisho]) 
at  Geneva;  and  both  he  and  some  of  his  principal  dis- 
ciples approved  of  episcopacy "". 

VIII.  It  is  alleged  by  the  opponents  of  episcopacy  that, 
even  conceding-  that  there  was  some  distinction  among- 
the  presl)yters  of  the  church,  from  very  early  times,  still 
this  did  not  amount  to  ejjiscopacy,  since  it  was  a  merely 
temporary  preeminence,  like  that  of  the  moderators  in 
presbyterian  synods.  I  reply,  that  the  temporary  nature 
of  the  office  is  a  matter  of  pure  conjecture :  it  is  not 
founded  on  any  historical  evidence  whatever.  We  oj)- 
pose  to  it  the  undoubted  fact,  that  permanent  episco- 
pacy, like  that  of  the  church,  prevailed  everywhere  as 
far  back  as  we  can  trace  it.  Such  a  fact  is  sufficient 
to  render  all  modern  theories  of  a  different  apostolical 
institution  utterly  improbable,  and  to  convict  them  of 
inexcusable  temerity.  The  same  observation  will  apply 
to  the  theory,  that  the  primitive  bishops  had  no  juris- 
diction   or   authority    beyond    other    presbyters,    but 

"  Calvin.  Inst,    lib.   iv.   c   5.  croft's    Survey  of  the   pretended 

approves  the  whole  ancient  hier-  Holy    Discipline;   Dure!    on  the 

archy.     For  further  proofs  of  tlie  Reformed    Churches;     Sinclair's 

sentiments  of  reformers  see  Ban-  Dissertations  (on  episcopacy). 


CHAP.  I.]  Presbyterian  Theories  refuted.  891 

merely  a  precedence  in  dignity.  The  whole  history  of 
the  church  is  opposed  to  this  theory,  for  it  represents 
the  primitive  bishops  as  the  leaders  of  the  church,  and 
the  principal  actors  in  every  thing  that  occurred.  In- 
deed offices  chiefly  honorary,  would  have  been  incon- 
sistent with  the  characters  and  views  of  christians  in 
those  times. 

It  is  further  alleged,  that  at  all  events  the  primitive 
bishops  were  not  much  superior  to  their  presbyters  : 
that  they  never  took  any  step  of  importance  except 
with  the  consent  of  the  presbytery,  and  even  of  the 
brethren :  and  therefore  that  the  prelacy  afterwards  in- 
troduced into  the  universal  church,  was  a  corruption 
and  an  abomination,  which  was  to  be  rooted  out.  I 
reply,  that  if  bishops  were  gradually  intrusted  with 
more  exclusive  power  by  the  church  than  they  pos- 
sessed at  first,  this  was  by  the  act  of  the  church  herself, 
which  had  a  perfect  right  to  make  any  regulations  in 
discipline  not  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  And  be- 
sides this,  the  universal  church  having  approved  and 
continued  this  discipline  from  the  fourth  century  at 
latest,  till  the  Reformation,  it  cannot  be  sinful  or  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God ;  but  these  prelates  must 
always  have  been  ministers  of  Jesus  ChrisU  since  it  is 
impossible  from  the  divine  promises,  that  the  universal 
church  should  ever  contradict  the  divine  command,  or 
be  devoid  of  a  true  ministry. 

IX.  Therefore,  whatever  we  may  think  of  abstract 
opinions,  concerning  the  best  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, there  can  be  no  doubt  that  those  who  separated 
themselves  from  the  communion  of  the  christian 
church,  under  pretence  that  the  presbyterian  polity  was 
of  divine  right,  and  that  prelacy  or  episcopacy  was  un- 

10 


39'2  Tlie  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [p.  vi.  cH.  i. 

lawful,  or  aiiti-cliristiaii ',  and  who  covenanted  together 
for  its  destruction,  were  schismatics,  if  not  heretics. 
Certainly  Aerius,  who  asserted  a  doctrine  resembling 
this  in  the  fourth  century,  has  always  been  accounted 
a  heretic  in  the  catholic  church.  Epiphanius  regarded 
his  doctrine  as  "  insane  beyond  measure."  Nor  had  St. 
Augustine  a  more  favourable  opinion  of  it,  since  he 
says,  "  Si  quid  horum  tota  per  orbem  frequentat 
ecclesia  .  .  .  quin  ita  faciendum  sit,  disputare,  insolen- 
tissimae  insanise  est." 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  are  applied  indif- 
ferently to  the  same  persons  in  holy  scripture.  The 
"  elders  (presbyteri)  of  the  church"  at  Ephesus  had 
been  "  made  overseers  (episcopi)  by  the  Holy  Ghost "." 
St.  Paul  writes  to  "  all  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with  the 
bishops  and  deacons ''."  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  .  .  .  ordain  elders  in  every 
city  ...  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,"  &c. "  St. 
Paul  only  directs  Timothy  to  ordain  "  bishops"  and 
"  deacons ''."  Paul  and  Barnabas  "  ordained  elders  in 
every  church  *."  In  these  passages  the  titles  of  bishop 
and  presbyter  are  given  to  the  same  persons ;  or  two 
orders  only  are  mentioned  in  the  church. 

Answer.    There  may  have    been  one   amongst   the 

'  See  Bancroft's  Survey  of  the  the  eighteenth  century,  generally 

pretended     Holy    Discipline,    p.  claimed  a  divine  right  for  their 

123.   where  the  language   of  the  form  of  government, 
puritans  is  quoted  to   this  effect.  ^  Acts  xx.  17.  28. 

See     also     Stillingfleet    on     the  **  Phil.  i.  1. 

Unreasonableness  of  Separation.  "^  Tit.  i.  5.  7. 

The  presbyterians  during  the  se-  ''   1  Tim.  ii. 

venteenth  and  the  early  part  of         *  Acts  xiv.  23. 


OBJECT.]  The  Epificopate  Apostolical.  393 

bishops  or  presbyters  of  Philippi  and  Ephesus  superior 
to  the  rest.  Titus  may  have  made  the  same  distinction 
among  the  presbyters  in  Crete,  or  was  probably  himself 
the  chief  i)astor  of  those  churches.  St.  Paul  does  not 
discriminate  the  chief  presbyters  from  the  others  in  his 
epistle  to  Timothy,  because  their  qualifications  were 
the  same.  The  elders  ordained  by  Paul  and  Barnabas 
may  have  been  of  different  degrees ;  but  it  is  also  pro- 
bable that  when  they  were  ordained,  and  when  St. 
Paul  sent  for  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus,  and  wrote  to 
the  bishops  of  Philippi,  the  presidency  of  one  in  each  of 
those  churches  had  not  been  yet  instituted  by  the 
apostles,  who  reserved  the  supreme  authority  to  them- 
selves. 

II.  The  early  writers  mention  only  two  orders,  or 
know  nothing  of  any  order  superior  to  presbyters. 
Clement  of  Rome  says  the  apostles  ordained  "  bishops 
and  deacons."  Polycarp  enjoins  the  Philippians  "  to 
be  subject  to  their  presbyters  and  deacons."  Clement 
of  Alexandria :  "  The  presbyters  are  entrusted  with  the 
dignified  ministry,  the  deacons  with  the  subordinate." 
Tertullian  :  "  In  our  religious  assemblies,  certain  ap- 
proved elders  preside."  Firmilian  :  "  All  power  and 
grape  are  placed  in  the  church,  where  presbyters  pre- 
side." Some  writers  also  apply  the  terms  of  bishop 
and  presbyters  to  the  same  persons  :  Irenscus  says ; 
"  Obey  those  presbyters  in  the  church  who  have  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles.  .  .  .  We  can  enumerate  those 
who  were  consecrated  bishops  by  the  apostles  in  the 
churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us."  Many 
other  passages  from  the  fathers  may  be  adduced  to  the 
same  effect. 

Atiswer.  It  is  not  denied  that  there  are,  in  a  certain 
sense,    two   orders  in   the  church  :  but  the   order  of 


394  The  Episcopate  Apostolical.  [p.  vi.  ch.  i. 

presbyters  or  bishops  consists  of  two  degi-ees,  the 
higher  of  which  is  invested  with  peculiar  power,  as  all 
the  above  writers  held ;  for  they  all  acknowledge  else- 
where the  supremacy  of  one  bishop  in  every  church  by 
apostolical  or  divine  institution. 

III.  St.  Jerome  says  that  originally  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  the  same,  and  "  before  the  Devil 
caused  jiarties  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  by  the  people 
I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  I  of  Peter,  the  churches 
were  governed  by  a  common  council  of  presbyters. 
But  after  every  one  esteemed  those  whom  he  baptized 
to  be  his,  not  Christ's,  it  was  decreed  in  the  whole 
world,  that  one  chosen  from  the  presbyters  should  be 
set  over  the  rest,  to  whom  all  the  care  of  the  church 
should  pertain,  and  the  seeds  of  schism  be  removed." 
He  afterwards  adds,  that  "  the  bishops  ought  to  know 
that  they  are  greater  than  i)resbyters,  more  by  custom 
than  by  the  truth  of  the  Lord's  institution  '." 

Answer.  It  is  admitted  that  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  the  same  at  first,  and  that  the  church  was 
governed  by  a  council  of  presbyters  under  the  apostles. 
But  as  Jerome  says  elsewhere,  that  James,  Polycarp, 
and  others,  were  appointed  bishops  by  the  apostles ', 
he  means  that  they  did  not  institute  the  superiority  of 
bishops  unwer sally  till  after  the  schism  at  Corinth ; 
which  is  very  probable.  In  fact  the  superiority  of 
bishops  to  presbyters,  when  he  wrote,  arose  more  from 
custom  than  divine  institution.  That  is  to  say,  the 
bishops  had  probably  obtained  greater  jurisdiction  at 
that  time  than  they  jDossessed  at  first ;  and  the  full 
amount   of  that  jurisdiction  was   not  essential  to   the 

®  Hieronymus,    Comment,    in  t.   iv.  p.    123,    he   says,  "  Quod 

Epist.  ad  Titum,  c.  i.  fecerunt  et  apostoli,  per  singulas 

*    Hieron.   De  Script.  Eccl.    t.  provincias,  presbyteros  et  episco- 

iv.     In  his  commentary  on  Tilus,  pos  ordinantes." 


oHJKCT.]  The  Episcopate  Apostolical.  395 

episcopal  order  by  divine  institution.  Besides  this, 
many  offices  which  presbyters  might  have  performed, 
were  at  that  time  reserved  ordinarily  to  the  bishop, 
such  as  preaching-,  baptizing,  confirming,  celebrating 
the  eucharist.  Thus  the  superiority  of  bishops  was 
more  from  the  custom  of  the  catholic  church  than  from 
the  divine  injunction.  In  the  same  manner  we  may 
easily  answer  any  similar  passages  from  other  writers. 

IV.  Hilary  the  deacon,  in  commenting  on  the  epistle 
to  Timothy,  says,  "After  the  bishop  he  subjoins  the 
ordination  of  a  deacon.  And  why,  unless  because  the 
ordination  of  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  is  the  same. 
For  each  is  a  priest,  but  the  bishop  is  first,  so  that 
every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  not  every  presbyter  a 
bishop ;  for  he  is  a  bishop  who  is  the  first  among  the 
presbyters.  In  fine  he  signifies  that  Timothy  was 
ordained  a  presbyter  ;  but  because  he  had  no  other 
above  him,  he  was  a  bishop  ^."  He  intimates  also  that 
the  consecration  of  bishops  was  introduced  afterwards 
by  a  council. 

Answer.  These  are  peculiar  opinions  inconsistent 
with  the  general  sentiment  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
])ractice  of  the  catholic  church.  This  writer's  judg- 
ment is  not  much  to  be  relied  on,  as  he  joined  the 
Luciferian  schism,  and  insisted  that  heretics  of  all  sorts 
ought  to  be  re-baptized.  However  he  agreed  with  the 
catholic  church  in  regarding  bishops  as  successors  of 
the  apostles,  and  as  constituted  by  divine  authority  in 
every  church.  His  opinion  that  the  consecration  of 
bishops  was  introduced  by  some  council,  is  contradicted 
by  all  the  records  of  history:  and  the  doctrine  of 
Cyprian,  130  years  before,  that  the  consecration  of 
bishops  was  derived  from  divine  and  apostolical  tradi- 
tion, is  infiriitely  more  probable. 

s  Ililarius,  Comment,  in  I  Tim.  Vide  Ambrosii  Opera. 


39<)  The  Prtshijtcrate.  [rAifX  vi. 


CHAPTER  II. 


ON    THE    PRESBYTERATE. 


In  treating  of  the  presbyterate,  I  shall  consider  first 
its  institution  and  its  powers  during  the  earliest  ages 
of  the  church  ;  secondly,  the  introduction  of  the  paro- 
chial system ;  and  thirdly,  the  changes  in  general  disci- 
pline and  the  offices  of  the  priesthood  which  thence 
arose. 

1.  The  sacred  order  of  presbyters  or  elders  (some- 
times styled  bishops  in  holy  scripture,)  was  properly 
instituted  by  the  apostles  after  the  ascension,  though 
the  powers  with  which  they  invested  it,  had  been 
previously  given  to  themselves  by  Christ  at  the  insti- 
tution of  the  holy  eucharist,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me  ^ ;"  and  before  his  ascension :  "  Whosesoever 
sins  ye  remit,  &c.  ^ ;"  and  therefore  the  apostles  were 
also  presbyters,  as  St.  Peter  styles  himself:  "The  pres- 
byters which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a 
presbyter " ;"  and  also  St.  John  :  "  the  presbyter  unto 
the  elect  lady  ^"  "  the  presbyter  unto  the  well-beloved 
Gaius  \" 

2.  We  know  not  the  exact   period  at  which   the 


*  Luke  xxii.  19. 

^  2  John  1 

''  John  XX.  23. 

*  3  John  1 

'  1  Pet.  V.  1. 

CHAP.  II.]  Tlie  Presbyter  ate.  397 

apostles  first  ordained  jiresbyters.  We  do  not  read  of 
their  existence  before  a.  d.  43,  when  the  disciples  of 
Antioch  sent  their  collections  to  "  the  presbyters,"  in 
Judaea  \  The  term  is  here  probably  to  be  taken  in  the 
ordinary  sense :  at  least  we  find  about  a.  d.  48,  "  the 
presbyters"  of  Jerusalem  are  spoken  of  as  distinct  from 
the  apostles  ^,  and  before  this,  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
"  ordained  presbyters  in  every  church"  they  re-visited  ''. 
About  A.  D.  56,  Paul  sent  for  "  the  presbyters  of  the 
church"  of  Ephesus ' ;  and  we  afterwards  read  of 
bishops  or  presbyters  at  Philippi  ^ :  and  the  directions 
to  Timothy  and  Titus  for  their  ordination  in  every 
city "" ;  the  exhortation  of  St.  Peter  to  "  the  presby- 
ters ' ;"  and  of  St.  James,  *'  is  any  one  sick  among  you, 
let  him  send  for  the  presbyters  of  the  church  "' :"  suffice 
to  prove  the  general  ordination  of  presbyters  by  the 
apostles. 

3.  It  is  nowhere  directly  taught  in  scripture  that 
this  order  is  of  divine  institution ;  but  we  are  entitled 
to  infer  that  it  is  so  on  this  principle,  that  whatever 
offices  were  instituted  by  the  apostles  for  the  ordinary 
government  of  the  church,  were  instituted  under  the 
direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  presbyters  (and 
afterwards  bishops)  as  well  as  deacons,  were  intended 
for  the  ordinary  ministry  of  the  church,  we  reasonably 
infer  from  their  institution  in  every  church,  and  their 
continuance  at  all  times  in  the  catholic  church.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  St.  Paul  saying  to  the  presbyters  of 
Ephesus,  "  take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to 


*  Acts  xi.  30.  J  Phil.  i.  1. 

e  Acts  XV.   2.   4.   6.  22,   23.  ^  1  Tim.  iii ;  Tit.  i.  5. 

xvi.  4.  '  1  Pet.  V,  1. 

•>  Acts  xiv.  22.  '"  James  v.  14. 

'  Acts  XX.  17.  28. 


398  The  Presbyter  ate.  [part  vi. 

a)l  the  flock   over  the   which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  God "." 

4.  There  were  several  presbyters  in  each  church 
from  the  beginning;  at  least  in  all  churches  where 
there  were  a  considerable  number  of  the  faithful.  The 
presbyters  of  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  Philippi,  are  spoken 
of  in  the  plural  number  in  Scripture.  This  was  con- 
tinued after  the  institution  of  the  episcopal  office.  S. 
Ignatius  often  speaks  of  a  plurality  of  presbyters  in 
particular  churches  °.  S.  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna, 
addresses  the  Philippians,  "  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters 
that  are  with  him,  to  the  church  of  God  at  Philippi  ^." 
In  the  middle  of  the  third  century  there  were  at  Rome, 
under  Cornelius,  forty-four  presbyters  '',  and  at  the 
same  time  there  were  many  presbyters  at  Carthage 
under  Cyprian. 

5.  The  office  of  presbyters,  like  that  of  bishops,  con- 
sisted in  "  feeding  the  church  of  God,"  and  overseeing 
it '  ;  exhorting  and  convincing  the  gainsayers  by  sound 
doctrine  '.  Being  invested  with  the  power  of  teaching, 
they  also  possessed  authority  in  controversies.  The 
church  of  Antioch  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  consult  the 
apostles  and  "presbyters"  on  the  question  of  circum- 
cision :  and  we  find  afterwards  that  heretics  were  some- 
times condemned  by  the  judgment  of  presbyters,  as 
well  as  bishops,  in  councils.  They  possessed  in  their 
degree  the  power  of  remitting  or  retaining  sins  by 
absolution,    and   by  spiritual    censures'.     They  must. 


"  Acts  XX.  28.  '\  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.    lib.   vi. 

°    Ignatii    Epist.    ad    Ephes.  c.  43. 

Magnes.  Trail.  Philadelph.  Smyr.  ■"  Acts  xx.  28.    1  Pet.  v.  1. 

Polycarp.  =  Tit.  i.  9. 

P    Polycarp.    Epist.    ad    Phil.  '    Thomassinus    mentions    in- 

Routh,    Opuscula   Script.     Eccl.  stances  of  excommunications  by 

t.  i.  p.  9.  presbyters  about  tlie  end  of  the 


CHAP.  II.]  The  Proshytcrate.  399 

even  at  the  beginning,  have  had  the  power  of  baptizing 
and  celebrating  the  eucharist,  of  performing  other  rites, 
and  of  oiFering  up  public  prayers  in  the  absence  of 
the  apostles,  or  by  their  permission;  and  the  institu- 
tion of  bishops  in  every  church  by  the  apostles  only 
restrained  the  ordinary  exercise  of  these  powers.  We 
know  in  particular  from  St.  James,  that  presbyters  had 
authority  to  visit  the  sick  and  offer  prayers,  anointing 
them  with  oil  for  the  recovery  of  their  health. 

From  the  time  of  the  apostles,  the  office  of  pnblic 
teaching  in  the  church,  and  of  administering  the  sacra- 
ments, was  always  j^erformed  by  the  bishop,  unless  in 
cases  of  great  necessity ".  The  power  of  spiritual  juris- 
diction in  each  church,  of  regulating  its  affairs  gene- 
rally, and  especially  its  discipline,  was  shared  by  the 
bishop  with  the  presbyters,  who  also  instructed  and 
admonished  the  people  in  private.  The  presbyters  sat 
on  seats  or  thrones  at  the  east  end  of  the  church,  and 
the  bishop  on  a  higher  throne  in  the  midst  of  them. 
In  some  churches  they  laid  their  hands  with  the  bishop 
on  the  head  of  those  who  were  ordained  presbyters, 
and  in  others  administered  confirmation  ^.     Thus  the 


fourth    century,    Vet.    et    Nov.  hoc    non    possunt    hodie,    quia 

Eccl.  Discipl.    Part  I.    hb.  ii.  c.  praescriptum     est    contra    eos.  " 

23,   s.  10.  13  ;  also  in  the  time  (Provinciale  Angliae,  De  Consue. 

of  Charlemagne,  Ibid.  c.  24,  s.  5  ;  c.  statutum,   ver.    censura  eccle- 

and  up  to  the  thirteenth  century,  siastica.)  However  the  presbyters 

c.  2G,    s.  0,  7.     Jo.  de  Athon  in  of  our    churches    have    still    the 

his  Comment,    (about  1290),  on  power  of  the  minor  excommuni- 

theLegatine  Constitutions  of  Otho  cation    provisionally,     until    the 

and  Othobon,    says,   a   "  Rector  bishop  decide  in   the  case.      See 

curatus"    may    excommunicate.  Rubric    before   the    Communion 

(Const.  Otho,  Quanto  Scriptura-  Office. 

rum    ver.     etiam     a     prfelatis  ;  "  Bingham,   Antiquities,  book 

Const.Othob.  Ad  tutelamver.  ex-  ii.   c.  3. 

communicatione  ligatus.)   Lynd-  ''  For  the  powers  of  Presbyters 

wood    in    the    fifteenth    century,  generally  in  the  primitive  church, 

says,    "  Simplices    tamen    curati  see  Bingham,  b.  ii.  c.  19. 


400  Origin  of  Parochial  Presbyters.  [part  vi. 

presbyterate  was  always  esteemed  a  most  high  dignity 
or  degree  in  the  church,  and  it  was  not  much  inferior 
to  the  episcopate  in  most  respects. 

II.  We  next  proceed  to  consider  the  changes  which 
introduced  the  parochial  system  now  generally  preva- 
lent in  the  church  ^\ 

The  churches  founded  by  the  apostles  were  always 
in  cities  of  some  magnitude,  where  several  presbyters 
were  requisite  for  the  guidance  of  a  numerous  people. 
It  remained  for  the  church  to  adapt  their  system  to 
the  change  of  circumstances,  when  the  inhabitants  of 
villages  and  of  the  rural  districts  around  each  city  also 
became  christian.  Hence  arose  the  institution  of  rural 
presbyters  and  lesser  parishes,  included  within  the 
greater  parish  or  diocese.  As  the  apostles  had  origi- 
nally placed  churches  under  the  superintendence  of 
presbyters,  over  whom  they  themselves  exercised  juris- 
diction ;  so  the  bishop  of  each  city  ordained  presbyters 
for  the  rural  districts,  over  whom  he  exercised  superin- 
tendence. Such  rural  presbyters  are  mentioned  by 
Epiphanius  as  existing  in  Mesopotamia  in  the  middle 
of  the  third  century ;  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
about  the  same  time,  alludes  to  them  in  Egypt ;  as 
Athanasius  does  in  the  following  century,  in  speaking 
of  Ischyras.  (Apol.  2.)  The  councils  of  Eliberis  (c.  77) 
and  Neoc?esarea  (c.  15),  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  also  mention  them.  Bingham  observes,  that 
these  lesser  parishes  had  their  origin,  not  at  one  time 
or  by  any  general  decree,  but  as  the  exigencies  of  every 
diocese  required  it.  In  the  fourth  century,  rural  pres- 
byters   were    commonly    instituted  ;    and    they    were 


'^    See    Thomassinus,    Vet.    et     ii.   c.    21 — 28  ;   Bingham,    Anti- 
Nov.   Eccl.   Discip].   Part  I.   lib.     quities,  book  ix.  c.  8. 


CHAP.  II.]  Preshi/tcrs  of  Cities.  401 

placed  under  the  immediate  inspection  of  chorepiscopi 
or  rural  bishops,  and  visitors,  wlio  M^ere  commissioned 
by  the  bishop  of  the  whole  diocese  or  Trapoi/cm.  The 
country  clergy  in  the  diocese  of  Csesarea  in  the  time  of 
S.  Basil,  M'ere  under  the  superintendence  of  no  less 
than  fifty  rural  bishops.  Thus  arose  the  lesser  rural 
parishes  ;  and  the  oblations,  tithes,  &c.  of  these  dis- 
tricts were  in  after  ages  assigned  to  their  particular 
clergy,  instead  of  going  to  the  general  fund  of  the 
church. 

The  institution  of  districts  and  of  lesser  parishes  in 
the  cities  themselves  is  of  uncertain  antiquity.  In  the 
Roman  church  it  is  said,  on  rather  doubtful  authority, 
to  have  been  effected  by  Dionysius,  bishop  in  the  third 
century.  In  the  following  century  we  read  of  many 
churches  at  Rome,  Alexandria,  Carthage,  &c.  It  is 
observed  by  Bingham,  that  the  lesser  churches  or 
tituli  in  cities,  were  not  usually  at  first  appropriated  to 
particular  presbyters,  but  were  served  in  common  by 
the  presbyters  of  the  principal  church  ".  The  opinion 
of  Thomassin  is  very  probable,  that  public  baptism, 
reconciliation  of  penitents,  and  the  consecration  of  the 
eucharist,  were  for  a  long  time  performed  by  the 
bishop  at  the  cathedral,  and  not  in  the  lesser  churches ; 
though  a  different  custom  gradually  prevailed  \  At  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  as  we  learn  from  the 
epistle  of  Innocentius  to  Decentius,  bishop  of  Eugu- 
bium,  the  presbyters  of  all  the  Roman  tituli  or  lesser 
churches,  received  on  every  Lord's  day  the  sacrament 
consecrated  by  the  bishop,  and  did  not  themselves  con- 
secrate ;  that  power  being  exercised  apparently  only  by 
the  presbyters  of  the  churches  of  the  martyrs,  which 

*  Bingham,  Antiquities,  book  ^  Thomassin.  pars  i.  lib.  ii. 
ix.  c.  8.  s.  f).  c.  21. 

VOL.  II.  D  d 


402  Origin  of  Chapters.  [part  vi. 

were  in  tlie  country  '\  Tlie  presbyters  of  the  city,  con- 
stituting the  original  presbytery  of  the  church,  were  of 
more  authority  and  dignity  than  the  rural  presbyters, 
who  were  forbidden  by  the  council  of  Neoc?esarea  to 
officiate  in  the  city  unless  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop 
and  presbyters  (can.  13).  They  had  the  whole  cure  of 
souls  under  the  bishop,  either  conjointly  or  separately, 
and  preserved  their  privileges  generally.  Bat  in  later 
ages,  presbyters  under  their  direction  were  assigned  to 
the  lesser  churches  in  the  city ;  parochial  districts  were 
formed,  and  the  presbyters  of  the  principal  church,  who 
were  finally  entitled  Canonici  and  Prebendarii,  and 
lived  together  under  peculiar  rules  and  statutes,  were 
gradually  divested  of  the  cure  of  souls,  though  they 
still  had  great  authority  and  privileges,  and,  together 
with  the  great  officers  of  the  church,  such  as  the  arch- 
deacon, &c.  were  regarded  generally  as  the  bishop's 
council  in  all  the  affairs  of  the  church ''.  These  altera- 
tions were  introduced  gradually  and  by  the  internal 
regulations  of  each  particular  church. 

III.  We  are  to  consider,  thirdly,  the  changes  in 
general  discipline  and  in  the  offices  of  the  priesthood 
which  resulted  from  these  institutions. 

The  rural  presbyters  were  of  the  same  merit  and 
sacerdotal  dignity  as  those  of  the  city  ;  but  their  great 
number,  and  the  remoteness  of  their  situations  in  rural 
districts,  rendered  it  impossible  to  consult  them  ordi- 
narily in  the  general  affairs  of  the  church,  or  to  unite 
them  with  the  original  presbytery.  Thus  they  were 
invested   only   with   a  particular  jurisdiction   in   their 


"  Ibid.  iii.     c.    7 — 10.       See    also    Van 

*  For  the  origin  and  history  of  Espen,   Jus.  Univers.  Eccl.  pars 

Chapters,  see  Thomassin.  Vet.  et  i.  tit.  8. 

Nov.  Eccl.  Discipl.   Part  I.  lib. 


CHAP.  II.]  Dignity  of  the.  Presbyter  ate.  403 

respective  parishes,  and  were  placed  generally  under 
tlie  bishop's  superintendence  and  visitation.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  necessarily  obtained  the  right  of  per- 
forming ordinarily  and  publicly  in  their  churches,  almost 
all  those  offices  which  were  chiefly  reserved  to  the 
bishop  in  the  city.  The  city  presbyters  of  both  kinds 
above  mentioned,  themselves  gradually  obtained  similar 
privileges  by  the  concession  of  the  bishops ;  and  in 
return  transferred  to  them  by  a  tacit  consent,  much  of 
their  ordinary  power  of  jurisdiction.  Even  in  the  time 
of  St.  Jerome,  it  seems  that  the  tendency  of  popular 
feeling  was  to  depress  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the 
priesthood ;  and  he  magnified  that  office  to  the  utmost 
limit  in  opposing  himself  to  these  errors.  The  bishops 
of  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage  decreed,  with  lauda- 
ble piety  and  humility :  "  ut  episcopus  quolibet  loco 
sedens,  stare  presbyterum  non  patiatur '' ;"  and  "  ut 
episcopus  in  ecclesia,  et  in  consessu  presbyterorum 
sublimior  sedeat ;  intra  domum  vero  collegam  se  pres- 
byterorum esse  cognoscat  ^"  The  wealth  and  temporal 
poM-er  of  bishops  during  the  middle  ages,  may  have 
induced  some  of  the  ignorant  to  sup23ose  that  presby- 
ters were  exceedingly  inferior  to  bishops  ;  but  the 
catholic  church,  which  sees  with  the  eye  of  Faith ;  as  she 
acknowledges  the  same  sacred  dignity  of  the  priest- 
hood in  every  bishop,  whether  oppressed  with  ex- 
treme poverty,  or  whether  invested  with  princely  dig- 
nity and  wealth,  also  views  the  greatness  and  the 
sanctity  of  the  office  of  presbyter,  as  little  inferior  to 
those  even  of  the  chief  pastors  who  succeed  the  apos- 
tles ;  and  the  church   has  never  flourished  more,  nor 

*"  Carthng.  iv.  c.  34.   Harduin.  "^  Can.  xxxv. 

Cone.  t.  i.  p.  981. 

D  d  2 


404  The  Diaconate.  [part  vi. 

X  //^^^^Jias  the  episcopate  ever  been  held  in  truer  reverence, 
^  />txc  than  under  the  guidance  of  those  apostolical  prelates 
**•''*'***  who,  like  S.Cyprian,  resolved  to  do  nothing  without 
'^,'  the  consent  of  the  church,  and  who  have  most  sedu- 

lously avoided  even  the  appearance  of   "  being  lords 
"^      ^  'i^over  God's  heritage."  The  spirit  of  a  genuine  Christianity 
will   lead   the   presbyters   to   reverence   and   obey  the 
,^  j^  bishops  as   their  fathers  ;  and  will   induce   bishops  to 
ct^  ^   esteem  the  presbyters  as  fellow-workers  together  with 
^',)^^;,  them,  and  brethren  in  Jesus  Christ. 

■■t  ^ 
.  CHAPTER  III. 

'  ON    THE    DIACONATE. 

P/c-^Ta;.  We  find   deacons  but  rarely  spoken  of  in  scripture. 

♦^«^-  The  first  appointment  of  deacons  is  mentioned  (Acts 

vi.)  to  have  been  made  in  consequence  of  the  mur- 

,'rh.j-  muring  of  the  Greeks  that  they  were  neglected  in  the 
daily  ministrations.     We  do  not  hear  of  them   after- 

^       wards  till  St.  Paul  addressed  his  epistle  to  the  Philip- 

£*^X  pian  church,  whose  "  deacons"  he  mentions'';  and  in 
^  iri  liis  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  directions  are  given  for 
fj  -^     the  choice  of  deacons  ^  which  infer  that  they  were  then 

/,t  ^  as  commonly  established  in  the  church  as  presbyters. 
■rdi-^t  S.  Clement  of  Rome  says  that  the  apostles,  having 
Uj,  i^rw  preached  everywhere,  "  ordained  their  first-fruits  bishops 
i*>t^,  and  deacons."  Ignatius  and  Poly  carp  also  mention  the 
'v/^f^/v  deacons  of  the  churches  they  wrote  to.  Deacons  are  also 
;s  "       mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr,  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 

^^^' "'  «  Phil.  i.  1.  "1  Tim.  iii.  8,  &c. 


CHAP.  J II.]  The  Diaconate.  405 

Tertullian,  Cyju-iar),   &c.   and  without  doubt  the  order 
continued  always  in  the  church  *". 

The  office  of  deacons  seems  at  first  to  have  related 
chiefly  to  the  administering  relief  to  the  poorer  bre- 
thren :  but  scripture  does  not  limit  them  to  this  duty  : 
and  in  fact  we  find  Stephen  preacJiing  the  gospel  '^,  and 
Philip  the  deacon  both  preaching  and  baptizhig  \  These 
instances  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  church  in  per- 
mitting the  deacons,  in  case  of  necessity,  both  to  preach 
and  to  baptize.  According  to  Bingham  their  ordinary 
duties  in  the  primitive  church  consisted  in  taking  care 
of  the  utensils  of  the  altar,  receiving  the  oblations  of 
the  people,  delivering  them  to  the  priest,  reading  aloud 
the  names  of  benefactors,  distributing  the  consecrated 
elements  and  carrying  them  to  the  absent,  directing 
the  behaviour  of  the  people  in  church,  attending  on  the 
bishops  and  acting  as  their  messengers  and  representa- 
tives in  synods,  sometimes  keeping  the  doors  during 
the  celebration  of  the  sacred  service,  inquiring  after 
the  poor  and  acting  as  almoners  to  them,  informing  the 
bishop  of  misdemeanours,  in  some  churches  acting  as 
catecliists  ^  It  seems  that  for  many  centuries,  the 
ordinary/  office  of  the  deacon  related  rather  to  such 
duties  as  are  now  performed  by  our  parish-clerks  and 
churchwardens,  than  to  the  higher  parts  of  the  minis- 
terial office. 

In  the  oriental  churches  the  diaconate  has  always 
continued  to  be  not  only  an  order,  but  an  office  with 
distinct  duties  in  every  church :  so  that  no  bishop  or 
presbyter  officiates  without  the  assistance  of  his  deacon. 

•^  For  ample  information  with  c.  29 — 33. 
regard  to  deacons  in  the  church,         ^  Acts  vi.  10. 
see   Bingham,  Antiquities,   book  ^  Acts  viii.  5.  38. 

ii.    c.    20.      Thomassin.  Vet.   et         '  Bingham,  ut  supra. 
Nov.  Eccl.  DiscipT.  pars  i.  lib.  ii. 


40()  The  Diaconate  a  Benefice.  [part  vi. 

Thomassin  says  that  it  was  not  only  an  order  and 
office,  but  a  benefice  in  the  churcli  for  twelve  cen- 
turies ^.  It  was  so  at  Rome  certainly,  where,  as  we 
learn  from  S.  Jerome,  the  seven  deacons  had  larger 
revenues  than  the  presbyters.  Pope  Cselestinus  in  the 
twelfth  century,  had  been  deacon  of  Rome  for  sixty- 
five  years,  before  he  was  made  bishop '".  Gregory  the 
Great  desired  one  cardinal  presbyter  and  two  deacons 
to  be  ordained  in  the  churcli  at  Populonia.  Paschal 
II.  in  giving  directions  to  the  bishop  of  Compostella 
for  the  regulation  of  his  church,  after  a.  d.  1000,  desires 
him  to  ordain  cardinal  presbyters  and  deacons.  The 
council  of  Saumur,  1253,  desired  that  deacons  who 
refused  to  be  ordained  priests,  should  be  deprived  of 
sacerdotal  prebends,  thereby  intimating  that  there  were 
prebends  for  deacons  also'.  The  only  benefice  how- 
ever originally  instituted  for  deacons,  which  still  re- 
mains generally  in  the  western  churches,  is  that  of 
archdeacon ;  but  this  can  now  be  only  held  by  presby- 
ters, in  consequence  of  the  jurisdiction  attached  to  it, 
though  even  so  late  as  the  fifteenth  century  in  England, 
the  archdeacons  were  often  only  in  deacon's  orders "". 

It  appears  to  me  very  probable,  that  in  the  west, 
deacons  were  often  not  ordained  in  the  lesser  churches. 
In  England,  at  least,  we  find  but  few  traces  of  the 
order  as  a  distinct  office  in  parish  churches.  The 
council  of  Cloveshoe  (747)  makes  many  regulations 
as  to  presbyters,  "  who  were  placed  by  the  bishops 
throughout  the  places  and  regions  of  the  laity ;"  but 

s  Thomassin.   pars  i.  lib.  i.   c.  chidiaconus  esset  presbyter,  quod 

51.  n.  1  ;  lib.  ii.  c.  33.  n.  8.  esse  j^otest,  tunc  tarn  ratione  or- 

^  Ibid,   pars  i.   lib.  ii.  c.    33.  dinis    quam    jurisdictionis    prse- 

n.  9.  celleret  decaniim. "     Provinciale 

*  Ibid,  pars  i.  lib.  iii.  c.  9,  10.  Angliae,  p.  117.   ed.  1679. 

''  Lyndwood  says,  "Si  tamenar- 


CHAP.  III.]  The  Diaconate  in  England.  407 

deacons  are  not  mentioned  '.  The  constitutions  of  Odo, 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  for  his  diocese  (943)  only 
contain  chapters  on  the  duty  of  presbyters  and  clerks, 
not  of  deacons "".  Hence  it  seems  probable  that  even 
then,  it  was  not  common  to  ordain  deacons  in  the  lesser 
churches,  but  clerks  of  the  minor  orders,  as  was  long 
afterwards  the  custom ". 

The  order  of  deacons  however  was  always  retained 
in  the  western  churches,  according  to  the  ancient 
canons,  which  prescribed  it  as  a  necessary  qualification 
for  the  superior  orders.  These  deacons  either  exer- 
cised their  office  of  deacon  in  the  churches  to  which 
they  were  ordained,  or  were  taken  by  the  parochial 
presbyters  (called  in  the  middle  ages  Rector  curatus, 
Vicarius  perpetuus,  or  Parochus),  as  their  assistants.  It 
appears  from  the  annotations  of  John  de  Athon  on  the 
constitutions  of  cardinal  Otho,  that  even  in  1290  the 
temporary  vicars,  or  (as  we  now  call  them)  stipendiary 
curates,  in  England,  were  sometimes  only  in  deacon's 
orders  ".  In  the  fifteenth  century,  we  learn  from  Lynd- 
wood,  that  the  curates  or  rectors  themselves  were  some- 
times only  in  deacon's  orders,  and  that  deacons  thus 
beneficed  might  preach  p. 

Van  Espen  says,  that  in  the  Roman  churches,  "  as 
far  as  concerns  deacons,  the  modern  discipline  has  so 
declined,  that  scarcely  any  office  is  left  to  the  deacons  ex- 
cept the  ministry  of  the  altar.  And  even  in  this,  the  mi- 
nistry of  the  deacons  is  often  (especially  in  cathedral  and 
collegiate  churches)  supplied  by  presbyters :  so  that  at 


^  Wilkins's   Concilia,    t.    i.    p.  "  Jo,    de    Athon.    in    Lynd- 

747.  wood's    Provinciale,   p.   24.    ed. 

"^  Ibid.  p.  213.  1679. 

"     Stillingfleet,     Ecclesiastical  ''  Lyndwood's  Provinciale,  p. 

Cases,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  G50.  288. 


408  The  Diaconate.  [p.  vi.  ch.  hi. 

last  it  has  come  to  tliis,  that  deacons  are  not  ordained  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  deacons,  but  to  ascend  by  the 
diaconate  as  a  step  to  the  presbyterate.  Whence  also 
no  one  is  ordained  deacon  in  order  that  he  may  con- 
tinue in  that  office,  but  in  order  that  he  may  be  pro- 
moted to  the  presbyterate,  when  the  canonical  interval 
of  time  has  elapsed.  Whether  this  be  entirely  con- 
formable to  the  will  and  intention  of  the  church,  let  the 
bishops  consider ''." 

The  duties  ascribed  to  deacons  by  our  churches,  are 
first,  assisting  the  priest  in  divine  service,  especially  in 
the  communion,  and  distributing  the  eucharist ;  se- 
condly, reading  scripture  and  homilies  in  the  church  ; 
thirdly,  catechizing;  fourthly,  baptizing  in  the  priest's 
absence ;  fifthly,  preaching,  if  he  be  licensed  by  the 
bishop ;  sixthly,  offices  of  charity  towards  the  poor,  &c.  ^ 
These  were  exactly  the  duties  of  the  deacon  in  the 
primitive  church.  It  does  not  seem,  either  by  the 
forms  of  ordination  or  by  the  ritual,  that  the  church 
formally  invests  deacons  with  the  power  of  celebrating 
divine  service  without  a  presbyter;  or  performing  the 
rites  of  marriage,  benediction  of  women  after  child- 
birth, visitation  of  the  sick,  or  burial  of  the  dead.  Nor 
does  she  give  them  cure  of  souls  or  jurisdiction.  It 
appears  to  me,  that  the  occasional  exercise  of  such 
functions  by  deacons,  is  rather  by  the  tacit  license  and 
dispensation  of  the  church  than  by  any  actual  law.  It 
cannot  be  the  intention  of  the  church  that  parishes 
should  ever  be  left  to  the  care  of  deacons,  except  in 
cases  of  absolute  necessity  ;  because  they  are  not  qua- 
lified to  administer  the  sacrament  of  the  holy  eucharist, 
and  other  high  offices  of  the  ministry. 

•i  Van  Espen,  Jus  Canouicum,         "■  Ordination  of  Deacons, 
t.  i.  p.  5,  6. 


APPEND.]  The  Minor  Orders.  409 

APPENDIX. 

ON    THE    MINOR    ORDERS. 

The  minor  clergy  of  the  church  were  generally  set 
apart  for  offices  which  might  have  been  discharged  by 
deacons,  or  by  laymen.  We  may  therefore  speak  of 
them  here.  The  churches  which  follow  the  Roman 
rite  reckon  four  minor  orders,  besides  subdeacons  who 
have  latterly  been  considered  as  one  of  the  sacred 
orders,  viz.  readers,  acolytes,  exorcists,  and  ostiarii. 
The  Greeks  account  as  minor  orders,  subdeacons, 
readers,  singers,  and  ostiarii,  or  doorkeepers.  It  is 
needless  to  detail  the  particular  duties  of  these  orders, 
which  may  be  seen  in  the  works  of  various  writers '. 
These  ancient  orders  of  ecclesiastical  institution,  came 
at  length  in  many  churches  to  be  conferred  as  merely 
introductory  to  the  sacred  orders  of  deacon  and  pres- 
byter, while  their  duties  were  discharged  by  laymen. 
In  the  seventh  century  the  readers  and  singers  in  the 
Armenian  churches  were  laymen  :  in  the  eighth  century 
the  readers,  and  in  the  twelfth  the  ostiarii  and  exorcists 
were  laymen  in  the  Greek  church.  Before  the  year 
1300,  the  four  junior  orders  of  acolyte,  exorcist,  reader, 
and  ostiarius,  began  to  be  conferred  together  in  the 
western  churches.  Not  long  after,  it  became  customary 
to  release  the  clerks  thus  ordained  from  the  necessity 
of  performing  the  duties  of  their  orders,  which  were 
confided  to  lay-clerks.  The  councils  of  Cologne  and 
Trent  in  vain  endeavoured  to  alter  this  custom;  and 
laymen  continue  generally  to  fulfil  the  offices  of  the 

'  Field,   Of  the  Church,  book     Eccl.   Discipl.   pars  i.  lib.  ii.   c. 
V.  c.  25  ;    Bingham,  Antiquities,     30,  &c. 
book  iii  ;  Thomassin.  Vet.  Nov. 


410  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  [part  vi. 

ancient  orders  in  the  Roman  churches  to  the  present 
day  *.  In  England  the  same  custom  has  prevailed,  and 
the  minor  orders  having  become  merely  titular,  were 
disused  in  the  reformation  of  our  churches.  It  may  be 
observed,  that  all  the  inferior  orders  in  the  western 
churches  wore  the  surplice  in  church,  except  sub- 
deacons,  who  durinof  the  eucharist  used  the  alb  and 
tunicle. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON    THE    MINISTER  OF    ORDINATION. 

The  question  concerning  the  proper  minister  of  ordi- 
nation has  been  much  debated  between  the  church  and 
different  sects  :  the  Independents  maintaining  that 
popular  election  is  the  only  essential ;  or  that  it  super- 
sedes the  necessity  of  any  other  ordination :  the  Pres- 
byterians asserting  that  presbyters  of  the  second  order 
are  the  proper  ministers  of  ordination  :  and  the  church 
holding  that  her  chief  ministers  alone  are  empowered 
by  divine  right,  at  least  in  ordinary  cases,  to  ordain. 
I  say,  "in  ordinary  cases,"  because  several  theologians 
of  the  church  in  different  ages  have  been  of  opinion, 
that  in  extraordinary  cases,  or  by  commission  of  the 
church,  even  presbyters  might  ordain.  Several  of  the 
schoolmen  held  that  a  mere  presbyter  might  confer 
every  order  except  the  episcopate,  by  commission  from 
the  church.  Vasquez  '^  inclines  to  this  opinion.  Mo- 
rinus  ^  refers  to  many  of  the  schoolmen  and  others  in 

'  Thomassin.  ut  supra.  ''  Morinus   de  Ordin.    par.  iii. 

'^    Vasquez,    in    iii.    par.     S.     exerc.  iv.  c.  3,  4. 
Thomse,  q.  243.  art.  3,  4. 


CHAP.  IV.]  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  411 

proof  of  its  truth.  Of  this  opinion  also  have  been 
several  writers  of  the  English  church,  whose  orthodoxy 
is  unquestionable,  amongst  whom  may  be  mentioned 
Jewel,  Hooker',  and  Fields  The  latter  argues  in 
favour  of  it,  and  adduces  the  sentiments  of  the  school- 
men, Armachanus,  Alexander  de  Hales,  Durandus,  &c.  ^ 
The  validity  of  ordinations  given  by  presbyters  in  case 
of  necessity,  has  occasionally  been  supported  by  writers 
in  the  church  of  England  since,  and  without  censure. 
Nor  does  it  seem  that  this  opinion,  if  rightly  under- 
stood, and  discreetly  advanced,  involves  any  conse- 
quences injurious  to  religion,  since  were  it  even  ad- 
mitted that  presbyters  might  confer  a  valid  ordination, 
this  would  not  infer  that  ministers  of  sects  and  heresies 
are  truly  ministers  of  God ;  for  no  one  would  allow  that 
the  priests  of  the  Arians,  or  Monophysites,  or  Donatists, 
were  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  though  they  had  actually 
received  a  valid  ordination  as  far  as  the  external  form 
was  concerned.  And  although  a  person  should  think 
it  possible  that  presbyterian  ordinations  may  be  valid, 
he  may  also  hold  that  episcopal  ordinations  are  more 
secure  ;  and  that  for  this  reason,  (as  well  as  for  the  sake 
of  a  charitable  accordance  with  the  general  practice  and 
opinion  of  the  church,)  they  ought  to  be  obtained  where 
it  is  possible.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  admit 
that  where  certain  external  forms  of  ordination  have 
been  observed  in  heresy  and  schism,  the  church  need 
not  reordain  h^etical  ministers  who  embrace  her  com- 


"  Hooker,   Works,  vol.   iii.  p.  it   might   be   supposed    that    he 

286.  ed.  Keble.     I  am  not  cer-  judged  it  only  permissible  for  a 

tain  that  Hooker  regarded  such  time,   and   under  urgent   neces- 

ordinations  as  more  \\vdn  justiji-  sities. 

able.       He    certainly    considers         ^  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book 

them  as  only  conferring  an  "  ex-  iii.  c.  39.  v.  56. 
traordinary  vocation,"  and  hence         *  Ibid. 


412  The  Minhter  of  Ordination.  [  p a  rt  v  i . 

munion  ;  such  persons,  I  say,  do  not,  or  ought  not,  to 
allow  that  there  are  minist(u-s  of  Christ,  or  real  bishops 
and  presbyters  among  those  who  are  ordained  in  sepa- 
ration from  the  catholic  church ;  because  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  divine  commission  is  ever 
given  except  in  the  church  of  Christ.  And  therefore  I 
hold  that  the  ministers  of  the  papists  in  this  country, 
should  be  regarded  as  equally  devoid  of  authority  and 
right  with  those  of  other  sectaries.  And  further,  if  it 
be  supposed  that  presbyterian  ordinations  are  not  valid, 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  are  bound  to  condemn 
them  in  every  case:  for  instance,  the  appointment  of 
ministers  by  the  Lutheran  party  in  Germany  during 
the  Reformation,  was  probably  invalid ;  and  yet,  con- 
sidering their  difficulties  ;  the  fact  of  their  appeal  to  a 
general  council ;  their  expecting  to  be  reunited  to  the 
church  ;  and  therefore  the  impossibility  of  establishing 
a  rival  hierarchy ;  I  think  we  are  not  bound  to  condemn 
their  apiDointments  of  ministers,  as  many  learned  and 
orthodox  writers  have  done,  who  however  seem  not  to 
have  observed  the  peculiarities  of  their  position,  and  to 
have  supposed  that  they  were  at  once  definitively  sepa- 
rated from  the  Roman  churches. 

That  ordinations  by  mere  presbyters  are,  (however 
excusable  and  justifiable  under  certain  circumstances,) 
in  fact  unauthorized  and  invalid,  is  the  more  usual  sen- 
timent of  theologians,  and  is  most  accordant  with  scrip- 
ture, and  with  the  practice  of  the  catholic  church  in  ge- 
neral, and  of  our  churches  in  particular,  which  do  not 
recognize  any  such  ordinations. 

I.  We  do  not  find  in  scripture  any  instances  of 
presbyters  of  the  second  order  ordaining.  It  is  true 
that  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  sent  to  preach  to 
the  Gentiles,  certain  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch, 


CHAP.  IV. j  Tlie  Minister  of  Ordination.  A\^ 

while  they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  received 
a  command  from  the  Holy  Ghost,   "  Separate  me  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  for  the  Mork  whereunto  I  have  called 
them.     And  vs^hen  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid 
their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away  ^"  But  this  is 
not  a  case  of  mere  presbyterian  ordination.     We  do  not 
know  whether  these  prophets  and  teachers  were  pres- 
byters.    Certain  it  is  that  they  were  inspired  hy  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  set  apart  Paul  and  Barnabas  for  their 
work :  but  no  one  would  deny  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
the  power  of  sending  labourers  at  all   times  into  the 
vineyard,  and  that  even  if  presbyters  now  should  re- 
ceive such  a  command,  the  mission  of  the  person  so  set 
apart  would  be  divine.     It  is  also  true  that  Timothy 
was  ordained  by  the  "  presbytery  ^ ;"  but,  as  we  do  not 
exactly  know  the  meaning  of  this  term,  which  is  under- 
stood by  the  Greek  fathers  to  mean  bishops,  and  by 
the  Latin  fathers  to  mean  the  presbyterate,  or  order  of 
priesthood,  so  it  is  plain  that  the  apostle  Paul  himself 
formed  one  of  this  presbytery " :  and  therefore  the  ordi- 
nation of  Timothy  affords  no  sanction  for  those  per- 
formed by  presbyters  only. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  find  in  scripture  abundant 
instances,  in  which  ordinations  were  performed  by  the 
apostles,  and  by  their  assistants  and  deputies.  Thus 
Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  presbyters  in  every 
church  ''.  Timothy  and  Titus  were  left  at  Ephesus  and 
in  Crete,  to  set  things  in  order  and  to  ordain  presbyters 
in  every  church '.  The  seven  deacons  were  elected  by 
the  people,   but  ordained  by  the  apostles  K     Hence  it 

"  Acts  xiii.  1—3.  ^  Acts  xiv.  22. 

f  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  '  1  Tim.  iii  ;  Tit.  i.  5. 

s  2  Tim.  i.  6.  ^  Acts  vi. 


414  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  [part  vi. 

would  seem,  that  the  power  of  ordination  is  vested  in 
the  apostles,  their  deputies,  and  successors. 

The  power  of  ordination  was  given  to  the  apostles 
and  their  successors,  by  these  words :  "  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me  even  so  send  I  you '',"  which  authorized 
them  to  send  others  to  prOach  the  gospel.  Now  the 
bishops  were  certainly  most  properly  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  as  being  supreme  ministers  of  the  church  ; 
and  the  voice  of  all  ages  has  given  to  them  peculiarly 
this  title  '.  To  them  therefore  principally  is  the  com- 
mission of  Christ  directed,  and  consequently  there  can- 
not be  authority  to  ordain  without  them. 

II.  The  uniform  practice  and  doctrine  of  the  church, 
as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  it,  is  opposed  to  the  vali- 
dity of  ordinations  performed  by  presbyters  only. 

We  find  several  instances  in  which  such  ordinations 
were  declared  null,  but  not  a  single  case  has  been  ad- 
duced in  which  they  were  really  alloM^ed.  In  324  the 
council  of  all  the  Egyptian  bishops  assembled  at  Alex- 
andria under  Hosius,  declared  null  and  void  the  ordi- 
nations j)erformed  by  Colluthus,  a  presbyter  of  Alex- 
andria, who  had  separated  from  his  bisliop  and  pre- 
tended to  act  as  a  bishop  himself"".  In  340  the 
Egyptian  bishops,  in  their  defence  of  St.  Athanasius, 
alluding  to  Ischyras,  who  pretended  to  be  a  priest, 
said,  "  Whence  then  was  Ischyras  a  presbyter?  Who 
was  his  ordainer  ?  Colluthus  ?  For  this  only  remains. 
But  it  is  known  to  all  and  doubted  by  no  one,  that  Col- 
luthus died  a  presbyter ;  that  his  hands  were  without 
authority;  and  that  all  who  were  ordained  by  him  in 

^  John  XX.  21.  reotae, — Athanas.   Oper.   t.   i.  p. 

'  See  above,  Chapter  I.  art.  v.      193. 
"^  Presbyteri   et    Diaconi  Ma- 


CHAP.  IV.]  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  415 

time  of  the  schism,  were  reduced  to  the  state  of  lay- 
men, and  as  such  attend  the  church's  assemblies "." 
In  the  first  council  of  Seville,  the  ordinations  performed 
by  the  bishop  of  Agabra  were  declared  null,  because  an 
assisting  presbyter  was  accustomed  to  read  the  prayer 
of  ordination,  on  account  of  the  bishop's  blindness,  who 
however  laid  his  hands  on  those  who  were  to  be  or- 
dained °.  This  manifests  strongly  the  judgment  of  the 
church  on  the  subject  of  ordinations  by  presbyters. 
Epf[)hanius  refutes  the  doctrine  of  Aerius,  observing 
that  bishops  beget  fathers  of  the  church  by  ordination, 
presbyters  beget  sons  only  by  baptism,  and  concludes  : 
"  How  can  he  constitute  a  presbyter,  who  has  no  right 
to  ordain  him  by  imposition  of  hands  p  ?"  Jerome 
asks,  "  What,  except  ordination,  does  a  bishop,  which  a 
presbyter  does  not  also ''  ?"  Chrysostom  also,  who 
esteems  the  presbyterate  very  little  inferior  to  the  epis- 
copate, holds  that  the  power  of  ordination  is  entirely 
vested  in  the  latter  ^ 

HI.  We  know  also  that  the.  rule  of  the  church  was, 
that  all  ordinations  should  be  performed  by  bishops. 
The  successor  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  bishop  of  Antioch 
in  the  third  century,   was  ordained  by  the  bishops  of 


"  HoQev  ovv  irpeafivrepoQ  'la-)(v-  tiki)  Tai,iQ'  TraripOQ   yap  ytyy^  rrf 

pag  ;    rh'og  /caraoTJ/cavroc  ;   upa  eKK\i](Ti(f' y  Se  Trarepac  j^i]  cvvanepj] 

KoWovdov ;  TOVTO  yap  Xolttov'  a\X'  ytvrav,  cia  ti]q  tov  Xovrpov  iraXiy- 

OTi  KoWovOoQ  irpeal-^vTepog  ioi'  ETE-  yEVEaluQ  tekvu  yEvv^  rij  EKt^Xrjaia, 

Xevttjcte,  Kui  Trdo-a  x^'f  avrov  yi-  ov  fJiji'  Traripag,  yj  SiSaffKciXovg'  Kal 

yoi'Ev  uKvpng,    koI  -mivTEg  ol  nap  TrojQOioyTEyfi'Toi'TrpEafivTEpovKaO- 

avriw   KaraffTatiEVTEg  ev  toI   a^irj-  icrr^y,  /x)/  'E-)(oi'Ta  ■)(EipoQEaiav    tov 

fxUTi   Xa'iKoi  yEyovaai,    Kai    ovTiag  yEipoTovElv. — Epiph.    Hseres.  75. 

cvvayovTai^  cijXoy,  icai  ovcevI  dfx-  Oper.  t.  i.  p.  908    ed.  1682. 

^(/joXoj'.  — Athan.  Oper.   t.  i.  p.  '' Hieronymus,  Epist.  adEvan- 

134.  gelum,  t.  iv.  pars  ii.  p.  802. 

"  Concil.   Hispal.  ii.   can.  19.  ■"  Chrysost.  in  Epist.  ad  Phil. 

— Hardiiin.  Concil.  t.  iii.  p.  501.  1.  Oper.  t.  xi.  p.  195. 

P'll  ^Ei'  yap icfT ITT aTf.piOv  yEvyij- 

10 


416  Tlie  Minister  of  Ordination.  [part  vi. 

the  synod  of  Antioch  \  Cornelius  of  Rome,  about  a.  d. 
250,  was  ordained  by  sixteen  bishops  *.  Cyprian  was  also 
ordained  by  several  bishops " ;  and  he  held  the  custom 
to  be  derived  from  divine  tradition  and  apostolic  ob- 
servance"'. Sabinus  was  ordained  by  several  bishops 
in  Spain '".  In  the  time  of  Cyprian  a  bishop  was  or- 
dained at  Capsai  in  Numidia,  by  six  bishops  \  Long 
before  his  time  flourished  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, who  according  to  Eusebius  was  contemporary 
with  Clement  of  Alexandria.  His  successor,  about  A.  d. 
200,  was  ordained  by  bishops  ^.  Even  the  schismatic 
Novatian,  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  procured  ordination 
from  three  bishops  ^ ;  and  Fortunatus,  who  set  himself 
up  as  bishoj)  of  Carthage  against  Cyprian,  was  ordained 
by  five  bishops  *.  The  apostolical  canons  which  repre- 
sent the  discipline  of  the  East,  probably  in  the  pre- 
ceding century,  limit  all  ordinations  to  the  bishops ''. 
No  difficulties  induced  the  church  to  break  through 
this  rule.  Never  do  we  read,  even  in  the  height  of 
the  Arian  persecutions,  of  any  attempt  to  supply  the 
necessities  of  the  churches  by  means  of  presbyterian 
ordinations  :  no,  not  though  it  was  held  that  in  a  time 
of  such  necessity,  all  the  ordinary  rules  might  be  dis- 
pensed with.  Even  when  the  Vandals  exiled  the  whole 
body  of  the  African  bishops  to  the  number  of  nearly 
500%  we  read  of  no  attempt  to  deviate  from  the  uni- 
versal rule. 

While  it  is  evident  that  ordinations  were  never  per- 


'  Euseb.  lib.  vii.  c.  30.  12  ;  lib.  vi.  c.  10. 

*  Cypr.  Epist.  52.  ^  Euseb.  lib.  v.  c.  43. 

"  Ibid.  55.  **  Cypr.  Epist.  55    ed.  Pamel. 

'  Ibid.  G8.  ed.  Pamel.  ''  Apost.  can.  1,  2. — Beveregii 

"  Ibid.  Pandect,  t.  i.  p.  1. 

"  Ibid.  53.  <=  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  xxx. 

"  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.   v.  c.     s.  7. 


OBJECT.]'  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  417 

formed  by  presbyters  without  bishops,  it  is  equally  clear 
that  ordinations  by  bishops  without  presbyters  were 
universal.  In  all  episcopal  ordinations  from  the  earliest 
period,  bishops  only  officiated :  but  the  custom  of  the 
African  church  in  the  fourth  century,  which  permitted 
presbyters  to  lay  on  their  hands  with  the  bishop  in  the 
ordination  of  presbyters  ^  and  which  was  afterwards 
adopted  by  the  Roman  and  other  western  churches, 
was  never  received  in  the  East.  In  all  the  eastern 
churches  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  present 
day,  the  bishop  alo7ie  lays  hands  on  the  presbyters. 
This  custom  was  known  and  sanctioned  by  the  western 
churches,  and  therefore  they  must  have  held  that  ordi- 
nation by  the  bishop  alone  was  the  essential  and  apos- 
tolical rite  of  initiation. 

IV.  I  argue  thus  in  conclusion.  That  mode  of  ordi- 
nation by  which  ministers  are  appointed  according  to 
the  divine  will  and  institution  to  tend  the  flock  of 
Jesus  Christ,  must  have  prevailed  at  all  times  and  in 
all  places.  But  episcopal  ordination  has  so  prevailed, 
and  presbyterian  has  not :  therefore  the  former  alone 
confers  the  divine  commission. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  St.  Jerome  testifies  in  his  epistle  to  Evangelus, 
that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  originally  the  same, 
"  but  the  reason  for  which  one  was  afterwards  chosen 
to  be  set  over  the  rest^  was  as  a  remedy  of  schism,  lest 
each  drawing  the  church  of  Christ  to  himself,  it  might 
rend  asunder.  For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the 
Evangelist  down  to  Heraclas   and  Dionysius  bishops, 

^  Even  in  Africa  and  in  Spain  Gov.  p.  255,  256.  This  in  fact 
bishops  might  ordain  without  was  the  more  general  custom  of 
presbyters.  —  See  Bilson,  Perpet.      the  church.— Ibid.  p.  257. 

VOL.  II.  E  e 


418  The  Minister  of  Ordination.       [p.  vi.  ch.  iv. 

the  presbyters  always  chose  one  of  themselves,  and 
setting  him  in  a  higher  place,  saluted  him  bishop  ;  as 
if  an  army  should  make  a  general,  or  the  deacons 
should  elect  out  of  themselves  one  whom  they  knew  to 
be  diligent,  and  call  him  archdeacon.  For  what  office 
does  a  bishop  perform,  except  ordination,  which  a  pres- 
byter does  not  also  ^"  Therefore  it  a[»pears  that  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria  was  elected  from  among  the  pres- 
byters ivitJiout  any  ordination. 

Anstver.  If  he  was  so,  presbyterian  ordinations,  at 
least,  derive  no  support  from  this  passage,  for  presbyte- 
rians  elect  no  bishops,  and  the  ordination  of  presbyters 
is  here  evidently  ascribed  by  St.  Jerome  to  the  bishop 
only.  But  St.  Jerome  does  not  say  that  the  bishop 
thus  elected  was  not  afterwards  consecrated  by  bishops. 
He  merely  adduces  this  old  custom  of  election  at 
Alexandria  ^  as  a  relic  of  what  he  believed  to  have 
been  the  original  episcopacy,  namely,  the  appointment 
of  one  of  the  presbyters  to  preside  over  the  rest.     This 


*^  "  Quod  autem   postea  unus         '^  The  custom  of  the  church  of 

electus  est,  qui  caeteris  praepone-  Alexandria    even    in    the    sixth 

retur,    in     schismatis    remedium  century,  was  for  the  bishop  elect 

factum   est ;  ne  unusquisque   ad  to  assume  jurisdiction  and  sit  as 

se  trahens  Christi  ecclesiam  rum-  bishop,  apparently  before  conse- 

peret.       Nam   et   Alexandriae   a  cration.      Liberatus,    a.  d.   553, 

Marco     Evangelista     usque     ad  says    "  consuetudo    quidem    est 

Heraclam  et  Dionysium   episco-  Alexandriae,  ilium   qui  defuncto 

pos,  presbyteri  semper  unum  ex  succcdit,  excubias  super  defuncti 

se   electum   in    excelsiori   gradu  corpus  agere,    manumque  dexte- 

collocatum,    episcopum    nomina-  ram  ejus  capiti  suo  imponere,  et 

bant :  quomodo  si  exercitus  im~  sepulto    manibus    suis,  accipere 

peratorem    faciat  ;    aut    diaconi  collo   suo   B.   Marci   pallium,  et 

eligant    de  se    quem   industrium  tunc  legitime  sedere."  —  Breviar. 

noverint   et    archidiaconum    vo-  c.  20.     Here  nothing  is  said  of 

cent.      Quid  enim  facit   excepta  consecration,   yet  we  know  from 

ordinatione  episcopus,  quod  pres-  history,  that  these  bishops  had  for 

byter  non  faciat  ?" — Hier.  Epist.  a  long  time  before,  always  been 

ci.    ad    Evangelum,   Opcr.    t.  iv.  consecrated  like  other  bishops, 
pars  ii.  p.  802,  ed.  Benedict. 


OBJKCT.]  The  Miiiisfer  of  OnliiKition.  419 

presbyter  ho  miglit  very  well  believe  to  have  by  divine 
riglit  a  superior  jurisdiction,  and  a  peculiar  right  of 
ordination,  even  though  he  was  called  to  his  office  by 
election  only  :  because  he  might  suppose  that  in  the 
ordination  of  a  presbyter  a  power  was  given,  which 
might,  by  election  to  the  episcoimte,  be  further  deve- 
loped and  extended,  even  to  the  power  of  conferring 
orders.  But  to  return  to  the  question  of  fact.  It  is 
not  credible  that  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  even  so 
late  as  the  time  of  Dionysius,  who  died  a,  d.  264, 
should  have  had  no  consecration  from  bishops.  The 
primitive  church  which  contended  so  earnestly  on  the 
day  of  celebrating  Easter,  and  the  reiteration  of  the 
baptism  of  heretics,  would  scarcely  have  passed  over 
in  total  silence  a  mode  of  appointment  so  unusual,  so 
contrary  to  the  general  rule.  How  is  it,  that  among 
all  the  controversies  concerning  presbyterian  ordina- 
tions performed  by  Colluthus  in  Egypt,  even  in  Alex- 
andria, only  about  sixty  years  after  the  time  of  Diony- 
sius, there  should  be  no  allusion  to  a  custom  so  extra- 
ordinary and  so  directly  bearing  on  the  point  in  con- 
troversy? How  is  it,  that  within  forty  years  after  the 
time  of  Dionysius,  we  find  all  the  bishops  of  the  Mele- 
tians  ordained,  not  by  presbyters,  but  by  Meletius  him- 
self ?  And  how  is  it,  that  no  one  but  Jerome  should 
notice  so  remarkable  a  custom,  one  certainly  uni)aral- 
leled  elsewhere  in  the  world  in  that  age,  and  contrary 
to  all  the  rules  and  laws  of  the  church.  The  simple 
fact  is,  that  St.  Jerome  only  states  the  custom  of  the 
church  of  Alexandria  at  the  election  of  bishops,  which 
he  thinks  is  a  confirmation  of  his  theory  of  the  original 
episcopacy ;  and  if  his  argument  seems  to  require,  for 
its  validity,  that  no  consecration  should  afterwards  have 
taken  place,  it  is  easier  to  sup]iose  that  St.  Jerome's  argu- 

Ee2 


420  The  Minister  of  Ordination.       [p.  vi.  ch.  iv. 

ment  was  inconclusive,  than  that  so  extraordinary  a  cus- 
tom could  have  existed  in  the  church. 

II.  Eutychius  of  Alexandria,  in  his  chronicle,  says 
that  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  were  actually  ordained 
by  the  presbyters,  till  the  time  of  Alexander,  who 
attended  the  synod  of  Nice. 

Ansiver.  Eutychius  lived  in  the  tenth  century,  too 
late  to  have  any  weight  in  such  a  question.  His  state- 
ment seems  to  be  derived  from  that  of  Jerome,  with 
abundant  additions,  and  his  accounts  are  to  be  rejected 
as  altogether  fabulous  ^. 

III.  Firmilian  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian  says,  that  in 
the  church  "  preside  presbyters,  (majores  natu,)  who 
have  the  power  of  baptizing,  laying  on  hands,  and 
ordaining  ?' 

Answer.  The  bishops  were  often  called  presbyters. 
Tertullian  says  "  Probati  prcesident  seniores.'" 

IV.  Hilary  the  deacon,  on  Ephes.  iv.  2,  says  "  in 
Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  the  presbyters  ordain  (co7isig- 
nant)  in  the  bishop's  absence."  He  also  says  on  1  Tim. 
iii.  that  "  the  ordination  of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  the 
same,  for  both  are  priests.  But  the  bishop  is  first,  so 
that  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  not  every  presbyter  a 
bishop  ;  for  he  is  bishop  who  is  first  among  the 
presbyters." 

Answer.  1.  The  word  "consignant"  does  not  mean 
"  ordain,"  but  "  confirm."  This  custom  still  remains  in 
the  east,  and  confirmation  is  usually  called  o-^pa-yJc  or 
iin(T(f>payiau6Q  ^.  2.  I  have  already  observed  that  the 
opinion  of  this  author  as  to  ordinations  is  to  be  re- 
jected ''. 

•  See  Pearson,  Vindiciae  Ignat.  ^  See  Smith  on  the  Greek 
c.  10.  Church,  p.  116,  117. 

'  Cyprian.  Epist.  75,  al.  43.  ^  See  above,  p.  395. 


OBJ r: ex.]  The  Minister  of  Ordination.  421 

V.  Tlie  general  synod  of  Nice  permitted  the  clergy 
appointed  by  Meletius  the  privilege  of  ordaining,  and 
of  naming  those  who  were  worthy  of  being  ordained'. 

Answer.  The  meaning  of  the  word  TTQoy^i^lUaQai  is 
"  electing"  not  ordaining.  Besides,  the  synod  is  speak- 
ing of  bishops,  as  well  as  of  presbyters  ordained  by  Me- 
letius, so  that  if  it  meant  to  give  them  the  right  of 
ordination,  this  would  of  course  be  understood  to  relate 
to  the  bishops. 

VI.  Cassianus  says  that  the  monk  Paphnutius,  who 
was  only  a  presbyter,  ordained  his  disciple  Daniel  a 
deacon,  and  afterwards  a  presbyter  ^  Novatus,  a  pres- 
byter, made  Felicissimus  a  deacon,  according  to  Cy- 
prian ^ 

Afisicer.  The  meaning  is,  that  Cassianus  and  Novatus 
caused  them  to  be  ordained  by  some  bishop. 

VII.  The  chorejjiscopi  were  only  presbyters,  and  yet 
they  ordained  presbyters  and  deacons. 

Answer.  It  has  been  shown  by  Bingham,  Beveridge, 
and  others  ',  that  the  chorepiscopi,  or  rural  bishops,  had 
e^iiscoiml  consecration.  These  seem  to  be  the  principal 
instances  adduced  to  favour  presbyterian  ordinations. 

'  Socrates,     Hist.    Eccl.    1.    i.  ^  Cyprian,  ep.  xlix. 

c.  9.  '  Bingham,   Antiquities,  book 

J  Cassian.  Collat.  iv.  c.  1.  ii.  c.  14. 


42-2  Cvnsecrations  inj  one  Bisliup.  [part  vi. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  NUMBER  OF  BISHOPS  REQUISITE  TO  ORDAIN. 

An  important  question  has  been  raised,  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  bishops  requisite  to  confer  a  valid  episcopal 
ordination.  Several  theologians  have  been  of  opinion 
that  in  case  of  necessity  one  bishop  was  sufficient  for 
this  purpose.  Amongst  the  supporters  of  this  opinion 
may  be  named  Beveridge,  Mason,  Hallier,  Paludanus, 
Sylvester,  and  others.  On  the  other  hand,  theologians 
of  equal  eminence,  have  regarded  such  ordinations  as 
uncertain  or  null.  Honoratus  Tournely,  one  of  the 
principal  theologians  of  the  Galilean  church  in  the  last 
century,  formally  maintains  the  following  conclusion : 
"  In  consecratione  episcopi  plures  comministros  ejiisco- 
pos  adhibendos  esse,  docet  apostolica  traditio  ac  con- 
stans  praxis  ecclesiai ;  atque  aliter  quam  a  tribus  vel 
duobus  saltem  factam  ordinationem,  non  illicitam  modo, 
sed  etiam  irritam  ac  nullam  esse,  probabilius  videtur "." 
Tournely  wrote  when  the  question  had  been  amply 
discussed,  and  his  decision  is  the  result  of  a  careful 
investigation  of  all  that  had  been  said.  He  had  been 
pieceded  in  the  same  opinion  by  Pamelius,  bishop  of 
St.  Omer  ^  and  Habert,  bishop  of  Vabres,  who  regards 

^  Tournely,   Tractat.    de    Or-  ''  Pamelius  in  Cypr.  Epist.  68. 

dine,  p.  453.  "  Accedere   debebat    consecratio 


CHAP,  v.]  Consecrations  hy  one  Bishop.  423 

such  ordinations  as  most  dubious  ".  Hallier  says,  that 
in  his  time  the  common  and  most  received  opinion  was, 
that  episcopal  ordinations  performed  by  less  than  three 
bishops,  were  null  and  void  ''.  Vasquez  held  three 
bishops  to  be  the  ordinary  ministers  of  consecrationy^re 
divino  *.  Bellarmine  \  Kellison  ^,  and  others,  regard 
this  number  as  essential :  but  are  of  opinion,  as  well  as 
Vasquez,  that  a  papal  commission  could  empower  one 
bishop  to  consecrate.  This  however  seems  to  have 
arisen  from  their  exaggerated  notions  of  the  papal 
power.  Vasquez  is  even  of  opinion  that  a  papal  com- 
mission could  enable  a  presbyter  to  ordain  presbyters 
and  deacons  *".  Alphonso  de  Ligorio  observes,  that  the 
opposite  opinions,  as  to  a  plurality  of  bishops  being 
requisite  (except  in  a  case  of  necessity)  to  the  validity 
of  an  ej)iscopal  consecration,  are  "  both  probable  ;  there- 
fore in  practice,  the  first,"  (which  maintains  their 
necessity,)  "  is  to  be  altogether  followed ...  for  since 
it  is  very  probable  .  .  .  that  the  episcopate  is  a  true 
sacrament,  distinct  from  the  presbyterate,  we  are  cer- 
tainly bound  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  to  take  the 
safer  part,  to  avoid  a  general  injury;  for  otherwise  priests 

.  ,  .  per  episcopos  qui   convene-  nulla,  irrita,  et  invalida  sit  .  .  . 

runt,    quos,   ut   minimum,   duos  quae  a  paucioribus  tribus  episeo- 

esse  oportebat."  pis   peracta   fuerit.  "  —  Hallier, 

"^   "  Circa  hoc   vero  riegotium,  De  Sacris  elect,  et  Ordin.  p.  582. 

ancipitem  profecto  controversiam  "  Prior  (sententia)  communis  est 

movere   scholastici   doctores  ...  et  hocce  tempore  magis  recepta." 

Utrum  videlicet  ordinatio  et  con-  p.  589. 

secratio  ab  uno  tantum  episcopo         ^  Vasquez,  in  iii.  part.  Thomae, 

facta,  quoad  characterem  ac  ordi-  t.  iii.  disc.  243.  cap.  0. 
nem  ipsum  qui   de   jure   divino         ^  Bellarminus    de    Not.   Eccl. 

est,  sit  rata  et  valida." — Haber-  c.  8. 

tus,  Liber  Pontificalis,  p.  80.  ed.         ^  Kellison,  Comm.  in  iii.  par. 

Paris,  1643.     See  also  p.  83.  Thomse,  t.  ii.  p.  428. 

^    "   Incertum    est    et    intra         ^    Vasquez,     ut   supra,    disp. 

auctores  catholicos  controversum  243,  c.  4. 
an  consecratio    episcopi   omnino 


424  Consecrations  hy  one  Bishop.        [p.  vi.  cii.  v. 

ordained    by    this    bisliop    would    remain    doubtfully 
ordained  '." 

The  law  and  practice  of  the  catholic  church  from  the 
remotest  period  are  opposed  to  ordinations  by  one 
bishop  only.  It  was  decreed  by  the  synods  of  Aries, 
Nice,  Antioch,  Laodicea,  Carthage,  Orange  '\  he.  that 
at  least  three  bishops  should  consecrate.  The  oecume- 
nical synod  of  Nice  only  allowed  this  number  to  be 
sufficient  in  a  case  of  urgeyit  necessity^  but  desired  that 
all  the  bishops  of  the  province  should  unite  in  the  act. 
We  find  this  custom  in  former  ages.  Cornelius  of 
Rome,  Cyprian,  Novatus,  Fortunatus,  Sabinus,  in  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  were  all  ordained  by 
several  bishops.  So  also  was  the  successor  of  Nar-. 
cissus  of  Jerusalem  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  cen- 
tury. Cyprian  says  that  this  meeting  of  bishops  to 
perform  episcopal  ordinations,  descended  from  divine 
tradition  and  apostolical  practice.  The  apostolical 
canons  which  represent  the  discipline  of  the  church  in 
the  second  century,  require  the  ordination  of  a  bishop 
to  be  performed  by  two  or  three  bishops,  "  so  as  that 
he  cannot  be  ordained  by  one  \"  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria says,  that  James  was  appointed  bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem by  three  of  the  apostles,  Peter,  James  the  elder, 
and  John '.     Hence  we  find  Michael  Oxita,  patriarch 

»  "  Utraque  sententia  est  pro-  ordinati." — Ligorio,  Theol.  Mor. 

babilis  ;  unde   in  praxi    omnino  lib.  iv.  c.  2.  art.  755. 

prima  sequenda  est.  .  .  .  Et  ratio  J   Arelatens.   i.  e.    1.     Arelat. 

est,  quia  cum  valde  sit  probabilis  ii.  c.  5.    Nicen.  can.  1.  Antioch. 

sententia  (ut  diximus,    n.   738,)  can.    19.       Laodicen.     can.    12. 

episcopatum    esse    verum    sacra-  Codex    African,     can.     13,    14  ; 

mentum    distinctum   a  presbyte-  Arausic.    i.    c.    21.      See   Beve- 

ratu,  tenemur  utique   in  ejus  or-  ridge,   Annot.  in  Can.  Apost.  p. 

dinatione  tutiorem  partem  sequi  1 1    Pandect,  t.  ii. 

ad  vitandum  damnum  commune  ;  ''  Apost.  can.  i.  Bev.  Pand.  t.  i. 

nam    alias    sacerdotes     ab    hoc  '  Euseb.    Hist.   Eccl.    lib.    ii. 

episcopo  ordinati  manerent  dubie  c.  1 . 


OBJEC'i'.]  Consecrations  by  one  Bishop.  4*25 

of  Constantinople,  rejecting  tlie  ordinations  of  Clement 
and  Leontius,  who  had  been  ordained  by  one  bishop, 
contrary  to  the  apostolical  canon'". 

In  fact,  if  we  look  to  scripture,  we  find  that  appoint- 
ments to  the  highest  offices  of  the  sacred  ministry  were 
made  by  a  plurality  of  persons.  As  our  Lord  had  said, 
"  if  two  of  you  shall  agree  on  earth  as  touching 
anything  that  they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  For  where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  them  " ;"  it  might  be  fairly  concluded,  that 
in  so  important  an  act  as  that  of  sending  forth  a 
pastor  into  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  pastors 
ought  to  be  united.  Accordingly,  all  the  apostles  were 
assembled  and  acted  together  in  appointing  Matthias 
to  the  bishopric  of  the  traitor  °.  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  sent  forth  on  their  mission  by  the  inspired  "  pro- 
phets and  teachers"  of  Antioch  p.  Timothy  was  or- 
dained by  St.  Paul  and  the  presbytery  '^ :  and  connect- 
ing these  circumstances  with  the  universal  prevalence 
of  the  rule  afterwards,  which  required  bishops  always 
to  be  ordained  by  more  than  one  bishop,  it  does 
seem  probable,  that  episcopal  ordinations,  which  are 
only  performed  by  one  bishop,  are  not  valid.  On  the 
other  side  are  alleged  some  instances  of  a  contrary 
practice  in  the  church,  which  shall  now  be  considered. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Paulinus  bishop  of  Antioch,  is  said  by  Theodoret 
to  have  ordained  his  successor  Evagrius :  yet  all  the 


">  Joh.  Cinnamus,  Hist.  lib.  ii.         °  Acts  i. 
Bev.  Pand.  t.  ii.  Annot.  p.  10.  ^  Acts  xiii.  1—3. 

"  Matt,  xviii.  19,  20.  ''  1  Tim.  iv.  14.     2  Tim.  i.  6. 


426  Consecrations  by  one  Bishop.         [p.  vi.  ch.  v, 

western  church  acknowledged  the  latter  as  bishop ',  and 
Pope  Innocentius  even  required  Alexander  of  Antioch 
to  receive  in  their  honour  and  degrees,  the  clergy  or- 
dained by  Evagrius  ^ 

Ansiver.  It  is  probable  that  Theodoret  was  mis- 
informed, for  Socrates,  (v.  15)  and  Sozomen,  (vii.  15) 
affirm,  that  Evagrius  was  ordained  bishop  after  the 
death  of  Paulinus,  and  are  silent  as  to  the  fact  of  his 
ordination  by  one  bishop.  The  reason  which  induced 
the  eastern  church  not  to  acknowledge  him  or  his 
clergy,  did  not  arise  from  doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  his 
ordination,  but  from  their  regarding  him  as  a  schismatic, 
separated  from  Flavianus  the  legitimate  bishop  of 
Antioch. 

II.  Synesius  says  that  Siderius  was  ordained  by 
Philo  of  Cyrene  alone,  contrary  to  all  the  ancient  laws ; 
yet,  since  it  is  necessary  in  times  of  danger  to  dispense 
with  the  highest  laws,  Athanasius,  in  order  to  cherish 
and  increase  the  spark  of  faith  which  remained  in 
Ptolemais,  raised  him  to  govern  that  metropolitan 
church  *. 

Answer.  I  reply  that  either  S.  Athanasius  afterwards 
completed  what  was  defective ;  or  else  he  may  have 
thought,  that  in  a  case  of  urgent  necessity,  where  the 
preservation  of  the  faith  was  at  stake,  God  would 
supply  what  was  deficient  in  the  mode  of  vocation ;  or 
that  the  church  could  in  such  a  case  give  a  sufficient 
commission  without  reordination. 

III.  When  S.  Augustine,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
wrote  to  consult  Gregory  the  Great,  whether  he  might 


'  Theodoret.    Hist.   Eccl.    lib.  p.  1010. 
V.  c.  23.  '   Synesius,    Epist.    Ixvii.   p. 

^   Innocent.    I.   Epist.  xiv.  ad  210.  ed  Petav. 
Bouifacium.    Hard.    Cone.    t.   i. 


OBJECT.]  Consecrations  by  one  Bishop.  427 

perform  episcopal  consecrations  without  tlie  aicl  of 
other  bishops,  the  latter  replied  "  Qiiidem  in  Angloruni 
ecclesia  in  qna  adhuc  solus  tii  episcopus  inveniris,  ordi- 
nare  episcopum  non  aliter  nisi  sine  episcopis  potes "." 
Therefore  in  case  of  necessity,  ordination  by  one  bishop 
is  sufficient. 

Ansiver.  Habertus  affirms  that  the  reading  in  ancient 
manuscripts  is  this,  "  Et  quidem  in  Anglorum  ecclesia, 
&c.  ordinare  episcopum  non  aliter  nisi  cum  episcopis 
potes.  Nam  quando  de  Gallia  episcopi  veniant,  illi  in 
ordinationem  episcopi  testes  tibi  assi stent."  This  read- 
ing is  supported  by  the  edition  of  Bede,  published  in 
Paris  1586,  and  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  Habertus  had 
found  it  in  ancient  manuscripts  ".  It  would  be  unsafe 
to  rest  a  question  of  so  much  importance  on  a  disputed 
text.  But  even  conceding  that  the  passage  as  quoted 
is  correct,  Gregory  may  perhaps  have  proceeded  on 
uncertain  principles  in  affording  this  permission,  as  we 
believe  he  did  mistake,  in  affirming  that  the  apostles 
consecrated  the  eucharist  with  no  other  form  but  the 
Lord's  prayer. 

IV.  In  fact  it  appears  that  Augustine  acted  on  this 
permission,  and  ordained  several  bishops,  such  as  Justus 
and  Mellitus. 

Answer.  Even  Hallier,  who  is  favourable  to  the 
validity  of  such  ordinations,  is  "  unwilling  to  infer  that 
Justus  and  Mellitus  were  ordained  by  Augustine  alone," 
because  though  Bede  mentions  no  other  consecrators, 
it  is  customary  with  hinx  only  to  mention  the  name  of 
the  metropolitan  ordaining  ^.  It  is  more  probable  that 
Augustine  may  have  obtained  the  assistance  of  some 

"    Beda,     Hist.    Eccl.    lib.    i.     p.  83. 
c.  28.  "  Hallier,  De  Ordin.  p.  588. 

"  Habertus,  Pontificale  Grsec. 


428  Consecrations  hy  one  Bishop.  [part  vr. 

of  the  French  bishops.  We  find  that  afterwards  they 
were  so  careful  in  England  to  observe  the  rule  re- 
quiring more  than  one  bishop  to  assist,  that  when 
there  was  only  one  bishop  remaining  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  church  before  the  arrival  of  Theodore  of  Tarsus, 
they  called  in  the  aid  of  two  bishops  of  the  British  or 
Irish  church  which  was  viewed  as  schismatical,  in  order 
to  consecrate  Ceadda  \  This  they  would  scarcely  have 
done,  if  S.  Augustine  alone  had  consecrated  several 
bishops.  It  appears  probable  also  that  Theodore  of 
Tarsus  reordained  Ceadda  \  thus  affording  an  additional 
proof  of  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  church. 

V.  The  apostles  ordained  bishops  alone.  E.  g.  St. 
Peter  ordained  Linus  at  Rome,  St.  Mark  ordained 
Anianus  at  Alexandria. 

Answer.  We  are  not  certain  that  these  apostles  and 
evangelists  did,  without  any  assistance,  ordain  bishops. 
However  I  do  not  deny  that  the  apostles  might  do  so 
sometimes  :  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  intended 
the  bishops  in  this  respect  to  imitate  their  example. 

"  Beda,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  catliolica  ratione  consummavit. " 
c.  28.  — Beda,  Hist.  Eccl.   lib.  iv.  c.  2. 

y  "  Ordinationem    ejus   denuo 


CHAP.  vr.J  On  Ifco?-(h'ii(ifi(ms.  4*29 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON    REORDINATIONS. 

I.  It  is  unlawful  to  reiterate  ordinations  once  validly 
performed  in  the  catholic  church,  because  such  reordi- 
nations  would  throw  doubt  on  the  sufficiency  of  the 
former  ordinations,  every  minister  of  Christ  lawfully 
ordained  being  capable  of  administering  sacerdotal 
offices  in  all  churches  where  he  is  lawfully  called  to  do 
so,  though  limited  ordinarily  to  one  by  apostolical  in- 
stitution. Thus  we  read  that  Polycarp,  bishop  of 
Smyrna,  celebrated  the  eucharist  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  when  he  travelled  there  to  confer  with  Soter  ; 
and  the  canons  of  the  catholic  church  approve  of  this 
practice,  and  sanction  the  translation  of  bishops  (in 
cases  of  urgent  necessity  and  benefit  to  the  church)  al- 
ways without  any  reordination.  The  sixty-eighth  apos- 
tolical canon  exhibiting  the  early  discipline  of  the  East, 
forbids  reordinations,  under  pain  of  deposition  both  to 
the  ordained  and  the  ordainer,  unless  the  former  ordi- 
nations have  been  conferred  by  heretics  *.     The  council 

*  El  Tig  kniaKviToc:,   i)   Trptajjv-  alpeTiKwv    i'xEi    rriu    x^'P"™'''"'"' 

TepoQ,  i)  hdicoyoQ,   cevripay  x^'po-  toi'C  yap  Trapd  twu  ToiovTUiv  flaw- 

Toviav  central   Trapci  rirog,  kuOui-  Tierdevrag  7)  -^^eipoTovrjOevrag,  ovre 

ptitTdiOKaiavTogicalox^ipoToyiicTag'  Triarovg    ovte    KXrjpiKovg  elrai  Cv- 

d    fii]yt    apa    avcrrair},    on    Trapa  varuv. — Beveregii  Pandect,  t.  i. 


430  0?i  Beordlnations.  [part  vi. 

of  Carthage  (canon  52)  forbids  rebaptizations  or  reordi- 
nations  of  bishops,  as  it  had  been  decreed  in  a  synod  at 
Capua '' ;  which  the  learned  canonists,  Balsamon,  patri- 
arch of  Antioch,  Zonaras,  and  Aristsenus,  understand 
only  to  refer  to  ordinations  formerly  conferred  by  the 
orthodox  \  Pope  Gregory  I.  says,  that  "  he  who  has 
been  once  ordained  ought  not  again  to  be  ordained  to 
the  same  degree ''."  Provincial  synods  at  Rome,  and 
Ravenna  also  under  pope  John  IX.  forbad  reordi- 
nations ".  These  are  sufficient  to  show  the  general 
rule  of  the  church  as  to  the  impropriety  of  reordaining 
those  who  have  already  received  valid  ordination  in  the 
catholic  church ;  and  indeed  there  is  so  little  danger  of 
such  reordinations  generally,  that  it  does  not  seem  that 
there  is  any  severe  penalty  in  the  western  churches 
provided  for  tliis  offence.  The  sixty-eighth  apostolical 
canon  is  only  received  by  the  eastern  church  as  a  rule : 
it  is  not  found  among  the  western  canons ;  and  Hen- 
riquez  says,  that  "  even  if  orders  be  unlawfully  reite- 
rated, the  ordainer  does  not  incur  irregularity ;  because 
it  is  not  expressed  in  the  canon  law  ?' 

IT.  This  general  rule  against  reordinations  does  not 
ajiply  in  cases  where  ordinations  have  previously  taken 
place  in  sects  separated  from  the  church.  The  catholic 
church  is  not  bound  to  know  anything  of  their  ordi- 
nations, or  to  examine  into  the  intricate  questions  which 
may  surround  them.     She  repudiates  them  in  general 


*"  Beveregii   Pandect,   t.   i.  p.  ep.  46.  ad  Jo.  Episc.   Ravennat. 

574.      The   question    tif   reordi-  t.  ii.  p.  608.  Oper.  ed.  Ben. 
nations  is  treated  by  Morinus. —         *^  MorinuSj  p.  87. 
Comment,  de  Sacr.  Eccl.  Ordin.  ^  "  Si  quis   tamen  illicite  itc- 

pars  iii.  exercit.  v.  p.  74,  &c.  raret,  non  fit  irregularis  .  .  quia 

"  Beverage,  ut  supra,  p  514 —  non  est  in   jure   expressum." — 

0.  Henriquez,  Sunima,   lib.    x.    de 

^  Gregor.  Mag.  Epist.   lib.  ii.  Ord.  Sacramento,  c.  14. 


CHAP.  VI.]  On  Ueordinafions.  431 

as  conferring-  no  divine  commission  to  minister  in 
sacred  things,  "  Them  tliat  are  without,  God  judgeth  :" 
but  all  the  promises  of  God  are  to  his  church  :  His 
grace  is  given  in  the  church  :  the  apostles  and  teachers 
sent  from  God  are  in  the  church.  We  know  nothing 
from  revelation  of  any  grace,  any  christian  ministry, 
any  sacraments,  or  any  salvation  beyond  the  church. 

The  church  is  not  bound  to  recognize  the  heretical 
ordinations  of  those  who  enter  her  communion  :  it  has 
always  been  a  matter  of  special  favour  to  receive  such 
orders,  and  ought  only  to  be  conceded  for  very  urgent 
reasons.  But  if  the  usual  form  and  minister  of  ordi- 
nation appear  to  have  been  continued  in  sects,  and  thus 
the  external  part  of  ordination  has  been  regularly  ob- 
served, the  church  has  the  power  of  animating  this 
dead  form  with  the  inward  grace  of  the  divine  com- 
mission ;  or  of  removing  the  impediments  which  had  pre- 
vented that  grace  from  descending  :  for  this  case  being 
not  specially  provided  for  by  holy  scripture,  it  is  left  in 
the  power  of  the  church,  to  which  Jesus  Christ  himself 
said,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven :"  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they 
are  remitted,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are 
retained."  The  more  general  custom  of  the  church, 
however,  appears  to  have  been,  to  reordain  those  who 
had  been  ordained  in  open  heresy  or  schism. 

The  sixty-eighth  apostolical  canon  above  referred  to, 
and  which  is  received  as  the  law  of  the  eastern  church, 
permits  ordination  to  be  conferred  on  those  who  have 
only  been  ordained  by  heretics. 

The  synod  of  Saragossa  decreed  that  presbyters  who 
were  converted  from  the  Arian  heresy  to  the  holy 
catholic    church,    if   of   sound    faith    and    chaste    life, 

10 


4.3'2  On  Rcordhiatfons.  [fAKi  vi. 

"  should  at  length  receive  the  benediction  or  ordination 
of  priests,  and  minister  in  holiness  and  purity  "."    There 
is  a  reply  of  a  patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  Marty riiis, 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  a.  d.  460,  stating  that  the  practice 
of  the  church  of  Constantinople  was  to   reordain  those 
who  had  received  ordination  in  heresy ''.     About   767, 
Constantino  was  schismatically  elected  bishop  of  Rome, 
being  only  a  layman,  and  was  consecrated  after  having 
suddenly  received  the  orders  of  subdeacon  and  deacon. 
His  successor,  pope  Stephen,    convened    a   synod,  to 
which  the  king  of  France,  at  his  request,  sent  twelve 
learned  bishops ;  and   it  was  determined,  that  all  the 
bishops,  priests,  and   deacons  ordained  by  Constantine 
should  be  reordained  by  pope  Stephen,  if  again  elected 
by  their  respective  churches '.     Hincmar,  archbishop  of 
Rheims,  reordained  all  those  who  had  been  ordained  by 
Ebbo   a  former  archbishop  after  he  had  been  synodi- 
cally  deposed,  and  reduced  to  lay  communion.     This 
was  approved  by  a  great  council  of  Galilean  bishops, 
but  was  rejected  by  pope  Adrian  II.  on  appeals     For- 
mosus  having  been  made  bishop  of  Rome  contrary  to 
the  canons,  after  he  had  been  proved  guilty  of  various 
crimes,  and  deposed  ;   his   successor,  Stephen   VI.  re- 
ordained the  clergy  he  had  ordained  ^     The  council  of 
Constantinople    against  Photius   decreed,   that  having 
been  schismatically  ordained  he  was  not  a  bisho}) '.    On 

5  "  Placuit  sanctae  et  venera-  trare  debeant,"&c. — Cone.  Caesar 

bili   synodo,  ut  presbyteri  qui  ex  August,    ii.    c.    1.      Morinus   de 

haeresi  Ariana  ad  sanctam  catho-  Ordin.  p.  97. 
licam    ecclesiam    conversi    sunt,  ^  Morinus,  p.  98. 

qui  sanctam  et  puram  fidem,   at-  '  Ibid.  p.  91. 

que  castissimam  tenuerint  vitam,  •*  Ibid.  p.  88. 

acceptam    denuo    benedictionem  ^   Ibid.  p.  85. 

presbyterii  sancte  et  pure  minis-         '  Ibid.  p.  93. 


CHAP.  VI.]  Oti  Rear dinaf ions.  43-'} 

the  other  hand,  Photius  reordained'  those  whom  Ig- 
natius his  rival  had  ordained  after  his  deposal  "\  Leo 
IX.,  according  to  Peter  Damianus,  reordained  many 
who  had  been  simoniacally  ordained  ".  In  the  council 
of  Quedlinburg  under  Gregory  VII.,  the  ordinations  of 
Wecilo,  Sigefrid,  and  Norbert,  who  had  been  ordained 
simoniacally  and  heretically,  were  judged  to  be  entirely 
null  according  to  the  decrees  of  the  holy  fathers".  The 
nullity  of  such  orders  was  also  decreed  in  the  synod  of 
Placentia,  under  Urban  II.,  who  reordained  a  deacon 
ordained  by  Nezilo,  a  simoniacally  consecrated  bishop  p. 
Lucius  III.  reordained  the  clergy  of  Octavian  and 
other  antipopes  ^  Theodore  Balsamon,  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  in  his  reply  to  Marcus  of  Alexandria,  said, 
that  heretical  bishops  if  converted,  and  of  approved  life, 
should  ascend  by  the  accustomed  degrees  to  the  epis- 
copal office  'c  He  also  denies  the  validity  of  heretical 
orders  in  his  commentary  on  the  apostolic  canons,  as 
do  also  Zonaras  and  Aristccnus  \ 

It  is  evident  that  all  these  instances  concur  to  esta- 
1)1  ish  one  leading  principle,  that  the  church  is  not  bound 
to  recognize  orders  conferred  in  open  heresy  or  schism  ; 
and  that  reordinations  in  such  cases  are  not  forbidden. 
In  several  of  the  above  instances  indeed,  the  principle 
was  stretched  beyond  its  legitimate  limits ;  but  this 
does  not  affect  the  general  tendency  of  the  whole,  and 
it  is  impossible  to  explain  away  these  numerous  reordi- 
nations, into  mere  rehabilitations  or  licenses  for  ex- 
ercising orders. 


■"  Courayer,    Dissertation    sur         •*  Ibid.  p.  79 — 81. 

la  Validite''des  Ord.  Angl.  t.  ii.         "i  Ibid.  p.  76. 

p.  109.  '  Ibid.  p.  98. 

"  Morinus,  ut  supra,  p.  81.  ^   In    Canon    Apost.    Ixviii. — 

°  Ibid.  Beveregii  Pandect,  t.  i. 

VOL.  ir.  F  f 


404  On  Reordinations.  [part  vi. 

III.  The  rule  against  reordiimtions  does  not  apply 
where  there  are  uncertainties  and  doubts  affecting  the 
validity  of  an  ordination.     A  council  held  in  the  time 
of  Pepin,  king  of  France,  decreed,  that  "  ordinations  of 
presbyters    should    not    be    made    by   certain    vagrant 
bishops :  but   if  those  presbyters  were  good  men  they 
should  be  consecrated  again  V     The  synod  of  Cabilon 
says,  "  There  are  in  certain  places  Scoti  who  say  that 
they  are  bishops,  and  who  ordain  many  negligent  persons 
without  permission  of  their  lords  or  masters,  whose  or- 
dination, because  for  the  most  part  it  is  involved  in  the 
heresy  of  simony,  and  is  liable  to  many  errors,  we  have 
with  one  consent  decreed  by  all  means  to  be  annulled "." 
The   observations  of  Morinus  are  worthy  of  remark. 
"  We  must,"  he  says,  "  distinguish  between  a  certain 
and   a  dubious    administration  of  this  sacrament.     A 
custom  formerly  prevailed  in  the  church,  which  con- 
tinued for  nearly  twelve  hundred  years,  that  in  case 
any  doubt  arose  in  the  ministration  of  the  sacrament,  it 
was  forthwith  ministered  again  unconditionally,  whether 
the  doubt  affected  the  whole  sacrament,  as  when  it  was 
doubted  whether  any  one  was  baptized  or  ordained ;  or 
related  only  to  a  circumstance  of  the  sacrament  already 
administered.      For  the  axiom   was   most   commonly 
adopted,  '  Non  est  iteratum,  quod  eertis  indiciis  antea 
non  ostenditur  peractum.'     For  sacraments  are  of  such 
o-reat  moment,  especially  those  which  are  conferred  but 
once,  that  when  there  is  any  probable  doubt  that  they 
have  not  been  validly  received  or  delivered,  they  ought 
certainly  to  be  conferred   again   without  scruple,  lest 
through  our  hesitation  any  soul  which  Christ  redeemed 
should  perish.  .  .  .  The  crime  of  reordination  is  in  no 

'  Hallier,  De    Sacr.   Elect,    et  "  Ibid.  p.  829. 

Ordin.  p.  828. 


CHAP,  VI.]  Ofi  Beordi nations.  435 

degree  to  be  dreaded  in  this  ease,  since,  as  St.  Leo 
says,  *  the  temerity  of  presumption  does  not  intervene 
where  the  carefidness  of  piety  exists.'  The  same  custom 
continues  even  now,  but  that  repetition  which  was  for- 
merly absolute,  is  now  usually  performed  conditionally/  "" 
Of  this  we  have  examples  in  the  case  of  the  bishops  of 
Seez  and  Avellino,  mentioned  by  Le  Quien.  Du  Mouli- 
net,  bishop  of  Seez,  was  for  nearly  tliirty-six  years  in 
the  habit  of  giving  the  gospel,  chalice,  paten,  bread  and 
wine,  to  the  priests  and  deacons  whom  he  ordained,  by 
the  hands  of  his  assistant  priests,  and  not  with  his  own. 
These  ceremonies  did  not  affect  the  essence  of  ordi- 
nation;  nevertheless,  doubts  and  questions  having 
arisen  after  his  death  as  to  the  validity  of  these  orders, 
pope  Clement  VII.,  in  1604,  ordered  the  priests  and 
deacons  thus  ordained,  to  be  reordained  privately  and 
with  a  condition,  which  was  accordingly  done  ""'.  In 
1696,  a  similar  decree  was  made  by  the  pope  and  the 
'  congregation  of  the  holy  office,'  in  the  case  of  Mon- 
signor  Scanagata,  bishop  of  Avellino,  who  presented 
the  instruments  by  means  of  his  master  of  ceremonies  \ 
"  On  voit,"  says  Le  Quien,  "  par  ces  exemples,  et  par 
d'autres  semblables  qu'on  pourroit  ramasser,  que  sans 
s'arreter  aux  sentimens  des  theologiens,  en  fait  de  doute 
sur  la  validite  d'une  ordination,  on  prendra  toujours 
dans  I'eglise  le  parti  le  plus  sur ;  et  ce  parti  est  celui 
d'ordonner  de  nouveau  sous  condition  \" 

IV.  The  custoitis  of  the  church  of  England  prevent 
reordinations,  where  the  previous  ordination  has  been 
performed  in  the  church  ;  and  her  law,  contained  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Ordination   Service,  excepts  from  the 

"    Morinus  de  Ordin.  p.    109.  ^   Ibid.  p.  393,  &c. 

™  Le  Quien,  NuUitc   des  ord.  >'  Ibid.  p.  394. 

Ano-l.  t.  ii.  p.  388,  &c, 

Ff  2 


436  On  Reordinations.  [part  vi. 

necessity  of  ordination  according   to  that  form,  such 
persons  as  have  formerly  received  "episcopal  ordination," 
which  was  probably  meant  to  include  those  who  had 
formerly  been  ordained  in  these  churches  under  a  dif- 
ferent rite :  and  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that  it  was 
designed  to  include  those  who  might  receive  episcopal 
ordination   in   other  catholic  churches.     By  this  how- 
ever was  not  meant  any  episcopal  ordination,  (such  as 
that  conferred   by   the  bisho])S  of  Denmark,  or  of  the 
Methodists,  or  Moravians,  who  have  probably  no  valid 
orders  whatever),  but  a  valid  episcopal  ordination,  con- 
ferred with  a  sufficient  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer ; 
and  by  a  bishop  whose  own  ordination  is  in  no  degree 
doubtful.      It   has  even   been  the  custom  not   to   re- 
ordain  priests  ordained  among  the  papists  in  England 
and  Ireland,  on  their  conversion  to  the  church  :  but  it 
may  be  reasonably  doubted  whether  this  was  intended 
by  those  who  drew  up  the  preface  to  our  Ordinal :  such 
a  ease  not  having  then  arisen.     However,  as  I  have 
said,  the  church  was  authorized  to  confirm  these  ordi- 
nations, though  not  bound  to  do  so. 


tHAl\  VII,]  Impcdhiienh  to  Ordination.  487 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON    THE    S[JBJECTS    OF    ORDINATION. 

Of  impediments  to  ordination  on  the  part  of  the  reci- 
pient, some  only  render  it  irregular,  others  perhaps 
render  it  null.  ,   . 

I.  Those  who  are  manifestly  devoid  of  the  qualifi- 
cations required  by  the  apostles  and  the  church  in  the 
ministers  of  religion,  are  styled  irregular ;  and  this  in- 
capacity applies  to  the  following  cases.  (1)  Those 
persons  who  have  been  guilty  of  some  crime  or  offence 
injuring  their  fame,  voluntary  homicides,  simoniacs,  in- 
cendiaries of  churches,  diviners,  public  penitents,  &c. 
For  "  a  bishop  must  be  blameless ;"  must  "  have  a  good 
report  of  them  that  are  without."  "  A  deacon  must 
be  blameless  ^"  (2)  Illiterate  persons  :  for  a  bishop 
must  be  "  apt  to  teach ;"  holding  the  mystery  of  the 
faith  in  a  pure  conscience  ^  (3)  Neophytes  ordained 
immediately  after  baptism,  or  before  the  canonical  age, 
or  ordained  per  saltum^  or  without  examination.  "  Lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man  " :"  "  Not  a  novice  '\"  (4) 
Heretics,  excommunicated,  schismatics,  and  all  ordained 
by  such.  (5)  Those  deficient  in  mind  or  body,  as  lu- 
natics, demoniacs,  confirmed  epileptics,  those  mutilated 

"  1  Tim.  iii.  2.  7.  10.  ^   Ibid.  v.  22. 

^  Ibid.  2.  9.  ''   Ibid.  iii.  1(5. 


438  Ordinatiuns  icitfwut  Baptism.  [part  vi. 

by  their  own  will,  or  of  monstrous  form,  or  devoid  of 
bodily  organs  essential  to  the  ministry.  (6)  Those 
under  the  command  of  others,  and  unable  to  give  them- 
selves to  the  ministry,  as  civil  officers,  soldiers,  slaves, 
&c.  while  they  remain  such.  (7)  Those  ordained  by  a 
bishop  who  has  no  right  to  ordain  them,  or  by  a  bishoj? 
who  has  resigned  or  been  deprived.  (8)  Those  whose 
wives  are  of  an  evil  character  ^  There  are  other  cases 
of  irregularity  which  do  not  apply  to  our  present  dis- 
cipline; but  these  are  the  principal  impediments  which 
prevent  those  who  labour  under  them  from  being  or- 
dained canonically,  or  render  them  irregular. 

II.  We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  cases  in  which 
it  may  be  disputed  whether  ordination  is  not  null  and 
void. 

1.  Is  ordination  null  when  conferred  on  a  person 
unbaptized  ? 

This  is  a  question  of  great  difficulty,  and  much  may 
be  alleged  on  both  sides.  It  was  certainly  the  will  of 
our  Saviour  that  those  who  believed  should  be  bap- 
tized. It  is  equally  obvious,  that  none  except  believers 
w^ere  qualified  to  be  his  ministers,  and  as  St.  Paul  forbad 
even  those  newly  baptized  to  be  ordained,  how  much 
more  wotild  he  have  prohibited  those  who  were  not  yet 
engrafted  into  the  church  by  baptism.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  if  some  person  ordained  in  the  church,  is 
afterwards  discovered  by  himself  and  others  not  to  have 
been  baptized,  is  his  ordination  to  be  accounted  null 
and  void  ?  It  is  generally  admitted,  that  in  a  case  of 
necessity,  a  sincere  wish  to  receive  the  sacraments,  to- 
gether with  a  true  faith,  is  sufficient  to  produce  the 
effect  of  those  sacraments.     And  on  the  same  prin- 

'   1  Tim.  iii.  11. 


CHAP.  VII.]  Ordinations  '•'■  Per  Saltumy  439 

ciple  it  might  seem,  that  one  unbaptized,  though  igno- 
rant of  the  fact,  would  not  be  less  perfectly  a  disciple 
of  Christ  than  those  baptized,  and  therefore  not  less 
qualified  for  ordination,  provided  that  he  were  in  all 
other  respects  a  christian.  To  this  it  may  be  added, 
that  in  the  supposed  case,  the  person  unbaptized  would 
have  been  admitted  frequently  to  partake  of  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist ;  and  this  might 
furnish  another  probability,  that  he  was  invested  with 
the  privileges  of  those  initiated  by  the  sacrament  of  re- 
generation. Dionysius  of  Alexandria  was  afraid  to 
baptize  a  man  who  had  only  heretical  baptism,  but  who 
had  often  partaken  of  the  eucharist  \  It  seems  from 
this  probable,  I  think,  that  such  an  ordination  is  not 
null.  But  piety  would  enjoin  the  reception  of  baptism 
privately;  and  if  the  case  were  publicly  known  and 
caused  scandal,  it  would  be  adviseable  to  reordain  con- 
ditionally. 

2.  Are  ordinations  conferred  ^^  per  salturn^''  passing 
over  the  immediate  orders,  null  ? 

The  practice  of  the  church  in  primitive  times  is  in 
favour  of  their  validity.  Even  in  the  particular  church 
of  Rome,  the  bishops  seem  frequently  to  have  been 
elected  from  among  the  deacons,  and  ordained  per 
saltiim  ^.  The  principle  on  which  this  is  justified  is,  that 
the  episcopate  comprises  virtually  all  other  orders  in 
itself.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  the  episcopate  is 
an  extension  of  the  presbyterate,  or  rather  a  jurisdiction 
than  a  new  order,  still  in  conferring  it,  the  presbyterate 
is  included,  because  the  latter  is  essential  to  the  former. 
Such  seems  to  be  the  more  probable  opinion,  though 


^  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.  lib.   vii.         ^  See  Courayer,  Defense  de  la 
c.  9.  Dissertation,  liv.  iv.  c.  x. 


440  On  the  Sacrament  of  Ordination.  [part  vi. 

many  theologians  have  held  that  the  episcopate  con- 
ferred per  saltum  is  invalid.  This  was  generally  the 
doctrine  of  the  schoolmen  :  it  was  maintained  after- 
wards by  Mason ''  and  Field ',  and  by  Bellarmine  \ 
Vasquez ',  Gamache  "',  Kellison ",  Hallier  °,  &c.  These 
writers  speak  as  if  there  was  no  donbt  on  the  subject, 
and  as  if  all  theologians  admitted  their  doctrine.  No 
one  however  disputes  that  according  to  the  canons, 
sacred  orders  should  be  conferred  only  gradually  and 
with  the  usual  intervals. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON    THE    SACRAMENT    OF    ORDINATION. 

We  are  first  to  consider  what  is  the  esser.tial  form  or 
rite  of  ordination ;  secondly,  how  far  this  rite  may  be 
lawfully  regarded  as  a  sacrament. 

I.  It  has  been  elsewhere "  shown  from  the  scrip- 
tures, the  councils,  the  doctrine  of  the  reformation, 
&c.  that  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  are  the 
only  essential  rites  of  ordination.  No  other  rites 
are  mentioned  in  Scripture  at  the  ordination  of  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  it  may  be 
reasonably  concluded  that  these  alone  are  essential. 

'■  Mason,   De  Min.  Angl.  De-  bitatum  esse  video  apud  omnes." 

dicatio  ad  Ep.  Paris.  "'  Gamachaeus,  Summa  Theo- 

'  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book  i.  logica,  t.  ii.  p.  683. 

c.  39.  "  Kelh'son,    Comment,   in  iii. 

^  Bellarmin.  De  Sacr.  Ordinis,  part.  S.  Thomse,  t.  ii.  p.  398. 

lib.  i.  c.  5.  o  Plallier.  De  Ordin.  p.  392. 

'  Vasquez,  in  iii.  part.  S.  Tho-  ed.  1636. 

mae,  p.  738.  771.  ed.  1614.    He  -  Part  I.  chapter  viii. 
says  of  this  doctrine,  "  hoc  indu- 


CHAP.  VIII.]  On  the  Sacrament  of  Ordination.  441 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  ancient  ordinals  of  the  church  ; 
for  Moriniis  and  others  have  shown,  that  they  do  not 
comprise  the  forms  of  delivering  the  instruments,  which 
many  of  the  schoolmen  regarded  as  the  essential  rite 
of  ordination,  but  only  the  laying  on  of  hands  and 
prayer  ^ 

II.  The  rite  of  ordination  is  not  "a  sacrament  of 
the  gospel ',"  nor  is  it  one  of  those  "  generally  neces- 
sary to  salvation  '' ;"  but  since  "  the  common  descrip- 
tion of  a  sacrament"  is,  "  that  it  is  a  visible  sign  of  an 
invisible  grace ;"  and  since  "  in  a  general  acceptation 
the  name  of  a  sacrament  may  be  attributed  to  any- 
thing whereby  an  holy  thing  is  signified  ^ ;"  since  God 
"  of  His  divine  providence  hath  appointed  divers  orders 
in  His  church  ^ ;"  since  those  who  are  ordained  bishops 
and  presbyters,  are  "by  the  Holy  Ghost  made  over- 
seers to  feed  the  church  of  God  ® :"  since  God  Himself 
gives  to  us  such  "  pastors  and  teachers  ^ ;"  since  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  divine  grace  promotes  those  who  are  duly 
ordained  to  the  oflftce  of  the  ministry ;  and  since  this 
divine  grace  or  commission  is  believed  to  be  only  given 
perfectly  to  those  lawfully  ordained,  when  they  are 
actually  ordained ;  the  rite  of  ordination  is  "  a  visible 
sign  of  an  invisible  grace,"  and  thus  may  reasonably 
be  considered  as  a  sacrament  of  the  church.  In  fact 
the  homilies  of  the  church  of  England  style  it  a  sacra- 
ment, even  while  establishing  a  distinction  between  it 
and  the  two  great  sacraments  of  the  gospel.     "  Though 

^  Morinus   de  Ordin.  pars   iii.  "^  Article  XXV. 

exerc.  ii.  c.  1.  observes  that  the  ^  Catechism, 

ancient  rite  of  laying  the  Gospel  '^  Homily  on  Common  Prayer 

on  the  head  of  the  bishop,  was  and  Sacraments, 

not  practised  at  Alexandria,  nor  *  Collect  for  Ember  days, 

in   some   churches   of  Gaul  -and  ^  Acts  xx.  28. 

Germany,   and  probably  not   in  ^  Ephes.  iv.  11. 
the  Roman  church  originally. 


442  On  the  Sacrament  of  Ordination.  [part  vi. 

the  ordering  of  ministers  hath  this  visible  sign  or  pro- 
mise, yet  it  lacks  the  promise  of  remission  of  sin,  as 
all  other  sacraments  besides  the  two  above  named  do. 
Therefore  neither  it,  nor  any  sacrament  else,  be  such 
sacraments  as  baptism  and  the  communion  are'." 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Leo,  Gregory,  &c.  style  it  a  sacra- 
ment ^  Calvin  also  regards  it  as  a  sacrament  \  The 
apology  of  the  confession  of  Augsburgh  says  that  if 
"  order  be  understood  of  the  ministry  of  the  word,  we 
should  without  scruple  have  called  it  a  sacrament. 
For  the  ministry  of  the  word  hath  the  commandment 
of  God,  and  possesses  glorious  promises.  If  order  be 
thus  understood,  we  should  not  object  to  call  the  im- 
position of  hands  a  sacrament  "\"  The  learned  arch- 
deacon Mason  regarded  order  as  in  a  certain  sense  a 
sacrament ". 

As  bishop  Taylor  says,  "it  is  none  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  church  of  England  that  there  are  two  sacraments 
only;  but  that  of  those  rituals  commanded  in  scrip- 
ture, which  the  ecclesiastical  use  calls  sacraments  (by  a 
word  of  art,)  two  only  are  generally  necessary  to  salva- 
tion °."  Archbishop  Seeker  says,  "  as  the  word  sacra- 
ment is  not  a  scripture  one,  and  hath  at  different  times 


'  Homily  on   Common  Prayer  Inst.  lib.  iv.  c.  xix.  art.  31. 

and  Sacraments,  part  i.  '"  Apologia  Confess.  VII.  De 

^  Hieron.  lib.    cont.    Vigilant,  numero  et  usu  sacrament, 

p.  281;  Augustin.   lib.  ii.    cont.  °   "Si    sacramenti   vocabulum 

Parmen.    c.  xiii.    t.   ix.    p.    45  ;  ad   quodvis  externum    signum  a 

Leo,    Epist.     xi.    al.    Ixxxi.    ad  Deo  institutum,  cui  divinse  gratise 

Dioscorum,   c.  i.    t.   i.  p.   436  ;  promissio    annectitur,    extenda- 

Gregor.    Mag.    lib.   iv.    in    Libr.  mus,   sacrum  ordinem  dici  posse 

Regum,  c.  v.  t.  iii.  p.  228.  unacum  Sancto  Augustino  etaliis 

'     "  Superest    impositio     ma-  agnoscimus." — Mason,    De  Min. 

nuum,   quam   ut  in   veris  legiti-  Angl.  p.  48.  ed  1638. 

misque  ordinationibus  sacramen-  "  Taylor's  Dissuasive,   p.  240. 

tum    esse     concedo,     ita     nego  ed.  Cardwell. 
locum   habere  in  liac  fabula." — 


CHAP.  VII  I.J  On  tite  Sacrcmient  of  Ordination.  443 

been  differently  understood  ;  our  catechism  doth  not 
require  it  to  be  said  absolutely,  that  the  sacraments 
are  tioo  only  ;  but  tivo  only  necessary  to  salvation  :  leav- 
ing persons  at  liberty  to  comprehend  more  things 
under  the  name,  if  they  please,  provided  they  insist 
not  on  the  necessity  of  them,  and  of  dignifying  them 
with  this  title ''."  And  accordingly  we  find  the  homi- 
lies speaking  of  "  the  sacrament  of  matrimony  \'"  and 
acknowledging  several  other  sacraments  besides  those 
of  baptism  and  the  eucharist  \  Cranmer,  in  his  cate- 
chism, considers  absolution  a  sacrament '.  The  confes- 
sion of  Augsburgh  and  its  Apology,  hold  the  same 
view  \  and  the  latter  adds  matrimony  ".  In  short  it  is 
]>lain  that  the  Reformation,  in  avoiding  the  error  of 
arbitrarily  defining  the  doctrine  of  seveti  sacraments, 
did  not  fall  into  the  mistake  of  limiting  the  use  of 
this  term  to  two  rites  only,  which  would  have  ill 
accorded  with  the  ancient  custom  of  the  church 
generally. 

If  it  be  objected  that  Romanists  have  abused  the 
term  sacrament  as  applied  to  ordination,  and  therefore 
that  we  ought  not  to  employ  it,  I  reply  with  Cyprian, 
"  Quid  ergo  ?  quia  et  honorem  cathedrse  sacerdotalis 
Novatianus  usurpat,  num  idcirco  nos  cathedrae  renun- 
ciare  debemus  ?  Aut  quia  Novatianus  altare  collocare, 
et  sacrificia  offerre  contra  jus  nititur ;  ab  altari  et 
sacrificiis  cessare  nos  oportet,  ne  paria  et  similia  cum 
illo  celebrare  videamur "  ?" 

f  Seeker's  Lectures,   xxxv.  Of  p.  131. 
Baptism.  '  Confess.  August.  Art.  11. 12. 

1  Sermon  on  Swearing,  part  i.  22.  Apol.    Confess,   cap.  de   nu. 

'   On     Common    Prayer    and  et  usu  Sacr.  ad  art.  13. 
Sacraments,  part  i.     See  above,         "  Ibid. 
Vol.  I.  p.  510.  "  Cypr.  Epist.    ad  Jubaian.  de 

*  Burnet,  Hist.    Ref.    vol.  ii.  Hseret.  rebapt. 


441  On  the  Celihaaj  of  the  Clertjy.  [part  vi. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON  THE  CELIBACY  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

This  subject  involves  two  questions :  first,  the  autho- 
rity by  which  the  law  of  celibacy  was  instituted ; 
secondly,  the  extent  of  its  obligation. 

I.  It  is  conceded  generally  by  Roman  theologians, 
that  the  law  of  celibacy  was  not  of  divine  but  of 
ecclesiastical  institution '".  The  western  churches,  ac- 
tuated by  a  pure  and  laudable  desire  that  tlie  ministers 
of  Jesus  Christ  should  "  give  themselves  wholly'"  to 
their  sacred  office,  required  that  none  of  their  clergy 
should  be  engaged  in  the  cares  of  the  married  state. 
This  regulation  was  made  by  many  councils  in  the 
fourth  and  following  centuries,  at  Eliberis,  Carthage, 
Toledo,  Turin,  Orange,  Tours,  &c.  and  by  Siricius  and 
other  bishops  of  Rome  ^     The  eastern  churches  have 

^  Field,   Of  the  Church,  b.  v.  ...    Dicendum    cum    comniuni 

c.    57-      "  Communis    theologo-  doctorum     (praeciso    voto),     non 

rum,  quos  longo  ordiiie  appellat  esse  de  jure  divino,  sed   tantum 

Vasquez  in  tertiamj)artem  disput.  ecclesiastico,  quod  ministri  ordi- 

248.   c.  3.  opinio,  existimat  lege  nati  in  sacris  obligentur  ad  casti- 

dumtaxat     ecclesiastica     injunc-  tatem."  —  A.     M.     De     Ligorio, 

tarn  esse  majoribus   clericis  per-  Theologia  Moralis  lib.  vi.  tract, 

petuam  continentiam. "    Tourne-  v.  art.  807. 
ly,  De    Sacr.    Ordinis,    p.   G76.  ^   Thomassin.     Vet.    et   Nov. 

"  Qua^ritur  I.  An  hajc  obligatio  Eccl.  Discipl.   t.  i.  lib.  ii.  c.  61. 

coelibatus  sit  de  jure  divino,  ita  Tournely,  De  Ordin,  p.  65G,  &c. 
ut  Papa  nequeat  in  ea  dispensare. 


CHAP.  IX.]  On  the  Cehhacy  of  tlie  Clergy.  445 

always  permitted  priests  and  deacons  to  continue  in 
the  married  state  even  to  the  present  day,  though  they 
prohibit  marriage  after  ordination,  and  enjoined  ceH- 
bacy  on  bishops  in  the  council  in  Trullo,  a.d.  692  ". 

From  these  facts  it  is  plain,  that  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy  was  not  imposed  by  any  law  of  the  unimrsal 
church,  and  therefore  that  it  may  be  lawfully  dispensed 
with  by  particular  churches. 

II.  The  western  churches  did  not  exceed  their  power 
in  requiring  their  ministers  to  observe  celibacy  ;  for  in 
case  of  marriage  they  only  deprived  them  of  the  minis- 
try, but  did  not  declare  their  marriage  invalid,  or 
resort  to  any  means  of  dissolving  it.  If  any  one 
undertook  the  sacred  office,  he  knew  the  conditions  on 
which  it  was  given,  and  if  he  transgressed  them  he 
merely  lost  his  ministry.  This  did  not  impose  an  un- 
lawful burden  on  the  conscience.     The  injunction  and 

admonition  of  holy  scripture,  Aid  Vi.  raq  Tropvuag  eKaarog 
T?]i'  iavTOv  yvvaiKa   f^trw  %    and  K^eiaaov  yap  ecrrt  yaf-ii^crni, 

1]  TTvpouaOai  %  might  still  be  followed. 

But  in  later  ages,  when  the  discipline  of  the  western 
churches  relaxed,  and  married  clergy  were  found  in 
numbers  in  Germany,  England,  Sweden,  &c. ;  Gregory 
the  seventh,  and  the  following  bishops  of  Rome,  enfor- 
ced again  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  by  regulations  of 
an  unjustifiable  severity  ;  for  under  their  direction,  the 
councils  of  Rheims  and  Lateran  in  1148  and  1176, 
decreed  that  married  clergy  should  be  separated  by 
force  from  their  wives,   and  that  such  marriages  should 

"  Ibid.  c.   60.  63.     vSmith   on  Ordin.  p.  649. 
the   Greek  Church,   p.  91.     The         "  Ibid.  61.   n.   2.     Tournely, 

Greek   custom  of  aUowing  mar-  De  Ordin.  p.  665. 
ried  clergy  hs^s  never  formed  any  '^  1  Cor.  vii.  2. 

obstacle  to   their  union  with  the         "  Verse  9. 
Roman    church. — Tournely,   De 


446  On  the  Celihacij  of  the.  Clerr/y.  [part  vi. 

be  held  null  and  void  '.  In  addition  to  this,  severe 
penalties  were  imposed  by  law  on  those  who  trans- 
gressed this  regidation.  These  proceedings  were  founded 
on  the  mistaken  opinion  held  by  many  in  those  ages, 
that  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  was  enjoined  by  God, 
and  that  their  marriage  was  consequently  a  sin. 

If,  under  these  circumstances,  men,  through  a  mis- 
taken confidence  in  their  own  gifts,  or  of  the  aid  of 
divine  grace,  undertook  the  office  of  the  ministry,  and 
discovered  afterwards  their  error,  they  could  not  be 
bound  in  conscience  by  these  laws  introduced  by  the 
Roman  pontiffs  ;  because  the  superior  law  of  scripture 
already  adverted  to,  dissolved  their  obligation  ;  and 
since  the  severity  of  the  existing  Roman  laws  refused 
to  tolerate  marriages,  which  in  such  cases  were  sanc- 
tioned by  scripture  itself,  those  clergy  who  adopted  so 
justifiable  a  proceeding,  were  most  fully  entitled  not  to 
publish  circumstances  which  might  deprive  them  of 
their  christian  liberty  and  privilege.  Had  the  penal- 
ties against  the  marriage  of  clergy  merely  amounted  to 
deposition  from  the  ministry,  those  marriages  ought  to 
have  been  avowed  and  the  penalty  incurred;  but  when 
the  penalties  amounted  to  annulling  their  marriages 
and  separation,  under  pain  of  excommunication  and 
even  death  %  the  case  was  totally  different.  I  admit 
that  no  good  man  ought  to  have  undertaken  the  minis- 
try under  such  circumstances,  unless  persuaded  of  his 
fitness,  through  divine  grace,  to  fulfil  its  conditions  ;  but 
if  he  found  himself  mistaken,  he  could  not  be  bound  to 
risk  his  salvation  in  the  attempt. 

*  Thomassin.    t.   i.    lib.   ii.    c.  sacerdotes  contra  canonum  volun- 

04,  G5.  tatem,  nullam  aliam  ob  causam, 

s  The  Confession  of  Augsburgh  nisi   propter   conjugium." — Pars 

complains  :     "  nunc    capitalibus  ii.  art.  2. 
poenis   excruciantur   et    quidem 


CHAP.  IX.]  On  the  Celibacy  of  the  Clerr/y.  447 

III.  It  may  bo  alleged  tliat,  at  all  evontfj,  the  mar- 
riag-e  of  clergy  after  ordinatiou,  is  generally  prohibited 
by  the  ancient  canons,  and  therefore  that  it  can  never 
be  lawful. 

I  reply  that  this  prohibition  was  merely  founded  on 
prudential  motives  ;  and  that  the  universal  church  did 
not  really  believe  that  marriage  after  ordination  was 
more  to  be  condemned  than  continumice  in  the  married 
state  contracted  previously.  The  council  of  Ancyra 
gave  permission  to  deacons  to  marry  afterwards,  if  at 
the  time  of  receiving  orders  they  professed  their  inten- 
tion of  so  doing  ''.  The  western  church  forbad  the  mar- 
ried state  equally,  and  with  the  same  penalties,  whether 
contracted  before  or  after  ordination '.  Their  objection 
was  not  to  the  time  at  which  it  was  contracted,  but  to 
the  state  itself.  Therefore  since  the  eastern  church  held 
that  there  was  nothing  imlawful  in  continuing  in  the 
state  of  matrimony  after  ordination,  while  the  western 
held  that  there  was  no  greater  fault  in  contractimj 
marriage  after  ordination,  we  may  fairly  draw  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  universal  church  never  condemned 
marriage  after  ordination. 

IV.  The  case  of  second  marriages  comes  next  under 
our  consideration.  According  to  the  ancient  canons,  a 
"  digamus,"  or  one  who  had  married  twice  after  bap- 
tism, could  not  be  ordained  ^ :  but  this  arose  from  the 
opinion  very  common  in  those  ages,  that  second  mar- 
riages were  inconsistent  with  christian  perfection.  By 
the  canons,  those  of  the  laity  who  married  twice  were 

^  Concil.  Ancyr.  can.  x.  t.  i.  lib.  ii.  c.  61.  n.  2.     See  also 

'   "  In    occidente   non    magni  c.  02.  n.  2. 
penclebant,  ante  vel  post  ordina-  ^  Canon  iv.  Apostol.  iv.    Car- 

tionem  initum  fuisset  conjugium  ;  thag.  c.  69.     On  this  subject  see 

perinde  uxoribus  abstinere  majo-  Field,     Of    the     Church,     b.    v. 

res  clerici  cogebantur."  Thomass.  c.  58. 

10 


448  On  the  Celihacij  of  the  Clergy.  [part  vi. 

subjected  to  penance  ;  and  the  clergy  were  forl)idden 
to  attend  at  their  weddins:  feasts  '.  S.  Jerome  remarks 
that  even  the  pagan  priests  were  not  permitted  to 
marry  a  second  time "'.  Therefore  it  appears  that  in 
those  ages  second  marriages  caused  scandal  ;  but  such 
opinions  having  become  obsolete  in  the  universal 
church  many  ages  since,  it  does  not  seem  that  there 
can  be  any  necessity  for  adhering  to  a  discipline,  the 
reason  of  which  has  ceased.  And  with  regard  to  second 
marriages,  even  after  ordination,  the  same  reasons 
which  would  justify  one  marriage  would  justify  a 
second. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  purity  and  sanctity  of  the  christian  sacra- 
ments require  holy  ministers.  The  greatness  of  the 
ministerial  office  requires  the  whole  man,  as  the  apos- 
tle says,  "  No  man  that  warreth  entangleth  himself 
with  the  things  of  this  life  "."  The  faithful  married 
may  remain  apart  "  with  consent  for  a  time,  to  give 
themselves  to  j)rayer  and  fasting "."  Therefore  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  who  are  to  be  always  engaged  in 
prayer  ought  to  remain  in  celibacy.  If  the  priests  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  required  to  be  abstinent 
during  their  ministration,  how  much  more  ought  the 
priests  of  the  New  Law  who  are  always  ministering  at 
the  sacred  altar.  Since  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin 
mother,  and  was  himself  unmarried,  it  is  fit  that  those 
by  whom  his  body  is  handled  in  the  eucharist  should 
be  perpetually  abstinent. 

Answer.  One  reply  is  sufficient  for  all   these  argu- 

'  Neocaesarea,  c.  7.    Laodicen.     Jovinian. 
1 .  Ancyr.  "  2  Tim.  ii.  4. 

""    Hieronymus,    lib.    i.    adv.         "1  Cor.  vii.  5. 


OBJECT.]  On  the  Cdibacy  of  the  Clergy.  449 

.ments.  The  presbyters  of  the  eastern  churches,  who 
are  equally  ministers  of  the  sacraments,  and  no  less 
honoured  with  the  sacerdotal  office  than  the  Latins, 
have  always,  from  the  beginning,  with  the  approbation 
of  the  whole  catholic  church,  lived  in  the  state  of 
matrimony. 

II.  God  will  not  fail  to  bestow  His  gifts  on  those 
who  call  on  Him  aright.  "  He  will  with  the  tempta- 
tion also  make  a  way  to  escape,  that  they  may  be  able 
to  bear  it  p." 

Answer.  God  having  left  men  free,  and  allowed  the 
remedy  of  marriage,  He  cannot  reasonably  be  expected 
to  give  other  assistance.  Therefore  to  maintain,  that 
those  priests,  who,  through  a  venial  error,  have  sub- 
jected themselves  to  this  difficulty,  have  no  resource 
except  in  prayer  to  God,  and  fasting,  &c.  '',  is  to  afford 
them  no  sufficient  remedy. 

HI.  A  vow  of  celibacy  was  taken  by  every  person  who 
received  sacred  orders  in  the  Latin  church ;  therefore 
those  who  married  after  ordination  were  perjured. 

Ansivei'.  In  England,  at  least,  there  was  no  such 
promise   of  celibacy  as    there   may   have   been    else- 

1'  1  Cor.  X.  13.  gustata  ;    candelae    ardentis    ap- 

"^  The  remedies  recommended  proximatio  dolorifica ;  in  hyeme 

by  Eusebius  Amort,  are   prayer,  palmarum  ad  gelida  corpora,  v.  g, 

mortification,       caution,      &c. —  murum,  ferrum,  marmora,  nives, 

Amongst     mortifications    he    in-  aquas   frigidas   diuturna  applica- 

cludes,  "  ciliciorum  aliquoties  per  tio,    praesertim   in  actuali    effer- 

hebdomadam  usus  ;  flagellationes  vescentia  carnis  ;    pedibus  itine- 

in   tempore    fortioris    tentationis  ratio  molesta;  frigoris  vel  asstus 

aut  lapsus  ;  cubatio  in  sacco  stra-  molesta    perpessio  ;    per    labores 

mineo,  vel  assere  ;   somni  ad  sex  fatigatio,    v.   g.  per   scriptionem, 

aut  septem  boras  limitatio  ;  ex-  instructionem,     opera    manualia, 

tensis  brachiis  oratio  ;   recreatio-  &c." — Theologia    Eclect.    Mor. 

num  alias  acceptarum  v.  g.  lusus,  et  Scliol.   t.  xviii.  p.  177.     It  is 

cpulationis,   confabulationis,    &c.  not  every  one  that  could   main- 

devitatio ;     cerae    liquefactae     in  tain     this    sort   of    mortification 

partem   aliquam   corporis   afFusio  continually. 

VOL.   11.  G    g 


450  English  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

where ' :  but  it  is  disputed  even  now  among  Roman 
theologians  whether  there  is  any  obligation  to  celibacy 
from  any  vow.  Ligorio  says,  "  An  hsec  obligatio  sit 
immediate  ex  prsecepto  ecclesise,  vel  mediate  per  votum 
ordinatorum  ?  Utraque  est  probabilis  ex  eodem  cap. 
'9,  Trident.  Prima  sententia,  quam  tenent  Mastrius, 
Bosco,  Herinx,  &c.  apud  Holzmann,  p.  268,  n.  103, 
ac  Scotus,  Palaus,  Valent.  et  A  versa,  ajDud  Salmant. 
cap.  6,  n,  28,  (qui  cum  Sanchez  merito  probabilem 
putant)  dicit,  quod  non  ex  voto,  sed  ex  sola  ecclesise 
lege  ordinati  in  sacris  teneantur  ad  castitatem  '." 


CHAPTER  X. 

ON  THE  VALIDITY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  ORDINATIONS. 

Amongst  the  various  deceptive  arguments  by  which 
the  ministers  of  the  Romish  schism  have  endeavoured 
to  pervert  the  weak  from  the  communion  of  the 
church,  there  is  not  one  which  has  been  urged  with  such 
unwearied  assiduity,  art,  and  audacity,  as  that  which 
affects  the  validity  of  the  English  ordinations.  It  has 
been  since  the  origin  of  the  schism,  the  most  popular 
of  their  devices  to  represent  the  uncertainty  of  our 
ministry,  as  contrasted  with  the  assumed  certainty  of 
their  own,  and  thence  to  argue  the  necessity  of  taking  the 
"  safer"  side.  Thus  Lewgar,  in  the  preface  of  his  book, 
entitled  "  Erastus  Senior,"  says,  "  the  intent  of  this 
treatise  is  only  of  my  charity  to  my  friends  and  coun- 
trymen of  the  Protestant  profession,  to  show  them  this 

■■  Burnet,    Reformation,   t.    ii.         ^  Ligorio,    Theologia  Moralis, 
p.  170.  ed.  1816.  lib.  vi.  tract,  v.   art.  808. 


CHAP.  X.]  Eiu/Iish  Ordinations.  451 

great  defect  in  tlieir  church,  the  want  of  bishops, 
thereby  to  invite  them  into  ours,  which  (even  by  the 
confession  of  her  adversaries)  wants  them  not.  And 
the  intent  of  this  preface  is  only  to  note  to  them  the 
greatness  of  this  defect  in  their  church  from  the 
hideous  consequences  of  it ;"  which  he  concludes  to  be, 
amongst  other  things,  that  the  church  of  England  is  no 
true  church ;  that  salvation  cannot  be  had  in  it ;  that  its 
members  can  have  no  saving  faith;  that  the  clergy  can- 
not administer  the  sacraments,  &c.;  and  that  whenever 
they  attempt  to  do  so,  they  and  their  people  are  in- 
volved in  sacrilege.  Dr.  Humphry  Prideaux  says,  that 
in  the  time  of  James  II.  the  Romish  emissaries  made 
use  of  scarcely  any  other  arguments'":  and  Pere  Le 
Quien  discloses  the  annoyance  Mhich  was  felt  at  Cou- 
rayer's  writing  in  defence  of  our  orders,  interposing  "  an 
obstacle  to  the  conversion  of  many  English,  on  whom 
the  defect  of  succession  in  their  prelates  makes  its  due 
impression,  in  leading  them  to  renounce  schism  and 
heresy,  and  place  themselves  under  the  legitimate  di- 
rection and  authority  of  the  pastors  of  the  catholic 
church  ^"  According  to  him,  M.  Le  Courayer  "  ought 
himself  to  have  feared  this  inconvenience,  which  might 
render  him  responsible  before  God  for  the  loss  of  those 
whose  conversion  has  been  arrested  by  his  book."  The 
"  Protestants,"  he  says,  "  are  enchanted  that  a  priest  of 
the  catholic  church  should  thwart  the  success  of  the 


*  Prideaux,    Validity    of    the  cially  M.  Courayer's  Dissertation 

Orders  of  the  Church  of  England,  sur  la  Validite  des  Ordin.  Angl.; 

1688.    Preface.        Amongst    the  his    Defense  de  la   Dissertation, 

principal  works  on  the    validity  and  Supplement ;  Bishop  Elring- 

of  the   English   ordinations,  are  ton's  Validity  of  English  Ordi- 

Mason,  De  Ministerio  Angl.,  the  nations. 

works  of  Bramhall  and    Burnet         ''  Le  Quien,  Nullite  des  Ord. 

on  English  ordinations,  and  espe-  Angl,  pref.  p.  Ixiii. 

G  g  2 


452  English  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

zeal  of  our  missionaries.  There  are  in  Paris  a  good 
number  of  catholics  of  the  English  nation,  able  and 
judicious  men,  who  would  have  better  advised  him," 

Courayer's  works,  notwithstanding  the  obloquy  which 
their  author  endured,  could  not  fail  to  make  a  great 
impression  even  on  Romanists  ;  and  we  do  not  often 
see  the  old  fabrications  of  the  Nag's  Head  Ordination, 
and  such  other  tales,  now  advanced.  Indeed  the  ground 
of  invalidity,  except  on  certain  questions  affecting  the 
form  of  our  ordinations,  seems  little  resorted  to  by 
writers  of  respectability ;  and  the  chief  objections  are 
deduced  from  supposed  schism  and  breach  of  the 
canons. 

The  objections  against  the  validity  of  the  English  or- 
dinations have  been  almost  exclusively  devised  and 
employed  by  the  Romanists  of  England  and  Ireland ; 
who  having  revolted  from  their  own  churches,  resorted 
to  every  imaginable  expedient  to  establish  their  new 
community,  per  fas  et  nefas,  on  the  ruins  of  the  church 
of  Christ.  The  ckurches  of  the  Roman  communion  were 
in  part  deceived  by  the  artifices  and  falsehoods  of  these 
men ;  but  notwithstanding  the  errors  and  prejudice 
which  they  created,  many  theologians  of  that  com- 
munion were  fully  persuaded  that  our  ordinations  were 
valid. 

The  judgment  of  one  man,  whom,  notwithstanding 
some  faults,  and  some  injustice  to  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, we  cannot  but  acknowledge  to  have  been  a  great 
and  illustrious  prelate,  Bossuet,  is  in  itself  worth  that 
of  a  host  of  minor  theologians.  He  wrote  to  the 
learned  Benedictine,  Mabillon,  in  1685,  in  the  following 

'  Ibid.  p.  Ixv. 


CHAP.  X.]  EnglisJi  Ordinations.  453 

terms :  "  As  to  the  affair  of  England,  besides  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  first  bishops,  authors  of  the  schism,  there  is 
another  considerable  difficulty  concerning  the  time  of 
Cromwell,  when  it  is  pretended  that  the  succession  was 
interrupted.  The  English  maintain  that  it  was  not : 
and  as  for  the  succession  at  the  beginning  of  the  schism, 
they  maintain  that  there  is  no  difficulty  then,  and  it 
seems  that  in  this  they  are  right  '^."  And  his  opinion 
continued  to  be  the  same  afterwards,  for  M.  Riberolles, 
abbot  of  St.  Genevieve,  has  given  his  solemn  attes- 
tation, that  about  1690,  on  occasion  of  the  conversion 
of  M.  Papin,  who  had  received  English  ordination, 
the  judgment  of  this  learned  prelate  was,  "  that  if  they 
could  well  prove  that  the  succession  of  the  episcopate 
had  been  continued  under  Cromwell,  and  not  inter- 
rupted, (a  fact  which  he  then  doubted),  their  ordinations 
were  valid  ;  and  that  in  case  of  the  reunion  of  that 
church  to  the  catholic  church,  their  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  would  not  have  need  of  reordination  ;  ad- 
ding, in  addressing  himself  to  me,  that  the  succession 
being  supposed,  the  Sieur  Papin  was  as  validly  a  priest 
as  myself,  and  their  bishops  as  validly  bishops  as  he 
was.  In  a  word,  this  prelate  never  made  the  question 
of  the  validity  of  their  ordinations  depend  on  any  thing, 
but  the  proof  of  the  succession  in  the  time  of  Crom- 
well*." We  have  further  the  attestation  of  M.  Cal- 
daguez,  precentor  of  Montferrand,  that  in  1699  Bossuet 
said  in  his  presence,  "  that  if  God  should  give  grace  to 
the  English  to  renounce  their  errors  and  their  schism, 
their  clergy  would  need  nothing  except  to  be  reconciled 
to  the  church  and  rehabilitated ;  and  he  added  that  he 

"*  Courayer,    Dissert,    sur    la         ^    Courayer,    Defense    de    la 
Valid,  des  Ord.  Angl. — Preuves     Dissert.  Preuves  Justif.  §  1. 
Justif.  art.  i. 

12 


454  English  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

had  expressed  himself  in  this  manner  before  the  king  V 
It  is  therefore  in  vain  that  Pere  Le  Quien  ^  adduces  his 
answer  to  M.  Le  Grand,  who  asked  his  opinion,  whe- 
ther in  writing  against  Burnet,  he  should  style  him 
bishop  of  Salisbury.  "  We  know  not  that  bishopric," 
said  Bossuet :  not  denying  the  vaUdity  of  the  English 
orders,  but  not  acknowledging  the  bishop  of  Salisbury 
as  of  the  Roman  communion. 

The  testimony  of  Petrus  Valesius,  or  Walsh,  a 
learned  Franciscan,  is  also  of  value  from  the  strength 
of  its  tone,  and  its  allusion  to  the  opinions  of  others  in 
the  Roman  communion.  "  Were  I  to  deliver  my 
opinion  of  that  matter,"  he  says,  "or  were  it  to  my 
purpose  to  speak  thereof,  I  would  certainly  hold  myself 
obliged  in  conscience  (for  any  thing  I  know  yet)  to 
concur  ivith  them  who  doubt  not  the  ordination  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  in  the  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land, to  be  (at  least)  valid.  And  yet  I  have  read  what- 
ever hath  been  to  the  contrary  objected  by  the  Roman 
catholic  writers,  whether  against  the  matter,  or  form, 
or  want  of  power  in  the  first  consecrators,  by  reason  of 
their  schism  or  heresy,  or  of  their  being  deposed  from 
their  former  sees,  &c.  But  I  have  withal  observed 
nothing  of  truth  alleged  by  the  objectors,  which  might  in 
the  least  persuade  any  man  who  is  acquainted  with  the 
known  divinity  or  doctrine  of  our  present  schools,  (be- 
sides what  Richardus  Armachanus  long  since  writ),  and 
with  the  annals  of  our  own  Roman  church,  unless  per- 
adventure  he  would  turn  so  frantic  at  the  same  time  as 
to  question  even  the  validity  of  our  own  ordination  also 
in  the  said  Roman  church  ^" 

^  Ibid.  §  2.  ''   History   of  Irish    Remons- 

8  Le  Quien,   Null,    des  Ord.     trance,  p.  xlii. 
Angl.  t.  ii.  p.  319. 


CHAP.  X.]  English  Ordinations.  455 

Besides  this  we  have  the  testimonies  of  many  other 
Romanists,  such  as  Cudsemius ',  Davenport  a  S.  Clara, 
a  learned  Benedictine ;  even  of  many  of  the  doctors  of 
the  Sorbonne  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Gough,  of  M.  Arnaud, 
M.  Snellaerts,  professor  at  Louvain,  the  learned  abbe 
de  Longuerue,  Le  Courayer  himself,  &c.  ^ 

And  even  those  who  reordain  clergy  who  have  re- 
ceived orders  in  our  churches,  do  not  appear  to  be 
actuated  by  any  real  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of  our 
orders,  but  probably  proceed  on  two  principles ;  first, 
that  sustained  by  Morinus,  namely,  that  orders  given  in 
schism  or  heresy  (such  as  they  imagine  our  churches  to 
be  in),  may  be  repeated ;  and  secondly,  that  held  by  Le 
Quien,  that  in  so  disputed  a  question  it  is  better  to  take 
the  safe  side,  and  repeat  the  orders  at  least  conditionally. 
With  these  principles  we  need  not  find  fault,  but  they 
do  not  concern  the  question  of  the  validity  of  our  orders 
at  all ;  they  relate  only  to  disputes  among  Romanists 
themselves ;  and  reordinations  under  such  circumstances 
are  no  proof  of  general  objections  to  their  validity.  They 
are  merely  prudential  measures  adopted  as  a  temporary 
expedient  until  the  church  shall  examine  fully  into  the 
matter.  Le  Quien  himself,  after  opposing  these  ordi- 
nations in  every  way,  at  length  intimates  plainly  that 
after  all  the  question  of  their  invalidity  is  not  decided 
yet.  "  When  God  by  his  mercy  shall  will  that  Eng- 
land reunite  herself  to  the  catholic  church,  and  it  shall 
be  required  to  receive  her  ministers  with  their  orders, 
we  shall  decide  on  grounds  far  beyond  mere  probability 
or  presumptiveness,  and  we  shall  require  such  evidence 

'  Sec  Mason  de    Minister,  p.     Val.    Preuves    Justif.    Defense, 
14.  Preuves  Justijfic. 

^   Courayer,     Dissert,     sur    la 


456  English  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

for  our  perfect  security,  that  all  difficulties  may  be  re- 
moved by  demonstration  '." 

It  has  been  observed,  that  the  objections  to  the  vali- 
dity of  English  ordinations  have  emanated  entirely  from 
the  English  and  Irish  Romanists.  It  is  highly  in- 
structive to  observe  the  series  of  these  objections  and 
their  variations  ;  because  nothing  can  prove  more  evi- 
dently, that  they  derive  their  origin  not  so  much  from 
real  doubt,  as  from  design,  and  from  a  resolution  to 
prove  our  ordinations  invalid  by  any  means  "".  In  argu- 
ing for  the  cause  of  the  church  every  expedient  con- 
sistent with  christian  morality  may  be  justly  employed ; 
but  the  Jesuits  and  Seminary-priests  Avho  assailed  our 
ordinations,  resorted  to  a  system  of  falsehood  and 
chicanery  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  theological 
controversy. 

Immediately  after  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  and  the 
ordinations  of  the  English  bishops,  Harding  maintained 
that  they  were  null,  as  not  having  been  performed  ac- 
cording to  the  Roman  ritual ".  Stapleton  took  another 
course.  He  argued,  that  the  '  Protestant '  bishops 
being  devoid  of  all  legitimate  authority  by  their  '  sepa- 
ration from  the  church  of  Rome,'  whatever  they  did 
was  null  and  void,  and  therefore  they  were  not  to  be 
accounted  bishops".  Fitzsimon  the  Jesuit  contended 
that  the  fact  of  their  marriage  rendered  the  ordination 
conferred  by  them  null  and  void  p.  These  arguments 
were  felt  to  be  insufficient,  and  so  another  line  of  attack 
was  adopted. 

'  Le  Quien,  Nullite  des   Ord.  p.  461. — ^Courayer,  p.  79. 
Angl.  t.  ii.  p.  396.  °  Stapleton,    Opera,   t.   ii.    p. 

■"  See    Courayer,   Def.    de   la  771. — Ibid. 
Dissert,  t.  i.  p.  77,  &c.  **   Fitzsimon,  Britannomachia, 

"  Harding,  ap.   Champnseuni,  p.  322. — Ibid. 


CHAP.  X.]  English  Ordinations.  457 

Osorius,  Weston,  Bristow,  Stapleton,  Harding,  San- 
ders, Allen,  and  others,  asserted  confidently  the  direct 
falsehood,  that  the  English  bishops  had  not  received 
any  imposition  of  hands,  and  that  there  was  no  rite  of 
ordination  whatever  employed.  However,  as  a  resource 
against  those  who  might  deny  this  assertion,  they  kept 
in  reserve  the  Jesuitical  evasion,  that  they  only  meant  a 
legitimate  mid  canonical  imposition  of  hands  or  other 
ceremony  ''.  Such  was  the  system  pursued  during  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth ;  in  that  of  James  a  new  system  was 
devised. 

In  1604  the  Jesuit  Holy  wood,  or  iS'ttcro-Z'o.yco,  devised 
the  story  of  the  ordination  of  the  bishops  at  the  Nag's- 
Head '.  This  fable,  now  heard  of  for  the  first  time 
after  a  lapse  oi  forty  years,  during  which  the  English 
ordinations  had  been  actively  assailed,  was  eagerly 
caught  up.  The  Jesuits  Fitzsimon  and  Parsons  im- 
mediately repeated  it.  Kellison,  who  knew  nothing  of 
it  when  he  had  composed  a  former  work,  inserted  it  in 
his  reply  to  Sutcliife.  Champney  followed  his  example 
in  his  reply  to  Mason '.  It  became  the  popular  argument 
of  the  day  ;  and  the  impression  which  it  was  calculated 
to  make  on  the  ignorant  and  credulous  was  too  useful, 
to  permit  the  abandonment  of  a  report  of  which  the 
missionaries  made  so  good  a  use.  Parsons  the  Jesuit, 
embellished  the  story  by  adding  that  he  had  heard  on 
"  good  authority,"  that  archbishop  Whitgift  had  been 
ordained  by  Elizabeth  herself  with  imposition  of  hands  * ! 
It  was  in  vain  that  the  authentic  records  of  Lambeth 
and  of  England  generally,   M^ere  adduced  to  prove  the 

1  Stapleton,  ii.  p.  779.     Wes-  Courayer,  Dissert,  t.  i,  p.  83,  &c. 

ton,  de  tripl.   Horn.   off.  p.  224.  ""  Courayer,  p.  86. 

Bristow,    Mot.   Antihaeret.   t.    ii.  '  Ibid.  p.  87. 

p.    226.       Sanders,    de    Schism.  *  ("ourayer,  Def.  de  la  Dissert. 

Angl.  ed.    1610.    p.    340.      See  t.  i.  i)art  i.  p,  85. 


458  Enylish  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

utter  absurdity  and  falsehood  of  these  tales.  It  was 
asserted  that  these  records  were  forged !  Something 
was  still  wanting,  however,  to  the  perfection  of  the 
popish  argument,  and  Champney  imagined  he  had  dis- 
covered it.  He  was  the  first  to  deny,  in  1616,  the 
consecration  of  Barlow,  the  principal  consecrator  of 
archbishop  Parker  ".  About  eighty  years  had  elapsed, 
since  Barlow  was  ordained ;  and  during  that  interval 
no  one  had  ever  called  the  fact  into  question.  It  was 
useful  however  to  do  so  now ;  and  so,  although  every 
conceivable  proof  of  that  ordination  was  supplied,  (with 
the  exception  of  the  very  registration  of  the  fact,  which 
is  also  wanting  in  the  case  of  many  of  his  contem- 
poraries who  were  undoubtedly  consecrated " ;)  his  ordi- 
nation was  pertinaciously  denied. 

Finally,  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.  Lewgar  devised 
the  mode  of  attacking  our  ordinations  on  point  of  form. 
He  objected,  that  even  admitting  the  authenticity  of 
the  Lambeth  records,  the  form  of  our  ordinations  was 
indefinite ;  that  there  was  an  essential  deficiency  in 
this  respect ;  and  therefore  that  our  orders  were  null 
and  void.  The  labours  of  others,  as  Le  Quien,  &c. 
consisted  in  endeavouring  to  show,  that  at  least  there 
was  great  doubt  as  to  their  validity. 

The  whole  history  leads  us  irresistibly  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  objections  against  the  validity  of  the 
English   ordinations   were  all  invented  for  missionary 


"  Ibid.  p.  87.  question  of  English  ordinations. 

"  See  Mason,  De  Minister.  They  ought  to  be  in  the  posses- 
Angl.  lib.  iii.  c.  10;  Elrington,  sion  of  every  clergyman  who  can 
On  English  Ordinations,  p.  112,  procure  them.  It  were  indeed 
&c.  ;  Courayer,  Validite  des  Ord.  much  to  be  desired,  that  these 
Angl.  part  i.  c.  3,  &c.  It  would  very  useful  writings  should  be  re- 
be  difficult  to  overrate  the  value  printed,  either  in  the  original  or 
of  Couraver's  three  works  on  the  in  a  translation. 


CHAP.  X.]  English  Ordinations.  459 

purposes ;  and  that  they  were  not  the  result  of  any 
genuine  doubt  or  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
made  them. 

The  objections  to  the  validity  of  the  English  ordi- 
nations divide  themselves  into  two  branches,  one  con- 
cerning facts ;  and  the  other  concerning  7'ight.  The 
former  includes  the  assertion,  that  the  bishops  at  the 
beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign  were  made  merely  by  act 
of  parliament  or  by  the  royal  patent,  without  any  im- 
position of  hands  or  religious  rites  whatever  ;  the  fable 
of  the  ordination  at  the  Nag's  Head,  when  persons 
unordained  are  said  to  have  ordained  each  other ;  and 
the  denial  of  Barlow's  ordination.  These  points  have 
been  so  fully  discussed  by  Courayer  and  others,  and 
refuted  by  so  great  a  body  of  authentic  evidence,  that 
no  person  of  sufficient  information  can  with  honesty 
attack  the  ordinations  of  the  church  of  England  on  this 
ground  ;  and  we  must  decline  all  controversy  on  the 
point,  until  the  information  of  the  opponent,  and  his 
actual  belief  in  the  facts  he  advances,  have  been 
tested. 

The  objections  relating  to  right,  shall  be  briefly 
noticed  and  refuted  here.  They  are  derived  from  the 
work  of  Lewgar,  entitled  "  Erastus  Senior,"  and  from 
Le  Quien  and  Tournely. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  form  of  ordination  of  bishops  in  the  ritual  of 
Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth  was  invalid  ;  for  the  essential 
form  of  ordination  consists  in  some^^  words,  that  is  to 
say,  words  signifying  the  order  given ;  for  otherwise  the 
same  rite  which  ordains  a  deacon  would  ordain  a  priest 
and  a  bishoj).     The  imposition  of  hands  is  common  to 


460  Englisli  Ordinatiuns.  [P.  vi.  CH.  x. 

all  the  three  orders,  and  to  coiiMrmation,  &c.  There 
must  therefore  be  some  words  joined  with  it,  to  deter- 
mine it  to  convey  the  grace  of  the  episcopal  order. 
Now  the  whole  form  of  ordaining  a  bishop  in  the 
English  ordinal,  was  only  this :  "  Take  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  God  which 
is  in  thee  by  imposition  of  hands :  for  God  hath  not 
given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,  and  love,  and 
soberness  :"  and  in  this  there  is  nothing  but  what  might 
be  said  to  any  priest  or  deacon  at  ordination,  or  even  to 
any  child  at  confirmation  '\ 

Answer.  The  form  of  ordination  does  not  consist 
merely  in  these  words,  but  in  the  prayer  which  imme- 
diately precedes  them,  and  in  which  grace  is  implored 
for  the  elect  bishop  after  his  examination,  that  he  may 
"  as  a  faithful  and  wise  servant  give  to  God's  family 
their  portion  in  due  season,"  evidently  alluding  to  his 
office  as  ruler  over  God's  household.  (2.)  The  form 
which  accompanies  the  imposition  of  hands  in  episcopal 
ordination  in  the  Roman  pontifical  itself,  is  merely 
this  :  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  the  prayer  which 
follows,  does  not  directly  mention  the  episcopal  office. 

II.  Admitting  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer 
to  be  the  only  essential  rites  in  ordination ;  this  prayer 
must  expressly  convey  the  power  of  offering  sacrifice ; 
but  the  English  forms  of  ordination  include  no  mention 
of  such  a  power,  and  are  therefore  null  \ 

That  the  power  of  sacrificing  must  be  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  form  of  ordination,  is  argued  fii'st 
from  the  necessity  of  mentioning  the  principal  end  of 
the  holy  ministry,  which,  it  is  contended,  is  the  offering 

"  Lewgar,  Erastus  Senior.    Le  ''  Lewgar,   p.    21  ;  Le  Quien, 

Quien,  Nullite  des  Ord.  Angl.  t.     t.  ii. 
ii.  p.  80—86. 


OBJECT.]  Enylisli  Ordinations.  461 

of  sacrificed  This  is  founded  on  tlie  decree  of  the 
council  of  Trent,  affirming  the  doctrine  of  a  sacrifice  in 
the  Eucliarist  \ 

I  reply,  that  the  council  of  Trent  in  affirming  a 
sacrifice  in  the  eucharist,  never  affirmed  that  the  offer- 
ing of  this  sacrifice  was  the  chief  end  of  the  christian 
ministry,  w^hich  is  the  exact  point  requiring  proof;  and 
further,  I  deny  the  other  position  altogether ;  because 
the  single  end  of  the  christian  ministry,  is  the  end  of 
the  ministry  and  priesthood  of  its  Divine  Author — the 
salvation  of  human  souls  ;  to  which  the  offering  of 
sacrifice  is  one  means  out  of  many.  This  is  proved  by 
the  words  of  scripture  :  "  He  gave  some,  apostles  ;  and 
some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  pas- 
tors and  teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ :  till  we  all  come,  &c.  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto 
the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ  V 
And  again :  "  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all 
the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  overseers  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  His  own  blood  ^"  Here  is  nothing  of 
offering  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  as  the  end  of  the 
ministry. 

Secondly,  it  is  argued,  that  the  power  of  sacrificing 
must  be  expressly  conveyed  in  the  form  of  ordination, 
from  the  universal  practice  of  the  church,  evidenced  by 
the  various  rituals  and  ordinals.  It  is  contended  that 
this  power  is  expressly  given  in  the  ordinations  of  the 
Greek  church  :  in  the  consecration  of  the  Coptic  patri- 
arch of  Alexandria,  and  of  the  Coptic  priests  ;  in  the 
forms    of  episcopal   and   sacerdotal   ordination   in   the 

^  Le  Quieiij  I.  ii.  p.  13,  108.  *  Ephes.  iv.  11,  &c. 

•  Ibid.  t.  ii.  c.  1.  ^  Acts  xx.  28. 


462  English  Ordinations.  [p.  vi.  ch.  x. 

apostolical  constitutions ;  in  those  of  the  Maronites, 
and  in  the  Roman  ^ 

I  reply,  that  all  the  ancient  forms  of  ordination  do 
not  expressly  convey  this  power.  In  the  Ethiopic 
ordinations  published  by  Ludolf ;  in  the  ancient  Coptic 
form  of  ordaining  priests  ;  and  in  the  rite  of  the  Syrian 
Jacobites,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  power  of  offering 
sacrifice.  Several  of  the  most  ancient  Latin  manu- 
scripts of  the  monastery  of  Corby,  of  the  churches  of 
Sens,  Noyon,  Beauvais,  and  other  sacramentaries  1000 
years  old,  omit  the  prayer  of  the  Roman  pontifical, 
which  mentions  the  consecration  of  the  eucharist  in 
the  ordination  of  priests.  Even  the  Greek  eucholo- 
gion  and  the  apostolic  constitutions,  only  employ 
general  terms,  which  do  not  necessarily  relate  to  the 
mystical  sacrifice  in  the  eucharist  '^.  Therefore  the 
objection  against  the  English  form  is  perfectly  unavail- 
ing on  this  ground. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  at  all  events  the  church 
of  England  evidently  did  not  mean  to  confer  any  power 
of  celebrating  the  sacrifice  ;  because  she  substituted 
these  forms  in  place  of  others  which  expressly  men- 
tioned it ;  and  because  her  articles  and  all  her  theolo- 
gians deny  that  there  is  any  sacrifice  in  the  eucharist. 

I  reply  first,  that  supposing  the  Roman  forms  to 
have  been  formerly  used  in  England,  the  power  of 
sacrificing  was  only  given  expressly  in  the  modern  rite 
of  delivering  the  instruments,  which  with  many  other 
modern  and  unnecessary  rites  was  removed.  There- 
fore the  omission  need  not  have  arisen  from  any  dis- 
inclination to  the  eucharistic  sacrifice,  understood  in 
an  orthodox  sense  ;  and 

■■■  Le  Quien,  t.  ii.  p.  112,  &:c         sertation,  t.  ii.  parti,  p.  21 — 27. 
■^  Covirayer,  Defense  de  la  Dis- 


OBJECT.]  English  Ordinations.  463 

Secondly,  the  church  of  England  has  always  acknow- 
ledged such  a  sacrifice.  The  thirty-first  article  is 
directed  against  the  vulgar  and  heretical  doctrine  of 
the  reiteration  of  Christ's  sacrifice  in  the  eucharist.  It 
was  only  those  "  missarum  sacrificia  quibus  vulgo  dice- 
batur,  sacerdotem  offerre  Christum  in  remissionem 
poense  aut  culpae  pro  vivis  et  defunctis,"  which  are  pro- 
nounced, "  blasphema  figmenta  et  perniciosa^  impos- 
turae  ;"  but  not  "missarum  sacrificia,"  as  understood  by 
the  fathers  and  in  an  orthodox  sense.  The  article  was 
directed  against  the  errors  maintained  or  countenanced 
by  such  men  as  Soto,  Hardinge  %  &c.  who,  by  reject- 
ing the  doctrine  of  a  sacrifice  by  way  of  commemwation 
and  consecration,  and  not  literally  identical  with  that  on 
the  cross,  and  by  their  crude  and  objectionable  mode 
of  expression,  countenanced  the  vulgar  error,  that  the 
sacrifice  of  the  eucharist  or  mass,  was  in  every  respect 
equal  to  that  of  Christ  on  the  cross  ;  and  that  it  was  in 
fact  either  a  reiteration  or  a  continuation  of  that  sacri- 
fice. The  article  was  not  directed  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  as  explained  by  Bossuet, 
Veron,  and  others,  with  which  we  have  no  material 
fault  to  find.  Cranmer  himself  acknowledged  that  it 
might  be  called  a  sacrifice  \  and  our  theologians,  such 
as  Bramhall,  Beveridge,  Patrick,  Wilson,  bishops ;  and 
Mason  ^,  Field,  Mede,  Johnson,  &c.  always  have  taught 
the  doctrine  of  the  eucharistic  altar,  sacrifice,  and  obla- 
tion, according  to  scripture  and  apostolical  tradition ; 
and  the   articles  of  the   church  of  England  recognize 

'  Ibid.  p.  223,  &c.  modum  commemorationis  sen  re- 

^  See  Vol.  I.  p.  525.  prsesentationis   immolamus.  "  — 

s   "  Quoties  eucharistiam  cele-  Mason,  de  Minister.    Anglic,  lib. 

bramus,  toties  Christum  in  mys-  v.  c.  i.  p.  514. 

terio    offerimus,  eundemque   per 


464  English  Ordinations.  [v.  vi.  CH.  x» 

the  clergy  in  their  various  orders  as  mcer dotes,  u^Hq, 
ministers  of  sacrifice  '\ 

III.  The  form  of  consecration  ought  not  to  contain 
direct  heresy,  and  to  implore  God  to  sanction  what  is 
in  itself  heretical  and  contrary  to  His  will ;  such  a  form 
must  be    regarded  as   an   offence  to   God,    and    must 
therefore  be  of  no   effect.     Now  the   English  form  of 
ordaining  bishops  contains  heresies.     (1.)  In  the  oath 
of  supremacy,  the  king's  supremacy  is  acknowledged, 
and  the  authority  of  the  pope  and  of  general  councils 
is  rejected.     (2.)  The  question  and  answer  concerning 
vocation,  "  according  to  the  order  of  this  realm,"  im- 
plies the  recognition  of  laws  removing  the  papal  autho- 
rity, and  a  promise  to  maintain  all  the  heresies  con- 
tained in  the  English  articles.     (3.)  The  question  con- 
cerning the  sufficiency  of  scripture,  rejects  the  necessity 
of  tradition.     (4.)  The  question  "  whether  he  will  call 
on  God  in  prayer  for  understanding  the  same,"  refers 
him  to  his  private  judgment,  and  not  to  the  church  for 
its  interpretation.     (5.)  The  promise  to  "banish  and 
drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrine,"  refers 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church.     And  after  all 
these  heretical  questions  and  promises,  the  archbishop 
prays  to  God  to  enable  the  bishop   elect  to  do  these 
things.     "  Can  such  a  prayer,"  it  is  asked,  "  containing 
errors  so  repugnant  to  the  end  and  effect  of  ordination, 


^  Article  XXXII.     "  De  con-  title    cannot   be    refused    to  the 

jugio    sacerdotum."      Some  per-  clergy,  because  it  is  given  to  all 

sons  are  never  tired  of  asserting,  christians  by  scripture  ;  for  they 

that  the  clergy  are  not  "priests  ;"  offer    spiritual     sacrifices;     and 

and   that   there    is    no  "  priest  "  those  who   chiefly  and  especially 

under  the  new  covenant  but  Jesus  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  in  the 

Christ  our  Saviour.    They  would  congregation,   are   in    a  peculiar 

do  well   to   remember,   that   this  sense  "  priests." 


OBJECT.]  Enylisk  Ordinations.  465 

be  sufficient  to  obtain  the  aid  of  divine  grace  to  the 
bishop  elect '  ?" 

Answer.  1.  These  questions  and  this  prayer  are 
merely  preliminary  ceremonies  which  do  not  affect  the 
ordination.  That  is  performed  afterwards :  therefore  it 
is  vain  to  point  out  errors  in  these  forms.  2.  There  is 
not  a  trace  of  heresy  in  any  of  the  questions  and 
answers  alluded  to.  To  the  first  objection  I  reply, 
that  the  removal  of  the  papal  jurisdiction  was  legiti- 
mate, and  consistent  with  the  sacred  canons,  as  is 
proved  elsewhere  \  I  elsewhere  also  show  that  the 
regal  supremacy  was  to  be  approved  ^  Therefore  there 
is  no  heresy  in  this  question  or  answer.  To  the  second 
I  reply,  that  the  laws  removing  the  papal  jurisdiction 
were  right  and  laudable  according  to  the  discipline  of  the 
catholic  church  ;  and  as  for  the  heresies  of  the  English 
articles,  I  deny  that  they  contain  a  single  heresy,  and 
call  for  proof.  To  the  third  ;  that  tradition  has  always 
been  received  by  the  church  of  England  in  the  catholic 
sense,  as  I  prove  elsewhere  '.  To  the  fourth  I  answer, 
that  the  interpretation  is  a  mistake  ;  since  the  church 
of  England  does  not  admit  of  private  judgment  as  op- 
posed  to  church  authority,  as  I  have  proved  elsewhere "". 
To  the  fifth  I  say,  that  the  promise  to  banish  erro- 
neous doctrine  is  general,  and  relates  to  no  particular 
society  or  doctrine  ;  and  if  Romanists  insist  on  apply- 
ing it  to  themselves,  they  must  prom  that  the  errors 
there  contemplated  are  truly  articles  of  faith,  and  taught 
by  the  catholic  church ;  because  otherwise  it  can  be  ;io 

'  Tournely,  Tract,   de   Ordin.  ^  Part    II.    chap,    iii,    iv,    v. 

p.  60—66.  Part  V. 

J  See  Part    II.    chap     ii.    Part  '  Part  II.  chap.  vi.  Part  III. 

VII.  ■"  Ibid,  and  Part  I.  chap.  x. 

VOL.  II.  H  h 


466  English  Ordinations.  [p.  vi.  ch.  x. 

heresy  to  promise  to  drive  them  away.  But  this  they 
cannot  do. 

IV.  The  power  of  ordination  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
land is  derived  not  from  Christ,  but  from  the  king. 
This  is  proved  in  the  following  manner :  Henry  VIII. 
assumed  the  title,  and  exercised  the  prerogative  of 
"  supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England."  The  par- 
liament acknowledged  it,  and  gave  him  power  to  cor- 
rect heresies,  &c.  He  gave  licenses  to  bisho^^s  to 
exercise  their  episcopal  functions  of  ordination,  &c. 
Edward  VI.  exercised  the  same  power,  and  caused  the 
forms  of  ordination  to  be  compiled  by  his  supreme 
authority  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  The  oath  of  supre- 
macy exj^ressed  his  royal  power  of  appointing  all  things 
concerning  faith,  discipline,  and  rites.  Permission  to 
preach  was  granted  by  royal  license,  bishops  were 
appointed  durante  beneplacito :  the  commission  to  con- 
secrate them  emanated  from  the  crown.  Excommuni- 
cations were  made  by  the  same  authority.  Royal 
injunctions  regulated  not  only  worship,  but  faith  and 
doctrine  ;  and  parliament  reserved  to  itself  the  right  of 
judging  in  religious  controversy.  Queen  Elizabeth  by 
the  clause  supplentes  in  the  commission  to  Barlow  and 
others,  for  the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker, 
assumed  this  power "". 

Answer,  (1.)  All  these  assertions  do  not  in  the 
remotest  degree  affect  the  validity  of  the  English  ordi- 
nations, because,  let  them  imply  what  they  will,  they 
did  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  conferred 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  according 
to  the  former  rite.  Those  ordinations  were  all  valid  by 
the  confession  of  Romanists  themselves.   Therefore  the 

"*  Tournely,   Tract,  de  Ordin.  p.  50 — 57. 


OBJKCT.]  English  Ordinations.  467 

claims  or  exercise  of  the  king's  supremaci/  cannot  affect 
the  validity  of  our  orders. 

(2.)  The  church  of  England  has  never  recognized 
the  king  as  being  in  any  degree  the  source  of  purely 
spiritual  power,  or  of  any  except  what  is  in  its  nature 
temporal".  And  I  have  in  another  place  reviewed  the 
facts  here  misrepresented,  and  shewn  them  to  be  free 
from  just  blame,  as  relates  to  the  church  of  England". 

These  are  the  chief  theological  objections  which  I 
have  observed,  to  the  validity  of  the  English  ordina- 
tions. Objections  in  points  of  form  are  easily  in- 
vented, and  we  need  not  doubt  that  further  difficulties 
will  be  started  hereafter.  Yet  this  is  a  species  of 
argument  which  may  be  employed  against  Romanists 
as  well  as  against  the  church  of  England.  It  is  need- 
less to  do  more  than  allude  to  the  serious  difficulty,  as 
to  the  validity  of  the  eucharist  in  which  the  sacrament 
is  received  in  one  kind ;  but  it  might  not  be  difficult  for 
a  Greek  or  a  Monophysite  to  adduce  as  strong  arguments 
against  the  Roman  form  of  ordination,  as  the  Romanists 
have  urged  against  the  English.  It  may  be  proved 
that  all  the  ancient  rituals  and  pontificals,  including 
those  of  the  Greek  church  ^  the  Maronites  '',  the  Nes- 
torians^  the  Jacobites  or  Monophysites ',  the  canons 
of  the  synod  of  Carthage '  (adopted  as  the  rubric  of  all 
the  ancient  Roman  and  western  pontificals  " ;)  that  all 
these  rituals,  I  say,  require  the  imposition  of  hands  to 
be  given  by  the  consecrating  bishops  while  the  prayer 

"   See   Vol.    I.   p.    255.    463.  '  Ibid.  p.  467,  468. 

471.  Vol.  II.  p.  346,  347.  '  Ibid.  p.  487. 

°  Part  II.  '  Syn.  Carthag.  iv.  c.  1. 

P    Morinus    de   Ordin.   p.  65.  "  See  Martene,  De  Antiq.  Eccl. 

74,  75.  89,  90.  95,  96.  102,  103.  Rit.  t.  ii.  p.  340.  367.  376.  404. 

125.  458.  469.  486.  508. 

"i  Ibid.  p.  429. 

H  h-2 


468  Eo))iish  Ordinations.  [f'art  vi. 

of  consecration  is  repeated ;  and  therefore  that  the 
modern  Roman  ritual,  which  directs  that  imposition 
to  take  place  before  the  prayer,  is  null  and  void.  It 
might  be  argued  that  this  imion  of  the  imposition  of 
hands  and  form  of  words  is  necessary,  in  order  to  deter- 
mine the  former  to  the  grace  of  the  episcopal  order,  &c. 
It  would  be  easy  to  make  a  plausible  case  out  of  this, 
which  could  only  be  met  by  reference  to  the  scripture, 
where  the  imposition  of  hands  is  indifferently  spoken 
of  as  preceding  and  following  the  prayer.  We  might 
also  find  a  strong  objection  to  the  validity  of  confirma- 
tion as  administered  in  the  Roman  church,  from  the 
want  of  a  sufficient  imposition  of  hands  ;  in  which 
alone  the  essence  of  this  sacrament  is  founded  by  scrip- 
ture and  the  fathers. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

ON     ROMISH     ORDINATIONS. 

The  church  of  England  has,  ever  since  the  division  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  not  only  admitted  the  validity 
of  the  orders  administered  by  bishops  of  the  Roman 
obedience  on  the  continent ;  but  she  has  been  induced, 
as  an  act  of  special  favour,  not  to  reordain  those  priests 
who  have  been  schismatically  ordained  amongst  the 
papists  within  her  own  jurisdiction,  in  order  to  facili- 
tate their  reunion  to  the  true  church.  This  I  say  was 
an  act  of  special  favour,  for  the  church  is  not  bound  to 
know  any  thing  of  ordinations  performed  in  schism  or 
heresy :  she  cannot  recognize  any  real  ministry  of 
Jesus  Christ,  in  those  who  are  ordained  in  enmity  to 


CHAP.  XI.]  Romish  Ordhmtions.  469 

his  church :  and  if  she  does  not  always  think  it  neces- 
sary to  repeat  the  outward  form  by  which  they  were 
constituted,  it  is  not  that  she  supposes  any  divine  com- 
mission to  have  accompanied  it  originally. 

But,  in  not  reordaining  popish  priests,  the  church 
has  always  acted  on  the  supposition,  that  the  usual 
forms  and  rules  were  observed.  Without  doubt  they 
were  so  for  a  long  time :  and  still  continue  to  be  ob- 
served in  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Roman  obedience  ; 
but  certain  circumstances  occurred  with  regard  to  the 
ordinations  of  papists  in  England  and  Ireland  in  the 
course  of  the  last  century,  which  seem  to  raise  very 
considerable  difficulties  as  to  the  validity  of  their  ordi- 
nations. 

It  has  been  shown  above ",  that  there  are  serious 
doubts,  even  amongst  the  most  eminent  Roman  theo- 
logians, whether  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  by  one 
bishop  only,  is  a  valid  ordination. 

Now  it  is  a  fact  w-hich  has  hitherto  escaped  our 
observation,  that  during  the  greater  part,  if  not  the 
whole  of  last  century,  popish  bishops  were  consecrated 
in  England  and  Ireland  by  one  bishop  assisted  by  two 
priests,  instead  of  bishops,  as  required  by  the  canons. 
This  fact  did  not  attract  attention,  in  consequence  of 
the  little  publicity  given  to  their  ecclesiastical  acts, 
and  the  non-existence  of  any  detailed  history  of  their 
proceedings. 

In  a  book  written  by  Mr.  Plowden,  an  English 
papist,  we  find  a  translation  of  a  bull  of  Pope  Clement 
XIV.  in  1771,  nominating  William  Egan  bishop  of 
Sura  " in partibus"  and  coadjutor  of  Peter  Crew,  titular 
of  Waterford,  with  right  of  succession.     This  bull  was 

*  Chapter  V. 


470  Romish  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

in  Mr.  Plowden's  possession.  The  following  passage 
occurs  in  it :  "  We,  kindly  wishing  to  favour  you  in 
everything  that  can  increase  your  conveniency,  by  the 
tenour  of  these  presents,  have  granted  you  full  and 
free  licence,  that  you  may  receive  the  gift  of  consecra- 
tion from  whatever  catholic  prelate,  being  in  the  grace 
and  communion  of  the  aforesaid  apostolical  see,  you 
choose ;  and  he  may  call  in,  as  his  assistants  in  this, 
in  lien  of  bishops,  two  secular  priests,  although  not  in- 
vested with  any  ecclesiastical  dignity,  or  regulars  of 
any  order  or  institute,  being  in  like  grace  and  favour* 
&c  ^"  The  same  clause,  so  strangely  and  rashly  setting 
aside  all  the  canons  and  the  apostolical  tradition, 
appears  in  other  bulls  for  Irish  titular  bishops  printed 
by  Dr.  Burke  ^  who  observes,  that  "  a  permission  of 
this  tenour  is  conceded  generally  to  the  Irish,  on 
account  of  the  difficulty  of  assembling  three  bishops. 
...  I  say  generally,  because  sometimes  those  who  are 
on  their  affairs  at  Rome,  omit  to  supplicate  for  that 
clause  ^ ;"  that  is  to  say,  they  could  easily  find  three  or 
more  bishops  at  Rome  to  consecrate  them.  It  seems 
from  this,  that  the  popish  bishops  in  Ireland  generally 
supplicated  for.  this  clause,  and  without  doubt  they  acted 
on  it ;  indeed  Dr.  Burke  does  not  attempt  to  deny  that 
they  did  so. 

This  same  mode  of  ordination  has  also  been  practised 
among  the  English  papists.  In  the  reign  of  James 
II.  Dr.  Leyburn  was  made  bishop  in  partibus  at  Rome, 
1685,  and  sent  into  England,  where  he  was  the 
only  popish  bishop.  Soon  after,  in  1687,  Dr.  Giffard, 
chaplain  of  James  II.,  was  consecrated  bishop  m  par- 

^  Plowden's   Historical   Letter         "^    Burke,     Hibernia    Domini- 
to  Dr.  Charles  O'Conor.  Append,     cana,  p.  .503,  509. 
p.  122.  "^  Ibid,  p.  509,  462, 


CHAP.  XI.]  Romish  Ordinations.  471 

tibus :  and  I  presume  by  Lejburn  only,  as  the  conse- 
cration seems  to  have  taken  place  in  England.  Ellis 
and  Smith,  who  were  consecrated  in  London  in  1688, 
of  course  derived  their  orders  from  this  prelate  \ 

In  the  life  of  Dr.  Challoner  it  is  stated,  that  he  was 
"  consecrated  on  the  feast  of  St.  Francis  de  Sales,  the 
29th  January,    1741,    by   the    Right   Rev.   Benjamin 
Petre,  bishop  of  Prusa  in  Bithynia  ^ ;"  and  that  there 
was  no  other  bishop  present,  may  be  fairly  inferred 
from  the  silence   of  the  biograjiher,  coupled  with  his 
particular  mention  of  an  assisting  bishop  on  a  subsequent 
occasion,  when  the  same  Dr.  Challoner  is  said,  with  the 
assistance  of  the   "  bishop  of  Amoria,   V.  A.    of  the 
northern  district,"  to  have  consecrated  Dr.  Talbot  (his 
coadjutor  and  successor)  '  bishop  of  Birtha '.'     Again 
we  find,  that  Dr.   Sharrock   was   recommended  by  the 
titular  bishop  Walmsley  "  to  the  holy  see,  for  his  own 
coadjutor   in   the   episcopal   labours.      His   wish   was 
granted,  and  he  performed  the  ceremony  of  Dr.  Shar- 
rock's  consecration  to  the  see  of  Telmessus,  on  the  12th 
August,  1780.     The  ceremony  was  performed  at  War- 
dour  with  solemnity  unprecedented  since  the  Revolu- 
tion.    There  were  twelve  assistant  priests,  a  master  of 
ceremonies,"  &c.  ^     No  bishops  are  said  to  have  assisted. 
The  same  Dr.  Walmsley  is  said  to  have  consecrated 
Dr.  W.Gibson  at  Lullworth,  December   1790';  and 
what  is  worthy  of  remark,   Dr.  John  Carroll,  the  first 
titular  bishop  of  Baltimore  in  America,  from  whom  the 
whole   Romish  hierarchy  of  the  United  States  derive 


*  Dod,   Church    History,  vol.  ^  Catholic  Spectator,  1825.  p. 
iii.  p.  466,  &c.                                     263. 

*  Barnard's  Life  of  Challoner,         '  Catholic  Miscellany,   vol.    i. 
p.  74.  1822,  p.  387. 

s  Ibid.  p.  105. 

10 


47*2  Romish  Ordinations.  [yxKv  vi, 

their  orders,  was  consecrated  by  the  same  Dr.  Walmsley 
at  Lullworth,  August  15th,  1790  \  We  have  indeed 
no  reason  to  think  that  Dr.  Walmsley  himself  was  con- 
secrated by  more  than  one  bishop.  It  seems  as  if  the 
Roman  pontiffs  had  no  difficulty  in  giving  permission 
for  such  ordinations  in  foreign  missions.  Joseph  a  St. 
Maria,  '  bishop  of  Hierapohs,'  and  '  vicar  apostolic'  in 
India,  a.  d.  1 659,  being  obliged  to  leave  the  country  by 
the  Dutch,  consecrated  Alexander  de  Campo  bishop, 
according  to  the  powers  given  him  by  the  papal  bulls  \ 
Even  so  lately  as  1800,  the  Roman  pontiff  empowered 
the  bishop  of  Cadadre  '  vicar  apostolic'  in  China,  to 
select  his  own  coadjutor  and  consecrate  him  bishoj^  of 
Tabraca '".  It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  many  other 
instances  in  which  the  schismatical  ordinations  in  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  Ireland,  America,  &c.  are  spoken  of  in 
such  a  way  as  leads  us  to  the  inference,  that  conse- 
crations by  one  bishop  were  but  too  common  in  the 
last  century.  We  do  not  know  indeed  the  precise 
extent  to  which  this  irregular  practice  was  carried,  be- 
cause the  accounts  of  such  matters  are  very  few  and 
obscure ;  but  there  is  evidently  enough  to  throw  a  very 
serious  doubt  on  their  ordinations  generally. 

I  admit  certainly  that  of  late  years  their  episcopal 
consecrations  have  been  attended  by  several  bishops, 

''  Catholic  Spectator,  1824,  p.  chapelle  du  chateau  de  Lull- 
119.  Rom,  Cath.  Mag.  1817.  worth,  an  milieu  d'un  concours 
"  II  devoit  se  faire  sacrer.  II  se  de  pretres  et  de  fideles  accourus 
presenta  pour  cet  efFet  a  M.  pour  etre  temoins  de  cette  cere- 
Charles  Walmesley,  eveque  de  monie." — Memoires  pour  serv.  a 
Rama,  in  partibus  injideliuvi,  et  I'Hist.  Eccl.  xviii  siecle,  t.  iii.  p. 
le    plus   ancien   des    quatres    vi-  145. 

caires  apostoliques    anglois.       II  '  La  Croze,  Christianisme  des 

etoit  lie  depuis   long-temps  avec  Indes,  t.  ii.  p.  202,  203. 
cet   estimable    et   savant   prelat,         '"  Cath.    Miscellany,   1825,  p. 

qui  lui  donna  la  consecration  epis-  207. 
copale,  le  15  Aout  1790,  dans  la 


CHAP.  XI.]  Homis/i  Ordinations.  473 

apparently  very  much  for  the  sake  of  pomp  and  osten- 
tation ;  but  if  there  be  any  reason  to  doubt  a\  hether 
their  bishops  were  vaHdly  ordained  in  the  last  century, 
that  doubt  could  not  be  cured  by  their  now  combining 
in  numbers  to  remedy  the  defect.  Ten  or  twenty 
bishops,  themselves  in  validly  ordained,  could  not  confer 
a  more  valid  ordination  than  one  similarly  circum- 
stanced. 

It  is  to  be  observed  also,  that  even  if  we  could  admit 
that  any  dispensation  or  any  necessity  could  remove  all 
doubt  from  such  ordinations,  we  could  not  concede  it 
in  the  case  of  the  dispensations  contained  in  the  bulls 
of  the  Irish  titular  bishops.  For,  to  pass  over  the  fact, 
that  these  bulls  were  altogether  null,  from  a  deficiency 
of  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  pontiff  in  these 
churches,  (that  jurisdiction  having  long  ago  been  ca- 
nonically  and  validly  withdrawn  by  the  British  churches, 
from  which  alone  it  had  emanated ;)  it  can  never  be 
allowed,  that  the  reason  assigned  in  that  clause  of  the 
bulls,  is  sufficient  to  dispense  with  the  canons  of  oecu- 
menical synods,  still  in  full  force  in  the  universal 
church.  "  Ad  ea  quae  in  tuce  commoditatis  augmentum 
cedere  possunt,  favorabiliter  intendentes,"  is  no  sufficient 
reason.  It  does  not  contemplate  any  necessity,  danger, 
or  difficulty  which  could  excuse  such  a  dispensation. 
It  would  include  any  reason  however  trifling. 

On  the  question  of  the  invalidity  of  these  orders  I 
would  not  wish  to  speak  positively :  but  the  general 
discipline  of  the  church  with  regard  to  reordinations, 
would  amply  justify  us  in  not  admitting  popish  priests 
ordained  in  these  countries  to  minister  in  our  churches, 
without  receiving  ordination  from  our  bishops.  If  the 
church  of  England  should  be  aware  of  this  difficulty 
affecting  their  orders,  and  yet  should  not  adopt  another 


474  Romish  Ordinations.  [part  vi. 

practice  with  regard  to  them,  it  need  not  be  supposed 
that  she  acknowledges  them  free  from  doubt,  but  that 
from  a  desire  to  promote  the  return  of  the  lost  sheep 
to  catholic  unity,  she  would  sometimes  tolerate  even 
dubious  ordinations,  and  supply  their  deficiencies  by 
her  own  supreme  power. 

This  however  I  would  remark  in  conclusion,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  the  best  Roman  divines  at 
least,  the  ordinations  of  pajDists  in  these  countries  are 
of  dubious  validity  :  the  utmost  that  can  be  said  for  them 
is,  that  they  may  be  probably  valid :  but  according  to 
Champney,  one  of  the  chief  leaders  of  their  schism, 
such  ordinations  do  not  confer  any  real  vocation  to  the 
ministry.  "  An  ordination,"  he  says,  "  which  is  merely 
'prohaUe,  or  only  probably  sufficient  and  valid,  only 
makes  a  probable  bishop,  or  one  who  is  merely  probably 
a  bishop.  .  .  .  But  he  who  is  only  probably  a  bishop,  is 
not  validly  and  sufficiently  appointed  to  the  episcopal 
degree  and  power ;  nor  has  he  true  episcopal  vocation : 
for  true  and  valid  episcopal  vocation  is  not  merely  pro- 
bable, but  certain  and  undoubted  .  .  .  for  otherwise, 
whatever  the  pastors  and  bishops  of  the  church  should 
perform,  as  bishops,  would  be  so  uncertain  as  to  be 
probably  null  and  invalid "." 

°  Champnseus  de  Vocat.  Ministr.  p.  424,  425. 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  VII. 


ON  THE  ROMAN  PONTIFF. 


A  TREATISE 


THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  VII. 

ON    THE   ROMAN    PONTIFF, 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON    THE    PREEMINENCE    OF    ST.    PETER. 

The  doctrine  of  the  primacy  of  the  bishop  of  Rome 
over  the  universal  church,  is  the  point  on  which  all 
other  controversies  between  the  Roman  and  other 
churches  turn  :  for  if  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  instituted 
any  official  supremacy  of  one  bishop  in  the  catholic 
church,  to  endure  always ;  and  if  this  supremacy  be  in- 
herited by  the  bishop  of  Rome,  it  will  readily  follow, 
that  the  catholic  church  is  limited  to  those  of  the  Roman 
obedience ;  and  that  the  councils,  doctrines,  and  tra- 
ditions of  those  churches  are  invested  with  the  authority 
of  the  whole  christian  world.  The  argument  on  which 
Roman  theologians  endeavour  to  establish  the  primacy 
of  the  Roman  pontiff  as  jure  divino,  is  as  follows.  (1) 
St.  Peter  was  given  by  our  Saviour  a  primacy  or  supre- 
macy of  official  dignity  and  power  in  the  church  beyond 
the  other  apostles.  (2)  This  primacy  was  an  ordinary 
office  designed  to  be  permanent  in  the  church.     (3)  The 


478  Preeminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

Roman  pontiff  alone  has  a  just  claim  to  this  primacy, 
manifested  by  the  continual  possession  and  exercise  of 
its  rights  from  the  earliest  periods.  The  different 
members  of  this  argument  will  form  the  subjects  of  the 
present  and  the  three  following  chapters. 

That  St.  Peter  was  in  a  certain  sense  the  first  of  the 
apostles  may  be  readily  conceded.  His  zeal,  his  love  of 
Christ,  and  the  many  and  great  labours  to  which  they 
l^rompted  him,  seem  to  have  exceeded  those  of  the 
other  apostles.  This  would  sufficiently  account  for  his 
being  generally  placed  first  by  the  sacred  writers,  when 
his  name  occurs  with  those  of  other  apostles ;  and  it 
would  also  account  for  our  Lord's  distinguishing  him 
above  the  rest,  by  addressing  him  peculiarly  on  several 
occasions,  when  he  intended  to  convey  directions,  or 
give  powers  to  all  the  apostles.  Such  is  the  opinion 
of  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Cyril  ^  Several  of  the  fathers 
however  were  of  opinion,  that  Peter  had  this  pre- 
eminence in  consequence  of  his  age,  being  the  eldest  of 
the  apostles.  This  doctrine  is  taught  by  Jerome,  Chry- 
sostom,  and  Cassianus^  Others,  as  Epiphanius,  Cy- 
prian, Hilary,  Basil,  Gregory  the  great,  and  Chrysostom 
in  another  place,  suppose  that  Peter  was  first  of  the 
apostles,  because  he  was  first  called".  Others,  as 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Basil,  Epiphanius,  Optatus,  Am- 
brose, suppose  that  he  was  given  the  preeminence  in 
consequence  of  his  public  confession  of  Christ  ^.  It  ap- 
pears from  this,  that  catholic  tradition  does  not  enable 
us  to  determine  with  certainty  the  reasons  for  which  St. 

*  Du  Pin,  De  Antiqua  Eccle-  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  560.  ed.  1722. 

siae  Disciplina,  p.  312.  ed.  Paris.  "^  Du  Pin,  ibid.  Tournely,  ibid. 

1686.  Barrow,  ibid. 

**  Du  Pin,  ibid.     Tournely,  De  ^  Tournely,   ut  supra,    p.  12. 

Eccl.  t.  ii.  p.  11.    Barrow,  Trea-  Barrow,  ibid, 
tise    of   the    Pope's    Supremacy, 


CHAP.  I.]  Preeminence  of  St.  Peter.  479 

Peter  had  a  personal  preeminence  of  honour  among 
the  apostles.  But  I  now  proceed  to  show  that  this 
apostle  had  no  official  supremacy  or  jurisdiction  over 
the  other  apostles. 

I.  According  to  scripture  the  apostles  were  all  equal 
and  supreme  in  authority.  Our  Lord  said  to  all  the 
apostles  collectively  and  individually,  "  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  you  nor  hear  your  words ;  ...  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  in 
the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city  %"  "  I  will 
pray  the  Father  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Com- 
forter, that  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever,  even  the 
Spirit  of  Truth  '."  "  He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  ^" 
After  his  resurrection  he  said  to  them,  "  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  so  send  I  you.  ...  He  breathed  on  them 
and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them, 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained*"." 
"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth.  Go 
ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.  And  lo  lam  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world '." 

From  these  passages  I  argue,  that  all  the  apostles 
were  invested  with  equal  and  supreme  authority  in  the 
church.  For  our  Lord's  words  were  addressed  to  all 
the  apostles :  no  distinction  was  made  :  all  were  alike 
addressed,  and  all  were  therefore  given  the  same  apos- 
tolical authority.  And  the  authority  thus  given  was 
SUPREME.     Every  apostle  was  to  be  heard  under  the 

'  Matt.  X.  14,  15.  ■'  John  xx.  21—23. 

*  John  xiv.  16.  '  Mutt,  xxviii.  18—20. 

*?  John  xvi.  13. 


480  Preeminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

penalty  of  eternal  death  :  every  apostle  was  guided  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  into  all  truth :  every  apostle  was  sent 
as  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  by  the  Father ;  that  is  with  the 
plenitude  of  supreme  power :  every  apostle  was  autho- 
rized to  remit  sins,  and  to  teach  all  nations.  Nothing- 
conceivable  by  human  imagination,  can  surpass  the 
grandeur  and  the  magnitude  of  this  mission  and  these 
powers ;  and  therefore  St.  Peter  could  not  have  ex- 
ceeded the  other  apostles  in  power  or  official  dignity ; 
but  could  only  have  excelled  them  in  personal  respects. 
And  accordingly  we  find  that  St.  Peter  was  always 
superior  to  the  other  disciples  in  zeal  and  activity ;  but 
never  do  we  find  an  instance  of  his  exercising  authority 
over  them.  In  fact  scripture  plainly  teaches  us  that 
"  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church  :  first  apostles, 
secondarily  prophets,"  &c. ''  Therefore  the  twelve 
apostles  were  first  in  the  church :  not  the  apostle 
Peter  alone. 

II.  The  same  conclusion  is  supported  by  tradition. 
Tertullian  says  :  "  We  have  the  apostles  of  Christ  for  our 
authors '."  Cyprian  :  "  Certainly  the  other  apostles  were 
what  Peter  \vas,  endowed  with  ari  equal  plenitude  both  of 
honour  and  power  :  but  the  beginning  takes  its  rise  from 
unity,  that  the  church  may  be  demonstrated  to  be  one  ■"." 
Ambrose  :  "  When  Peter  heard,  '  But  what  say  ye  that 


''  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  buntur:'  tamen  ut  unitatem  ma- 

'    "  Apostolos    Domini    habc-  nifestaret,  unitatis  ejusdem  origi- 

mus  autores." — Tertull.  De  Prae-  nem  ab  uno  incipientem  sua  auc- 

script.  adv.  Haeres.  toritate    disposuit.       Hoc    erant 

"*  "Q.uam vis  apostolis  omnibus  utique    et    cteteri    apostoli    quod 

post  resurrectionem  suam  parem  fuit  Petrus,  pari  consortio  prae- 

potestatem  tribuat  et  dicat :  '  Si-  diti  et  honoris  et  jjotestatis  ;  sed 

cut  misit  me  Pater  et  ego  mitto  exordium  ab  unitate  proficiscitur, 

vos  :  Accipite  Spiritum  sanctum  :  ut   ecclesia    una    monstretur." — 

si  cui  remiseritis  peccata  remit-  Cypr.  De  Unit.  Eccl. 
tentur  illi  :  si  cui  tcnueritis  tene- 


CHAP.  I.]  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  481 

lam?'  immediately  remembering  his  place,  he  takes 
the  precedence:  the  precedence  indeed  in  confession, 
not  in  honour ;  the  precedence  in  faith,  7iot  in  order "." 
*'  Hear  him  saying,  '  I  will  give  thee  the  keys.'  .  .  What 
is  said  to  Peter,  is  said  to  the  other  apostles  °."  Jerome  : 
"  John  and  James  did  not,  though  they  sought  it,  ob- 
tain more  than  the  rest :  and  yet  their  dignity  was  not 
diminished ;  because  they  were  equal  to  the  rest  of  the 
apostles  *"."  Chrysostom  :  "  Whence  is  it  manifest  that 
the  apostle  is  before  all  others ;  and  that  as  the  consul 
amongst  earthly  magistracies,  so  the  apostle  hath  the 
preeminence  in  spirituals  ?  Let  us  hear  Paul  enume- 
rating the  authorities,  and  setting  that  of  the  apostles 
in  the  highest  place.  AVhat  does  he  say  then  ?  '  God 
placed  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly  pro- 
phets, thirdly  teachers  and  pastors,  then  gifts  of  healing.' 
See  you  the  summit  of  dignities  ?  See  you  the  apostle 
sitting  on  high,  and  no  one  before  or  above  him :  for  he 
says,  '  First  apostles,'  &c. ''"  Chrysostom  adds,  that  "  the 
apostolate  is  not  only  the  first  of  dignities,  but  the  root 
and  foundation  of  all  others  ^"     He  says  that  the  apos- 

"  "  Hie    (Petrus)    ubi  audivit,  i   Kat    ■KoQtv  tovto    S})\op'    on 

'  Vos  antem  quid  me  dicitis?' sta-  Trpo  Trarrwv  6  airoffTuXog  rovrcju 

tim  loci  non  immemor  sui,  pri-  iari'  icnl  Kadan-ep  6  vTraroc  kv  toIq 

matuni    egit ;    primatum   confes-  aiadrjTaiQ  ap^aic,    ovtojq  6   cnro- 

sionis  utique,  non  honoris;  pri-  (ttoXoq    ev   ro'ig  TrvtvyiaTiKoiQ   Tr}v 

matum  fidei,  non  ordinis." — Lib.  irpoeSptiay  e^£t ;   avrov  tov   Wav- 

de  Incarn.  c.  iv.  t.  ii.  p.  710.  \ov  aKovtjoJuev    dpidfJOvpTOc     rag 

°    "  Denique    audi    dicentem  :  op^^ac,  xal  iu  t(3  vxprjXoripu)  ^u)- 

'  Tibi  dabo   claves,'  &c.  .  .  Quod  plu)   ti)i'  cnroaroXiKriv   Kadii^nyroQ. 

Petro    dicitur,    caeteris    apostolis  ri  ovv  ovtoq  iprjaiv;  ovq  fxev  'iQe- 

dicitur." — Ambros.inPs.  xxxviii.  ro  6  Otug  k.  r.  X.     JLlhg  Kopv(pi)y 

t.  i.  p.  858.  up-^MV  ;    dSec    vt^rjXo;-'   KaQl]fXEvov 

P   "  Joannes  et    Jacobus    quia  tuv    cittocitoXov,    kuX    ovSira    Trpo 

plus  caeteris    petierunt,   non   im-  iKthov  6y-a,  ovre  ai'WTepny  ;  tt.iw- 

petraverunt ;  et  tamen  non  est  dig-  royyap  anouToXovc;  (pr](Tt . — Chrys. 

nitas  eorum  imminuta,  quia  re-  Horn.  deUtil.  Lect.  Script,  t.  iii. 

liquis  apostolis  aequales  fuerunt."  Oper.  p.  75.  ed,  Ben. 

— Hieron.  adv.  Jovin.  lib.  i.  ""  Ovk  rtp;i(»/  ^e    ^oyoy   ianv  »; 

VOL.  II.  I   i 


482  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

ties  were  "  all  in  common  entrusted  with  the  care  of 
the  whole  world  '."  Cyril  of  Alexandria  says,  that  the 
apostles  were  "  universal  judges,"  and  "  rulers  of  the 
whole  world  " ;"  and  in  his  epistle  to  Nestorius,  approved 
by  the  third  and  following  oecumenical  synods,  he  says, 
that  Peter  and  John  were  "  equal  in  honour  to  each 
other  \"  Victor  of  Carthage  :  "  To  the  church,  all  the 
blessed  apostles,  endued  with  equal  feUoivship  of  honour 
andimimr,  brought  multitudes  of  people  ^T  Isidore  His- 
palensis  :  "  The  other  apostles  received  an  equal  felloic- 
sliip  of  'power  and  honour  with  Peter,  and,  dispersed 
throughout  the  world,  preached  the  gospel  \"  The 
fifth  oecumenical  synod  declares,  that  "  tlie  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  abounded  in  each  of  the  apostles,  so  that 
they  needed  not  the  counsel  of  any  other  in  the  things 
that  should  be  done  ^."  Nicholas  de  Cusa  says :  "  We 
know  that  Peter  received  from  Christ  7io  more  power 
than  the  other  apostles;  for  nothing  was  said  to  Petei*, 
which  was  not  also  said  to  the  others.  Therefore  we 
say  rightly  that  all  the  apostles  were  equal  in  poiver 
with  Peter  ^" 


tiTroiTroXii  twv  uWmv  dpywv,  aWa  Carthag.  Epist.  ad  Theodor.  Pap. 

Kui  viroOsffie  Kcti  (nL,a. — Ibid.  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  iii.  p.  754. 

*  U.avTtQ  Koivf]  Trjv  ulKovixivr]v  ^  "  Casteri  apostoli  cum  Petro 

tix-marevQivTEc. — Ibid.  p.  77.  par  consortium  honoris  et  potes- 

"  Kptroc  ka")(i]Kafxev  olKovjievi-  tatis    acceperunt,    qui    etiam   in 

Kovc,  TovQ  aylovg  ^aQr]TdQ. — Cy-  toto    orbe    dispersi,     evangelium 

ril.  Glaph.  in  Gen.  t.  i.  p.  229.  prasdicaverunt." — Isidor.  Hispal. 

"  Kat  yovv  Iltrpoc  Tt  Ka\  'Iwdv-  De  Officiis,  lib.  ii.  c.  5. 

j'77C  laoniioi  jdev  aWi'iXoic,  KaOu  ^  "  Licet  enim  sancti  Spiritus 

Kai  a-KoarokoL  Koi  ciyioi  fxudr]Tai.  gratia  et  circa  singulos  apostolos 

— Cyril.    Epist.   ii.     ad   Nestor,  abundaret,  ut  non  indigerent  ali- 

Hard.  Cone.  t.  i.  p.  1288.  eno  consilio  ad   ea  quae    agenda 

"  "  Ad  quam  (ecclesiam)  om-  erant." — Collat.    viii.     Harduin. 

nes  beatissimi  apostoli,  pari  ho-  Concil.  t.  iii.  p.  188. 

noris  et  potestatis  consortio  prse-  ^  "  Sciraus  quod  Petrus  nihil 

diti,  populorum  agmina  conver-  plus  potestatis  a  Christo  recepit 

tentes  .  .  perduxerunt." — Victor  aliis  apostolis.     Nihil   enim   die- 


CHAP.  I.]  Pre-eminence  of  St..  Peter.  483 

III.  Let  us  now  briefly  notice  what  is  alleged  by 
our  opponents  from  scripture,  in  proof  of  St.  Peter's 
official  primacy  of  honour  and  ])ower  over  the  other 
apostles. 

(1.)  It  is  alleged  that  our  Lord,  having  originally 
given  Simon  the  name  of  "  Cephas,"  or  Peter,  "  a  stone," 
in  order  to  signify  the  office  to  which  he  was  to  be 
called,  conferred  that  office  on  him,  on  occasion  of  his 
confession  of  the  true  faith,  in  these  \vords :  "  I  say 
also  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kino'dom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatso- 
ever thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  hea- 
ven ^"  From  this  it  is  arf^ued  bv  Bellarmine  and  other 
Roman  theologians,  that  St.  Peter  is  here  represented 
as  the  foundation  on  which  the  church  is  built :  that  a 
foundation  is  to  a  building  what  a  head  is  to  a  body,  or 
a  ruler  to  a  state  :  that  "  keys"  signify  "  dominion," 
being  presented  to  rulers  in  token  of  obedience :  and 
therefore  that  the  text  signifies  that  St.  Peter  was  to 
be  head,  ruler,  or  governor  of  the  whole  church,  in- 
cluding the  apostles. 

Opinions  differ  as  to  this  interpretation  :  to  some  it 
may  appear  probable  ;  to  others  fanciful  and  strained. 
But  all  that  I  need  do  is  to  prove  first,  that  this  inter- 
pretation is  uncertain,  and  cannot  suffice  to  support  an 
article  of  faith  ;  and  secondly,  that  a  different  interpre- 
tation is  probably  correct. 

turn  est  ad   Petrum,   quod    aliis     testate." — Nicol.     Cusanus,    De 
etiam   dictum    non    sit  .  .  .  Ideo     Cone.  Cath.  lib.  ii.  c.  13. 
recte    dicimus,   omnes   apostolos         "  Matt.  xvi.  18,  19. 
esse  aequales  cum  Petro  in  po- 

I  i  2 


484  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vir. 

First,  the  church  is  not  agreed  that  "  the  rock"  here 
spoken  of  means  St.  Peter.  Du  Pin  and  Natalis 
Alexander  have  shown,  that  some  of  the  fathers, 
as  Origen,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Etherius, 
Beatus,  Paschasius,  &c.  interpret  it  of  the  apostles 
generally^:  that  others,  as  Jerome,  Augustine,  Theo- 
doret,  Bede,  Paulinus,  Rabanus,  Ansehn,  Lombard, 
Innocent  III.,  &c.  understand  it  to  mean  our  Lord  him- 
self :  and  that  the  majority  interpret  it  of  the  true  faith. 
This,  according  to  Natalis  Alexander  ^  is  the  doctrine 
of  Hilary,  Gregory  Nyssene,  Ambrose,  Hilary  the 
deacon,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
Juvenalis,  Leo,  Petrus  Chrysologus,  Theodoret,  Euche- 
rius,  Felix  HI.,  Gregory  the  great,  Bede,  John  Damas- 
cenus,  Hadrian  I.,  Druthmar,  Jonas  Aurelianensis, 
Hincmar,  Nicholas  I.,  John  VIII.,  Theophanes,  Theo- 
dorus  Abucara,  Stephen  VI.,  Odo  Cluniacensis,  Rupert 
Tuitensis,  Innocent  II.,  Hadrian  IV.,  Urban  HI., 
Thomas  Aquinas,  Stephen  bishop  of  Paris,  Alphonsus 
Tostatus,  Clictovseus,  Eckius,  Renatiis  Benedictus. 

It  is  most  true  also  that  many  of  the  fathers  under- 
stand aS'^.  Peter  himself  as  the  "  rock."  Natalis  Alexan- 
der mentions  among  these  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian, 
Hilary,  Basil,  Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Augus- 
tine, Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Leo,  Maximus,  Theophylact, 
Euthymius  \ 

These  circumstances  prove  incontestably  that  the 
church  has  not  received  any  certain  apostolical  tradi- 
tion as  to  the  meaning  of  this  part  of  the  text :  it  is 

'•  Du    Pin,    De    Antiq.    Eccl.         "  Natalis  Alexander,  ibid.  Du 

Discipl.  p.  306.  ed.  1686.     Na-  Pin,  p.  305. 
talis  Alexander,  Hist.  Eccl.  t.viii.  ''  Ibid.     Ibid.  p.  304,  305. 

dissert,  iv.  *  Ibid.     Ibid. 


CHAF.  I.]  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  485 

clear  that  not  only  have  different  fathers  interpreted  it 
differently,  but  even  the  very  same  fathers,  at  different 
times.  In  fact  St.  Augustine  leaves  it  to  the  choice  of 
the  reader  to  understand  the  "  rock,"  either  to  mean 
St.  Peter  or  our  Lord  himself  ^  Therefore  no  interpre- 
tation of  this  term  is  de  fide,  or  can  suffice  to  support 
an  article  of  faith. 

We  now  come  to  the  "  keys,"  and  power  of  "  bind- 
ing and  loosing."  That  this  part  of  the  text  does  not 
prove  St.  Peter  to  have  had  a  superior  official  dignity 
and  jurisdiction  to  the  other  apostles,  Ave  may  conclude, 
from  the  fact  stated  by  the  learned  Roman-catholic 
Du  Pin,  that  the  ancient  fathers,  "  with  an  unanimous 
consent,  teach  that  the  keys  were  give)i  to  the  ichole 
church  in  the  person  of  Peter."  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Optatus,  Gaudentius,  Am- 
brose, Augustine,  Fulgentius,  Theophylact,  Eucherius, 
Beda,  Rabanus  Maurus,  Lyranus,  Hincmar,  Odo,  Petrus 
Blesensis,  and  others  innumerable^.  Hence  Du  Pin 
concludes  that  "  the  keys  in  this  place  cannot  mean, 
as  Bellarmine  wishes,  the  chief  power  over  the  whole 
church  ;"  and  that  "  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  this 
place,  that  St.  Peter  received  anything  which  was  not 
given  to  the  other  apostles  ''." 

From  the  preceding  observations  it  appears,  that  the 

^  "  In  hoc  libro  dixi  in  quo-  es  Christus  filius  Dei   vivi.  .  .  . 

dam  loco  de  apostolo  Petro,  quod  Harum    autem    duarum    senten- 

in   illo  tanquam  in  petra  funda-  tiarum,  quse  sit  probabilior  eligat 

ta  sit    ecclesia  .  .  .  sed  scio    me  lector." — August.  Retract,  lib.  i. 

postea    saepissime  sic  exposuisse  c.  21. 

quod  a  Domino  dictum  est,  '  Tu         ^  Du  Pin,  De  Antiq.  Ecclesiae 

es  Petrus,    et  super  banc  petram  Discipl,  p.  309  ;   Barrow,  Trea- 

aedificabo     ecclesiam  meam,'    ut  tise    on    Pope's   Sujn-emacy,    p. 

super    liunc    intelligeretur    quem  587. 
confessus  est  Petrus,  dicens,  '  Tu         ''  Ibid. 


486  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

interpretation  of  this  text  usually  given  by  Roman 
theologians,  is  not  supported  by  the  universal  consent 
of  the  church ;  and  that  it  is  even  disputed  without 
censure  in  their  own  communion.  Therefore  it  cannot 
found  an  article  of  faith. 

In  fine  there  is  another  interpretation  which  seems 
more  probable.  As  a  foundation  then  signifies  that 
which  commences  and  supports  the  whole  building ; 
and  as  "keys"  with  their  power  of  "binding  and 
loosing,"  signify  the  privilege  of  opening  what  has 
been  hitherto  closed  ;  so  St.  Peter  was  to  commence 
and  sustain  the  church,  and  to  open  its  gates  to  be- 
lievers. This  is  the  interpretation  of  the  ancient  writer 
under  the  name  of  Ambrose,  who  says  :  "  he  is  called  a 
rock,  because  he  first  laid  the  foundation  of  faith 
amongst  the  nations  ' :"  it  is  supported  by  Tertullian, 
who  says,  "  The  event  teaches  us  that  it  was  so.  The 
church  was  built  up  on  him,  that  is  by  him.  He  intro- 
duced the  key,  and  mark  in  what  manner  :  '  Men  of 
Israel,  hearken  with  your  ears  to  what  I  say  unto  you, 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among 
you,  &c.'  In  fine,  he  first,  in  christian  baptism,  un- 
locked the  entrance  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  ""."  St. 
Peter  was  the  rock  on  which  the  church  was  founded, 
for  he  first  preached  to  the  Jews,  and  converted  in  one 


'  "  Petra  enim  dicitur,  eo  quod  destinatum,    et    reliqua.        Ipse 

primus  in  nationibus  fidei  fuuda-  denique  primus,   in  Christi  bap- 

menta  posuerit." — Ambros.   Ser-  tismo,  reseravit  aditum   ccelestis 

mo  ii.  de  Sanctis,  ed.  Rom.  lo85.  regni,     quo     solvuntur     alligata 

''   "  Sic  enim   et  exitus  docet.  retro   delicta,    et  alligantur  quae 

In  ipso  ecclesia  extructa  est,  id  non    fuerint    soluta,     secundum 

est  per  ipsum.      Ipse  clavem  im-  veram    salutem."  —  Tertull.    de 

buit  ;  vide  quam ;   Viri  Israelitee,  Pudicitia,    c.    21.    p.    574.     ed. 

auribus  mandate  quae  dico,  Jesum  Rigalt. 
Nazarenum   virum  a  Deo  vobis 


CHAP.  I.]  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  487 

day  three  thousand  men.  He  sustained  the  church  by 
his  zealous  labours,  for  of  him  alone  it  is  said,  that 
"he  passed  through  all  quarters'."  And  he  first  exer- 
cised the  pv  wer  of  the  "keys,"  in  baptizing  three 
thousand  Jr  vs,  and  (having  been  "made  choice"  of  by 
God  to  [»reach  first  to  the  Gentiles '",)  in  opening  the 
gates  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  them,  by  command- 
ing Cornelius  and  his  house  to  be  baptized.  Therefore 
as  Du  Pin  says,  "  supposing  Christ  to  have  spoken 
these  words  of  Peter  personally,  he  meant  nothing  else 
than  that  Peter  should  labour  exceedingly  in  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  church,  that  is  in  the  conversion  of  the 
faithful,  or  administration  of  the  churches.  The  utmost 
then  that  can  be  deduced  from  hence  is,  that  he  should 
be  the  first  and  chief  among  those  who  were  to  preach 
the  gospel :  but  it  cannot  be  collected  with  Bellarmine, 
that  the  government  of  the  whole  church  urns  committed  to 
Peter,  especially  in  matters  of  faith  "," 

(2.)  The  other  passage  on  which  Roman  theologians 
chiefly  rely  to  establish  the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter,  is 
that  in  which  our  Lord  thrice  said  to  Peter,  "  Simon, 
son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?"  and  when  he  had 
replied,  "  Yea,  Lord  :  thou  knowest  that  T  love  thee," 
added  these  words,  "  Feed  my  lambs — feed  my  sheep  °." 
It  is  here  argued,  that  the  word  "  feed"  means  in  scrip- 
ture "rule  or  govern:"  that  "sheep"  and  "lambs" 
mean  all  christians,  whether  pastors  or  people :  and 
therefore  that  St.  Peter  was  by  these  words  given  juris- 
diction over  the  whole  church  including  the  apostles 
themselves. 

I  reply,   that  the  very  terms  of  this  passage   show 

'  Acts  ix.  32.  Discipl.  Diss.  iv.  p.  307. 

'"  Acts  XV.  7.  "  John  xxi.  15—17. 

"    Du    Pill,    De    Antiq.    Eccl. 


488  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

that  our  Lord  was  not  here  conferring  a  poiver  on  St. 
Peter,  but  giving  an  admonition.  "  Simon,  son  of 
Jonas,  h^vest  thou  me?  Feed  my  sheep."  If  thou 
lovest  me  more  than  these,  let  it  be  proved  by  dili- 
gently tending  my  flock.  This  is  the  interpretation 
given  by  Chrysostom,  who  ex[)lains  our  Lord's  words 
thus :  "  If  thou  lovest  me,  protect  the  brethren,  and 
now  show  that  warm  affection  which  thou  hast  always 
manifested,  and  in  which  thou  hast  rejoiced  p."  The 
same  father  in  many  other  places  regards  it  as  an 
injimction  to  Peter  to  manifest  his  love  for  Christ  by 
his  pastoral  zeal "".  St.  Augustine  appears  to  have  un- 
derstood it  in  the  same  manner  ^  The  Roman  clergy 
in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  in  speaking  of  the  pastoral 
care,  adduce  these  words  of  our  Lord  as  intended  to 
l^oint  out  to  Peter  his  duty,  and  as  also  applicable  to 
all  other  apostles  and  pastors'.  It  was  in  fact  the 
general  doctrine  of  all  the  fathers,  that  these  words 
were  not  addressed  to  Peter  only,  but  to  all  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  Tournely  \  Du  Pin ",  Natalis 
Alexander,  and  Launoy ",  quote  Ambrose,  Augustine, 
Chrysostom,   Basil,   &c.  in  proof  that  not  only  Peter, 

•'  "On   el  (l>i\E'lg  jut  Trpma-raa-o  pono   animam   meam,'  &c.      Sed 

Tojv    adsXipuir,     ical    rrfv    6£p/i»)»'  et  Simoni  sic  dicet,  '  Diligis  me?' 

a.ya'Kr]vr)v  Cut  irai'Ttjjv  ETrtctiKivixo,  respondit,  '  Diligo :'  ait  ei,  '  Pasce 

Kal  e(f  r]  I'lyaXXidao),    vvv  ^eii,ov.  oves  meas.'    Hoc  verbum  factum 

— Chrysost.  Hom.  88  in  Job.   t.  ex  aetu  ipso  quo  cessit  cognosci- 

viii.  p.  525.  mus,  et  cseteri  discipuli  similiter 

''    See   many  places   cited  by  fecerunt "  —  Cler.    Rom.    Cypr. 

Launoius,  Epistolse,   p.   91.  ed.  Epist.  iii.  ed.  Pamel. 
Cantabr.  '  Tournely,   De  Ecclesia,  t.  ii. 

"■   August,  tract,   xlvii.    super  p   9,  10. 
Joh.    Evangel.    Oper.    t.    iii.    p.  "  Du  Pin,  ut  supra,  p.  310. 

607.  '     Natalis    Alexander,     Hist. 

^  "  Denique  et  ipse  Dominus  Eccl.   t.   viii.    Dissert,   iv.   Lau- 

implens    quae     erant   scripta    in  noius,   Epistolas,  pars  ii.    ep.   i.  . 

lege  et    prophetis,    docet  dicens,  p.  90,  &c.      See  also  p.  637. 
'  Ego    sum    pastor    bonus,    qui 


CHAP.  I.]  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  489 

but  all  the  apostles  and  tlieir  successors  were  com- 
manded to  feed  the  flock,  Barrow  adds  the  testimony 
of  Cyprian,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  ^  kc.  to  the  same 
effect.  Du  Pin  observes,  that  if  some  of  the  fathers,  as 
Leo,  Theophylact,  and  Chrysostom,  say  that  the  sheep 
throughout  the  whole  world  were  committed  to  Peter ; 
and  if  it  be  argued  from  this  that  St.  Peter  was  superior 
to  the  other  apostles,  it  must  be  recollected  that  all 
the  apostles  were,  equally  with  him,  given  the  power  of 
"  teaching  all  nations  \"  As  to  the  interpretation  of 
"sheep"  and  "lambs"  as  "pastors'"  and  "people,"  it  is 
uncertain.  Theophylact  understands  them  to  mean  per- 
fect and  imperfect  christians^. 

Du  Pin  concludes  that  "  the  primacy  of  Peter  cannot 
be  collected  from  these  places  adduced  by  Bellarmine, 
in  the  manner  he  deduces  it ' :"  but  he  thinks  that 
from  Peter's  representiuf/  the  church,  and  being  address- 
ed by  our  Lord  instead  of  the  others,  a  primacy  may 
be  collected.  I  have  spoken  sufficiently  of  the  former 
text  already ;  but  from  this  text  no  primacy  can  be 
deduced,  because  our  Saviour's  words  imply  a  simple 
injunction  and  admonition,  which,  though  directed  im- 
mediately to  Peter,  (in  order,  as  St.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria says,  to  renew  his  apostleship  after  the  crime  of 
denying  our  Lord  \)  would  be  readily  understood  at 
once  by  all  the  apostles,  as  equally  applicable  to  them- 
selves. 

(3.)  As  to  the  various  instances  in  which  St.  Peter 
was  distinguished  above  the  other  apostles,  such  as  his 


"  Barrow,  Treatise  on  Pope's  Comment,   in  Evangel,   p.   845. 

Supremacy,    Works,    vol.  ii.    p.  ed.  Paris,  1631. 

587.  ed.  1722.  '  Du  Pin.  P-  311. 

"  Du  Pin,  ut  supra.  *  Cyril.  Alexandr.   in  c.  xxi. 

y   Theophylact,    in    Joh.    xxi.  Joh.  Evang. 


490  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

being  named  first  by  the  Evangelists,  his  speaking  first, 
our  Lord's  entering  his  ship  in  preference  to  the  others, 
his  proposing  the  election  of  an  apostle  in  place  of 
Judas,  his  speaking  first  in  the  council  at  Jerusalem, 
&c. ;  these  passages  concur  in  proving  what  is  readily- 
admitted,  that  St.  Peter  had  a  personal  pre-eminence 
among  the  apostles,  derived  perhaps  partly  from  his 
seniority,  but  most  justly  founded  on  his  faith  and  love 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  in  vain  alleged  to 
prove  any  oflficial  superiority  of  jurisdiction. 

IV.  We  are  now  to  consider  the  various  proofs  from 
tradition,  brought  forward  to  invalidate  our  position. 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian  say  that  Peter  was  the  rock  on 
which  the  church  was  built  ^  Origen  terms  Peter  "  the 
highest  summit  of  the  apostles  %"  and  says  that  "  to 
him  principally  it  was  delivered  to  feed  the  sheep  '^." 
Eusebius  terms  him  "the  first  pontifii"  of  the  chris- 
tians *" :"  "  the  most  powerful  and  great  of  the  apostles  V' 
Basil :  "  Peter  was  preferred  before  all  the  disciples. 
To  him  greater  testimonies  were  given  than  to  others  ; 
who  was  pronounced  blessed,  and  to  whom  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  were  entrusted  *'."  Chrysostom 
calls  him  the  "  mouth,"  the  "  prince,"  the  "  summit "  of 
the  apostles  '\  Epiphanius :  "  He  chose  Peter  to  be 
the  leader  of  the  discij^les  ?'  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cyril 
Alexandrinus,  Optatus,  term  Peter  the  "  head  and 
prince^"  of  the  church.     Ambrose:  "Andrew  did  not 

^    Tertull.   lib.    de   Praescript.  Dei. 
Cypr.  Epist.  55.  Lib.  de  Unitate.  ^  Chrysost.  Horn.  87  in  Joan. 

'•=    Origen,    Horn.    ii.    De    di-  Horn.  iii.  in  Act.   Apost.   Orat. 

versis.  viii.  adv.  Jud. 

^   Origen,   in   c.    6.    epist.   ad         '  Epiphanius,  Haeres.  51. 
Romanes.  '  Cyril.   Hierosol.  Cateches.  ii. 

*  Euseb.  Chronic,  an.  44.  &  xi ;  Cyril.  Alexandr.   lib.  xii. 

'  Euseb.  Hist.  lib.  ii,  c.  14.  in    Joanneni  ;    Optatus,    lib.    ii. 

s    Basil.    Proocm.    de   Judicio  contr.  Parmen. 

8 


CHAP.  I.]  Pre-eTninenceofSt.Peter.  491 

receive  the  primacy,  but  Peter  \"  Augustine  :  "  In 
Peter  the  primacy  of  the  apostles  is  pre-eminent  by  so 
excellent  a  grace ' ;"  "  St.  Peter  himself  the  first  in 
order  of  the  apostles  "."  Jerome  speaks  in  the  same 
manner  ".  The  council  of  Chalcedon  terms  Peter  "  the 
rock  of  the  catholic  church,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
right  faith  °." 

I  answer,  that  these  passages  merely  assert  the  per- 
sonal pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter  among  the  apostles, 
which  we  admit.  In  this  sense  he  may  be  most  justly 
called  the  first  of  the  apostles  ;  or  in  rhetorical  lan- 
guage, their  leader,  head,  summit,  chief,  or  prince. 
Therefore  these  passages  do  not  afford  any  objection  to 
our  principle  :  and  it  has  been  already  proved,  that 
tradition,  as  well  as  scripture,  establishes  the  equality 
and  supremacy  of  all  the  apostles.  Therefore  all  the 
above  passages  must  be  interpreted  accordingly. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  St.  Leo  of  Rome,  says : 
"  From  the  whole  world,  Peter  alone  is  selected  to  be 
l)laced  over  the  vocation  of  all  nations,  and  over  all  the 
apostles  and  fathers  of  the  church :  that  although  there 
be  many  bishops  in  the  people  of  God,  yet  Peter  should 
Avith  projiriety  govern  all  those  who  are  supremely 
ruled  by  Christ  also  ''."  In  reply  to  this,  I  allow  that 
St.  Leo  and  other  Roman  pontiffs  were  occasionally  led 
to  magnify  the  privileges  of  St.  Peter,  beyond  the  truth, 
by  a  desire  to  honour  the  founder  of  their  particular 
church  ;  but  these  amplifications  can  only  be  viewed  as 


^  Ambros.  in  cap    12.  epist.  ii.  "  Hieron.  Epist.  ad  Dam.isum. 

ad  Cor.  "  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  III. 

'  August,  lib.  ii.  de  Baptismo.  ''  Leo,  Sermo  iii.   de  Assump- 

'"  August.  Sermo    1 3,   al.   70.  tione  sua  ad  Pontificatum. 

de  verbis  Domini. 


492  Pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter.  [part  vii. 

the  private  opinions  of  those  bishops,  not  as  represent- 
ing the  sentiment  of  catholic  tradition. 

V.  Since,  therefore,  it  has  been  proved  from  scrip- 
ture, that  all  the  apostles  were  equal  and  supreme  ; 
since  this  position  is  confirmed  by  catholic  tradition ; 
since  the  interpretation  of  the  texts  alleged  by  Roman 
theologians  to  j^rove  Peter's  official  primacy,  are  not 
certain  or  de  fide,  but  are  doubted  even  in  their  own 
communion  ;  and  since  in  fine  the  more  j^robable  in- 
terpretation of  those  texts,  and  the  passages  alleged  by 
Romanists  from  the  fathers,  only  establish  the  personal 
pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter  :  we  may  conclude  that  the 
official  primacy  or  supremacy  of  St.  Peter  cannot  possi- 
blv  be  a  matter  of  faith,  and  that  it  is  altogether 
unfounded. 

It  is  very  true  that  Bellarmine  says,  that  the  denial 
of  St.  Peter's  primacy,  according  to  his  view  of  it,  is 
"  a  most  pernicious  heresy."  It  is  also  true  that  Bailly, 
Bouvier,  Delahogue,  affirm  that  St.  Peter's  primacy  of 
jurisdiction  over  the  other  apostles  is  de  fide :  but  I 
have  elsewhere  shown,  that  assertions  of  this  kind  are 
not  sufficient  to  prove  that  there  is  either  error  or 
heresy  in  holding  the  contrary  doctrine ''. 

OBJECTIONS. 

In  reply  to  the  passages  from  St.  Cyprian,  and  other 
fathers,  asserting  the  equality  of  the  other  apostles  with 
Peter,  it  is  said  by  Tournely,  Bailly,  Delahogue,  &c. 
"  that  the  other  apostles  were  equal  to  St.  Peter  in  the 
intrinsic  and  essential  apostolical  authority,  as  to  the 
power  of  teaching  every  where,  ministering  the  sacra- 

1  See  Part  IV,   chap.  vi. 


CHAP,  ri.]       Duration  of  St.  Peter's  Pre-eminence.  493 

ments,  ordaining  pastors,  &c.:  but  that  they  were  not 
equal  in  the  eMrinsic  and  accidental  authority,  and  as  to 
the  mode  of  exercising  that  power." 

Answer.  I  argue  directly  from  this  reply,  that  St. 
Peter  had  no  official  primacy  or  supremacy  over  the 
other  apostles  ;  for  if  he  had  been  endued  by  Christ 
with  an  official  superiority  and  jurisdiction  over  them, 
either  separately  or  collectively  ;  while  they  had  no 
jurisdiction  over  him  or  over  one  another ;  there  would 
have  been  an  essential  and  mtrinsic  difference  between 
his  authority  and  theirs.   But  this  is  denied.  Ergo,  &;c. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON    THE    DURATION    OF    ST.  PETER's    PRE-EMINENCE. 

It  is  the  next  assertion  of  Roman  theologians,  that 
the  pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter  among  the  apostles,  was 
an  ordinary  office,  instituted  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  church,  and  which  was  always  to  continue.  But 
if  the  conclusions  of  the  preceding  chapter  are  admit- 
ted, it  is  clear  that  St.  Peter's  peculiar  privileges  could 
not  pass  to  any  successors.  The  church  once  founded 
by  him  could  never  be  founded  again.  The  keys  with 
which  he  first  unclosed  the  gates  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  Jews  and  Gentiles,  could  never  be  employed 
in  the  same  manner  by  any  one  else.  As  to  his  per- 
sonal pre-eminence  founded  on  his  love  of  Christ,  and 
more  zealous  discharge  of  the  apostolical  office ;  this  is 
not  claimed  by  any  one.  We  may  therefore  justly  say 
with  Tertullian  :  "  Qualis  es,  evertens  atque  commutans 


494  Duration  of  St.  Peter's  Pre-eminence,     [p.  vii.  oh,  ii. 

manifestam  Domini  intention  em  personaliter  hoc  Petro 
conferentem  ^  ?" 

Let  us  consider  the  principal  arguments  adduced  by 
Bellarmine  ^  and  the  other  Roman  theologians,  to 
prove  the  permanence  of  St.  Peter's  pre-eminence  in 
the  church. 

I.  The  primacy  of  St.  Peter  was  to  be  a  permanent 
office  in  the  church,  because  the  reason  for  which  it 
was  instituted  was  to  jweserve  uniti/ ;  and  this  being  a 
permanent  object,  the  office  which  was  instituted  for  it 
must  have  been  so  likewise. 

Anstver.  No  scriptural  proof  has  ever  been  adduced 
in  support  of  this  theory  of  the  reason  of  instituting 
St.  Peter's  pre-eminence.  I  repeat  it,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence from  scripture  that  the  preservation  of  unity  was 
the  reason  :  and  this  being  the  case,  it  follows  from  the 
principles  of  Veron,  Bossuel,  and  the  best  Roman  theo- 
logians ^  that  this  pretended  "  reason"  cannot  be  a 
matter  of  faith,  and  cannot  found  an  article  of  faith. 
I  maintain  that  the  reason  of  instituting  St.  Peter's  pre- 
eminence has  not  been  revealed  :  it  can  only  be  con- 
jectured :  and  though  St.  Jerome,  and  perhaps  one  or 
two  others,  support  the  view  of  the  Romanists ;  this 
cannot  make  their  opinion  a  matter  of  certainty. 

II,  A  chief  pontiff  cannot  be  less  necessary  to  the 
church  now  than  at  the  beginning :  there  is  even 
greater  necessity,  because  christians  are  more  numerous 
and  less  holy  than  at  first.  Therefore  as  St.  Peter  was 
chief  pontiff  then,  he  must  have  successors  in  all  ages. 


*   TertuUian,  de  Pudicitia,    c.  Hooke,  Relig.  Nat.  et  Rev.  t.  iii. 

21.  p.  265. 

''    Bellarminus     de     Romano         "^    See    page    15 — 17,    of  this 

Pontifice,   lib.   ii.  c.  12  ;   Bailly,  volume. 
De     Ecclesia,     t.     ii.     p.     174   ; 


OBJECT.]  Duration  of  St.  Peter's  Pre-eminence.  495 

Answer.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  apostle^vere 
equal  and  supreme ;  and  that  St.  Peter's  pre-eminence 
consisted  in  points  which  were  either  incapable  of 
being  transmitted  to  another,  or  which  no  one  else 
claims. 

III.  The  church  is  one  body  and  must  have  a  visible 
head ;  for  the  apostle,  in  speaking  of  the  church,  1  Cor. 
xii.  says,  "  The  head  cannot  say  to  the  feet,  I  have  no 
need  of  you."  The  head  here  spoken  of  cannot  be 
Christ,  because  he  QuigJit  say  to  all  men  that  he  had  no 
need  of  them  :  it  cannot  be  any  one  but  Peter :  nor 
should  the  church  remain  without  a  head  after  Peter's 
death. 

Answer.  The  "head"  in  this  place  signifies  that  por- 
tion of  the  christian  church  which  exceeds  the  rest 
either  in  power,  authority,  sanctity,  wealth,  or  any 
other  gift.  The  meaning  is,  that  every  christian,  be 
his  station  what  it  may,  is  to  esteem  himself  a  member 
of  one  body ;  and  to  love,  and  sympathize  with  all  its 
members. 

IV.  The  succession  of  high-priests  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  a  type  of  what  was  to  occur  in  the  christian 
church. 

Answer.  The  fathers  teach  that  the  high-priests  were 
types  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  after  him  of  the  bishops 
of  the  catholic  church,  who  were  all  termed  ^^  Sicmmi 
Sacerdotes." 

V.  The  church  is  termed  in  scripture  a  sheepfold,  a 
kingdom,  a  body.  But  a  sheepfold  infers  a  shepherd ; 
a  kingdom,  a  king ;  a  body,  a  head  ;  and  admitting  that 
Christ  is  the  invisible  pastor,  king,  and  head  of  the 
church,  still  the  visible  church  must  have  a  visible 
head. 

Answer.  The  church  is  not  literally,  but  figuratively, 


496  Duration  of  St.  Peter's  Pre-eminence,    [p.  vii.  ch*.  it. 

a  slreepfold,  &c.  These  expressions  only  imply  that 
it  is  an  orderly,  societi/  :  but  it  is  not  essential  to  a 
society  to  have  one  visible  chief:  many  states  have 
subsisted  without  monarchy. 

VI.  The  appointment  of  a  chief  pastor  in  the  church 
w^ould  be  highly  conducive  to  its  unity  and  order.  This 
has  been  admitted  even  by  eminent  protestants,  such 
as  Melanchthon,  Grotius,  &c.  Therefore  God  would 
not  have  left  his  church  devoid  of  so  great  a  benefit. 

I  reply  with  Bossuet,  that  "  we  must  not  rest  upon 
mere  reasonings  or  wishes,  but  on  certain  promises,  and 
certain  tradition.  If  it  be  our  pleasure  to  wish,  or 
rather  to  dream,  we  might  expect  that  the  Roman 
pontiff  should  be  not  only  free  from  error,  but  from  sin, 
ignorance,  negligence,  or  cupidity.  We  might  ask  why, 
when  Christ  said  to  his  apostles,  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  tlie  world,'  the  bishops 
were  not,  like  the  apostles,  to  enjoy  the  promise  of 
unfailing  faith  '^  ?" 

In  conclusion  then  it  may  be  affirmed,  that  there  is 
no  evidence  that  St.  Peter's  pre-eminence  was  institu- 
ted for  any  permanent  object,  or  was  to  be  transmitted 
to  others.  These  cannot  by  any  means  be  proved 
matters  of  faith:  and  therefore,  even  if  we  were  to 
concede  that  St.  Peter  was  invested  with  such  a  pri- 
macy over  the  apostles  as  is  pretended,  the  divine  right 
of  the  Roman  primacy  would  not  be  established  ;  be- 
cause St.  Peter's  primacy  might  have  been  instituted 
not  for  the  unity  of  the  church,  or  for  any  other  per- 
manent object,  but  as  a  reward  of  his  own  faith,  love, 
and  zeal  for  Christ. 

''  Bossuet,    Defens.  Declar.  Cler.  Gall.  lib.  x.  c.  36. 


CHAP.  III.]  Oriy in  of  Bomau  Pre-eminence.  497 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PRE-EMINENCE    OF    THE 
ROMAN    CHURCH. 

We  have  now  considered  sufficiently  tlie  two  first 
members  of  the  Roman  argument ;  viz.  that  St.  Peter 
was  given  by  Christ  an  official  primacy  of  honour  and 
power  over  the  other  apostles,  and  that  this  primacy 
was  always  to  continue  in  the  church.  Let  us  now 
proceed  to  the  third  branch  of  the  argument,  viz.  that 
the  church  has  always  believed  the  bishops  of  Rome 
successors  of  Peter  in  this  primacy  by  divine  right ; 
and  that  they  have  exercised  it  accordingly  from  the 
earliest  ages. 

I  deny  both  these  propositions:  and  in  the  present 
chapter  shall  prove,  that  the  pre-eminence  of  the 
Roman  church  may  be  sufficiently  accounted  for,  with- 
out any  divine  institution  ;  and  that  tradition  is  silent 
as  to  any  such  institution.  In  the  next  chapter  I  shall 
consider  the  pretended  exercise  of  this  primacy. 

I.  The  superiority  of  the  Roman  see  to  all  others, 
was  founded  on  the  following  circumstances,  relating 
peculiarly  to  the  Roman  church. 

(1.)  The  number  of  its  clergy  and  people.  Even  in 
the  time  of  the  severest  persecution  under  Decius, 
Pope  Cornelius   wrote   to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 

VOL.  II.  K  k 


498  Orif/in  of  Roman  Pre-eminence.  [part  vii. 

that,  "  by  tlie  providence  of  God,  it  had  a  rich  and  plen- 
tiful number  of  clergy,  with  a  most  great  and  innume- 
rable people  %"  so  that  he  reckons  forty-four  presbyters, 
seven  deacons,  seven  sub-deacons,  forty-two  acolytes, 
fifty-two  other  inferior  clergy,  and  above  1500  widows 
and  alms  people.  Cyprian,  in  writing  to  Cornelius, 
bishop  of  Rome,  speaks  of  "  the  most  flourishing  clergy 
presiding  with  him,  and  the  most  holy  and  numerous 
people  ^"  Irenseus  speaks  of  the  Roman  church  as 
"  maaimce''  very  great  *". 

(2.)  Its  wealth  and  charity.  The  opulence  of  the 
Roman  see  was  so  great,  that  it  is  especially  noted  by 
Ammianus  Marcellinus,  as  having  been  the  cause  of  a 
violent  schism,  when  Damasus  and  Ursinus  contended 
for  that  see  "*.  However,  this  wealth  had  been  expended 
in  works  of  charity  from  an  early  period.  Dionysius, 
bishop  of  Corinth,  writing  to  the  Roman  church  in  the 
time  of  Soter,  eleventh  bishop  of  Rome,  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  says  that  "  it  had  been 
customary  with  them  from  the  beginning,  to  benefit  all 
the  brethren  in  various  ways  ;  and  to  send  assistance 
to  many  churches  in  all  cities,  thus  relieving  the  poverty 
of  the  needy ;  and  to  supply  aid  to  the  brethren  con- 
demned to  the  mines,  by  the  gifts  which  they  had  sent 
evenfwn  the  beginning ;  that  they  preserved  as  Romans, 
the  custom  of  the  Romans  delivered  to  them  by  their 
fathers ;  and  that  their  blessed  bishop  Soter  had  not 

^  Aia   rjjc  rov   Qeov   npot'oiac,  prsesidenti,  et  sanctissimae  atque 

TfKovtTLOQ  TE  KOL  TrXrjdvdJv  clptdjxdg  amplissimse  plebi  legere  te  sem- 

fjEra    fxeyi(7Tov    Kai    dvapiQjiiiTov  per  literas  nostras,"  &c.  Cyprian. 

\aov. — Euseb.    Hist.    Eccl.    lib.  Epist.  55.  ad  Cornel, 
vi.  c.  43.  ^  Irenaeus,  adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iii. 

**  "  Et  quanquam  sciam  frater  c.  3. 
pro  mutua  dilectione  quam  debe-         ''  Ammianus  Marcellinus,   lib. 

mus  et  exhibemus  invicem  nobis,  27. 
florentissimo    illic    clero    tecum 


CHAP.  III.]  Origin  (if  Ronion  Prc-emineirce.  499 

only  observed  this  custom,  but  had  increased  it  by 
supplying  abundantly  the  provision  allotted  to  the 
saints,  and  by  comforting  with  blessed  words  the  bre- 
thren who  came  to  him,  even  as  a  loving  father  acts 
towards  his  children  ^"  The  same  mercy  and  charity  of 
the  Roman  church  is  mentioned  by  Dionysius  Alexan- 
drinus,  in  the  following  century,  in  an  epistle  to  Stephen, 
where  he  states  that  all  Syria  and  Arabia  had  received 
sui:>plies  from  Rome  \  It  is  not  wonderful  that  this 
wealth  so  well  applied,  should  conciliate  universal  re- 
spect towards  the  Roman  church. 

(3.)  Its  apostolical  origin.  The  universal  tradition 
of  the  church  ascribes  the  foundation  or  first  govern- 
ment of  the  Roman  church  to  the  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  who  were  the  greatest  of  the  apostles.  Thus 
Irenaius  speaks  of  the  Roman  church  as  "  the  very 
great,  ancient,  and  universally  known  church,  founded  by 
the  two  glorious  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  ^"  The  synod 
of  Antioch  acknowledged  that,  in  writings  "all  did 
willingly  honour  the  Roman  church,  as  having  been 
from  the  beginning  the  school  of  the  apostles,  and  the 
metropolis  of  religion  ''."  The  Roman  church  was  par- 
ticularly honoured,  as  having  been  presided  over  by 
Peter,  the  first  of  the  apostles,  and  was,  therefore,  by 
many  of  the  fathers,  called  the  see  of  Peter. 

(4)  The  purity  of  its  faith.  Irenreus  testifies  that 
the  true  faith  was  continually  preserved  in  the  Roman 
church  by  the  resort  of  Christians  from  all  parts  to  the 
imperial  city '.  In  fact  we  find  that  the  Roman 
church  was  zealous  to  maintain  the  true  faith  from  the 


*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iv.  iii.  c.  3. 
c.  23.  ^  Sozomen.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iii. 

^  Ibid.  lib.  vii.  c.  4.  c.  8. 
s   Irenseus,    adv.    Haeres.    lib.  '  Irenaeus,  ibid. 

K  k  2 


500  Roman  Pre-eminence  not  De  Jure  Divino.  [part  vir. 

earliest  period;  condemning  and  expelling  the  Gnostics, 
Artemonites,  &c.  And  during  the  Arian  mania,  it 
was  the  bulwark  of  the  catholic  faith. 

(5)  The  temporal  dignity  of  the  city  of  Rome.  The 
council  of  Chalcedon  declared  that  the  elder  Rome  had 
obtained  privileges  on  account  of  its  being  the  imperial 
city "".  Theodoret  in  his  epistle  to  Leo,  speaks  of  this 
city  as  the  greatest  and  most  splendid,  and  as  presiding 
over  the  world  ;  abounding  with  a  multitude  of  people  ; 
and  which  had  produced  the  empire  now  governing  \ 
Cyprian  also  assigns  this  as  a  reason  for  honouring  the 
Roman  church  ". 

These  various  circumstances  united  and  centering  in 
Rome  alone  of  all  churches,  gave  that  church  from  the 
beginning  a  preeminence.  The  bishop  of  Rome  in  the 
third  century  possessed  jurisdiction  over  a  great  part  of 
Italy,  which  was  confirmed  by  the  council  of  Nice". 
The  council  of  Sardica  conferred  particular  privileges 
on  the  Roman  see  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  the 
emperors  Gratian,  Valentinian,  Justinian,  and  others, 
acknowledged  its  primacy,  and  gave  various  powers 
and  prerogatives  to  the  bishops  of  Rome ;  but  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  contend  that  the  preeminence  of  the 
Roman  church  was  derived  altogether  from  the  decrees 
of  emperors,  or  from  the  canons  of  councils,  though  it 
was  much  increased  by  such  causes.  It  was  founded 
on  the  possession  of  attributes  which,  collectively,  be- 
longed to  no  other  church  whatever. 

Hence  we  may  see  the  reason  for  which  the  bishops 
of  Rome  were  styled  successors  of  St.  Peter  by  some 

^  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  xxviii.  sua    debet    Carthaginem    Roma 

See  Routh,  Opuscula.  prsecedere." — Cypr.  Epist.  49. 

'    Theodoret.    Epist.    113.    ad         "  See  the  Chapter  on  the  Ro- 

Leon.  man  Patriarchate. 

™  "  Q,uoniam  pro  magnitudine 


CHAP.  III.]  Roman  Pre-eminence  not  De  Jure  Dlvino.  TjOI 

of  the  fathers.  They  were  bishops  of  the  particular 
church  which  St.  Peter  had  assisted  in  founding,  and 
over  wliich  he  had  presided  :  and  they  were  also,  as 
bishops  of  the  principal  church,  the  most  eminent  among 
the  successors  of  the  apostles  ;  even  as  St.  Peter  had  pos- 
sessed the  preeminence  among  the  apostles  themselves. 

II.  The  circumstances  above  mentioned  sufficiently 
account  for  the  early  preeminence  of  the  Roman  church : 
but  I  now  proceed  to  show,  that  this  preeminence  did 
not  arise  from  its  being  believed,  that  the  preeminence 
of  St.  Peter  had  descended  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  by 
divine  ri(jht.  It  may  be  proved  to  a  moral  certaiiitt/, 
that  catholic  tradition  does  not  acknowledge  the  Roman 
pontiff  in  any  peculiar  sense  beyond  other  bishops,  the 
successor  of  Peter  by  divine  right :  because  the  pas- 
sages collected  from  the  fathers,  &c.  by  the  Roman 
controversialists  to  establish  this  position,  are  generally 
SILENT  on  the  point.  These  passages  may  be  divided 
into  five  classes.  Those  which  simply  assert  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  Roman  church :  those  which  assert 
the  preeminence  of  the  chair  of  Peter  and  of  the  Ro- 
man pontiff  the  successor  of  Peter,  without  reference 
to  any  divine  institution  :  those  which  refer  to  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff  as  considerable  in  the 
church,  or  are  otherwise  irrelevant :  those  which  are  not 
genuine :  and  lastly,  certain  expressions  of  Roman 
bishops  and  clergy  anxious  to  honour  their  own  church. 

1.  In  the  first  class  may  be  placed  several  passages 
which  I  shall  only  briefly  allude  to,  as  it  would  take  up 
too  much  space  to  cite  them  at  full  length.  Irenseus 
says  that  "  all  churches  must  resort  to  the  Roman  on 
account  of  its  powerful  primacy  ^"  Augustine  says,  "  the 

•^  Iren.  lib.  ill.  c.  3. 


502  JRoman  Pre-eminence  not  De  Jure  Dlvino.  [part  Vii. 

primacy  of  the  apostolical  chair  always  flourished  in  the 
Roman  church ''."  Vincentius  Lirinensis  says  that 
pope  Stephen  exceeded  other  bishops  "  in  the  authority 
of  his  place  ^"  Prosper  calls  Rome  the  "  head  of  pas- 
toral honour  in  the  world  ^"  The  synod  of  Constanti- 
nople gave  to  the  bishop  of  that  imperial  city  the 
privilege  of  honour  after  the  bishop  of  Rome  \  Ful- 
gentius  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  summit  of  the  world  V 
The  synod  of  Aquileia  terms  it  the  "  head  of  the  whole 
Roman  world "." 

2.  Amongst  those  passages  which  simply  assert  the 
pre-eminence  of  the  chair  of  Peter  and  of  the  Roman 
bishop,  without  allusion  to  any  divine  institution,  are  the 
following.  Ignatius  addresses  his  epistle  to  "  the  church 
which  presides  in  the  country  of  the  Romans  ''."  Cyprian 
styles  it  "  the  chair  of  Peter  and  the  principal  church 
where  ecclesiastical  unity  took  its  rise'."  Eusebius 
says,  "  Linus  was  the  first,  who  after  Peter  obtained 
the  see  of  RomeJ."  Optatus  speaks  of  "  one  chair,"  in 
which  "  Peter  sat  first,  to  whom  succeeded  Linus  .  .  to 
Damasus,  Siricius,  who  is  now  our  associate ;  together 
with  whom  the  whole  world  communicates  with  us ''." 
The  synod  of  Sardica  spoke  of  the  Roman  see  as  "  the 
head ;  the  see  of  Peter  V 

3.  Other  passages  refer  simply  to  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  see,  or  are  otherwise  irrelevant.  Tertullian, 
inviting  an  appeal  to  the  various  apostolic    churches 

*'  August.  Epist.  43.  al.  162.  perat.  Theodos. 

•=  Vincent.    Lirin.  Common,  c.         ^  I  gnat.  Epist.  ad  Rom. 
6.  '  Cypr.  Ep.  55.  ad  Concil. 

f*  Prosper,  Carmen  de  Ingratis,         •*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  c. 

c.  ii.  4. 

^  Synod.  Const,  can.  2.  ^  Optat.    de    Schism.    Donat. 

'  Fulgentius,    de    Incarn.     et  lib.  ii. 
Grat.  c.ll.  '    Syn.    Sardic.    Ep.    ad    Jul. 

s  Synod.  Aquil.  Epist.  ad  Im-  Rum. 


CHAP.  III.]  Roman  Pre-eminence  not  De  Jure  Divino.  503 

says,  "  If  you  are  near  to  Italy,  you  have  Rome,  whose 
autliority  is  also  near  at  hand  for  us.     Happy  church  ! 
which  the  great  apostles  fully  impregnated    with   all 
their  doctrine,"  &c. "'       He  also   terms  the  bishop  of 
Rome  a  "  high  priest,"  an  "  aj^ostolic  jirelate,"  he. " 
Cyprian  exhorts  those  sailing  to  Rome,  to  acknowledge 
in  Cornelius,  "  the  root"  of  "  the  catholic  church ;"  and 
speaks  of  his  communion  as  "  the  unity  of  the  catholic 
church  °,"   meaning  that  Cornelius  was  the  legitimate 
bishop  of  the  catholic  church  at  Rome,  w^here  at  that 
time  there  was  a  schismatical  bishop.     Basil  says  he 
had  written  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  that  he  might  see 
their  circumstances,   and   "  interpose  the  decree  of  his 
judgment  ^"     Theodoret    wrote   to    Renatus   that  the 
Roman  see  "had  the  leadership   over  all  churches^; 
and  to  St.  Leo  that  he  "waited  tlie  sentence  of  his 
apostolical  see  '."     Cyril  Alexandrinus  calls  Cselestine 
of  Rome  "  archbishop  of  the  whole  world '."     Jerome, 
waiting  to  pope  Damasus,  says,  "  I  am  united  to  your 
blessedness,  that  is,   to  the  chair  of  Peter.     On  that 
rock  I  know  the  church  is  built '."     The  council  of 
Ephesus  in  their  decree  against  Nestorius,  said  that 
they  were  "compelled  by  the  sacred  canons  and  the 
epistle"  of  pope  Coelestinus  to  depose  him".    The  council 
of  Chalcedon  wrote  to  pope  Leo,  that  "  the  guardian- 
ship of  the  vineyard  was  committed  to   him  by  the 
Saviour ',"  (i.  e.  by  his  providence  in  permitting  that 


"'  Tertull.  PrEescript.  c.  32.  36.  ^  Cyril.  Alex.  Encom.    in    S. 

"  Tertull.  de  Monogam.  Mar.  Virg. 

°  Cypr.  Ep.  ad  Cornel.  *  Hieron.  Ep.  xiv.  ad  Dama- 

r  Basil.  Epist.  52.  sum. 

1  Theodoret.    Epist.     110.  ad  "  Concil.  Ephes.  Act.  i. 

j^ejjat.  '   Concil.  Chalced.    Epist.    ad 

'   Theodoret.  Epist.  ad  S.  Le-  Leon. 
onem. 


504  Roman  Pre-eminence  7iot  De  Juj'e  Divino.  [partvii. 

bishop  to  occupy  so  eminent  a  position  in  the  church) : 
and  that  "  he  was  their  leader  as  a  head  over  the 
members '","  {i.  e.  he  had  been  their  leader  in  condemn- 
ing heresy).  The  same  synod,  after  hearing  the  epistle 
of  Leo,  said,  "  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo"'  (z.  e.  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  St.  Peter  has  been  taught  by  his 
successor).  Chrysologus  :  "  We  exhort  thee  to  attend 
with  obedience  to  all  things  written  to  thee  by  the 
most  blessed  pope  of  the  Roman  city,  since  St.  Peter, 
who  lives  and  presides  in  his  own  see,  affords  the  true 
faith  to  all  who  enquire  of  him  ^." 

4.  Other  passages  are  spurious.  Thus,  a  canon  of 
the  synod  of  Nice  is  alleged  to  commence  with :  "  the 
Roman  see  always  had  the  primacy  ^"  This  is  an  in- 
terpolation which  was  detected  in  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon.  Athanasius  writes  to  pope  Felix  that  "  Christ 
had  placed  him  and  his  predecessors  on  the  summit  of 
the  ark,  and  willed  them  to  take  the  care  of  all 
churches  ^."  Cyril  of  Alexandria :  "  We  ought  all  as 
members  to  adhere  to  our  head,  the  Roman  pontiff  and 
the  apostolic  see ''."  It  is  rather  unfortunate  for  Ro- 
manists that  these  passages,  (which  are  'peiyetually 
quoted  by  them,)  are  not  genuine ;  for  they  are  some 
of  the  best  for  their  purposes,  that  have  ever  been 
adduced. 

5.  The  remaining  proofs  are  from  certain  expressions 
of  Roman  bishops  and  presbyters,  who  were  influenced 
by  a  pardonable  desire  to  honour  their  particular 
church ;  but  which  represent  merely  their  private  and 

"  Ibid.  lioth.  Jur.  Canon. 

"^  Act.  ii.  *  Athanas.  Epist.  ad  Felicem. 

y  Chrysol.  Epist.  ad  Eutych.  Rejected  by  the  Benedictine  edi- 

Haeret.  tion  of  St.  Athanasius'  works. 

^  Concil.  Nicen.  can.  vi.    Vide  ''  Cyril.  Alex,   in  Libre  The- 

Beveregii  Pandect.  Justelii  Bib-  sauri. 


CHAP.  III.]  Roman  Pre-emhtence  not  De  Juj'e  Divine.  505 

])cculiar  doctrines.  In  the  synod  of  Epliesus,  Philip, 
legate  of  the  Roman  see,  said,  that  "  Peter,  the  prince 
and  head  of  the  apostles,  the  piJlar  of  faith,  and  foun- 
dation of  the  catholic  church,  received  from  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  .  .  .  who  to  this 
very  time,  and  always,  lives  in  his  successors  and  ex- 
ercises judgment "."  In  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  the 
Roman  legate  Paschasinus  said,  that  the  Roman  was 
"  the  head  of  all  churches ''."  St.  Leo  affirmed  that 
"  the  Lord  willed  the  see  of  Rome  to  preside  over  all 
others  \"  These  and  similar  expressions  of  Roman 
bishops  can  have  little  weight. 

Such  are  the  chief  passages  selected  by  Tournely, 
Bailly,  Hooke,  Collet,  De  le  Luzerne,  Delahogue,  Bou- 
vier,  Milner,  Berington,  &c.  in  proof  that  the  Roman 
primacy  is  of  di\ine  institution,  and  derived  from  the 
privileges  given  to  St.  Peter  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

They  concur  indeed  to  prove  the  preeminence  of  the 
Roman  church,  its  dignity,  its  superiority  of  power,  all 
which  we  most  fully  and  unequivocally  admit  that  it 
possessed  from  a  very  early  period.  But  this  is  not  the 
point  in  debate.  The  point  attempted  to  be  proved 
by  all  these  quotations  is,  that  the  Roman  primacy  is  de 
JURE  DiviNO  ;  that  it  is  derived  from  St.  Peter  by  dimne 
institution  :  and  on  this  point  catholic  tradition  is  pro- 
foundly silent.  Therefore  since  it  cannot  be  proved 
from  tradition,  as  it  confessedly  cannot  from  scripture, 
it  is  no  article  of  faith,  notwithstanding  the  rash  asser- 
tion of  some  modern  theologians  to  the  contrary. 


^  Concil.  Ephes.  Act.  iii.  "  Leo,  Epist.  93.  al.  62. 

^  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  i. 


506  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  ch.  iv. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  ROMAN  PONTIFF  HAS  NOT,  JURE  DIVINO,  ANY  ORDI- 
NARY JURISDICTION  OVER  THE  UNIVERSAL  CHURCH. 

Jurisdiction,  properly  so  called,  consists  not  merely 
ill  a  persuasive  influence  and  authority  without  coer- 
cion, but  in  a  coercive  power,  to  which  obedience  is 
due,  and  which  can  enforce  its  acts  by  penalties.  I 
maintain  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  has  not,  either  jure 
divino,  or  by  immemorial  and  universal  exercise,  any  such 
jurisdiction  over  the  catholic  church  ;  and  I  hope  to 
show,  that  this  conclusion  is  legitimately  deduced  from 
principles  which  are  entirely  free  from  censure  even  in 
the  Roman  church  itself.  In  speaking  of  this  juris- 
diction also,  I  do  not  mean  to  deny,  that  in  extraor- 
dinary circumstances,  when  the  faith  is  endangered, , 
and  when  a  great  necessity  exists,  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
and  all  other  bishops,  may  exercise  their  office  in  any 
part  of  the  church.  I  am  now  speaking  of  ordinary 
jurisdiction. 

SECTION  I. 

THE  ROMAN  BISHOP  HAS  NOT,  JURE  DIVINO,  ANY  ORDINARY 
JURISDICTION  OVER  THE  CLERGY  AND  PEOPLE  OF  OTHER 
BISHOPS. 

In  maintaining  this  proposition  I  shall  adopt  the  ar- 
guments of  Bailly,  a  Roman  theologian  of  the  highest 

8 


SECT.  I.]         Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction.  507 

credit  in  liis  own  communion.  He  says,  "  Jure  com- 
muni  ac  Christi  instituto,  S.  Pontifex  immediatam  juris- 
dictionem  in  alienis  dioecesibus  non  habet,  neque  in  illis 
episcoporiim  munia  ordinarie  exercere  potest  V  This  is 
proved  from  constant  tradition  and  tlie  consent  of  the 
pontiffs  themselves.  Thus  St.  Leo  (Epist.  84.  Epist. 
ad  Jul.  Coens.  Epist.  77.)  acknowledges  that  each 
bishop  has  jurisdiction  over  his  own  people.  The 
council  of  Carthage,  in  525,  after  the  example  of  pre- 
ceding African  synods,  forbad  any  appeals  to  the  apos- 
tolic see.  St.  Gregory  the  great  (lib.  ix.  ep.  22.  al.  xi. 
ep.  22.)  says,  "  Si  sua  unicuique  episcopo  jurisdictio  non 
servetur,  quid  aliud  agitur  nisi  ut  per  nos  per  quos  eccle- 
siasticus  custodiri  debuit  ordo  confundatur  ? "  The 
councils  of  Salingestadt,  a.  d.  1022,  cap.  18,  Limoges, 
A.  D.  1031,  Aquileia,  in  the  twelfth  century,  Lambeth 
in  the  thirteenth,  forbad  penitents  and  offenders  to  go 
to  Rome  for  absolution  unless  their  bishops  permitted 
it.  The  council  of  Rheims  of  200  bishops,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  would  not  confirm  the  privileges 
granted  by  Calixtus  II.  to  the  monastery  of  Clugny,  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  diocesan  ;  though  the  Roman 
pontiff  himself  was  present.  John  XVIII.  having  sent, 
in  1004,  cardinal  Peter  to  consecrate  a  church  in  the 
diocese  of  Tours,  which  had  been  built  contrary  to  the 
will  of  the  bishop,  "  all  the  bishops  of  France,"  says 
Glaberius,  a  contemporary  writer,  "  detested  it,"  since 
"  it  was  confirmed  by  abundant  authority  of  old,  that 
no  bishop  should  presume  to  do  so  in  the  diocese  of 
another,  unless  by  his  request  or  permission."  Other 
facts  and  monuments  innumerable  are  referred  to  by 
Bailly,  in  the  works  of  Baluzius,  Fleury,  the  Memoires 
du  Clerge,  Proces- verbal  de  I'Assemblee  de    1 682,  to 

"  Baillv,  Tractatus  de  Ecolesia  Christi,  t.  ii.  p.  310,  &c. 


508  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  ch.  iv. 

prove  that  these  principles  have  been  always  adhered 
to  by  the  Gallican  church.  The  Faculty  of  Theology 
frequently  declared,  that  the  Roman  pontiff  had  no  ordi- 
nary or  immediate  jurisdiction  in  all  dioceses ;  espe- 
cially in  its  censure  of  Vernantius,  a.  d.  1666.  Of  the 
same  sentiment  were  Hincmar  (t.  ii.  ed.  Sirm.  p.  608. 
436,  437.),  the  celebrated  archbishoj)  of  Grenada,  in 
the  council  of  Trent  (Palavit.  Hist.  C.  T.  lib.  xv.  c.  1 6.), 
Petavius,  Thomassinus,  (t.  ii.  discij)l.  par.  iv.  lib.  i.  c.  i. 
n.  19.),  Fleury  (Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  Iviii.  n.  51.  lib.  Ixxxiv. 
n.  42.  lib.  xciii.  n.  43.),  the  continuer  of  Tournely, 
(t.  vi.  p.  607.  de  praec.  Eccl.  c.  iv.  de  4  prtTec).  Bailly 
concludes,  that  "  the  j^ontiff  is  pastor  of  the  universal 
church  in  this  sense ;  i.  e.  in  urgent  necessity,  and  in 
certain  extraordinary  circumstances,  he  may  provide  for 
various  churches,  and  supply  them  with  confessors  or 
preachers."  This  we  fully  admit :  the  same  right  is 
vested  in  every  catholic  bishop  in  case  of  necessity. 

In  fact,  if  the  Roman  pontiff  were  entitled  to  act 
episcopally  whenever  he  pleased  in  any  diocese,  he 
would  be  really  "  universal  bishop,"  a  title  which  Gre- 
gory the  great  condemned  as  blasphemous.  Such  a 
principle  would  be  entirely  opposed  to  the  whole  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  which  has  always  believed  each 
bishop  to  be  invested  with  the  immediate  care  of  his 
own  flock  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  may  conclude 
then,  not  only  that  the  pontiff  has  no  ordinary  juris- 
diction over  the  clergy  and  people  of  other  bishops, 
but  that  this  doctrine  is  altogether  free  from  censure  in 
the  Roman  church. 

SECTION  H. 

THE   ROMAN  BISHOP   HAS    NOT,    JURE  DIVINO,    ANY  ORDINARY 
JURISDICTION    OVER    OTHER    BISHOPS. 

The  jurisdiction  claimed  as  of  divine  right  for  the 


SECT.  II.]         Borne  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction.  509 

Roman  pontiff  over  other  bishops,  may  be  distributed 
into  three  parts,  viz.  legislative,  judicial,  and  adminis- 
trative or  executive  :  under  these  divisions  1  shall  pro- 
ceed to  examine  it. 

I.  The  Roman  pontiff  has  not,  by  divine  right,  any 
coercive  legislative  power  over  other  bishops. 

1.  He  cannot  make  any  decrees  of  faith,  morals, 
and  discipline,  which  are  absolutely  binding  on  other 
bishops.  This  principle  is  maintained  as  relates  to 
questions  of  faith  and  morals,  by  the  fourth  Gallican 
article  of  1682,  where  it  is  said  that,  "  In  questions  of 
faith,  the  pontiff  has  a  principal  part,  and  his  decrees 
extend  to  all  churches,  and  to  every  church  in  par- 
ticular ;  but  that  his  judgment,  is  not  irreformable, 
unless  the  consent  of  the  church  be  added."  This 
article  is  most  convincingly  defended  by  Bossuet,  as 
founded  on  catholic  tradition  ^  In  fact,  as  Bailly  ob- 
serves, it  has  always  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Gallican 
church,  that  "it  is  the  right  of  bishops  to  judge  in 
matters  of  faith "."  Delahogue  proves  that  "  bishops 
alone  are,  Jure  divino,  necessary  judges  of  controversies 
of  faith  ''."  Consequently  the  judgment  of  contromrsies 
of  faith  cannot  be  amongst  the  "  majores  causcB"  alleged 
to  be  reserved  to  the  Roman  pontiff  jure  divino  ;  nor 
can  bishops  be  under  any  obligation  to  refer  such 
causes  in  the  first  instance  to  him ;  nor  can  they  be 
bound  to  believe  whatever  the  Roman  jiontiff  may 
choose  to  decree  in  faith  and  morals ;  more  especially 
as  Delahogue  proves,  that  "  It  may,  with  sound  faith, 
and  without  any  note  of  error  or  schism,  be  denied, 
that  the  Roman  pontiff,  even  speaking  e.x7  cathedra,  has 

''    Bossuet,     Defensio    Declar.     308. 
Cler.  Gallicani.  "^  Delahogue,   Tract,  de  Eccl. 

'^  Bailly,    ut    supra,    t.    ii.    p.     Christi,  p.  386. 


510  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,   [p.  vji.  CH.  iv. 

the  gift  of  infallibility''."  This  being  the  case,  it  is 
evident,  that  whatever  respect  may  be  due  by  bishops 
to  the  judgments  of  the  Roman  pontiff  concerning 
faith,  it  is  not  such  a  respect  as  to  prevent  them  from 
exercising  their  own  right  as  judges  of  faith  divino  jure, 
and  either  accepting  or  rejecting  the  papal  decrees,  as 
they  are  accordant  or  not  with  scripture  and  tradition. 

The  same  observations  may  be  applied  to  papal  laws 
of  discipline.  The  second  Gallican  article  of  1682, 
maintains  the  doctrine  of  the  coancil  of  Constance, 
that  the  Roman  pontiff's  authority  is  inferior  to  that  of 
a  general  council ;  and  the  third  article  concludes  from 
this  principle,  that  "the  exercise  of  the  apostolical 
power  (of  the  Roman  see)  is  to  be  limited  by  the 
canons  made  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  consecrated  by 
the  reverence  of  the  whole  world  ;  and  also  that  the 
rules,  customs,  and  institutions  received  by  the  Galli- 
can church  and  kingdom,  are  of  authority ;  and  that  the 
boundaries  of  the  fathers  remain  unshaken."  This 
proposition,  which  denies  the  right  of  the  Roman 
pontiff  to  make  binding  regulations  in  discipline  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  general  councils,  or  to  the  canons 
and  customs  of  particular  churches,  is  defended  by  Bos- 
suet,  Tournely,  &c. ;  and  Bailly  says,  that  among  the 
liberties  of  the  Gallican  church  it  is  reckoned  that, 
"  It  belongs  to  bishops  to  make  decrees  in  matters  per- 
taining to  discipline ;"  that  the  Roman  pontiff  "  cannot 
at  pleasure  dispense  with  the  canons,  but  only  for  just 
causes ;"  and  that  "  he  cannot  derogate  from  the  laws 
or  customs  of  jirovinces,  nor  even  from  the  legitimate 
privileges  of  particular  churches  ^"  Bailly  observes, 
that  "  the  intention  even  of  universal  synods,  in  making 

^  Ibid.  «=  Bailly,  De  Eccl.  Christi,  t.  ii.  p.  309. 


SECT.  II.]         I{ome  has  not  Univerml  Jurisdiction.  511 

laws  of  discipline,  is  not  to  subvert  the  rules,  customs, 
and  institutions  of  particular  churches,  which  are 
founded  on  the  tradition  of  the  fathers,  and  are  not 
injurious  to  the  peace  of  the  church  ;  and  although  the 
exception  be  not  always  expressly  made  in  the  decree, 
yet  it  is  always  to  be  presumed  to  be  conceded  ipso 
jure,  and  l)y  the  will  of  the  fathers  themselves  present 
in  synod '."  In  fact  we  know  that  many  rules  of  disci- 
pline, made  by  the  pontiffs,  have  not  been  universally 
received  by  their  churches.  Several  points  in  the 
canon  law  are  not  received  in  France  and  elsewhere. 
The  bull  in  Cmia  Domini  is  not  generally  acknow- 
ledged ;  and  even  the  discipline  of  Trent,  approved  by 
the  popes,  is  but  imperfectly  admitted  in  the  Roman 
obedience.  Therefore  the  pontiff's  laws  of  discipline 
are  not  binding  on  other  bishops,  unless  by  their  own 
consent  and  approbation. 

2.  The  Roman  pontiff  cannot  annul  the  laws  of  other 
hisJiops.  It  has  been  shown  above,  that  according  to 
the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Roman  churches,  all 
bishops  are  judges  of  faith  and  morals,  and  are  autho- 
rized to  make  laws  of  discipline  ;  that  the  Roman 
pontiff  cannot  annul  or  derogate  from  those  laws  ;  and 
that  he  is  even  subject  to  the  canons  made  by  general 
councils,  and  can  only  dispense  with  them  in  case  of 
necessity :  but  necessity  would  justify  any  bishop  in 
dispensing  with  such  laws:  for  instance,  Athanasius, 
Epiphanius,  and  other  holy  bishops,  ordained  clergy 
in  the  dioceses  of  other  bishops,  during  the  times  of 
Arianism,  which  was  absolutely  contrary  to  all  the 
canons. 

II.  The  Roman  pontiff  has  not,  by  divine  right,  any 
coercive  judicial  power  over  other  bishops.     One  of 

'  Ibid.  p.  307. 


512  Rome  Jias  nut  Univej'snl  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  CH.  iv. 

tlie  most  important  prerogatives  claimed  for  the  Roman 
pontiff  is  the  right  to  judge  bishops,  either  in  the  first 
instance,  or  by  appeal  from  other  bishops.  Delahogue 
says,  that  some  of  the  Roman  theologians  "  con- 
tend that  appeals  of  bishops  are  only  de  jure  eccle- 
siastico^J'  Du  Pin,  a  Roman-catholic  author  of  high 
eminence,  has  treated  this  subject  very  fully.  He 
proves  at  considerable  length,  that  from  the  ear- 
liest period  to  the  time  of  the  synod  of  Nice,  "  all 
causes  were  terminated  on  the  spot,  and  that  no 
appeal  to  the  Roman  pontiff  was  permitted  to  those 
who  were  condemned  ^"  He  argues  that,  according  to 
the  fifth  canon  of  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Nice,  the 
definitive  judgment  of  bishops  is  given  to  the  provin- 
cial synods,  without  any  further  appeal ' ;  that  this  was 
confirmed  by  the  second  oecumenical  synod  J ;  that  the 
African  bishops  understood  it  to  be  so  in  the  time  of  Pope 
Caslestinus  \  as  did  Pope  Innocentius  I ;  that  the 
same  doctrine  was  held  by  St.  Cyprian  ',  and  by  the 
synod  of  Antioch "" ;  though  in  the  latter  there  was 
some  change  of  discipline,  since  it  was  determined  that 
if  any  bishop,  deposed  by  a  provincial  synod,  should 
petition  the  emperor  to  be  restored,  those  who  had 
condemned  him  should  call  a  larger  synod,  in  order  that 
his  cause  might  be  re-examined  there,  and  no  excuse 
be  left  to  him",  Du  Pin  adds,  that  the  orientals 
obstinately  refused  to  permit  appeals  to  the  west ";  and 
that  according  to  St.  Ambrose,  all  the  causes  of  the 
east  and  west  should  be  termin9,ted  in  their  own  synods 
respectively  p. 


I.  100. 


^  Delahogue,  p.  382.  •  Ibid. 

•>   Du    Pin,    De    Antiq.  Eccl.         '"  Ibid.  p.  IOC 

Discipl.  p.  141—156.  "  Ibid.  p.  101 

*  Du  Pin,  p.  96.  o  Ibid,  p    102. 

J  Ibid.  p.  98.  p  Ibid.  p.  103. 
^  Ibid.  p.  99. 


SECT.  II.]       Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction.  513 

The  synod  of  Sardica,  ho  says,  introduced  a  new 
discipline,  permitting-  a  bishop  deposed  by  a  provincial 
synod  to  solicit  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  examine  his 
cause ;  and  allowing  the  latter,  if  he  judged  the  case 
not  to  have  been  sufficiently  examined  in  the  province, 
to  send  it  back  for  a  re-hearing  with  the  assistance  of 
some  bishops  from  the  next  province  ''.  According  to 
this  rule  the  cause  was  not  decided  at  Rome  or  by  the 
Roman  pontiff.  Du  Pin  shows  that  this  discipline  of 
Sardica  was  never  received  in  the  east,  and  only  very 
late  in  the  west  '. 

It  is  needless  to  proceed  further  with*Du  Pin  in  the 
history  of  appeals'.  It  is  clear  from  this,  that  the 
Roman  pontiff  has  not  any  divine  right  to  judge  bishops 
either  in  the  first  instance  or  by  appeal.  Whatever 
power  he  acquired  in  these  respects  afterwards,  was 
entirely  by  custom  and  the  concession  of  churches.  If 
the  pontiff  has  no  divine  right  to  receive  appeals  from 
provincial  synods,  he  can  of  course  have  no  right  to 
reverse  their  judgments.  We  may  therefore  conclude 
that  he  has  no  judicial  power  over  other  bishops. 

III.  The  Roman  pontiff  has  not,  by  divine  right, 
any  coercive  executive  power  over  other  bishops. 
Under  this  head  may  be  classed  his  powers  in  refe- 
rence to  general  synods,  the  appointment  of  bishops, 
erection  of  sees,  enforcing  the  canons,  he. 

Among  the  principal  powers  of  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
claimed  as  of  divine  right,  are  the  assembling,  pre- 
siding in,  and  confirming  of  oecumenical  synods.  It 
has  been  proved  by  Launoy,  Bossuet,  Du  Pin,  &c. 
that  the  eight  first  synods,  acknowledged  as  oecumeni- 

q  Ibid.  \\  106.  subject  is  also  firmly  supported 

r  Ibid.  p.  113.  by   Fleury,    Quatrieme  Discours 

^  Du    Piii's    doctrine    on   this     sur  I'Hist.  Ecclesiastiquc. 

VOL.  11.  L   I  > 


514  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  CH.  iv. 

cal  by  Rome,  were  assembled,  not  by  the  pope,  but  by 
the  emperors  *.  Richerius  and  Launoy  have  proved 
that  no  Roman  legate  presided  in  the  synod  of  Nice". 
At  the  second  oecumenical  synod  Timothy  of  Alexan- 
dria presided "";  at  the  fifth,  no  one  was  present  on  the 
part  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.  As  to  the  papal  confir- 
mation of  oecumenical  synods,  Bailly  says,  after  Bossuet, 
that  the  synods  of  Nice,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  &c. 
were  universally  received  at  once  ;  that  no  confirm-u 
tion  of  the  Roman  see  was  solicited ;  that  confirmation 
of  the  decrees  of  synods  implies  only  their  assertion 
and  vindication  ;  and  that  the  decrees  of  the  Roman 
pontiffs  themselves  were  "confirmed"  by  general  or 
particular  synods  ^.  The  Gallican  theologians  hold  that 
an  oecumenical  council  has  irrefragable  authority  with- 
out any  papal  confirmation,  or  even  though  the  bishop 
of  Rome  be  opposed  to  its  decrees  \  Therefore  the 
Roman  pontiffs  have  no  divine  right  to  summon,  pre- 
side in,  or  confirm  oecumenical  synods  :  for  if  they  had 
possessed  it,  they  would  have  always  exercised  it,  and 
the  church  would  not  have  allowed  any  one  else  to 
have  invaded  their  divine  privilege. 

It  has  been  proved  by  Thomassin  and  De  Marca 
archbishop  of  Paris,  that  the  election  and  consecration  of 
bishops  and  metropolitans,  were  almost  universally 
vested  in  the  bishops  and  clergy,  not  in  the  Roman 
pontiff,  for  at  least  a  thousand  years  after  Christ  ^.  Tho- 
massin proves  that  for  thirteen  centuries  the  bishops  in 
the  greater  part  of  the  west,  were  confirmed  by  their 

t  See  Part  IV.  "  See  above,  p.  153. 

"    See    Part    IV.    chap.    ix.         ^    Thomassin.    Vet.    et   Nov. 

sect.  1.  Eccl.   Discipl.   t.  ii.   lib.  ii ;  De 

"■  Ibid,  sect.  2.  Marca,   De   Concord.   Sacerd.  et 

"   Bailly,    De   Eccl.    t.   ii.    p.  Imp.  lib.  iv.  c,  4. 
263,  204. 


SFXT.  II.]        Home  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction.  515 

metropolitans ;  and  that  the  metropolitans  themselves 
were  confirmed  by  provincial  synods  ^  The  same  writer 
and  Fleury,  show  that  translations  of  bishops  were 
generally  made  by  the  authority  of  provincial  synods  ^ 
Oi  i\\Q  judgments  and  deposing  of  bishops  I  have  already 
spoken  in  the  preceding  article,  and  shown  that  it 
belonged  to  provincial  synods.  Thomassin  proves  that 
in  the  appointment  of  coadjutors  to  bishops,  it  was  not 
usual  before  the  year  1000,  to  have  recourse  to  the 
Roman  see,  but  to  provincial  synods  ^  The  same  author 
shows  that  for  the  first  eight  centuries  resignations  of 
bishoprics  were  not  made  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  but  to 
provincial  synods,  or  to  emperors,  kings,  or  metropoli- 
tans ".  Therefore  none  of  these  "  causcB  majores"  of 
bishops  belong  to  the  Roman  pontiff  dejure  divino. 

Thomassin  and  Fleury  prove  that  the  erection  of  new 
sees  and  metropoles  was  vested  for  many  centuries  in 
provincial  and  patriarchal  synods,  and  in  patriarchs 
and  monarchs  ^  The  second  and  fourth  oecumenical 
synods  erected  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  The 
Emperor  Justinian  erected  the  see  of  Justiniana  into 
an  exarchate  or  patriarchate.  Fleury  says  there  is  no 
sufficient  evidence  to  attribute  the  imion  or  eMinction 
of  bishoprics  to  the  Roman  pontiff  only  \ 

Another  privilege  claimed  for  the  Roman  pontiff,  is 
the  right  to  oblige  all  bishops  to  observe  the  canons 
by  ecclesiastical  censures.  I  have  before  shown  that 
he  has  no  divine  right  to  judge  or  depose  other  bishops, 
or  to  make  regulations  binding  on  them :  therefore  he 


^  Thomassin.  ibid.  '  Ibid.  t.  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  50.  52. 

^  Thomassin.   t.  ii.   lib.   ii.  c.         ''  Ibid.  t.  i.  lib.  i.   c.  54,    &c. 
62  ;  Fleury,  Disc.  iv.  sur  I'Hist.     Fleury,  ibid. 
Eccl.  ^  Fleury,   Disc.  iv.  sur  I'Hist. 

"  Ibid.  c.  57,  58.  Eccl. 

L  1    2 


510  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  ch.  iv. 

cannot  have  any  right  in  the  way  of  jurisdiction  or 
coercive  power,  to  force  them  to  obey  the  canons :  but 
he  may  fraternally  admonish  then],  and  in  case  of  their 
continuing  incorrigible,  may  separate  them  from  the 
communion  of  his  church.  The  same  right  also  belongs 
to  all  bishops  of  the  catholic  church,  and  does  not  infer 
any  assumption  of  jurisdiction  over  other  bishops,  but 
merely  the  common  interest  which  every  christian 
pastor  has  in  the  welfare  of  the  whole  christian  com- 
munity. 

Another  privilege  claimed  for  the  Roman  pontiff  is, 
that  nothing  of  importance  should  be  transacted  in  the 
church,  without  referring  to  him.  It  has  been  shown 
above,  that  provincial  synods  were  competent  to  take 
cognizance,  not  only  of  all  causes  relating  to  bishops, 
but  even  of  controversies  o^  faith  and  morals  :  and  that 
it  was  the  principle  of  the  Gallican  church,  that  bishops 
are  jure  divino,  judges  in  controversies  of  faith.  There- 
fore synods  may  act  in  the  most  important  causes,  as 
they  have  done  in  innumerable  instances,  without  pre- 
viously consulting  the  Roman  pontiff;  and  if  they 
inform  him  afterwards  of  their  proceedings,  which  was 
usually  done  out  of  respect  to  that  apostolic  see,  and 
that  the  chief  bishop  might  make  known  their  pro- 
ceedings to  other  churches;  this  does  not  infer  any 
jurisdiction  in  the  Roman  pontiff,  but  is  merely  an 
exercise  of  fraternal  charity  and  communion  :  and  the 
same  notification  was  often  made  to  other  churches  as 
well  as  to  that  of  Rome. 

IV.  I  have  now  shown,  that  according  to  doctrines 
avowed  without  censure  in  the  Roman  obedience,  by 
the  Gallican  church,  and  by  their  most  learned  and 
eminent  theologians,  the  Roman  pontiff  has  not  by 
divine  right,  any  ordinary  jurisdiction  over  the  clergy 


SECT.  II.]       Rome  lias  not  Uaiverml  Jurisdiction.  517 

and  people  subject  to  other  bishops.  I  have  shown  in 
the  same  manner,  that  he  has  no  divine  right  to  make 
laws  of  faith,  morals,  or  discipline,  compulsory  on  other 
bishops ;  that  he  cannot  annul  or  derogate  from  such 
laws  made  by  other  bishops ;  that  he  has  no  divine 
right  to  judge  or  depose  other  bishops,  either  in  the 
first  instance,  or  on  appeal ;  no  divine  right  to  reverse 
the  judgments  of  provincial  synods  ;  to  summon,  pre- 
side in,  or  confirm  oecumenical  synods ;  to  appoint, 
confirm,  consecrate,  translate,  judge,  or  depose  bishops  ; 
none  to  appoint  coadjutors,  or  accept  resignation  of 
sees ;  none  to  erect  new  sees  and  metropoles ;  none  to 
force  bishops  to  observe  the  canons  ;  none  to  be  con- 
sulted on  every  measure  of  importance  in  the  church. 
And  hence  it  follows  inevitably,  that  the  Roman  bishop 
has  not,  by  divine  right,  any  ordinary  jurisdiction,  pro- 
jierly  so  called,  over  the  universal  church  ;  and  that 
this  conclusion  is  a  sound  and  an  orthodox  conclusion, 
accordant  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church 
itself. 

It  is  vain  to  adduce,  in  reply  to  this,  any  instances, 
in  which  the  Roman  pontiffs  are  alleged  to  have  exer- 
cised jurisdiction  over  other  bishops,  during  the  first 
five  or  six  centuries.  We  do  not  deny  that  several 
such  cases  may  be  pointed  out,  in  some  of  which  the 
Roman  pontiffs  acted  within  their  own  patriarchate,  in 
others  exceeded  their  privileges,  in  others  were  justified 
by  eMraordinary  circumstances,  such  as  the  prevalence 
of  heresy ;  but  these  do  not  affect  our  argument,  which 
is,  that  according  to  the  most  learned  Roman  theolo- 
gians, the  Roman  pontiff  did  not  generally  or  ordina- 
rily exercise  any  jurisdiction  over  all  other  bishops. 
This  being  the  case,  he  could  not  have  possessed  any 
such  jurisdiction  ym-e  divino ;  for  if  he  had,  God  would 


518  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdictioyi.  [p.  vii.  ch.  iv. 

not  have  permitted  it  to  be  usurped  by  others :  the 
supposition  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  promises  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  be  always  with  his  church. 

It  is  equally  vain  to  allege,  as  the  Ultramontanes  do, 
that  provincial  synods  and  particular  bishops  exercised 
these  powers  in  the  first  ages,  by  dispensation  from  the 
Roman  see,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  communicating 
with  that  see  in  times  of  persecution.  For  not  only  is 
it  a  mere  assumption,  a  baseless  theory,  that  the  pro- 
vincial synods  and  bishops  ever  had  any  dispensation 
or  permission  from  Rome  for  such  acts  ;  but  it  is  plain, 
that  the  correspondence  between  all  churches  was  never 
more  frequent  than  in  the  time  of  persecution,  as  we 
may  see  by  the  writings  of  Cyprian  alone  ;  and  further, 
that  provincial  synods  and  bishops  remained  in  the  full 
exercise  of  that  jurisdiction  Mdiich  is  now  claimed  for 
the  Roman  see,  for  many  centuries  after  the  church 
was  relieved  from  persecution,  and  protected  by  chris- 
tian princes. 

Though,  as  I  have  observed,  the  argument  of  this 
chapter  is  not  affected  by  the  production  of  any  instances 
of  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  other  churches  by  the 
Roman  bishop,  yet  I  shall  briefly  notice  the  principal 
examples  adduced  by  Delahogue,  Milner,  Tournely,  De 
La  Luzerne,  Bailly,  Berington,  and  others. 

OBJECTIONS. 

Several  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  at  various  times  have 
exercised  various  acts  of  jurisdiction  over  other  churches. 

(1)  Victor  excommunicated,  or  threatened  to  ex- 
communicate the  Asiatic  churches,  in  consequence  of 
their  adherence  to  their  custom  of  celebrating  Easter. 
I  reply,   that  the  Asiatic  churches   did  not   obey  the 


OBJECT.]       Rome  lias  not  Univei'sal  Jurisdiction.  519 

pontiff's  command,  but  retained  their  custom,  until  the 
council  of  Nice  ;  and  were  acknowledged  always  as  a 
j)ortion  of  the  catholic  church.  S.  Irenaeus  and  others 
blamed  Victor  for  insisting  on  their  adopting  another 
custom.  (2)  Stephen  of  Rome  excommunicated  Cy- 
prian and  the  African  bishoj^s  for  their  practice  in 
rebaptizing  heretics.  I  answer,  that  the  Africans  re- 
tained their  custom  notwithstanding,  and  were  in  full 
communion  with  all  the  rest  of  the  church.  Therefore 
the  church  generally  did  not  hold  it  necessary  to  obey 
the  Roman  pontiff's  commands.  (3)  Cyprian  wrote 
to  poj^e  Stephen  urging  him  to  depose  Marcianus,  a 
schismatical  bishop  of  Gaul,  and  to  appoint  another 
bishop  in  his  place.  I  answer  with  Du  Pin  %  that  he 
only  requested  him  to  write  to  the  people  of  Aries  and 
the  Galilean  bishojis,  to  appoint  another  bishop  in  his 
stead  ;  and  that  this  does  not  infer  any  peculiar  pre- 
rogative in  the  Roman  bishop,  but  only  a  charitable 
solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the  church.  (4)  Basilides 
and  Martialis  having  been  deposed  in  Spain,  appealed 
to  pope  Stephen  to  be  restored  to  their  sees. 

Ansicer.  The  clergy  and  people  of  Spain  paid  no 
regard  to  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  see  in  their 
favour;  and  were  approved  and  encouraged  by  St. 
Cyprian  in  so  doing  ^ 

(5.)  When  certain  persons  represented  to  Dionysius 
of  Rome,  that  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  had  taught 
heresy,  the  latter  wrote  an  apology  to  clear  himself. 
Therefore  it  was  the  opinion  of  both  parties  that  the 
see  of  Rome  had  jurisdiction  over  the  church  of  Alex- 
andria. 

*  Du    Pin,    De    Antiq.    Eccl.         ''  Du  Pin,  p.   151.      Barrow, 
Discipl.    p.    146,   &c.     See  Bar-     p.  720. 
row,  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  714. 


520  Rome  has  not  Universal  J twisdiction.  [p.  vh.  ch.  iv. 

Answer.  It  was  common  in  that  age  for  individuals 
to  appeal  to  other  churches  against  bishops  accused  of 
false  doctrine  :  thus  the  church  of  Antioch  applied  to 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Firmilian,  and  others,  against 
Paul  of  Samosata.  Such  applications  only  inferred  the 
common  care  of  all  bishops  for  the  church  of  Christ  ^ 

(6.)  Pope  Julius  restored  to  their  sees  St.  Athanasius 
of  Alexandria,  Paul  of  Constantinople,  Marcellus  of 
Ancyra,  and  Asclepas  of  Gaza. 

Answer.  Athanasius  had  been  compelled  to  escape 
from  Alexandria  to  Rome  in  consequence  of  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Arians,  and  had  been  irregularly  con- 
demned. Julius  of  Rome  and  a  synod  assembled  at 
Rome,  having  heard  his  defence,  acknowledged  him  as 
the  legitimate  bishop  of  Alexandria.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  Julius  restoredhim  to  his  see  :  and  it  may 
be  added,  that  this  act  of  the  Roman  synod  was  not 
universally  approved,  and  had  no  effect  till  the  great 
synod  of  Sardica  confirmed  it  ^  Nearly  the  same  may 
be  said  of  the  other  cases  mentioned.  It  must  be  ob- 
served also,  that  these  circumstances  occurred  in  times 
of  imminent  danger  to  the  church  from  the  Arian 
heresy ;  and  when  the  ordinary  rules  might  be  dis- 
pensed with. 

(7.)  Eustathius  of  Sebaste  having  been  deposed  by 
a  synod  of  Acacians  at  Constantinople,  and  having 
been  afterwards  sent  on  a  mission  to  pope  Liberius, 
obtained  from  him  letters  of  restoration  to  his  see. 

Answer.  He  was  not  restored  to  his  see  by  Liberius, 
but  received  letters  testifying  the  soundness  of  his  faith, 
on  which  the  s7/?iod  of  Tyana  restored  him  to  his  see  ^ 

(8.)  St.  John  Chrysostom,  having  been  unjustly  de- 

^-  Ibid.  p.  152.  p.  721. 

'^  Ibid.  p.  158,  159.     Barrow,  «  Ibid.  p.  1G3. 


OBJKCT.]        Rome  has  not  Universal  Jar Isdlct'iuu.  b'lX 

posed  from  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  was,  on 
appeal,  restored  to  his  see  by  authority  of  pope  Inno- 
cent. 

Ansiver.  Chrysostom  wrote,  not  only  to  the  bisho])  of 
Rome,  but  to  those  of  Milan  and  Aquileia,  requestino- 
them  to  declare  that  the  proceedings  against  him  were 
unjust  and  null,  and  not  to  withdraw  their  communion 
from  him.  Innocentius  however  did  not  pretend  to 
annul  the  sentence,  but  only  required  that  the  cause 
should  be  reheard  in  a  synod  composed  of  eastern  and 
western  bishojis ;  and  that  in  the  mean  time  Chry- 
sostom should  be  restored  to  his  church  provisionally  \ 
This  was  merely  an  act  of  christian  charity,  not  of 
coercive  jurisdiction. 

(9.)  The  councils  of  Milevis  and  Carthage  having 
condemned  the  Pelagian  heresy,  pope  Innocentius,  at 
the  request  of  the  African  bishops,  confirmed  their  de- 
crees, and  St.  Augustine  then  said,  "The  cause  is  now 
finished,  would  to  God  that  the  error  may  also  have  an 
end!" 

Answer.  Tournely  says  that  the  cause  was  indeed 
ended,  for  the  Pelagians  had  been  already  condemned 
in  the  councils  of  Diospolis,  1  Carthage,  2  Carthage, 
Milevis,  and  Jerusalem.  The  bishops  of  Carthage  and 
Milevis  had  written  to  Innocentius  concerning  this 
growing  error.  Cselestius  himself  had  appealed  to  the 
Roman  bishop  ;  to  whom  also  the  council  of  Jerusalem 
had  sent  the  cause  of  Pelagius  as  being  a  Latin ;  so  that 
all  that  was  now  wanting  to  universal  consent  was  the 
judgment  of  the  Roman  church  ^  This  being  given 
the  cause  was  indeed  ended :  not  by  the  authority  of 
Rome,  but  by  that  of  the  universal  church. 

^  Ibid.  p.  1G7— 170.     Barrow,         ^  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia  Chris- 
p.  727.  ti,  t.  ii.  p.  24G. 


522  Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction,  [p.  vii.  ch.  iv. 

(10.)  Pope  Cselestinus  commissioned  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria to  depose  Nestorius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  ; 
thus  exercising  an  undoubted  act  of  jurisdiction  over 
the  patriarchal  see  of  Constantinople,  a  see  only  inferior 
in  dignity  to  Rome  itself. 

Answer.  The  doctrine  of  Nestorius  had  been  judged 
heretical  by  the  synod  of  Rome '',  and  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria had  written  to  Cselestinus,  that  the  eastern 
churches  all  condemned  Nestorius,  but  did  not  excom- 
municate him,  as  they  desired  the  concurrence  of  the 
Roman  bishop  '.  Caelestinus  in  reply  authorized  Cyril 
to  act  for  hitu ;  not  in  any  way  pretending  to  exclusive 
authority  in  such  matters  ;  but  merely  exercising  the 
right  which  was  vested  in  every  catholic  bishop  of  ex- 
pelling manifest  heretics  from  communion. 

(11.)  When  Eutyches  was  condemned  by  Flavianus 
and  a  council  at  Constantinople,  he  appealed  to  pope 
Leo,  promising  to  obey  his  judgment.  Leo  wrote  to 
Flavianus  to  demand  information,  and  the  latter,  in 
reply,  exhorted  the  pope  to  decree  that  the  con- 
demnation had  been  regular,  and  expressed  his  hopes 
that  by  this  means  heresy  would  be  sui)pressed.  There- 
fore both  parties  paid  homage  to  the  superior  authority 
of  the  Roman  pontiff, 

Ansiver.  Eutyches  appealed  to  the  synods  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  and  Thessa- 
lonica :  not  to  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Seeing  that  his 
appeal  was  not  attended  to,  he  wrote  a  letter  of  com- 
plaint to  Leo  of  Rome,  who  in  consequence  did  require 
from  Flavianus  information  on  this  affiiir  that  he  misht 
judge  it.  "  Hence,"  says  Du  Pin,  "it  is  plain  that  Leo 
endeavoured  to  bring  this  cause  before  himself;  but  it  is 

'■  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  xxv.  '  Ibid.  s.  12.  See  Barrow, 
s-  14-  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  716. 


OBJECT.]       Rome  has  not  Universal  Jurisdiction.  5'23 

altogether  false,  that  Flavianus  suspended  the  effect  of 
the  judgment  against  Eutjches,  on  that  account  ^"  In 
fact  his  letter  to  Leo  supposes  that  the  judgment  of  the 
synod  was  conclusive,  and  that  the  Roman  pontiff  ought 
not  to  examine  the  cause  again,  but  to  add  his  autho- 
rity to  the  decision  '. 

(12.)  Gregory  the  great  exercised  jurisdiction  in 
Africa,  Egypt,  Illyricum,  &c.  Pope  Theodore,  in  the 
seventh  century,  appointed  Stephen,  bishop  of  Dora,  his 
vicar  in  Palestine  :  Martin  II.  instituted  the  bishop  of 
Philadelphia  his  vicar  in  the  patriarchates  of  Antioch 
and  Jerusalem. 

Answer.  The  Roman  pontiffs  gradually  extended 
their  power  beyond  its  proper  limits,  and  endeavoured 
to  bring  Illyricum,  Africa,  and  the  west,  within  their 
patriarchate.  Theodore  and  Martin  appointed  those 
vicars  in  the  east  in  time  of  heresy,  or  when  the  Sara- 
cens had  overrun  those  countries.  These  are  therefore 
extraordinary  cases.  It  would  take  up  too  much  space 
to  refute  all  the  instances  which  have  been  adduced  in 
proof  of  the  pretended  universal  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  pontiffs  during  the  first  five  centuries  :  but  these 
seem  to  be  the  most  usual  arguments. 

''  Du  Pin,  p.  215,  '  Ibid.  p.  213—216. 


524  Pretended  Privileges  of  Rome.       [p,  vii.  ch.  v. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  OTHER  PRETENDED  PRIVILEGES  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

In  addition  to  the  right  of  ordinary  jurisdiction  over 
the  whole  church,  other  privileges  are  claimed  for  the 
Roman  pontiff  by  some  or  all  of  his  adherents.  It  is 
asserted  that  he  has  temporal  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  world  ;  that  his  power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  is 
absolute  ;  that  he  is  the  fountain  of  all  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction ;  that  his  judgments  in  matters  of  fiiith  are 
infallible ;  and  that  he  is  the  centre  of  catholic  unity, 
so  that  whoever  is  not  of  the  Roman  communion,  can- 
not be  a  member  of  the  true  church.  The  four  first 
principles  are  held  only  by  the  Ultramontane  party  in 
the  Roman  churches,  and  are  disputed  by  the  Gallican 
school :  the  last  doctrine  is  commonly  upheld  by  all 
members  of  the  Roman  obedience.  It  would  need- 
lessly occupy  space  to  enter  on  the  question  of  the 
temporal  supremacy  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  which  has 
been  so  well  refuted  by  Bossuet  %  Tournely '',  and  a 
number  of  other  writers  of  their  communion :  nor  is  it 
necessary  to  refute  the  notion  of  the  absolute  power  of 
the   Roman  pontiff  in   ecclesiastical  affairs,  which  is 


*  Bossuet,  Defensio  Declarat.  ''  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  ii. 

Cleri  Gallicani. 


SECT.  I.J  Papal  Infallibility.  525 

denied  by  the  Gallican  declaration  of  1682,  and  by  all 
its  defenders  ;  or  of  his  being  the  source  of  all  spiritual 
jurisdiction,  from  whom  all  bishops  derive  their  au- 
thority ;  an  opinion  which,  as  Bossuet  says,  "  began  to 
be  introduced  into  theology  in  the  thirteenth  century," 
having  been  "  unheard  of  in  early  times ''."  I  shall 
therefore  only  briefly  notice  the  doctrines  of  the  papal 
infallibility,  and  the  centre  of  unity. 

SECTION  I. 

ON    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    PAPAL    INFALLIBILITY. 

This  doctrine  is  no  longer  the  principal  subject  of 
debate  between  the  Roman  theologians  and  their  op- 
ponents, as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries.  Delahogue  defends  the  following  position : 
"  It  may,  with  sound  faith,  and  without  any  note  of 
error  or  schism,  be  denied,  that  the  Roman  pontifl", 
even  speaking  ea^  cathedra,  has  the  gift  of  infallibility  ''." 
Bouvier,  bishop  of  Mans,  concludes  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple :  "  The  controversy  as  to  the  infallibility  of  the 
Roman  pontiff  therefore  leads  to  nothing,  practically : 
therefore  the  most  learned  theologians  have  rightly 
been  of  opinion,  that  it  ought  to  be  abstained  from, 
e.  g.  the  celebrated  brothers  Adrian  and  Peter  Walem- 
bourgh,  in  their  controversies  against  the  Protestants, 
Peter  Veron,  &c. '  The  best  refutation  of  this  doc- 
trine is  to  be  found  in  Bossuet's  "  Defensio  Declara- 
tionis  Cleri  GaUicani."  I  shall  merely  notice  a  few  of 
the  arguments  which  may  be  brought  against  it. 

1.  It  has  been  before  proved  that  the  Roman  bishop 

•=  Bossuet,  ut  supra,  lib.  viii.     p.  386. 
c,  \l,  ^  Bouvier,  Tract,  de  Vera  Ec- 

^  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christ,     clesia,  p.  360. 


526  Papal  InfalUhilify.  [p.  vii.  CH.  v. 

did  not  succeed  to  St.  Peter's  preeminence  by  any  di- 
vine institution :  therefore  his  pretended  infallibility, 
which  rests  entirely  on  the  promises  made  to  St.  Peter, 
can  have  no  foundation. 

2.  Scripture  attributes  the  promises  of  divine  sup- 
port and  protection  of  the  faith,  to  the  church  at  large, 
not  to  St.  Peter  only.  Thus:  "The  Spirit  of  truth 
shall  lead  you  into  all  truth :"  "  Lo,  1  am  with  you 
always  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world :"  "  the  church 
of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  :" 
"  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us :" 
"  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven,"  &c. 

3.  Catholic  tradition  and  practice  prove  that  the 
Roman  pontiff's  decrees  in  faith  were  never  esteemed 
infallible ;  but  were  judged  by  the  church  at  large. 
Thus  Cyprian  and  the  African  and  oriental  bishops  did 
not  receive  or  approve  Stephen's  decree  in  the  con- 
troversy concerning  heretical  baptism.  Cselestinus 
having  condemned  the  doctrine  of  Nestorius,  and  di- 
rected his  decree  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria  ;  this  did  not 
prevent  the  cause  of  Nestorius  from  being  examined 
afterwards  by  the  council  of  Ephesus ;  and  the  epistle 
of  Cselestine  was  read  in  the  council,  and  approved.  Leo 
of  Rome  wrote  to  Flavianus  establishing  the  orthodox 
doctrine  against  the  heresy  of  Eutyches :  this  epistle 
was  read  in  the  synod  of  Chalcedon,  examined,  and  ap- 
proved. Thus  the  synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon 
judged  the  Roman  pontiff's  writings,  and  did  not  regard 

them  as  infallible. 

Vigilius  of  Rome  published  a  constitution  approving 
the  epistle  of  Ibas :  the  fifth  oecumenical  synod  imme- 
diately afterwards  anathematized  that  epistle  as  im|)ious 
and  heretical. 

8 


OBJFXT.]  Papal  Infallibility.  527 

Martin  the  first,  in  the  Roman  synod  of  Lateran, 
condemned  the  error  of  the  JMonothelites :  but  the 
decree  was  subjected  to  examination  by  the  sixth  oecu- 
menical synod,  and  only  approved  when  it  was  found 
orthodox.  Honorius,  though  speaking  e^  cathedra,  in 
the  cause  of  the  Monothelites,  erred,  and  was  con- 
demned as  a  heretic  by  the  sixth  oecumenical  synod. 
Adrian  II.  approved  the  worship  of  images  decreed  by 
the  pseudo-synod  of  Nice  :  but  the  bishops  of  the  west 
in  the  synods  of  Frankfort  and  Paris,  rejected  his 
doctrine.  Therefore  the  catholic  church  never  be- 
lieved the  Roman  pontiff  infallible  \ 

OBJECTIONS. 

1.  Christ  said  to  Peter:  "Simon,  Simon,  Satan  hath 
desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat : 
but  I  have  prayed  that  thy  faith  fail  not,  and  when 
thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren  =."  Here, 
according  to  Bellarmine  (De  Rom.  Pont.  lib.  iv.  c.  3.), 
are  two  privileges  given  to  St.  Peter :  first,  the  perpe- 
tuity of  his  own  personal  faith  :  secondly,  that  he,  as 
jDontiff,  should  never  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  the 
faith,  or  that  no  one  should  be  ever  found  in  his  see  to 
teach  what  was  contrary  to  faith. 

A?istvc7\  Tournely  says  that  Launoius  (Epistolarum 
Pars  V.  Ep.  ad  Bevillaquam,)  reduces  to  four  classes 
the  fathers  and  ecclesiastical  writers  who  have  inter- 
preted this  text.  1.  Some  say  that  our  Lord  prayed 
that  Peter  should  never  lose  the  faith ;  2.  others  that 


'  In  proof  of  these  and  similar  Declar.   Cler.   Gallicani,   lib.    x  ; 

facts,    see    Du    Pin,    De    Antiq.  De  Barral,  Defense  des  Liberies 

Eecl.  Discipl.  Dissertafio  v;  Lau-  de  I'Eglise  Gallicane. 
noii  Epistolse  ;  Bossuet  Defensio  ^  Luke  xxii.  32. 


528  Rome  not  the  Centre  of  Unity.  [p.  vii.  ch.  v. 

the  Roman  church  should  never  fall  away  from  faith ; 
3.  others  that  the  see  of  Peter,  or  the  apostolical  see, 
should  not  fail ;  4.  others  that  the  universal  church 
should  not  err  in  faith.  Tournely  says :  "  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  impugn  Bellarmine's  opinion  by  this  general 
argument,  viz.  From  that  sentence  of  scripture  which 
the  fathers  and  other  ecclesiastical  writers  expound  in 
different  senses,  the  true  faith  being  preserved  on  all 
sides,  no  firm  and  sure  argument  can  be  educed  for 
one  sense  to  the  exclusion,  much  less  to  the  condem- 
nation of  others ;  but  freedom  is  to  be  left  to  every 
opinion  ^"  Bailly  says,  it  is  much  more  probable  that 
our  Lord  in  this  place  referred  only  to  Peter  person- 
ally, since  there  is  a  manifest  reference  to  his  fall  and 
conversion  :  "  when  thou  art  converted  :"  and  this  re- 
lates only  to  what  was  peculiar  to  Peter  and  personal '. 
II.  Many  passages  from  the  fathers  have  been  quoted 
in  support  of  the  papal  infallibility,  which  have  been 
all  refuted  by  Barrow,  Bossuet,  Tournely,  Launoy,  &c. 

SECTION  II. 

ON    THE    ROMAN    CENTRE    OF    UNITY. 

It  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter  that  I  do  not 
deny  that  the  Roman  bishop  may,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, have  been  the  centre  of  unity :  what  we 
deny  is,  that  he  is  always  the  centre  of  unity  in  such  a 
sense,  that  whoever  is  separated  from  his  communion 
is  necessarily  cut  off  from  the  catholic  church.  This  is 
the  doctrine  still  maintained  by  the  whole  body  of 
Roman  theologians,  and  by  all  members  of  the  Roman 
obedience.      Communion  with   the  Roman   see   is  to 

^  Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  t.  ii.  '  Bailly,  Tract,  de  Eccl.  Cliristi, 
p.  200,  &c.  t.  u.  p.246. 


SECT.  11. J  Home  not  the  ("ciitrc  of  Ihiihf.  .j-29 

them  the  test  of  catholic  unity  ;  whoever  does  not 
possess  that  communion,  is  necessarily  in  their  opinion 
a  heretic  or  a  schismatic.  This  doctrine  of  the  centre 
of  unity  is  even  taught  as  de  fide  by  their  theologians ; 
so  that  it  is  not  permitted  even  to  doubt,  whether 
the  Roman  communion  comprises  the  whole  catholic 
church. 

Certainly  this  evinces  great  determination  to  uphold 
the  doctrine  in  question  :  it  is  indeed  a  point  of  vital 
importance  to  the  modern  Roman  system,  the  very 
key-stone  of  the  structure  which  has  been  so  ingeniously 
erected.  This  principle  being  once  firmly  rooted,  it  is 
impossible  that  the  claims  of  any  catholic  churches, 
beyond  the  Roman  communion,  can  be  investigated, 
except  under  an  invincible  prejudice  ;  it  must  be  in 
fact  superfluous  to  examine  their  claims  at  all :  they 
must  be  condemned  without  hearing,  and  the  only 
exertion  must  be,  to  convince  them  of  the  danger  of 
their  position,  and  to  bear  down  their  arguments  by  all 
means.  There  cannot,  therefore,  be  a  more  effective 
engine  for  sustaining  the  present  system  of  the  Roman 
communion. 

I.  But,  while  we  allow  full  credit  to  the  Roman 
theologians  for  their  clear  sightedness  to  the  import- 
ance of  this  doctrine,  we  cannot  equally  applaud  their 
consistency  with  reference  to  it.  If  communion  with 
the  Roman  see  be,  as  they  say,  absolutely  and  simply 
necessary,  so  that  he  who  is  separated  from  it,  is  cut 
off  from  the  catholic  church  of  Christ,  the  Roman 
pontilT  must  be  infallible  in  defining  controversies  of 
faith  ;  because  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  God  would 
impose  the  absolute  necessity  of  communicating  with 
him  otherwise.  It  follows  equally,  that  he  nuist  have 
absolute  power  in  ecclesiastical  affiiirs  ;  for  if  he  inforces 

VOL.  II.  M  m 


530  Home  not  the  Centre  of  Unity.      [p.  vii.  ch.  v. 

any  thing-  under   the  jienalty   of  excommunication   it 
must  be  obeyed.     It  also  follows  that  he  cannot  fall 
into  heresy,   even  when   not  defining-  CcV  cathedra ;  be- 
cause no  one  can  be  entitled  to  forsake  his  communion. 
It  follows  equally,  that  he  can  do  no  wrong  to  churches 
or  individuals :  that  no  churches  can  have  a  right  to 
dispute  any  mandate  whatever,  if  enforced  under  the 
penalty   of   excommunication  ;  even    that  kings    and 
nations  must  obey  whatever  he  may  please  to  dictate 
in   temporal  matters.     In   short,   the  pontiff  must  be 
invested  with  supreme  and  absolute  power  over  the 
whole  church  and  the  whole  world,  as  the  Ultramon- 
tanes  contend,  if  his  communion  be  always  and  abso- 
lutely the  test  of  catholic  unity.     It  was  this  principle 
in  fact,  which  enabled  the  Roman  pontiffs  to  become 
not   merely  patriarchs,    but   metropolitans,    and   even 
bishops  of  the  whole  west.     It  was  this  principle  that 
separated  the    Latin   churches   from  the   communion 
of  the  Eastern,  and  of  the  British  churches.     It  was 
this  that  made  the  Roman  pontiffs,  at  one  time,  the 
feudal  sovereigns  of  half  Europe,  and  the  virtual  em- 
perors of  the  west.     And  with  what  face,  with  what 
consistency,  can  those  who  object  to  these  results  and 
conclusions,   maintain  the  principle  from  which   they 
are  inevitably  derived  ?      There  never  was  a  greater 
inconsistency  than    that   of  the    Galilean    church,    of 
Bossuet,  Launoy,  Tournely,  Bailly,  Trevern,  Bouvier, 
&;c.  who  hold  that  the  Roman  pontiff  is  always  and 
absolutely  the  centre  of  unity,  so  that  those  who  are 
not  in  his  communion  are  cut  off  from  the  catholic 
church,  and  yet  deny  or  doubt  that  he  is  infallible, 
and  absolute  in  spirituals  and  temporals.     Nor  is  this 
inconsistency  limited  to  these  writers :  for  the  Ultra- 
montanes  tolerate  their  opinions  ;  and  thus  admit,  that 


SECT.  J  I.]  Jtovic  Not  till'.  Centre  of  Unity.  5:31 

tlje  infallibility  and  absolute  power  of  the  pope  is  not 
de  fide,  that  it  may  be  disputed  in  the  catholic  church ; 
and  yet  have  the  confidence  to  assert  that  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Roman   pontiff  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
every  part  of  the  catholic  church.     How  is  it  possible 
that,  if  the  pontiff  may  fall  into  error  in  faith,  his  com- 
munion must  always  be  necessary  ?     How  can  it  be 
always  and  absolutely  necessary,  if  he  may  make  regu- 
lations in  spirituals   and   temporals   under   penalty    of 
excommunication,   which  churches  are   not  bound   to 
obey  ?     If  churches  are  justified  in  refusing  unreason- 
able demands  of  the  Roman  pontiff;   if  they  are  justi- 
fied in  preserving  their  own  liberties,  and   the  sacred 
canons  ;  if  they  are  entitled  to   defend  the   christian 
truth  supported  by  scripture,  tradition,  and  the  decrees 
of  oecumenical  synods,  even  against  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff; then  they  are  still  churches  of  Christ,   although 
that  prelate  should  have  excommunicated  them  ;  and 
though  other  churches,  under  an  exaggerated  opinion 
of  the  necessity  of  obeying  him,  should  view  them  as 
blameable  or  even  heretical. 

II.  I  have  already  shown  that  there  is  no  sufficient 
proof  that  the  Roman  pontiff  is  by  divine  right  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter ;  but  the  absolute  necessity  of 
being  in  his  communion,  rests  entirely  on  this  sup- 
position. 

III.  The  catholic  church  has  never  judged  commu- 
nion with  the  Roman  pontiff  ahvays  and  absolutely 
necessary.  The  bishops  of  Asia  were  acknowledged 
as  brethren  by  the  rest  of  the  church,  though  Victor 
separated  them  from  his  communion.  St.  Cyprian 
and  the  African  bishops  did  not  cease  to  be  catholics 
though  pope  Stephen  excommunicated  them  ;  and  St. 
Firmilian  declared  to  that  prelate,   that  so  unjust  an 

.  jNI  m  2 


532  Ilo)ne  not  the  Centre  of  Unity .        [\\  vii.  en.  v. 

excommunication  only  separated  its  author  from  catho- 
lic unity.  Meletius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  not  in 
communion  with  Damasus,  and  yet  he  was  acknow- 
ledged by  all  the  eastern  church  ;  and  was  afterwards 
accounted  a  saint  by  the  church  generally.  Atticus  of 
Constantinople,  and  St.  Hilary  of  Aries,  were  respec- 
tively not  in  communion  with  Innocentius  and  Leo  of 
Rome,  and  yet  no  one  doubts  their  communion  with 
the  catholic  church.  And  "  who,"  says  Du  Pin,  "  would 
dare  to  say  that  Athanasius  and  the  rest  were  schis- 
matics, and  the  Arians  in  the  church,  because  Liberius 
admitted  the  latter  to  his  communion,  and  rejected  the 
former '""  V  Therefore  the  Roman  pontiff  is  not  the 
centre  of  unity  in  such  a  sense,  that  whoever  is  separa- 
ted from  his  communion  is  cut  off  from  the  catholic 
church.  This  in  fact  must  be  admitted  after  all  by 
Romanists.  Delahogue  says :  "  It  is  to  be  observed, 
that  the  centre  of  unity,  though  necessary  to  the 
church,  may  be  interrupted,  in  that  respect'  by  which  all 
catholics  are  united  by  the  same  visible  bond  of  commu- 
nion ;  for  during  forty  years  of  the  great  western 
schism,  various  competitors  for  the  pontificate  had 
their  respective  obediences ;  and  each  of  them  excom- 
municated those  which  did  not  adhere  to  them.  But 
we  have  proved  that  none  of  these  obediences  were 
schismatical ''."  Hence  it  is  plain  that  Romanists  can- 
not affix  the  charge  of  schism  on  any  church  merely 
from  ihefact  of  its  not  being  in  the  Roman  commu- 
nion. Would  they  in  reality  themselves  submit  to 
any  regulations  whatever  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  that 
the  Roman  pontiff  should  choose  to  make,  provided  that 
they  were  enforced  under  penalty  of  excommunication  ? 

*  See  Vol.  I.  p.  222.        "  Delahogue,  De  Eccl.  Christi,  p.  393. 


OBJECT.]  Rome  not  the  Centre  of  U/iifi/.  53:3 

We  know  perfectly  well  that  they  would  not :  and 
therefore  they  cannot  condemn  any  church  from  the 
mere  Jad  of  its  being  separated  from  the  papal  com- 
munion. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Irenseus  says,  "To  this  (Roman)  church,  on  ac- 
count of  her  superior  principality,  every  church  must 
resort,  that  is  the  faithful  everywhere  ;  in  which  church 
the  apostolical  tradition  was  always  preserved  by  them^" 
Therefore  communion  with  the  Roman  church  was 
necessary. 

Answer.  Irenseus  says  the  necessity  of  resorting  to 
the  Roman  church,  arose  from  "the  principality"  or 
pre-eminence  of  that  church  :  but  he  does  not  say  that 
this  pre-eminence  is  of  divine  institution  :  therefore  he 
does  not  teach  that  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  that 
church  is  of  divine  institution. 

II.  Cyprian,  in  writing  to  Cornelius  of  Rome,  says, 
that  "the  unity  of  the  catholic  church"  is  to  be  found 
in  his  communion  "*.  ^ 

Answer.  It  was  so :  for  Cornelius  was  the  bishop  of 
the  catholic  church  at  Rome,  while  Novatian  was 
bishop  of  the  schismatics.  Therefore  the  communion 
of  Cornelius  was  that  of  the  catholic  church. 

III.  Ambrose  says  that  his  brother  Satyrus,  when 
near  his  death,  inquired  of  the  bishop  whom  he  had 
sent  for  in  order  to  receive  baptism,  "whether  he 
agreed  with  the  catholic  bishops,  that  is,  with  the 
Roman  church  ^  f" 

Answer.  The  Roman  church  was,  at  that  time,  the 

«=    Irenseus,    adv.    Haeres.    lib.  •"    Atnbros.    Liber  de  Excessii 

iii.  c.  3.  Fratris.  n.  47. 

^  Cyprian.  Epist.  45.  52. 


,0,34  Rome  not  the  Centre  of  Unify.  [part  vii. 

principal  orthodox  church ;  Satyrus  mentioned  it,  not 
as  the  centre  of  unity  by  divine  institution  ;  but  in 
order  to  designate  more  particularly  the  faith  \vhich  he 
ajtproved. 

IV.  Jerome  Avrote  to  pope  Damasus :  "  I  am  of  the 
communion  of  your  holiness,  that  is  of  the  chair  of 
Peter :  on  that  rock  I  know  the  church  is  built.  Who- 
ever eateth  the  lamb  beyond  that  house  is  profane.  I 
know  not  Vitalis,  Meletius  I  reject,  Paulinus  is  un- 
known to  me.  Whoever  gathereth  not  with  thee, 
scattereth  ^" 

Answer.  These  were  three  rival  bishops  at  Antioch, 
each  of  whom  seemed  not  without  a  reasonable  claim. 
In  this  perplecvity,  Jerome  wrote  from  Syria  to  Dama- 
sus, with  whom  the  whole  catholic  church  communi- 
cated at  that  time,  to  enquire  which  of  these  bishops 
was  acknowledged  by  him;  as  this  would  determine 
which  was  in  communion  with  the  catholic  church,  and 
therefore  which  ought  to  be  acknowledged  ^  This  is 
the  real  meaning  of  Jerome's  complimentary  expres- 
sions to  Damasus. 

V.  Optatus  argues  with  the  Donatists  that,  "  an 
episcopal  chair  was  first  conferred  on  St.  Peter  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  ...  in  which  all  should  preserve  unity, 
lest  the  other  apostles  might  each  claim  it  for  them- 
selves ;  so  that  whoever  should  set  up  a  chair  against 
the  one  chair,  should  be  a  schismatic  and  an  offender. 
It  was  in  this  one  chair,  which  is  the  first  of  the  gifts 
of  the-  church,  that  St.  Peter  first  sat ;"  to  whom  others 
succeeded  till  Damasus,  "  who  is  now  our  colleague, 
with   whom  all  the   world   is  united  with   us  in   the 


'  Hieronymus,   Epist.    xiv.  ad         ^  See  Fleury,    Hist.  Eccl.   liv. 
Damas.       '  xvii.  sect.  29. 


CHAP.  VI.]  Leyitimate  Authority  of  Rome.  .535 

same  communion,  keejjing  correspondence  by  circular 
letters ''." 

Answer.  It  is  not  denied,  that  S.  Optatus  in  arguino- 
against  the  Donatists  as  to  the  "  cathedra"  which  they 
admitted  to  be  one  of  the  gifts  of  the  church,  refers  to 
the  chair  of  Peter  at  Rome  as  constituting  the  centre 
of  unity  in  the  catholic  church.  It  was  so  in  fact  at 
that  time,  and  had  very  long  been  so.  But  Optatus 
does  not  affirm  that  it  was  in  such  a  sense  the  centre 
of  unity,  that  whatever  churches  should  be  at  any  time 
separated  from  its  communion  must  be  schismatic  or 
heretic.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  argument  of  this 
holy  bishop  alone,  is  quite  insufficient  to  establish  an 
article  of  faith,  or  even  to  render  a  doctrine  probable. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON  THE  LEGITIMATE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

# 

Though  it  has  been  shown  that  the  bishop  of  Rome 
has  not  by  divine  or  human  right  any  -^Yo^ev  jurisdiction 
over  the  universal  church,  it  would  be  equally  unjust 
to  that  see,  to  the  primitive  church,  and  to  ourselves, 
to  deny  or  diminish  the  ancient  legitimate  privileges  of 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter. 

While  all  bishops  are  alike  successors  of  the  apostles, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  bishops  of  metropolitan 
and  patriarchal  sees  have  influence  and  authority  in  the 
church  generally,  in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of  their 

''  Optatus,  Lib.  ii.  De  Schism.  Donatist. 


■J'3G  Legitimate  Authority  of  Rome.  [part  vii. 

churches  :  and  therefore  the  bishop  of  the  elder  Rome 
being  bishop  of  the  principal  church,  and  being  the 
first  of  the  patriarchs,  could  not  fail  to  have  more  au- 
thority amongst  his  colleagues,  the  catholic  bishops, 
than  any  other  prelate.  The  exalted  station  in  which 
the  providence  of  God  had  placed  him,  imposed  on  him 
a  special  obligation  of  exhorting  his  brethren  to  the 
observance  of  the  sacred  canons,  and  of  resisting  the 
progress  of  heresy  by  formal  condemnations. 

These  acts  of  the  Roman  bishop  might  extend  to  the 
whole  church.  He  might  transmit  such  decrees  in 
faith  and  morals  to  all  bishops  for  their  approbation. 
Such  decrees  ought  to  have  been  received  with  respect, 
though  no  bishop  was  bound  to  approve  or  act  on 
them,  unless  they  appeared  conformable  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  universal  church. 

It  was  not  unreasonable  that  the  Roman  patriarch 
should  make  regulations  in  discipline  for  particular 
churches,  when  consulted  and  requested  to  do  so  by 
those  churches :  he  might  even  make  such  regulations 
unsolicited,  provided  it  were  understood  that  it  was  in 
the  way  of  counsel  or  admonition,  not  in  that  of  precept 
or  command. 

The  authority  of  the  Roman  see  rendered  it  fitting 
that  in  matters  of  controversy  concerning  the  doctrine 
or  unity  of  the  whole  church,  the  see  of  St.  Peter 
should  not  be  neglected ;  but  that  its  aid  should  be 
sought  to  re-establish  order  and  peace. 

In  cases  of  extreme  danger  and  necessity  all  catholic 
bishops  are  authorized  to  dispense,  even  with  the  laws 
of  oecumenical  synods.  This  privilege  therefore  could 
not  be  refused  to  the  Roman  bishop ;  and  the  authority 
of  his  see  would  even  give  his  dispensation  greater 
weight    than    that   of  other   bishops.      Hence   would 


CHAP.  VI.]  Leyit'unate  Autliority  of  Home.  5.')7 

follow  the  expediency  of  obtaining  that  disj)ensation  in 
some  cases,  where  bishops  desired  some  authority  in 
addition  to  their  own. 

AYhenever  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  actually  in  com- 
munion with  the  universal  church,  he  would  naturally 
be  the  centre  of  unity,  because  of  his  authority  in  the 
universal  church,  which  would  lead  churches  in  every 
part  of  the  world  to  communicate  with  him  on  many 
occasions  ;  and  thus  churches  remote  from  each  other 
would  be  united  by  means  of  their  intercourse  with  a 
common  centre.  But,  when  the  universal  church  is 
divided,  and  a  great  part  is  not  in  communion  with  the 
Roman  see,  it  ceases  to  be  the  centre  of  unity. 

Such  are  the  privileges  naturally  flowing  from,  or 
connected  with  the  precedence  of  the  Roman  patriarch 
in  the  universal  church  :  privileges  which  were  not 
merely  honorary,  but  which  were  calculated  for  the 
edification,  not  the  subjugation  of  the  church.  In 
these  privileges  there  was  nothing  of  jurisdiction  or 
coercive  power ;  they  arose  not  from  divine  institution, 
but  were  founded  on  reason,  and  on  christian  charity. 
Happy  would  it  have  been,  if  this  venerable  and  apo- 
stolical see  had  not  afterwards  transgressed  its  rightful 
authority,  and  assumed  powers  which  disturbed  the 
unity  and  subverted  the  discipline  of  the  church.  But 
on  this  I  shall  speak  more  fully  hereafter. 


538  Patriarchate  of  Rome.  [part  vii. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON    THE    PATRIARCHATE    OF    ROME. 

Trevern  and  other  writers  have  pretended,  that  the 
British  churches  formed  part  of  the  Roman  patriarchate; 
and  therefore  that  the  reformation  of  these  churches 
being  effected  without  the  consent  of  their  patriarch, 
was  irregular  and  schismatical.  Let  us  therefore  con- 
sider briefly  the  real  extent  of  the  patriarchate  of 
Rome. 

I  maintain  that  this  patriarchate  extends  legiti- 
mately to  the  regions  included  in  the  ancient  Roman 
suburbicarian  provinces  of  Tuscia,  Umbria,  Valeria, 
Picenum,  Latium,  Samnium,  Apulia,  Calabria,  Lu- 
cania,  Brutia,  with  the  islands  of  Sicily,  Sardinia,  Cor- 
sica, and  others  adjoining  ;  and  that  it  does  not  include 
the  northern  provinces  of  Italy,  Africa,  France,  Spain, 
Germany,  Britain,  or  any  of  the  other  northern  and 
eastern  churches. 

I.  The  controversy  has  turned  chiefly  on  the  sixth 
canon  of  the  synod  of  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
fathers  at  Nice  ;  or  rather,  on  the  version  of  it  by 
Rufl[inus,  which  is  as  follows :  "  That  in  Alexandria, 
and  the  city  of  Rome,  the  ancient  custom  be  pre- 
served, so  that  the  one  take  the  care  of  the  Egyptian, 


CHAP.  VII.]  Patriarchate  of  Home.  539 

the  other  of  the  mbiirbicarian  churches  \"  Tlie  ancient 
Latin  version  published  by  Sirmond  and  Justel  also  ex- 
plain the  power  of  the  Roman  see,  confirmed  by  this 
canon,  to  relate  to  the  suburbicarian  provinces ''. 

Benedict  XIV.  in  his  treatise  "  De  Synodo  Dio- 
coesana,"  says,  that  Schelstrate,  Pagius,  Carolus  a  S. 
Paulo,  and  others  commonly,  understand  by  the  term 
"  suburbicarian  churches,"  not  merely  the  province  of 
Rome,  but  all  the  regions  of  the  ivest,  Mhich  obeyed  the 
Roman  pontiff  as  their  patriarch  ;  "  since  it  is  clear 
from  the  context,  that  the  council  of  Nice  and  Ruffinus 
speak  not  of  the  metropolitical,  but  of  the  patriarchal 
right  ^" 

Since  therefore  it  is  agreed  that  the  clause  refers  to 
the  patriarchate  of  Rome,  let  us  now  see  its  more  par- 
ticular meaning.  To  suppose  that  the  term  "  suburbi- 
carian" means  "  all  the  ivest,''  is  an  absurdity.  We 
might  just  as  reasonably  say  that  it  signifies  "  the  ivhole 
world.'"  Tlie  etymology  of  the  term  suggests  evidently 
the  notion  of  vicinity  to  Rome.  By  Gothofred,  Sal- 
masius,  and  Cave  it  is  understood  to  be  here  applied 
to  the  churches  within  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the 
"  Prafcctus  Urbis,"  that  is,  within  a  hundred  miles 
round  the  city.  Sirmond,  Bingham,  and  others,  with 
more  reason  suppose  the  term  to  signify  the  churches 
within  the  district  of  the  "  Vicarizis  Urbiciis,'''  extending 
over  the  ten  provinces  of  Italy  and  the  islands  enume- 
rated above  "*. 

It  appears  from  the  Notitia,  and  from  other  sources 

"  "  Ut  apud  Alexandriam,  et  ^    See   Bingham,    Antiquities, 

in  urbe  Roma,   vetusta   consue-  book  ix.  c.  1. 

tudo  servetur,  ut  vel  ille  iEgypti,  '^  Benedict  XIV.,  De  Synodo 

vel  hie  Suburbicariarum  ecclesi-  Dicecesana,  lib.  ii.  c.  2. 

arum    sollicitudinem    gerat."  —  ''     Bingham,    Antiquities,     ut 

Ruffin.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  6.  supra. 


540  Patriarcliute  of  Rome.  [part  vir. 

consulted  by  Bingham,  that  the  sees  of  these  provinces 
were  very  numerous,  amounting-  to  about  240,  of  which 
110  were  immediately  related  to  the  bishop  of  Rome 
as  their  metropolitan  ;  while  the  remainder,  though 
under  their  own  metropolitans,  were  also  in  many  re- 
spects subject  to  the  power  of  the  Roman  see.  Such 
is  the  real  extent  of  the  patriarchate  of  Rome,  which 
gave  that  see  a  great  authority  in  the  catholic  church. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  sentiments  of  the 
most  learned  Roman  theologians.  Fleury,  in  allusion 
to  the  extensive  correspondence  of  Gregory  the  great 
on  matters  of  discipline,  says,  ".St.  Gregory  did  not 
enter  into  this  detail,  except  for  the  churches  which 
depended  particularly  on  the  holy  see,  and  which  for 
this  reason  they  termed  suburbicarian :  that  is  to  say, 
those  of  the  southern  part  of  Italy,  wdiere  he  was  the 
ionly  archbishop ;  and  those  of  Sicily  and  the  other 
islands,  although  they  had  metropolitans.  But  we  do 
not  find  that  he  exercised  the  same  immediate  power 
in  the  provinces  dejjendant  on  Milan  and  Aquileia, 
nor  in  Spain  or  Gaul  ^"  Thomassin  also  understands 
the  word  "  suburbicarian"  to  relate  only  to  Italy  and  the 
adjacent  islands  '.  Dr.  O'Conor  says,  that  "  as  patri- 
arch, the  pope's  jurisdiction  did  not  interfere  with  that 
of  the  patriarchs  of  Milan  or  of  Aquileia,  so  that  they 
who  have  dubbed  him  patriarch  of  all  the  western 
world,  are  quite  ignorant  of  ecclesiastical  history^." 
Du  Pin  proves  at  length  that  the  Roman  patriarchate 
does  not  extend  beyond  the  suburbicarian  provinces  of 
Italy  and  the   islands,   and   refutes  the   various  argu- 


*  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  viii.  s.  14. 

s.  41.  ^  O'Conor,  Letter  iii.   of  Co- 

^  Thomassin.     Vet.     et    Nov.  Iiimbanus. 
Eccl.   Discipl.  t.   i.   lib.  i.    c.   8. 


CHAP.  VII.]  Patridrcliufi- of  Uoini'.  541 

iiieiits  adduced  to  tlie  coiitniry  by  many  other  Roman 
theologians  ''. 

II.  The  Roman  bishop  did  not,  for  many  centuries, 
exercise  the  powers  of  a  patriarch  in  the  western 
churches  generally.  According  to  Thomassin,  pres- 
byter of  the  Oratory,  the  privileges  of  a  patriarch  were 
as  follows.  First,  to  ordain  all  the  metropolitans  of 
their  patriarchate,  and  many  of  the  bishops  ;  secondly, 
to  judge  those  metropolitans ;  thirdly,  to  receive  the 
appeals  of  bishops  from  metropolitans,  and  even  those 
of  presbyters  and  deacons  ;  fourthly,  to  assemble  councils 
of  those  subject  to  their  patriarchate.  From  this  it 
may  be  concluded  that  the  Roman  patriarchate  does 
not  extend  beyond  Italy  and  Sicily,  for  the  following 
reasons '. 

1.  There  is  no  instance  of  the  metropolitans  of  Africa 
being  ordained  by  the  papal  authority.  On  the  con-"^ 
trary,  it  is  plain  that  the  bishops  of  Carthage  were 
ordained  by  the  synod  of  Africa.  De  Marca,  arch- 
bishop of  Paris,  has  proved  that  it  was  the  ancient 
right  of  the  Gallican  and  Spanish  churches  to  ordain 
their  own  metropolitans,  without  reference  to  any  fo- 
reign authority  \  Even  the  archbishop  of  Milan  was 
not  ordained  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  but  by  the  bishop 
of  Aquileia '. 

2.  The  canons  attribute  the  judgment  of  all  bishops 
without  exception  to  the  provincial  synods  ;  and  we  do 
not  find  that  the  Roman  pontiff  during  the  early  ages, 
either  claimed  or  exercised  any  peculiar  right  of  judging 
the  metropolitans  of  the  west. 


*>    Du    Pin,  De    Antiq.    Eccl.         ^  De  Marca  de  Concord.  Sa- 

Discipl.  Dissert,  i.  §  11.  14.  cerdot.  et  Imperii,  lib.  iv.  c.  4. 

■  Thomassin.'  t.  i.  lib.  i.  c.  9.  '  De  Marca,  lib.  vi.  c.  4.  n.  7, 

s.  12—14.  8. 


542  Patriarchafi;  of  Rome.  [p.  vii.  cif.  vii. 

3.  That  the  patriarch  of  Rome  had  no  riglit  to  re- 
ceive appeals  from  Africa,  appears  by  the  case  of  Api- 
arius,  whom  Zozimus  pretended  to  absolve  from  the 
excommunication  of  an  African  synod ;  on  which  it  was 
decreed  by  the  African  church,  and  renewed  again 
more  than  once,  that  wlioever  should  appeal  from  the 
African  synod  to  Rome,  should  be  excommunicated. 
Baluzius  proves  that  for  eight  hundred  years  the  Gal- 
ilean churches  permitted  no  appeals  to  the  Roman 
patriarch  "'. 

4.  Though  the  bishops  of  Rome  assembled  many 
synods  in  the  course  of  the  first  six  centuries,  we  do 
not  find  a  single  example  of  their  summoning  all  the 
bishops  of  the  west  to  a  patriarchal  synod.  Their 
synods  consisted  always  of  the  bishops  of  Italy ;  and 
were  never  attended  by  those  of  Africa,   Gaul,    Spain, 

^'Germany,  Illyricum,  Britain ;  unless  by  chance  one  or 
two  happened  to  be  present  in  the  city. 

Gregory  the  great  himself  was  sensible  that  it  might 
be  alleged  that  Spain  was  not  within  the  Roman  patri- 
archate ;  for  in  an  epistle  to  the  Spanish  bishops,  having 
quoted  an  imperial  law  commanding  certain  causes  to 
be  referred  to  the  metropolitan  or  the  patriarch  of  the 
diocese,  he  continues :  "  If  against  this  it  be  alleged, 
that  he  has  no  metropolitan  or  patriarch  :  it  must  be  said, 
that  the  cause  is  to  be  heard  and  decided  by  the  aposto- 
lical see,  the  head  of  all  churches  "." 

III.  We  may  conclude  then,  that  the  patriarchate  of 
Rome  does  not  extend  beyond  the  limits  of  Italy  and 

'"  Baluzii   Praefat.    ad  Anton,  quia  a  sede  apostolica,  quae  om- 

August.     lib.     de      emnndatione  nium  ecclesiarum  caput  est,  causa 

Gratiani.  haec  audienda  ac  dirimenda  fue- 

"  "  Contra  hsec  si  dictum  fue-  rat." — Gregorius  Magnus,  Epist. 

rit,  quia  nee  metropolitam  habuit  lib.  ii.  ep.  50. 
nee  patriarcham  ;   dicendiim    est 

10 


OBJFXT.]  PatriarcJiatc  of  Home.  543 

the  adjoining  islands^  because  no  patriarchal  rights 
were  exercised  beyond  them  by  the  Roman  pontiffs  for 
many  centuries.  For  it  is  in  vain  to  allege,  as  the 
Ui tramontanes  do,  that  the  Roman  see  did  not  ed^ercise 
its  rightful  privileges,  or  that  the  confusions  of  the 
times  may  have  interfered  with  them.  History  shows 
that  these  prelates  have  been  always  but  too  anxious  to 
exercise  and  to  extend  their  jurisdiction. 

With  regard  to  the  British  churches  in  particular,  it 
has  been  shown  by  Stillingfleet  and  others  °,  that  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  Roman  pontiif  ever  exercised 
any  acts  of  patriarchal  jurisdiction  in  them,  or  that  they 
form  any  part  of  the  Roman  patriarchate :  but  these 
proofs  are  needless,  for  if  so  many  other  provinces  of 
the  west,  much  nearer  to  Rome,  were  not  under  its 
jurisdiction,  it  is  not  credible  that  our  provinces  should 
have  been  so. 

OBJECTIONS. 

1.  Schelstrate  P,  in  reply  to  Stillingfleet,  adduces  the 
letter  of  the  synod  of  Aries  to  pope  Sylvester,  in  a.  d. 
314,  which  consisted  of  bishops  from  Africa,  Gaul, 
Spain,  Italy,  and  Britain,  in  which  it  is  said:  "  Placuit 
etiam  antequam  a  te  qui  majores  dioeceses  tones,  per  te 
potissimum  omnibus  insinuari,"  or,  as  corrected  by  Du 
Perron,  "  Placuit  etiam,  haec  juxta  antiquam  consuetu- 
dinem,  a  te,  qui  majores  dioeceses  tenes,  per  te  potis- 
simum omnibus  insinuari,"  implying  an  acknowledgment 
that  the  bishop  of  Rome  held  the  "  greater  dioceses." 
These  greater  dioceses  Schelstrate  says,  must  mean  the 
civil  dioceses  of  the  Roman  empire.     These  dioceses 

°  Stillino-fl.  Orig.  Brit.  See  Auctoritate  Patriarchali  et  Me- 
Vol.  I.  p.  482.  tropolitica,  Romae,  1687. 

i"  Schelstrate,    Dissertatio    de 


544  Patriarchate  of  Borne.  [i'Akt  vii. 

were  thirteen,  z?/^.  Macedonia,  Dacia,  Italy,  Illyricum, 
Africa,  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain,  in  the  west ;  and 
Egypt,  the  Oriental,  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace,  in  the 
east ;  and  hence  Schelstrate  supposes  that  the  greater 
dioceses  referred  to  by  the  synod,  must  mean  the 
western  dioceses  of  Italy,  Africa,  Gaul,  Britain,  &c. 

A?iswer.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  word  '  dioeceses' 
was,  so  early  as  314,  applied  to  the  civil  dioceses,  or  that 
Constantine  had  yet  formed  those  dioceses.  Schelstrate 
himself  produces  no  evidence  of  their  existence  until 
about  the  time  of  the  council  of  Nice  in  325  ^  when 
Constantine,  having  lately  subdued  Licinius,  and  ob- 
tained possession  of  the  whole  empire,  may  probably 
have  instituted  this  arrangement. 

We  find,  indeed,  the  term  'dioecesis'  generally  ap- 
plied before  the  synod  of  Aries  to  the  ordinary  pro- 
vinces of  the  Roman  empire.  Schelstrate  himself 
quotes  Onuphrius  Panvinus,  saying  that  in  the  time 
of  the  emperor  Hadrian,  "  there  were  seventeen  pro- 
vinces  or  dioceses  in  Italy  and  its  islands  "."  He  might 
have  added  that  Strabo,  in  the  time  of  Tiberius, 
observed  that  Phrygia,  and  other  regions  of  Asia,  were 
divided  into  'dioceses'  by  the  Romans ;  and  that  the 
'  diocese'  of  Cybara  was  the  greatest  in  Asia''.  Cicero 
mentions  three  '  dioceses'  of  Asia  %  and  speaks  of  "  all 
the  dioceses"  between  mount  Taurus  and  Cilicia'.  Hence 
it  is  plain  that  the  term  had  been  applied  long  before 
the  synod  of  Aries,  to  the  ordinary  Roman  province, 


^  Schelstrate,  p.  62.  ''  Id.  lib.  iii.   epist.  ix.   "  Quid 

•^  Ibid.  p.  63.  enim  erant,    &c.  .  .  .  ut  me  om- 

^  Strabo,  lib.  xiii.  p,  432.  iiium  illarum  dioecesium,  quae  cis 

*^  Cicero,    lib.    xiii.    ad    famil.  Taurum  sunt,  omniumque  earum 

Epist.  Ixvii.   "  Ex  provincia  mea  magistratus     legationesque    con- 

Cilicienci,  cui  scis  tres  SioiKrjrrei^  venirent." 

Asiaticas  attributas  fuisse." 


CHAP.  VII.]  Pafriarr/iafe  of  Borne  5-1.5 

or  some  smaller  division ;  so  that  we  may  most  j)roba- 
bly  understand  the  expression  "  majores  diceceses"  to 
refer  to  those  Italian  provinces  subject  to  the  Roman 
patriarchate,  the  term  7?iaJores  being  taken  positively 
for  "magnas,"  and  doubtless  those  provinces  might 
well  be  called  great,  since  they  were  the  richest  and 
most  populous  in  the  whole  world,  and  comprised  about 
240  bishoprics. 

II.  The  British  bishops,  at  all  events,  with  the  rest 
of  the  synod  of  Aries,  acknowledged  the  papal  power 
of  receiving  appeals  from  all  parts  of  the  world  ^ 

Ansiver.  I.  This  can  have  no  relation  to  the  patriar- 
chal power  of  Rome;  because  no  one  pretends  that 
the  Roman  patriarchate  extends  over  the  whole  world. 
2.  There  was  no  acknowledgment  of  the  papal  power 
of  receiving  appeals  ;  but  the  right  of  desiring  the 
cause  to  be  re-heard,  was  here  conferred  on  the  bishop 
of  Rome ;  a  privilege,  how^ever,  which  was  never  ac- 
knowledged by  the  eastern  church,  and  which  did  not 
take  effect  for  several  centuries  in  the  west,  as  Du  Pin 
has  shown  '. 

III.  Pelagius,  after  being  accused  of  heresy  at  synods 
in  the  east,  permitted  his  cause  to  be  referred  to  the 
Roman  pontiff,  which  he  would  not  have  done,  if  the 
Roman  pontiff  had  not  had  authority  in  Britain  \ 

Answer.  Pelagius  had  preached  his  heresies  in  Italy 
and  the  east,  therefore  he  was  law^fully  subject  to  the 
cognizance  of  synods  and  bishops  in  those  regions.  He 
did  not  appeal  from  a  British  synod  to  Rome,  but  from 
an  oriental  synod. 

IV.  The  bishops  of  Spain,  Gaul,  and  Africa,  often 
consulted   the   Roman   see   in   difficult  cases,  and   re- 

"  Schelstrate,  p.  94.  Discipl.  Dissert,  ii. 

'  Du    Pin,    De    Antiqua  Keel.  "  Schelstrate,  p.  95. 

VOt.  II.  J^  " 


54G  Fafriarehatf:  of  Rome.  [part  vii. 

ceived  decretal  epistles  from  them.  Therefore  they 
must  have  been  within  the  Roman  patriarchate. 

Atiswer.  Poly  carp  of  Smyrna,  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, and  many  other  bishops  of  the  east,  either  re- 
sorted to  Rome,  or  wrote  to  consult  the  bishop  of 
Rome  in  difficult  cases  :  but  no  one  pretends  that  any 
part  of  the  east  was  within  the  Roman  patriar- 
chate. Such  applications  merely  implied  respect  for  the 
Roman  see,  and  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  its  judg- 
ments. 

V.  Pope  Siricius  and  his  successors  made  the  bishops 
of  Thessalonica  their  vicars  in  Illyricum :  Zosimus  and 
his  successors  appointed  the  bishops  of  Aries  vicars  in 
France.  Leo  made  Potentius  vicar  in  Africa.  Sim- 
plicius  and  his  successors  made  the  bishops  of  Seville 
vicars  in  Spain.  Gregory  made  Augustine  vicar  in 
Britain.  Therefore  these  provinces  were  all  within 
the  Roman  patriarchate. 

AnMver.  Pope  Theodore  sent  a  vicar  into  Palestine; 
JVlartin  commissioned  another  for  the  east.  Gregory 
Vri.  gave  the  pallium  to  the  Latin  patriarchs  of  the 
east :  yet  no  one  will  pretend  that  these  churches  were 
within  the  patriarchate  of  Rome.  Therefore  the  ap- 
pointment of  vicars  in  various  countries  of  the  west  is 
no  proof  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  patriarch  of 
those  countries ;  but  without  doubt  the  pontiff's  endea- 
voured by  these  means  to  acquire  jurisdiction,  and 
gradually  succeeded ;  though  it  may  be  most  reasonably 
denied  that  they  did  so  under  pretence  of  any  right  as 
patriarch ;  their  claim  being  usually  founded  on  their 
primacy  in  the  church. 


CHAP.  VIII.]     Progress  of  the  Papid  Domination,  oAl 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON  THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE  ROMAN 
PONTIFF. 

I  HAVE  already  spoken  of  the  various  causes  which 
from  the  beffinnino:  conferred  on  the  church  of  Rome 
the  chief  place  amongst  christian  churches.  The  num- 
ber of  its  clergy  and  people,  its  wealth  and  charity,  its 
apostolical  origin,  the  purity  of  its  faith,  the  greatness 
and  dignity  of  the  city  of  Rome,  conspired  to  elevate 
this  apostolical  see  in  the  estimation  of  the  whole 
church.  Hence  from  an  early  period  many  churches 
of  Italy,  and  the  adjoining  isles,  acknowledged  the 
bishop  of  Rome  as  their  patriarch ;  and  his  patriarchal 
privileges  were  confirmed  by  the  oecumenical  synod  of 
Nice.  The  same  causes  which  induced  so  many 
churches  to  subject  themselves  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Rome,  led  the  remainder  of  the  church  throughout 
the  world  to  regard  the  Roman  see  with  great  re- 
verence, and  to  ask  for  its  aid  on  many  occasions. 
The  power  of  that  church  arose  naturally  from  the 
honour  paid  to  it ;  and  extended  itself  gradually,  while 
men  were  ignorant  of  the  results  which  would  follow, 
and  made  no  sufficient  efforts  to  prevent  them,  by 
establishing  definite  principles  and  limits  of  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction.  The  immense  fabric  of  the  papal 
domination  was  established  by  three  powers,  which 
were    slowly    developed.      First,    the    judicial    power, 

N  n  2 


548  Progress  of  tJie  Papal  Domination.        [part  vii. 

secondly,  the  legislative  power,  and  thirdly,  the  execu- 
tive power.  It  was  confirmed  by  the  temporal  power 
of  the  popes,  and  by  the  monastic  orders.  These  points 
I  shall  now  examine  \ 

I.  By  the  judicial  power  of  the  Roman  see,  I  mean 
the  power  of  acting  as  supreme  judge  in  all  causes. 
This  power  arose  from  appeals.  It  was  very  natural 
that  when  bishops  or  clergy  were  deprived  of  their 
benefices  by  the  judgment  of  provincial  synods,  they 
should  sometimes  apply  to  the  greatest  and  most 
powerful  bishop  of  the  universal  church,  in  the  hope  of 
persuading  him  to  advocate  their  cause,  and  to  use  his 
influence  and  authority  for  their  restoration.  Hence 
we  find  applications  made  to  the  Roman  see  from 
Spain  in  the  third  century,  and  in  the  fourth  by  S. 
Athanasius,  and  other  eastern  bishops.  The  Roman 
pontiffs  always  befriended  those  who  thus  sought  their 
aid,  and  though  their  judgment  was  not  absolutely 
binding,  (having  been  rejected  by  the  Spanish  bishops, 
and  the  Eastern  in  several  cases,)  yet  its  influence  was 
considerable ;  and  the  benefit  which  it  had  procured 
to  the  orthodox  cause  in  contributing  to  the  restora- 
tion of  Athanasius,  led  the  bishops  of  the  council  of 
Sardica,  a.  d.  343,  to  give  somewhat  of  a  formal  and 
legislative  establishment  to  the  judicial  authority  of 
the  Roman  see.  They  decreed,  that  if  any  bishop 
condemned  by  a  provincial  synod,  should  appeal  to  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  no  successor  should  be  ordained  at 
once,  but  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  should  have  powder 

*  The  principal  authorities  on  Biblioth.   des    Auteurs  ;   Fieury, 

which  this  review  is  founded  are  Discours  sur  I'HistoireEcclesias- 

Barrow,   Treatise  on  Pope's  Su-  tique  ;  De  Hontheim ;  Febronius ; 

premacy  ;    Thomassin.    Vet.    et  Koch,  Tableau  des  Revolut.  de 

Nov.  Eccl.   Disciplina;  Da  Pin,  I'Europe,   t.  i ;  Van  Espen,   Jus 

De    Antiq.    Eccl.   Discipl.  ;   and  Canonicum,  &c. 


CHAP.  VI II.]     ProgreKs  of  tlie  Papal  Domination.  549 

to  revise  the  cause,  and,  if  he  judged  it  reasonable,  to 
direct  a  new  trial  in  the  neighbouring  province.  This 
canon,  indeed,  did  not  give  the  pontiff  the  power  of 
himself  judging  any  bishop  in  his  tribunal  at  Rome  ; 
but  it  was  a  great  step,  as  it  invested  him  with  a  cer- 
tain power  of  taking  cognizance  of  episcopal  causes ; 
and  though  the  canon  was  not  received  by  the  Eastern 
or  the  African  churches,  or  generally  in  the  west  for 
some  ages,  it  laid  a  foundation  on  which  gradually  a 
vast  superstructure  was  raised.  The  emperor  Valenti- 
nian,  about  a.  d.  372,  contributed  still  further  to  the 
same  end,  by  issuing  a  decree  that  the  bishop  of  Rome 
should  judge  all  other  bishops  in  the  Roman  empire, 
in  order  that  they  should  not  be  brought  before  the 
temporal  courts.  The  bishops  of  Italy,  assembled  at 
Rome  about  a.  d.  379,  returned  their  thanks  to  the 
emperors  Gratian  and  Valentinian  for  this  decree,  little 
foreseeing  the  chains  which  they  were  forging  for  their 
own  necks. 

We  find  the  Roman  pontiffs  thenceforward  urging 
their  claims  at  one  time  on  the  canon  of  Sardica,  at 
another  on  the  principle  of  the  law  of  Valentinian,  at 
another  on  the  precedents  in  the  case  of  Athanasius  and 
the  Eastern  bishops.  Yet  in  many  instances  churches  re- 
fused to  acknowledge  these  claims.  Thus  the  African 
churches  rejected  the  right  of  hearing  appeals  claimed 
by  Pope  Zosimus.  The  judgment  of  the  pontiff  was 
rejected  by  the  Galilean  bishops  in  the  case  of  Chelido- 
nius,  and  of  Salonius  and  Sagittarius,  bishops  who  had 
appealed  from  the  decrees  of  Galilean  synods.  It  was 
rejected  by  the  English  bishops  in  the  case  of  Wilfrid, 
deposed  from  the  see  of  York,  and  who  had  appealed 
to  Rome.  Still  from  continual  exercise  and  perseve- 
rance, the  pontifical  power  extended  itself  and  acquired 
partisans  ;  and  in  the  ninth  century  pope  Nicholas  I. 


550  Proyress  of  the  Papal  Dominatiun.       [part  vii. 

maintained  that  the  Roman  pontiff  had  a  right  to  take 
immediate  cognizance  of  all  causes  of  bishops,  even  to 
the  exclusion  of  provincial  synods,  which  had  always 
hitherto  judged  bishops  according  to  the  canons  of  the 
universal  church.  To  these  canons  were  now  opposed 
the  spurious  decretals  forged  in  the  preceding  century, 
which  were  brought  forward  as  the  laws  of  the  church 
during  its  most  primitive  ages.  Hincmar,  archbishop 
of  Rlieims,  and  the  Gallican  bishops,  in  vain  attempted 
to  deny  the  authenticity  of  these  decretals.  The  age 
was  unable  to  distinguish  the  marks  of  their  forgery, 
and  they  established  ere  long  in  all  the  western  church 
the  principle,  that  the  pontiff  was  the  immediate  and 
proper  judge  of  all  bishops  whatever,  with  the  power  of 
summoning  them  before  his  tribunal. 

But  the  principle  thus  established  was  capable  of 
still  further  extension.  The  pontiffs  accordingly  claimed 
the  power  of  judging  the  causes  of  the  inferior  clergy^ 
whether  already  decided  by  local  synods  or  not.  Ni- 
cholas I.  in  the  ninth  century,  assumed  the  power  of 
reversing  the  judgments  of  synods  in  such  cases :  his 
successors,  and  particularly  Gregory  VII.  encouraged 
direct  applications  from  the  clergy,  and  finally  from  the 
laity  in  all  causes  whatever  to  the  Roman  see.  In 
fact  the  spurious  decretals  broadly  and  continually  as- 
serted this  right.  Several  synods  endeavoured  in  vain 
to  check  these  innovations :  the  tribunals  of  Rome 
ultimately  obtained  all  the  emolument  and  power 
arising  from  the  judgment  of  almost  all  the  ecclesias- 
tical causes  of  Europe.  The  pontiff  was  acknowledged 
in  the  thirteenth  century,  as  the  immediate  and  su- 
preme judge  of  every  christian. 

II.  The  legislative  power  of  the  Roman  see  arose 
from  the  consultations  of  bishops  in  difficult  cases,  and 
from  the  practice  of  fraternal  admonition. 


CHAP.  VIII.]     Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.  551 

In  the  dispute  concerning  the  time  of  keeping 
Easter,  Polycarp  came  to  Rome  to  confer  with  Anice- 
tiis  on  the  affair,  as  presiding  over  the  greatest  see. 
In  the  same  manner  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  wrote  to 
consult  Dionysius  of  Rome,  on  the  case  of  one  who 
had  partaken  of  the  eucharist  without  having  been 
previously  baptized.  These  references,  though  occa- 
sionally, were  not  exclusively  made  to  Rome.  The 
principal  reason  for  which  they  were  made,  was  that 
Rome  itself,  being  a  great  apostolical  church,  and  being 
visited  by  christians  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  it 
might  be  reasonably  supj^osed  that  the  apostolic  doc- 
trine and  discipline  was  there  preserved  more  j^ure  than 
elsewhere. 

The  pontiffs,  with  or  without  these  applications,  soon 
began  to  assume  the  tone  of  command  rather  than  that 
of  admonition.  The  epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corin- 
thians, on  occasion  of  schism  in  their  church,  was  full 
of  fraternal  exhortation  ;  but  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  Victor  threatened  the  churches  of 
Asia  with  excommunication,  if  they  did  not  adopt  the 
more  usual  rule  of  keeping  Easter ;  and  in  the  third, 
Stephen  excommunicated  the  churches  of  Africa  be- 
cause they  differed  from  the  Roman  custom  in  rebap- 
tizing  heretics.  In  both  these  cases,  however,  the 
churches  refused  to  yield  obedience  or  submit  to  the 
mandate  of  Rome.  The  practice  of  consulting  this 
apostolical  see  particularly  prevailed  in  the  west.  We 
possess  a  series  of  decretal  epistles  written  by  the 
Roman  bishops  from  the  time  of  Siricius  (in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century,)  either  in  reply  to  the 
questions  of  the  bishops  of  lUyricum,  Spain,  Gaul, 
Africa,  and  at  length  Britain ;  or  even  without  any 
such  consultations.  These  epistles  generally  are  in  a 
tone  of  autliovHy ;  but  the  bishops  to  whom  they  were 


552  Progress  of  tlie.  Pupal  Domination.       [part  vii. 

addressed,  did  not  for  a  long  time  consider  themselves 
bound  to  approve  or  act  on  them,  unless  they  were 
consistent  with  the  customs  and  liberties  of  their 
churches.  In  fact,  even  in  the  middle  ages,  many  of 
the  papal  decrees  were  not  accepted  by  the  churches 
of  France,  Germany,  England,  &c.  In  the  synod  of 
Rheims,  about  990,  Arnold,  bishop  of  Orleans,  pro- 
tested that  the  new  constitutions  of  the  popes  ought  not 
to  prejudice  the  ancient  laws  of  the  church  ;  and  that 
if,  through  ignorance,  fear,  or  passion,  they  depart  from 
justice,  their  decrees  ought  not  to  be  feared.  The 
decretal  epistles  of  the  pontiffs  were  therefore  not 
generally  considered  absolutely  binding  for  a  long 
time ;  but  still  by  continual  exercise  this  power  of 
legislation  increased,  and  the  authoritative  decretal 
epistles  of  the  pontiffs,  being  accepted  by  many  churches, 
formed  a  body  of  precedents,  which  gradually  induced 
the  opinion  that  the  pontiff"  had  the  right  to  legislate 
for  all  churches,  (the  consultation  of  the  churches  being 
forgotten,)  and  that  disobedience  w^as  unjustifiable,  ex- 
cept in  extreme  cases.  In  the  eighth  and  ninth  cen- 
turies, the  spurious  decretals  attributed  to  the  early 
popes,  confirmed  this  impression;  and  the  principles 
laid  dow^n  in  these  decretals  tended  still  more  to  con- 
centrate all  power  of  legislation  in  the  Roman  see,  by 
denying  to  synods  the  power  of  assembling  and  acting 
without  the  papal  authority.  Accordingly  whatever 
synods  were  held  in  the  west  from  the  time  of  Gregory 
VII.  were  under  the  direction  and  control  of  the  papal 
legates,  who  promulgated  the  laws  in  them.  The 
collection  of  canons  (entitled  Decretum,)  made  by  Gra- 
tian  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  which  was  immedi- 
ately adopted  by  all  the  schools  and  universities  of 
Europe,  established  finally  the  authority  of  the  spurious 
decretals,  and  with  them  the  legislative  power  of  the 


CHAP.  VIII.]      Proyress  of  the  Pupal  DoDunation.  i).53 

popes.  Gratian  even  maintained  that  the  pontift's  were 
not  bound  to  obey  the  ancient  canons,  (which  they  had 
however  always  swam  to  observe  at  their  ordinations,) 
and  thus  arose  the  opinion  which  spread  generally  in 
the  west,  that  the  pontiif's  power  was  without  limits ". 
Hence  arose  a  multitude  of  laws  subversive  of  the 
ancient  privileges  and  customs  of  churches,  and  of  the 
canons  of  the  universal  church.  The  pontiffs  assumed 
the  power  of  absolving  from  all  censures,  and  dis- 
pensing with  all  regulations.  In  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, they  issued  decrees  reserving  to  themselves  the 
exclusive  appointment  to  all  bishoprics,  abbeys,  and 
priories  ;  all  dignities  in  cathedral  and  collegiate 
churches ;  and  finally  all  benefices  whatsoever,  which 
might  become  vacant  during  eight  months  of  the  year ; 
termed  menses  papce.  Even  the  remainder  were  sub- 
ject to  provisions,  expectative  graces,  &c.  by  which  the 
pontiffs  endeavoured  to  engross  these  appointments. 
It  is  true  that  these  reservations  were  not  universally 
executed,  in  consequence  of  the  resistance  of  the  tem- 
poral sovereigns,  and  of  some  prelates  ;  but  still  they 
prevailed  to  an  astonishing  extent.  The  pontiffs  in 
the  fourteenth  century  imposed  taxes  at  pleasure  on 
the  clergy,  under  the  name  of  supplies  for  the  Cru- 
sades, annates,  tenths,  &c.  All  these  pretensions  and 
privileges  were  founded  on  the  legislative  power  which 


'^  Le  Decret  de  Gratien  acheva  ces  decretales  pour  etendre  I'au- 

d'afFermir  et  d'etendre  I'autorite  torite    du  Pa}oe,   soutenant  qu'il 

des  fausses  decretales  que  Ton  y  n'etoit  point  soumis  aux  canons  : 

trouva  semees  partout  :  car  pen-  ce  qu'il  dit  de  son  chef  et   sans 

dant  plus  de  trois  siecles  on  ne  en  apporter  aucune  preuve  d'au- 

connoissoit  point  d'autres  canons  torite.       Ainsi     se    forma    dans 

que  ceux  de   ce  recueil,   on  n'en  I'eglise  Latine  une  idee  confuse 

suivoit    point    d'autres   dans   les  que  la  puissance  du  Pape  etoit 

ecoles    et   dans    les    tribunaux.  sans  homes,  &c.  —  Fleury,  Disc. 

Gratien   avoit  meme  encheri  sur  iv.  sur  I'Hist.  Eccl. 


554  Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.       [part  vii. 

the  pontiffs  had  gradually  acquired  through  the  circum- 
stances already  alluded  to. 

III.  A  most  important  branch  of  the  pontifical 
authority  was  the  executive  power :  the  power  of 
not  merely  hearing  appeals  at  Rome,  or  of  enacting 
laws  for  the  western  church  ;  but  of  deputing  persons 
to  execute  those  laws  and  decisions  in  all  parts  of  the 
church.  This  power  also  arose  gradually.  It  is  not 
till  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century  that  we  read 
of  vicars  or  legates  of  the  Roman  see.  So  highly  was 
the  Roman  see  reverenced,  and  so  great  was  its  in- 
fluence and  weight  in  the  church  generally,  that  metro- 
politans, and  others  who  were  desirous  of  maintaining 
or  increasing  their  authority,  would  gladly  receive  that 
of  the  Roman  see  in  confirmation  of  their  own.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  that  the  bishops  of  Thessalonica,  who 
were  anxious  to  maintain  and  extend  their  power  over 
Illyricum,  were  declared  vicars  of  the  apostolical  see  by 
Damasus  and  Siricius,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth 
century ;  that  Patroclus,  bishop  of  Aries,  received  a 
similar  appointment  for  Gaul  from  Zosimus,  in  the 
fifth  century ;  as  did  the  bishop  of  Seville  for  Spain  : 
and  the  following  ages  added  to  the  number  of  these 
vicars  of  the  apostolic  see.  In  this  manner  the  pon- 
tiffs rendered  the  chief  bishops  of  each  country  in  the 
west  subservient  to  them ;  and  as  the  temper  of  the 
times  admitted,  they  increased  their  powers,  or  encour- 
aged them  to  make  inroads  on  the  liberties  of  churches. 
A  custom  thus  supported  by  the  chief  bishops  in  each 
country  took  firm  root ;  and  as  the  pontiffs,  in  return 
for  the  authority  they  communicated  to  their  vicars, 
exacted  a  reference  of  the  more  difficult  cases  to  their 
immediate  tribunal,  it  tended  to  increase  their  juris- 
diction. 


CHAP.  VIII.]     Proi/ress  of  the  Papal  Dumination.  555 

To  these  vicars  the  Roman  pontiffs  transmitted  the 
})allium  or  pall :  an  ornament  which  appears  originally 
to  have  been  conferred  by  the  emperors  on  the  patri- 
archs about  the  end  of  the  fom'th  century.  It  was 
about  A.  D.  500,  given  by  pope  Symmachus  to  his  vicar 
or  legate  Caesarius  of  Aries.  The  pallium  was  after- 
wards conferred  by  the  pontiffs  as  a  matter  of  the 
highest  favour,  and  often  only  at  the  earnest  solicitation 
of  kings,  on  the  various  apostolical  vicars  or  legates  of 
Aries,  Seville,  Canterbury,  Mentz.  It  was  sometimes 
refused  until  the  consent  of  the  eastern  emperor  had 
been  obtained.  The  rareness  of  this  privilege  rendered 
it  extremely  valuable  and  desirable  in  the  eyes  of  the 
western  bishops  aud  metropolitans.  It  was  conferred 
on  Siagrius,  bishop  of  Autun,  at  the  earnest  request  of 
queen  Brunechilda,  by  Gregory  the  great,  and  on  Argli- 
bert,  bishop  of  Mans,  in  685  ;  but,  with  these  two  ex- 
ceptions, none  of  the  western  bishops,  except  the  vicars 
of  the  apostolic  see,  received  the  pallium  till  the  time 
of  pope  Zacharias,  about  743,  when  all  the  metropo- 
litans of  Gaul  obtained  it  through  the  new  regulations 
introduced  by  Boniface,  archbishop  of  Mentz.  They 
were  however  bound  to  solicit  earnestly  for  the  pall,  and 
were  obliged  to  strengthen  their  applications  by  the 
entreaties  of  the  emperors  and  kings  of  France,  and  to 
promise  obedience  to  the  pontiff  before  they  could  ob- 
tain this  highly-valued  privilege.  For  a  long  time  also 
the  pall  was  only  conceded  to  those  who  went  personally 
to  Rome  to  entreat  the  pontiff  for  it. 

Gregory  VII.  prohibited  metropolitans  from  ordain- 
ing bishops  or*clergy,  or  consecrating  churches,  until 
they  had  obtained  the  pall.  He  also  imposed  on  them, 
as  a  condition  of  receiving  it,  an  oath  of  strict  obedience 
to  the  apostolical  see.  His  successors  made  it  a  source 
of  pecuniary  profit.     It  is  stated  by   Matthew   Paris, 


556  Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.       [part  vii. 

that  in  the  time  of  Henry  I.  the  archbishop  of  York 
paid  a  sum  equal  to  10,000/.  for  his  palL  The  metro- 
politans of  the  west  were,  however,  now  completely 
subjects  to  the  pontiff,  bound  to  obedience.  It  re- 
mained to  acquire  a  similar  power  over  bishops ;  and 
this  was  effected  in  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  and  be- 
ginning of  the  fifteenth  century,  when  the  pontiffs 
obtained  by  means  of  reservations  the  power  of  ap- 
])ointing  to  all  bishoprics,  or  at  least  of  confirming  the 
appointments  to  all,  and  imposed  similar  oaths  of  obe- 
dience on  the  bishops,  who  thus  became  entirely  subject 
to  the  Roman  see.  Independently  however  of  the 
oaths  and  promises  of  obedience  made  by  the  prelates 
to  the  Roman  see,  the  appointment  of  vicars  or  legates 
in  great  numbers,  empowered  to  interfere  in  all  the 
affairs  of  particular  churches,  and  to  form  the  direct 
channel  of  communication  between  the  pontiff  and  the 
churches  generally,  greatly  established  and  consolidated 
the  fabric  of  Roman  power.  From  the  time  of  Gre- 
gory VII.  the  number  of  legates  was  vastly  increased, 
and  they  became  extremely  burdensome  to  all  the 
churches. 

IV.  The  temporal  power  of  the  popes  arose  indeed 
very  late,  and  was  derived  from  their  spiritual  power ; 
but  it  had  so  great  an  effect  in  strengthening  the  spi- 
ritual power  for  some  ages,  that  it  merits  our  conside- 
ration. I  do  not  here  refer  to  their  authority  as  tem- 
poral princes  of  a  part  of  Italy,  given  to  the  Roman  see 
by  Pepin,  and  confirmed  by  Charlemagne  :  but  to  that 
power  which  enabled  them  to  appoint  and  depose  em- 
perors and  kings.  • 

The  judgment  of  the  Roman  see  was  called  for  by 
the  Franks,  when  desirous  of  deposing  the  last  of  the 
race  of  Merovingian  kings  to  make  room  for  Pepin. 
80  great  was  the  power  of  that  church  in  the  eleventh 


CHAP.  VIII.]      Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.  557 

century,  that  the  emperor  Henry  III.  on  his  death  bed 
in  1056,  recommended  his  son  to  the  protection  of  the 
pope  and  the  church  of  Rome.     The  famous  Gregory 
VII.,  while  yet  a  cardinal,  engaged  pope  Nicholas  II. 
to  make  Robert  Guiscard  an  ally  and  a  vassal  of  the 
Roman   church.     When  elevated  to  the  chair  of  St. 
Peter,  he  assumed  absolute  power  over  emperors  and 
kings.      He  addressed   exhortations   to   them    on   the 
manner  of  governing  their   states ;    and  the   emperor 
Henry  IV.,    having    disobeyed    a    citation    to    Rome, 
and    in  his   anger  caused    the  pontiff  to    be   deposed 
by  an  assembly  of  bishops  at  Worms,   Gregory  VII. 
deposed  him   from   the   empire,   absolved   his  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,   and   finally  succeeded   in   com- 
pelling the  emperor  to  make  a  most  humble  submission. 
The  pontiff  afterwards,  in  setting  up  a  rival  emperor,  re- 
quired from  him  an   oath  of  faithful   obedience  to  the 
pope.     Gregory  deposed  Boleslaus,  king  of  Poland,  for 
putting  a  bishop  to  death.     He  granted  the  regal  dignity 
to  the  duke  of  Croatia  and  Dalmatia,  on  condition  of 
his    doing   homage  for  his    kingdom.      He    addressed 
letters  to  all  the  sovereigns   of  Europe,  claiming  their 
vassalage  and  obedience  to  the  Roman  see ;  and  several 
were  actually  induced  to  acquiesce  in  this  extraordinary 
demand.     In  the  succeeding  ages  we  find   several  in- 
stances of  kings  and  princes  becoming  tributaries  and 
vassals  to  the  Roman  see.     Arragon,  Portugal,  Naples, 
Sicily,  Provence,   England,   Scotland,  and   many  other 
countries,  received  the  yoke.     The  pontiffs  pretended 
to  confirm  the  election  of  emperors.     Lothaire  II.  and 
Otto  sought  their  confirmation.     Innocent  II.  and  In- 
nocent  HI.  took  cognizance  of  disputed   elections  of 
emperors.     Gregory    VII.  and  his   successors  deposed 
the  emperors  Henry  IV.  in  1076,  Frederick  Barbarossa 
in  1160,  Henry  the  sixth  in   1191,   Otho  the  fourth  in 


553  Programs  of  the  Papal  Domination.       [part  vii. 

1212,  and  Frederick  the  second  in  1245.  The  king- 
doms of  England,  France,  Portugal,  Norway,  were 
visited  by  similar  calamities.  In  fine,  from  the  ele- 
venth to  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the 
pontiffs  were  virtually  the  sovereigns  of  the  west. 
They  held  themselves  entitled  to  interfere  in  all  the 
proceedings  of  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  authorities  ; 
to  issue  their  commands  to  kings ;  to  annul  their  acts  ; 
to  judge  their  differences ;  to  elevate  some  to  the  regal 
dignity,  and  deprive  others  of  it ;  to  take  them  under 
the  protection  of  the  Roman  see ;  and  to  lay  kingdoms 
under  interdict  or  excommunication  in  case  of  disobe- 
dience to  their  commands.  Nor  was  this  all.  The 
pontiffs  were  enabled  to  direct  a  tremendous  physical 
force  against  any  sovereign  who  might  be  disposed  to 
dispute  their  commands. 

The  crusades  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  Roman 
pontiffs :  and  the  influence  at  once  of  religious  zeal, 
and  of  profound  reverence  for  the  apostolic  see,  were 
never  more  remarkably  displayed,  than  in  the  array  of 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  at  their  bidding,  traversing 
sea  and  land  to  recover  the  holy  sepulchre.  But  these 
crusades  were  speedily  directed  not  only  against  infidels, 
but  against  heretics  and  schismatics,  or  those  who  were 
disobedient  to  the  Roman  see.  Hence  those  monarchs 
who  w^ere  disobedient  to  the  pontiffs,  were  not  only  in 
danger  of  excommunication,  and  of  their  subjects  being 
absolved  from  their  allegiance ;  circumstances  which  in 
those  ages  were  calculated  to  create  serious  disturb- 
ances; but  they  were  also  to  contemplate  the  possi- 
bility of  having  a  crusade  proclaimed  against  them  ;  the 
acquisition  of  their  dominions  being  held  out  as  a  re- 
ward to  a  successful  invader. 

There  must  certainly  have  been  some  grand  radical 
mistake  in  a  system  of  opinion  which  could  support 


CHAP.  VIII.]     Progressof  the  Papal  Domination.  559 

such  a  power.  That  mistake  consisted  in  supposing 
that  the  pontiff  was  by  divine  right  Head  of  the  church, 
and  that  communion  with  him  was  essential  to  sal- 
vation. This  principle  once  acknowledged,  the  pontiff 
might  accomplish  anything  by  threats  of  excommuni- 
cation. Tlie  enormity  of  this  system,  however,  and  the 
extravagant  length  to  which  it  was  carried,  at  length 
caused  its  downfal,  and  at  the  same  time  contributed 
most  materially  to  dispose  men  for  shaking  off  the 
spiritual  usurpations  of  the  Roman  see  also.  Yet 
though  the  pontiffs  did  not  possess  all  their  former 
power,  we  find  them,  even  in  the  sixteenth  century,  ex- 
communicating and  deposing  king  Henry  VIII.  and 
queen  Elizabeth,  and  absolving  their  subjects  from 
allegiance. 

V.  The  monastic  system  was  so  powerful  a  support  of 
the  Roman  see  during  the  middle  ages,  and  until  a 
comparatively  recent  period,  that  it  merits  a  distinct 
notice.  The  ancient  monks  of  the  order  of  St.  Benedict 
were  a  different  class  of  men  from  those  to  whom  I 
allude.  Until  about  the  twelfth  century  all  monasteries 
w^ere  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops.  The  pontiffs 
then  began  to  exempt  them  from  this  jurisdiction, 
and  to  render  them  directly  dependent  on  themselves. 
In  the  thirteenth  century  the  four  orders  of  Dominicans, 
Franciscans,  Augustinians,  and  Carmelites,  were  founded 
in  the  west ;  and  soon  becoming  incredibly  numerous, 
and  being  exempted  by  the  popes  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishops,  and  invested  with  powers  which  enabled 
them  often  to  compete  successfully  with  the  parochial 
clergy  for  the  confidence  of  the  people,  they  became 
the  most  devoted  and  most  useful  of  the  pontifical  ad- 
herents, and  as  their  privileges  were  all  derived  from 
tlie  pope,  it  engaged  them  to  magnify  his  power  to  the 
utmost  degree.    The  disputes  between  the  secular  clergy 


560  Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.        [part  vii. 

and  the  friars  and  monks,  or  regular  clergy,  were  con- 
tinual, and  have  not  yet  ceased  in  the  Roman  com- 
munion, though  by  a  compromise  the  bishops  were  al- 
lowed by  the  synod  of  Trent  to  superintend  monasteries 
in  the  character  of  delegates  of  the  pope. 

VI.  The  effect  of  all  these  causes  was  a  vast  change 
in  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  the  western  churches, 
and  the  result,  even  after  the  reformation  eftected  by 
the  council  of  Trent,  and  the  fall  of  the  papal  power, 
may  well  startle  any  one  who  compares  the  power  and 
privileges  of  the  pontiff  at  this  moment,  with  that  which 
he  enjoyed  during  the  early  ages  of  the  church. 

In  the  early  ages,  each  provincial  synod  confirmed 
and  ordained  its  own  metropolitan;  now  the  pontiff 
alone  confirms  all  metropolitans,  and  issues  his  bull  for 
their  ordination.  Then  every  bishop,  except  in  the 
suburbicarian  provinces,  was  elected  by  the  clergy  and 
people,  and  confirmed  and  ordained  by  the  metropolitan 
and  comprovincial  bishops ;  but  now  the  pontiff  nomi- 
nates directly  to  many  bishoprics,  and  confirms  the  nomi- 
nations to  bishoprics  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Then 
there  was  not  even  an  appeal  from  provincial  synods  to 
the  pontiff  to  revise  the  cause  ;  and  now  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  have  recourse  to  a  synod  at  all,  but  almost  every 
cause  may  be  carried  direct  to  Rome.  In  the  early 
ages  of  the  church  the  pontiif  had  no  immediate  juris- 
diction, beyond  his  own  diocese,  over  clergy  and  laity ; 
now  he  has  a  number  of  monasteries  and  exempt  juris- 
dictions in  all  dioceses  immediately  depending  on  him ; 
and  he  grants  indulgences,  dispensations,  and  licenses, 
which  were  originally  granted  by  the  bishops  only. 

For  many  ages  the  bishops  made  no  engagements  at 
their  ordinations  except  to  teach  the  word  of  God  and 
obey  the  canons  ;  now  they  all  swear  implicit  obedience 
to  the   pope.      There   was  then   no  obligation  on  all 


CHAP,  viii.]     Progress  of  the  PtijHtl  Domination.  51)1 

clergy  to  promise  obedience  to  the  pope,  now  all  clergy 
are  bound  to  it  by  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  All  the 
powers  and  privileges  wliich  anciently  belonged  to  the 
bishops  of  each  province  in  common,  are  now  vested  in 
the  Roman  pontiff.  They  can  no  longer  erect  new  or 
suppress  old  bishoprics,  translate  bishops,  make  canons 
without  reference  to  the  pontiff,  decide  controversies  of 
faith,  approve  new  forms  of  prayer,  judge  bishops  and 
even  metropolitans.  All  these,  and  many  other  powers 
formerly  possessed  by  provincial  synods  are  now  ab- 
sorbed by  the  popes.  In  fine,  every  Romish  bishop  now 
styles  himself  episcopus  gratia  AjwstoliccE  Scdis,  thus 
acknowledging  his  powers  to  be  conferred  by  and  to 
emanate  from  the  Roman  pontiff. 

Such  is  the  absorbing  and  universal  power  of  the 
Roman  see  even  when  its  influence  has  sunk  to  the 
lowest  ebb.  The  Roman  j)ontiff  is  more  than  primate 
of  his  own  Obedience.  He  exercises  more  than  patri- 
archal, more  than  metropolitical  power  over  all  his 
churches.  He  acts  as  universal  bishop :  his  interference 
extends  to  the  concerns  of  every  individual :  and  the 
bishops  are  only  his  vicars,  his  assistants,  invested  with 
a  portion  of  that  power  of  which  the  plenitude  resides 
in  him.  Such  is  the  theory,  which  is  supported  by  the 
practice  of  the  Roman  obedience  for  nearly  eight  cen- 
turies :  a  theory  opposed  to  all  the  tenor  of  scripture ; 
to  all  the  testimony  of  catholic  tradition  and  of  the 
oecumenical  synods. 

That  we  should  have  escaped  from  this  bondage,  and 
resumed  the  enjoyment  of  those  liberties,  and  the  bles- 
sings of  that  pure  faith,  which  Christ  gave  to  his  holy 
church,  ought  to  be  to  us  a  matter  of  wonder  and  of 
gratitude  to  the  Almighty.  It  should  lead  us  also  to 
view  with  respect  and  sympathy  those  human  agents, 

VOL.  II.  o    o 


56-2  Progress  of  the  Papal  Domination.         [part  vii. 

through  whose  endurance  even  to  death,  tlie  great 
work  of  our  emancipation  was  accomplished.  Grati- 
tude will  prompt  us  to  excuse  their  infirmities,  to  make 
allowance  for  their  difficulties,  to  do  justice  to  their 
real  merits :  while  reason  and  religion  will  teach  us 
carefully  to  avoid  the  danger  of  adopting  the  senti- 
ments of  mere  men  as  the  ultimate  rule  of  our  belief. 

Yet  our  sense  of  divine  favours  to  ourselves, 
should  be  mingled  with  the  deepest  regret  at  the 
divisions  and  the  calamities  of  the  churches  of  Christ, 
especially  under  the  Roman  obedience  :  nor  should  we 
ever  exaggerate  their  errors,  or  render  the  breach 
greater  than  it  is.  We  cannot  expect  indeed  that  the 
inveterate  habit  of  domination  in  the  Roman  church 
can  be  exchanged  for  the  spirit  of  fraternal  union ;  or 
that  the  impediments  which  it  offers  to  the  reunion  of 
all  churches  can  be  removed.  But,  while  we  bitterly 
lament  the  state  of  Christendom,  let  us  remember 
that  for  these  evils  the  catholic  and  apostolic  churches 
of  this  empire  are  in  no  degree  responsible  :  and  be- 
lieving as  we  do  most  firmly,  that  the  promises,  the 
grace,  and  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  are  with  these 
churches,  and  that  with  them  rests  the  responsibility 
of  handing  doM'n  pure,  and  unshaken,  the  holy  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ,  let  us  dwell  iu  tranquillity,  on  these 
high  and  solemn  considerations,  and  endeavour  to  fulfil 
our  duties  in  the  sphere  which  God  has  appointed  to 
us. 


I  N  D  E  X. 


Absolution,  a  sacrament,  according  to 
tlie  church  of  England,  i.  518;  its 
conditions,  ii.  301. 

Adoration  of  Christ  in  the  eucbarist,  i. 
313;  whether  idolatrous,  314.  315. 

Agapte,  ii.  70,  71- 

America,  the  church  there,   i.  305,  30G. 

Annates,  rightly  suppressed  in  England, 
i.  434. 

Appeals  to  Roman  see,  rightly  forhidden 
in  England,  i.  437,  438;  not  custom- 
ary in  early  times,  ii.  512,  &c. 

Arianism,  never  overpowered  the  or- 
thodox faith,  ii.  175,  17().  l!>0-lf>9. 

Article  VI.,  its  meaning,  ii.4;  its  prin- 
ciple defended,  4-22;  its  doctrine  on 
deductions  from  scripture  defended, 
33,  &c. 

XV I II.,  i.  19. 

XIX.,  i.  37.  44.  316. 

XX.,  i.  37.  227. 

XXIV.,  i.  37. 

XXVI.,  i.  37. 

• XXXIII.,  i.  37. 

XXXI v.,  i.  37;  explained,  i. 

490 ;  its  princij)le  maintained,  ii. 
G4-70. 

Articles,  thirty-nine,  ii.  258-289  ;  not 
drawn  up  on  a  latitudinarian  \\xm- 
ciple,  i.  520-522  ;  of  the  Gallican 
church,  ii.  274-281. 

Aut/iority  of  church,  admitted  by  Dr. 
Miltier  to  be  held  by  the  church  of 
England,  i.  228.     See  Church. 

Athanasian  Creed,  approved  by  the  re- 
formation, i.  98,  99. 

Baptism  makes  us  members  of  the 
church,  i.  140,  141.  409;  of  heretics, 
ii.  26,  27.  72 ;  trine  immersion  not 
necessary,  72. 

Basire,  his  reception  in  the  eastern 
church,  i.   184,   185. 

Bedel,  ii.  355. 


Bishoprics,  number  of,  in  the  primitive 
church,  i.  204. 

Blood,  eating  of,  ii.  27. 

Bossuet,  conference  between  him  and 
Claude,  ii.  85. 

British  Churches,  their  antiquity,  i.  215, 
21G;  succession,  217;  provide  for 
internal  unity,  218,  219,  220;  and 
unity  with  the  catholic  church,  221  ; 
never  separated  from  the  catholic 
church,  221,  222;  never  excommu- 
nicated by  it,  224;  preserve  unity 
of  faith,  225  ;  revere  universal  tra- 
dition, 226.  492--504;  diflerences  of 
doctrine  between  them  and  other 
churches   no  proof  of  heresy,   231- 

233  ;  their  doctrine    as    to  sanctity, 

234  ;  their  saints,  235 ;  their  catho- 
licity, 237  ;  the  name  of  catholic  be- 
longs to  them,  237,  238;  their  mi- 
nistry apostolical,  239;  slanderous 
tales  of  papists,  240  ;  are  the  true 
cliurch  of  Christ  in  these  realms, 
242-244  ;  contrast  between  their  re- 
formation and  the  origin  of  dissent, 
415,  416;  not  responsible  for  the 
character  and  conduct  of  Henry 
VIII.,  &c.,  427-431;  free  from  all 
scliism  in  suppressing  jurisdiction  of 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  442,  443;  never 
separated  from  the  catholic  church, 
443-453;  not  schismatical  for  re- 
fusing to  send  bishops  to  the  synod 
of  Trent,  448,  449;  their  principle 
opposed  to  scliism,  451  ;  schism  re- 
torted on  their  adversaries,  453,  &c.  ; 
their  doctrine  on  the  eucbarist,  526- 
532. 

British  Reformation,  not  schismatical, 
i.  432,  &c. ;  its  essential  principle, 
451,  452;  not  founded  in  Erastian 
principles,  461-477;  schismatically 
overthrown  in  tlie  reign  of  iMary, 
480.  483;  restored   in  the  reign  of 

0  O  2 


564 


INDEX. 


Elizabeth,  484,  &c. ;  its  principles 
with  regard  to  tradition  and  churcli 
authority,  492-504  ;  its  variations  in 
doctrine  and  discipline  free  from  all 
heresy,  505-533. 

Bucer,  i.  514,  515,  516. 

Bulls,  for  ecclesiastical  promotions,  law- 
fully forbidden  in  England,  i.  435. 

Buonaparte,  his  concordate  with  Pius 
VII.,  and  proceedings  in  ecclesi- 
astical affairs,  i.  353-356. 

Burnet,  his  opinion  of  transubstanti- 
ation,  i.  212. 

Cully,  his  doctrine  on  the  eucharist, 
ii.  170. 

Calvinists,  not  properly  churches  of 
Christ,  i.  382,  &c. 

Catholic,  name  of,  belongs  to  English 
churches,  i.  237,  238  ;  a  sin  to  give 
it  to  papists,  298. 

Celibacy  of  the  clergy,  ii.  444-450. 

Censures,  ii.  297,  &'c. 

Ceremonies,  removed  at  the  I'eformation, 
not  all  to  be  condemned,  i.  517- 

Cerularius,  patriarcli  of  Constantinople, 
his  conduct,  i.   186. 

Chapters,  their  origin,  ii.  402. 

Chivrch,  not  a  mere  voluntary  associ- 
ation, i.  3.  4  ;  perpetuity  of,  5,  &c.  ; 
salvation  in  it,  13,  &c.  ;  doctrine  of 
its  invisibility  when  invented,  35 ; 
separation  from  it  inexcusable,  61  ; 
its  catholicity  acknowledged  by  dis- 
senters, 58  ;  its  communion  divided, 
80 ;  its  unity  in  faith,  not  necessarily 
perfect,  111,  112;  its  sanctity,  132, 
&c.  ;  its  universality,  148,  &c.  ;  it  is 
derived  from  the  apostles,  how,  160; 
its  authority  revered  by  the  reforma- 
tion, 363.  367.  374  382;  its  autho- 
rity in  matters  of  faith  limited  to 
its  proper  objects,  ii.  96;  has  a  right 
to  judge  in  controversies  of  faith,  97- 
101  ;  the  modes  of  her  judgments, 
102-105;  conditions  of  ecclesiastical 
judgments,  106-109;  authority  of 
universal  judgments  of  the  church, 
109-133;  church  need  not  possess 
always  an  organized  tribunal  for 
judging  controversies,  133-135;  her 
authority  in  discipline  and  rites, 
290-294  ;  her  discipline,  294-304  ; 
original  independence  of  the  state, 
316 ;  her  temporal  establishment, 
327-331. 

Churches,  particular,  do  not  divide  the 
catholic  church,  i.  51  ;  number  of, 
in  the  early  ages,  204. 

Circle,  argument  in  a,  ii.  84. 

Civil  Constitution  of  the  French  clergy, 
i.  350-353. 


Claude,  conference  between  liim  and 
Bossuet,  ii.  85. 

Clerks,  ii.  409. 

Communion,  in  both  kinds,  i.  450.  517- 
544  ;  ii.  71  ;  doctrine  of  the  synod 
of  Constance,  231,  232. 

Concordate  between  Buonaparte  and 
Pius  VII.,  founding  the  new  Galil- 
ean church,  i.   353,  &c. 

Confession,  not  condemned  by  the  Brit- 
ish cliurches,  i.  518,  519. 

Confirmation,  ii.  71- 

Controversy,  right  of  suppressing  it,  ii. 
266-272. 

Convocations,  submission  of  the  clergy 
with  reference  to  them,  justified,  i. 
466.  467  ;  their  origin  and  nature, 
ii.  356-361. 

Council,  see  Synod. 

Courayer,  ii.  I7O. 

Cranmer,  his  veneration  for  tradition 
and  the  catholic  church,  i.  495,  496; 
his  doctrine  on  the  eucharist  how  ex- 
cused, 512,  513;  his  conduct  justi- 
fied with  respect  to  the  oath,  535- 
538 ;  free  from  dissimulation,  538- 
544  ;  excused  for  his  opinions  on  or- 
dination, 544,  545;  other  unjust  im- 
putations, 546-548. 

Creed  oiViws  IV.,  why  unlawful  to  be 
subscribed,  i.  318. 

Deacons,  ii.  404,  &c. 

Deaconnesses,  ii.  70. 

Declaration  of  the  Gallican  church  in 
1682,  ii.  274-281. 

Degradation,  ii.  300. 

Departed,  the,  prayer  for  them,  i.  518  ; 
ii.  72. 

Des  Cartes,  his  doctrine  on  the  eucha- 
rist, ii.  169. 

Des  Gabets,  ii.   170. 

Deprivation  of  bishops  by  the  temporal 
power,  i.  477 ;  ii-  347 ;  in  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth  justified,  i.  485,  &c. 

Discipline,  what  is  lawful,  ii,  64-70  ; 
what  is  variable  and  what  invariable, 
70-75. 

Dispensations  from  the  Roman  pontiff 
lawfully  forbidden  in  England,  i. 
439 

Dissent,  what  it  is,  i.  52  ;  founded  in 
schism  and  heresy,  and  cut  off  from 
the  church  of  Christ,  399-404  ;  a- 
dopts  and  fosters  schism  on  prin- 
ciple, 406  ;  has  no  protection  against 
heresy,  407;  is  merely  human,  407, 
408;  alters  the  discij)line  of  Jesus 
Christ,  409,  410;  causes  hypocrisy 
or  vanity,  411,  412;  self-condemned, 
412,  413;  not  apostolical,  413-415; 
contrast   between   the  reformation  of 


INDEX. 


505 


the  British  churches,  and  tlic  origin 
of  dissent,  415,  41G. 

Dissenters,  inconsistent  in  attacking 
the  church  on  the  point  of  the  regal 
supremacy,  i.  259,  2G0  ;  and  on  sub- 
scription to  creeds  and  articles,  2C3  ; 
and  on  defective  discipline,  265;  and 
on  the  use  of  rites  and  discijiline  not 
mentioned  in  scripture,  ii.  (>!). 

Donatists,  their  heresy,  i.  C2  ;  schism, 
67. 

Doyle,  his  sentiments  of  the  church  of 
England,  i.  232. 

Dii  Pin,  his  sentiments  as  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  communion  with  Rome,  i. 
222.  284. 

Durand,  his  doctrine  on  the  eucharist, 
ii.  225. 

Ecclesiastical  courts,  ii.  297-   304. 

Elevation  of  the  eucharist,  when  intro- 
duced, i.  311  ;  its  meaning,  312,  313. 

Ems,  synod  of,  its  proposal  for  eccle- 
siastical reform   1785,  i.  334. 

Episcopate,  instituted  by  the  apostles,  ii. 
377-388  I  obligatory  on  ail  churches, 
389. 

Errors,  not  always  heretical,  i.  104,  &c. 

Eucharist,  see  Real  Presence.  Idolatry. 
Water. 

Eutychians,  see  Monophysites. 

Excommunication,  conditions  requisite 
to,  i.  65,  C6,  67-  103;  various  sorts 
of  it,  84  ;  not  given  to  the  king, 
466 ;  ii.  326  ;  the  greater,  298 ;  les- 
ser, 299  ;  ipso  facto,  ib. 

Eybel,  condemned  by  Pius  VI.,  is  pro- 
tected by  Joseph  II.,  i.  334. 

Faith,  matters  of,  what,  i.  104;  rela- 
tion of  the  church  to  it,  ii.  76,  &c. ; 
may  be  founded  on  human  testimony, 
79.  81  ;  divine  and  human  faith,  80  ; 
resolution  of  faith,  82  ;  act  of  faith 
in  scripture  possible  on  human  testi- 
mony, 83;  faith  not  necessarily  found- 
ed on  examination,  88,  89. 

Fasting,  i.  250. 

Fathers,  arguments  against  them  no- 
ticed, ii.  49-63. 

France,  origin  and  progress  of  Janse- 
nism there,  i.  322-328  ;  civil  con- 
stitution of  the  clergy,.  350-353. 

Henry  VI II.,  our  churches  not  respon- 
sible for  his  views  and  conduct,  i. 
427,  S'c. ;  nor  for  the  dissolution  of 
his  marriage  with  Catherine,  430 ; 
nor  for  his  suppression  of  monaste- 
ries, 431  ;  defended  by  bishop  Tun- 
stall  against  charge  of  confounding 
regal  and   sacerdotal    ])owers,    44G ; 


his  acts  in  ecclesiastical  atfairs,  4G7- 
477. 

Hensiarchs,  appear  as  angels,  i.   102. 

Heresy,  what,  i.  91 ;  a  damnable  sin, 
92,"  93. 

Heretics,  their  ordinations,  ii.  430,  &c. 

Heretics,  who  are  reckoned  sucli  by  the 
second  cecumenical  synod,  i.  71  ;  ex- 
cluded from  the  churcli,  '.Hi ;  may  be 
excommunicated,  101-103;  some- 
times tolerated  by  the  Roman  church, 
24«. 

Holland,  Jansenism  in,  i.  324. 

Hontheim,  De,  his  reforming  principles, 
i.  328. 

Host,  adoration  of  the,  i.  310-315. 

Humbert,  cardinal,  his  arrogance,  i.  187. 

Idolatry,  not  to  be  imputed  to  the 
whole  church,  i.  308;  how  far  justly 
imputed  to  veneration  of  the  eucha- 
rist, 310  315.  542  ;  to  invocation  of 
saints,  518. 

Images,  worship  of  forbidden  in  Eng- 
land, i.  507;  reasons  for  it,  ib. ;  re- 
moved, 516,  517;  their  worship  not 
approved  by  tlie  catholic  church,  ii. 
200-214;  lead  to  idohitry,  i.  182;  do 
not  render  a  church  apostate,  211. 

Immaculate  Conception,  ii.  142.  268-270. 

Imposition  of  hands  essential  in  ordina- 
tion, i.   173. 

Indifference  in  religion,  its  origin  and 
supporters,  i.  266-272;  not  imputa- 
ble to  the  church  of  England,  272, 
273  ;  its  dreadful  prevalence  in  the 
Roman  church,  348-350. 

Indulgences,  i.  507- 

Infidelity  in  the  Roman  churches,  i. 
344-349. 

Interdict,  ii.  299. 

Invocation  of  saints,  i.  210.  315.  508. 
518. 

Ireland,  church  of,  when  subdued  by 
the  Roman  pontiff,  i.  548;  its  re- 
formation, 549,  &c.  ;  imperfect  in  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward 
VI.,  550,  551;  reformation  in  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  551-553;  approved  by 
the  church,  552,  553;  schism  of  the 
papists,  see  Papists;  synods  in  Ire- 
land lawful,  ii.  355. 

Irregularity,  ii.  300.  437- 

Jansenism,  its  condemnation  as  a  he- 
resy, i.  320;  general  view  of  its  in- 
fluence in  the  eighteenth  century, 
321,  322;  its  progress  in  France  and 
Flanders,  322.  324;  the  appeal  a- 
gainst  the  hull  Unigenitus,  325,  &c.  ; 
Soanen  and  other  Galilean  bishops 
favourable  to  Jansenism,  326  ;  Nou- 


566 


INDI.X. 


velles  Ecclesi:istiqiies,  327  ;  violent 
proceedings  of  tlie  Frencli  parlia- 
ments, 327,  328  ;  Jansenism  in  Ger- 
many, 328 ;  De  Hontheim  and  the 
relormiiig  theologians,  328,  32!)  ;  re- 
forms of  Joseph  II.,  330-335;  pro- 
motes Jansenism,  331-335;  in  Italy, 
335;   Naples,  336;     Tuscany,    336- 

339  ;   Portugal,  339  ;   Holland,    339, 

340  ;   British  empire,  340-343. 
Jaiisoiis/s,  their  pretended  miracles,  i. 

294. 

Joseph  II;  emperor  of  Germany,  bis  re- 
forms in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  i.  330- 
335. 

Jnrieu,  his  error,  i.  72.  12G.   128. 

K?ieeli7ig  at  the  eucharist,  i.  513. 

La  Mcniiais,  his  account  of  the  irreli- 
gious state  of  the  Roman  churches,  i. 
348,  349. 

Lahre,  the  Venerable,  a  Jansenist,  i. 
294. 

Latin  patriarchs  in  the  East  instituted, 
i    195. 

Lord's  day,  observation  of,  ii.  27-  71- 

Luther,  not  a  schismatic,  i.  362-3GG. 

LiUhera7is,  not  schismatics,  i.  300-371  ; 
were  not  properly  churches  of  Christ, 
382,  &c. 

Matrimony,  a  sacrament  according  to 
the  church  of  England,  i.  510.  523. 

Methodius,  archbishop  of  Twer,  com- 
mended, i.  182.  184. 

Middlcton,  his  calumnies  of  the  fathers, 
ii.  51  ;  his  complaints  of  the  respect 
paid  them  by  the  church  of  England, 
61. 

Millennium,  ii    44,  45. 

Milner,  his  admission  as  to  the  reve- 
rence of  the  English  church  for  the 
authority  of  the  church,  i.  228. 

Ministry,  christian,  essential  to  the 
church,  and  must  always  exist,  i. 
161,  &c.  ;  necessity  of  divine  voca- 
tion, 165-109;  internal  vocation  in- 
sufficient, 169;  popular  election  in- 
sufficient, 170 ;  apostolical  succession 
necessary,  17  li  &c. 

Miracles  not  the  proper  attestations  of 
sanctity,  i.  142-145;  not  performed 
by  the  most  famous  saints,  144 ; 
claimed  by  the  eastern  church,  208 ; 
by  various  sects,  294. 

Missi  Dominici,  what,  i.  468. 

Mixture  of  the  cup  in  the  eucharist  non- 
essential, ii.  72. 

Monastic  orders,  their  corruption,  i. 
295. 

Monophysites,  their  origin,  i.  420,  421  ; 


form  no  part  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
421,  422. 

Naples,  Jansenism  there,  i.  336. 

National  synods,  their  authority  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  i.  451. 

"  Necessary  Doctrine,"  its  authority  in 
the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Ed- 
ward VI.,  i.  509,  510;  compared 
with  the  Articles,  523-526. 

Nestorians,  their  origin,  i.  418,  419  ;  do 
not  form  part  of  the  Christian 
church,  420. 

Notes  of  the  church,  what,  i,  24  ;  various 
notes  assigned  by  theologians,  i.  25- 
27. 

Nonvelles  Ecclesiastiques,  a  Jansenist 
journal,  i.  327. 

Novatians,  schismatics,  i.  67. 

Oath  of  bishops  to  the  Roman  pontiff",  i. 
535  538. 

0' Conor,  his  opinion  of  diflferences 
between  the  English  and  Roman 
churches,  i.  232. 

CEctimenical  Patriarch,  title  how  ancient, 
i.  209. 

Opinions,  common,  may  be  mistaken, 
ii.  136-143. 

Ordination,  its  necessity,  i.  161,  &c. ;  ii. 
71 ;  a  sacrament,  440-443. 

Ordinations  of  Lutherans  and  Calvinists, 
i.  386  ;  per  saltum,  ii.  439  ;  English, 
their  validity,  450-458. 

Oriental  churches,  t\\e\v  eyitent,  i.  179; 
are  christian  churches,  180,  &c. ;  ac- 
knowledge seven  cecumenical  synods, 
182  ;  their  great  saints,  183  ;  their 
opinion  of  other  churches,  184;  in- 
tercourse between  them  and  the 
British  churches,  184,  185;  schism 
caused  by  Cerularius  and  cardinal 
Humbert,  186-189;  communion  con- 
tinued afterwards,  189,  &c.  ;  oriental 
churches  persecuted  by  the  Latins, 
195  ;  division  after  synod  of  Lyons 
caused  by  the  Roman  pontiff",  199; 
oriental  churches  free  from  heresy, 
202,  203;  equal  in  extent  to  the 
western,  204,  205,  206. 

O.xford,  University  of,  her  censure  of 
false  doctrines,  ii.  307,  308. 

Palls,  not  necessary  to  metropolitans, 
and  lawfully  forbidden  to  be  received 
from  Rome,  i.  437- 

Papal  infallibility,  the  doctrine  tends  to 
schism,  i.  454. 

Papists,  of  England  and  Ireland,  in- 
fected with  Jansenism,  i.  341-343; 
infected  with  infidelity,  347,  348 ; 
committed  schism  in  separating  from 


INDEX. 


5()7 


tlie  catholic  church  in  Eiiglaiul,  455- 
45{J ;  are  not  clunxhos  of  Christ,  459  ; 
commencement  of  their  scliism  in 
Ireland,  553;  ignorance  of  the  Irish 
people,  554 ;  arts  of  popish  emis- 
saries, 555  ;  schism  founded  by 
Creagh,  556,  557 ;  dangers  of  the 
schismatics,  558  ;  they  break  into  re- 
bellion, 558;  treasons  of  )>opish  mis- 
sionaries, 559;  the  Roman  pontifis 
excite  insurrection,  559 ;  shameful 
mode  of  propagating  the  new  sect, 
560  ;  treasons  of  the  pseudo-bishops, 
561,  &c.  ;  their  cruelty,  564  ;  origin 
of  this  sect,  564  ;  have  no  succession 
of  bishops,  556;  form  no  part  of  the 
catholic  church,  568,  569  ;  their  chi- 
canery with  regard  to  the  English 
ordinations,  240;  ii.  452-458;  of 
America  no  part  of  the  church,  i. 
305 ;  their  orders  probably  null,  ii. 
468,  &c. 

Paris,  University  of,  ii.  305,  306 

Parker,  archbishop,  his  ordination,  i. 
487. 

Perpeluite  de  la  Foi,  i.  184.  190. 

Peter,  St.,  his  superiority  to  the  other 
aj)ostles,  ii.  478  ;  not  invested  with 
authority  over  them,  479-493;  his 
superiority  strictly  personal,  493- 
496. 

Peter  Martyr,  i.  514,  515,  516. 

Plato,  archbishop  of  Moscow,  his  writ- 
ings, i.  181.  184.  211. 

Prayer  for  the  departed,  i.  618  ;  ii.  72. 

Presbyters,  ii.  396,  &c. 

Presbyterians,  their  origin,  i.  575 ;  their 
persecution  of  the  church,  576  ;  their 
ordinations,  ii.  410,  &c. 

Pritices,  christian,  their  duty  to  defend 
the  christian  faith,  ii.  318,  &c.  ;  ori- 
gin of  their  supremacy  in  ecclesias- 
tical aftairs,  325 ;  mode  in  which 
they  are  to  defend  the  church,  331- 
339  ;  branches  of  their  ecclesiastical 
supremacy,  340-347- 

Private  judgment,  unlimited,  not  tlie 
doctrine  of  the  English  Reformation, 
1.  493,  &c.  ;  nor  of  the  Lutlierans, 
&c.,  378-382. 

Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  i.  202, 
203. 

Purgatory,  when  rejected  by  the  British 
church,  i.  506. 

Rationalists,  their  mode  of  assailing 
Christianity,  ii.  49-52;  their  incon- 
sistency, 52;  their  misrepresenta- 
tions, 55,  56 ;  their  hypocrisy,  58,  59. 

Real  presence,  never  doubted  by  the 
church  of  England,  i.  508-516.  520- 
533. 


Ueformatiuu,  its  res))ect  for  catholic 
tradition,  i.  374-378  ;  its  principles 
and  practice  opposed  to  licence  of 
private  judgment,  i.  378-382. 

Ricci,  see  Scipio  de  Ricci. 

/f<7c4-,  what  are  lawful,  ii.  64-70;  what 
are  variable,  and  what  invariable, 
70-75. 

Roman  churches,  remained  christian  till 
the  Reformation,  i.  276-281  ;  Luthe- 
ran opinion  of  their  Christianity,  277- 
278 ;  remained  christian  after  the 
Reformation,  282,  &c.  ;  excused  from 
heresy,  284-286;  arc  now  christian, 
286,  287  ;  tlo  not  exceed  other 
churches  in  unity,  289,  290;  or  sanc- 
tity, 291,  &c. ;  their  miracles  no 
proof  of  superior  sanctity,  293,  294  ; 
their  present  extent  no  proof  of  ex- 
clusive catholicity,  297  ;  "ot  peculi- 
arly apostolical,  299  ;  their  lament- 
able condition,  300,301,  302;  Ro- 
man churches  of  modern  foundation, 
303  ;  how  far  they  are  guilty  of  idol- 
atry in  the  eucharist,  310-315;  in 
the  invocation  or  adoration  of  saints, 
315,  316  ;  whether  lawful  to  separate 
from  them,  316,  317  ;  whether  lawful 
to  unite  with  them,  317,  318;  unity 
wrongly  claimed  by  their  theologians, 
3)9;  prevalence  of  the  Jansenistic 
heresy  amongst  them,  321  ;  and  of 
infidelity  and  indifference,  344-349; 
and  of  schism,  350-356. 

Romanists,  see  Papists. 

Rome,  bishops  of,  their  exaggerated 
ojiinion  of  their  own  authority,  i. 
194;  their  power,  196,197;  endea- 
vour to  enslave  the  oriental  churches 
in  vain,  197,  &c. ;  origin  of  their  pre- 
cedence in  the  universal  church,  ii. 
497-501  ;  not  derived  from  St.  Peter 
jure  divino,  501  -505  ;  proof  tliat  they 
have  no  jurisdiction  over  the  catholic 
church,  506-518;  that  they  are  not 
infallible,  525  ;  nor  absolutely  and 
always  the  centre  of  unity,  528;  their 
legitimate  privileges,  535  ;  progress  of 
tlieir  spiritual  and  temporal  power, 
547;  their  jm-isdiction  rightly  re- 
moved in  England,  i.  432-441  ;  its 
removal  no  act  of  schism,  442,  443; 
principles  of  papal  authority  lead  to 
schism,  and  are  injurious  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  catholic  cluirch,  453, 
454  ;  authority  of  pope  not  trans- 
ferred to  king  of  England,  465  ;  his 
authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  ii. 
257  ;  communion  with,  not  essential, 
i.  206.  222.  284  ;  patriarchate  of,  ii. 
538. 

Royal  supremacy  in  ecclesiastical  affairs 


568 


INDEX. 


acknowledged  onlywith  a  proviso  by 
the  Englisli  clergy,  i.  401 ;  their 
meaning,  4G2 ;  powers  attributed  to 
the  state  by  Roman  theologians,  ib.  ; 
no  intention  to  approve  Erastian 
doctrines,  4G3,  464  ;  papal  power  not 
transferred  to  king,  4(J5  ;  appeals  to 
the  king  justifiable,  465  ;  excommu- 
nication not  given  to  the  king,  466  ; 
ii.  326 ;  royal  injunctions  not  to  be 
condemned,  i.  468,  469 ;  royal  con- 
firmation of  synods  free  from  blame, 
469  ;  commissions  to  the  bishops  ca- 
pable of  an  orthodox  sense,  and  must 
be  so  interpreted,  470-472 ;  royal 
visitations  excusable,  473 ;  power  to 
repress  controversy,  474. 
Russia,  its  church,  i.  179. 

Sabbath,  observation  of  the,  ii.  27-  See 
Lord's  day. 

Sacranie>i(s,  more  than  two  acknow- 
ledged by  the  church  of  England,  i. 
610.  523;  ii.  440  443. 

Sacrifice  in  the  eucharist,  i.  540,  541. 
543  ;  ii.  463. 

Salvation  connected  with  belief  of  the 
truth,  i.  89. 

Schism,  what,  i.  52;  great  schism  of  the 
West,  i.  81. 

Scipio  de  Ricci,  bishop  of  Pistoia,  his 
reforms,  i.  3.37,  338. 

Scotland,  the  reformation  there,  570, 
&c. ;  episcopacy  continued,  572  ;  dis- 
turbed state  of  the  churcli,  573,  574  ; 
separation  of  the  presbyterians,  575  ; 
their  persecution  of  the  chiuxh,  576. 

Scripture,  its  authority  how  maintained 
against  tradition  by  the  reformers,  i. 
493;  its  perfection,  ii.  4,  &c. ;  not 
written  casually,  ii.  7  ;  its  perfection 
defended  by  tradition,  10-18;  inter- 
pretations and  deductions  from  it 
not  always  merely  human,  34,  &c. ; 
act  of  faith  in  it  may  be  foiuided  on 
human  testimony,  ii.  83;  Romanists 
argue  in  a  circle,  84  ;  not  to  be  ar- 
gued with  on  the  authenticity  of 
scripture,  86. 

Separation,  in  what  case  justifiable,  i. 
64. 

Socinians,  a  sect  of  deists,  ii.  49  ;  their 
hypocrisy,  ib. ;  their  treatment  of 
scripture,  51.  57,  58. 

State,  powers  over  the  church  claimed 
by  the,  i.  .354.    See  Royal  supremacy. 

Subscription  to  creeds  and  articles,  its 
meaning,  ii.  285-289. 

Succession  from  the  apostles  essential,  i. 
160.  171,  ^c 

Supremacy,  Royal,  in  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs, the  cl)urch  of  England  justified 


for  admitting  it,  i.  254.  259  ;  freely 
exercised  and  even  abused  in  the 
Roman  churches,  255,  &c.  See  Royal 
supremacy. 

Suspension,  ii.  300. 

Synods,  of  Nice,  ii.l73  ;  Constantinople, 
177;  Ephesus,  180;  Chalccdon,  184  ; 
second  of  Constantinople,  186  ;  third 
of  Constantinople,  187  ;  Sardica,  189  ; 
Ariminum,  190 ;  Latrocinium  of 
Ephesus,  199  ;  Constantinople,  200  ; 
Niccne,  200-214 ;  Constantinople, 
214  ;  Constantinople,  215  ;  first  La- 
teran,  216;  second  Lateran,  217; 
third  Lateran,  ib. ;  fourth  Lateran, 
219;  first  f.yons,  226;  second  Ly- 
ons, 228  ;  Vienne,  229  ;  Pisa,  229  ; 
Constance,  230  ;  Basle,  2,34  ;  Flo- 
rence, 235;  Lateran,  237;  Trent,  ib. ; 
London,  258;  London,  260,  261. 

,  cccumenical,  their  description,  ii. 

150,  151  ;  authority  on  what  ground- 
ed, 151  ;  infallibility  of  general  sy- 
nods not  a  matter  of  faith,  152-156; 
is  without  foundation,  156-164  ;  ge- 
neral remarks  on  decrees  o/  synods, 
I66-I7I  ;  number  of  oecumenical  sy- 
nods, 171. 

,  particular,   their  authority,  250- 

254  ;  authority  of  ancient  provincial 
synods,  254-257- 

,  regulated   by  temporal  power  in 

France,  Belgium,  &c.,  i.  464. 

Testimony,  its  sufficiency  to  found  faith, 
ii.  81,  82. 

TiUemonf  &  observation  on  miracles  of 
saints,  i.  144. 

Toleration,  Act  of,  i.  260  ;  principles  of, 
ii.  363-370. 

Tradition,  its  authority  acknowledged 
by  the  Lutherans,  &c.,  i.  374-378  ; 
ii.  60  ;  by  the  British  Reformation, 
i.  493-504  ;  its  necessity  and  utility 
to  the  church,  ii.  44-53 ;  Romish 
doctrine  of  refuted,  ii.  0,  &c. ;  its 
connexion  with  religion,  49-53. 

Traditions  of  rites  and  discipline,  when 
lawful,  ii.  64-70. 

Transubstantiation ,  how  far  admitted  by 
Eastern  church,  i.  211  ;  should  not 
prevent  the  communion  of  churches, 
212,  213;  Romish  doctrine  of,  524; 
rejected  by  the  British  churches,  528; 
Cranmer's  and  Luther's  opinions  of 
it,  541,  542  ;  perplexities  of  Roman 
theologians  with  regard  to  it,  532 ; 
not  an  article  of  faith,  ii.  141.  169. 
222  226. 

Trent,  synod  of,  not  binding  on  us,  i. 
229,  230  ;  the  British  churches  not 
bound  to  attend  if,  448-450. 


INDEX. 


569 


Truth,  revealed  by  Christ,  obligatory  on  I 

christians,  i.  89,  90. 
TuHntall,   liis  letter  to  cardinal  Pole,  i. 

445. 

Unction  of  the  sick,  ii.  71- 

Uni^ejiitus,  Jansenist  appeal  against  the 
bull,  i.  325. 

Ihiifariniiism,  how  proved  to  be  heresy, 
ii.  43. 

Unity  of  the  church,  in  communion,  i. 
46,  &-C.;  in  faith,  88,  &c. ;  provided 
for  by  British  churches,  218,  &c. 
improperly  claimed  for  the  Roman 
Obedience,  319,  &c. 

Uiiiver.tities,  their  censures  of  theolo- 
gical errors,  ii.  304*313. 

Variations,  do  not  always  involve  heresy, 
i.   245.  505 ;  those  of  thf  church  of 


England  altogether  free  from  heresy, 
50G-533. 
Voltaire,  a  communicant  iu  the  Iloman 
church,  i.  345,  346. 

Walchius,  testifies  the  reverence  of  the 
English  church  for  antiquity,  i.  226. 

Wahnburghs,  their  method  of  argu- 
ment, ii.  40,  41. 

Water,  mixture  of,  in  the  eucharist,  a 
variable  rite,  ii.  72. 

Wicked,  belong  only  externally  to  the 
church,  i,  4. 

Wirldiffe,  censured  at  Constance,  ii. 
230! 

Zuinglius,  and  his  party,  did  not  design 
separation  from  the  church,  i.  371  •• 
374. 


THE    END. 


VOL.  II. 


P   p 


I.  O  N  IJ  O  N  : 
GILBERT    &    RIVINGTON,  PRlNTIiKS 

ST.  jotin's  square. 


X 


J.  \    .     .lr_.   V,/    i\..Jl.l.  «  ^<' 


? 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

|!!|ii|  illlllili  III!  lNi|llliili|i|!ll| 


0068368828 


RcT-