7"
i^l p
A TREATISE
ON
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
N E W - Y 0 R K ;
II. LUDWio, rniNTBR,
7 3, V«aey.8tre<l.
A TREATISE
CHURCH OF CHRIST:
DESIGNED CHIEFLY
FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN THEOLOGY.
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A-
OF WORCESTEB COLLEQE, OXFORD.
WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES,
BY THE RT. REV. W. R. WHITTINGHAM, D. D.,
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland,
FKUM THE SECOND LONDON. EDITION,
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
N E W -Y 0 R K :
D. APPLETON & CO., 200, BROADWAY.
M DCCC XLI.
CONTENTS OF VOL. 11.
PART III.
ON SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.
I'AOE
CHAPTER I. On the Perfection of Scripture .... 11
Objections .28
CHAPTER II. On Deductions from Scripture .... 38
Objections .......... 46
CHAPTER III. On the Doctrinal Tradition of the Church . . 48
CHAPTER IV. On Traditions of Rites and Discipline . . .06
Sect. i. The Mode in which all things lawful are contained in
Scripture .......... 66
Sect. ii. On the Means of discriminating variable from invariable
Rites .... 71
Objections 74
CHAPTER V. On the Office of the Church in relation to Faith . 77
CHAPTER VI. On the alleged Necessity of Examination as a
Foundation of Faith 88
Objections 89
PART IV.
on the authority of the church in matters of faith and
discipline.
Introduction ........•• 93
CHAPTER I. The Church is a Judge in Religious Controversies . 94
CHAPTER II. On the Modes of Ecclesiastical Judgments . . 100
CHAPTER III. On the Conditions of Ecclesiastical Judgments . 104
CHAPTER IV. On the Authority of Judgments of the Universal
Church 107
Objections . 121
CHAPTER V. On the Notion of a perpetual Tribunal in the Church 128
CHAPTER VI. On the Distinction between Ecclesiastical Judg-
ments and Traditions, and mere common Opinions . . 131
Objections . . . . ^ . . . • • 141
Vl CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER VII. On the Nature and Authority of CEcumenical
Synods 144
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 ..... 145
Sect. ii. A general Synod confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, has
not, without the consent of the universal Church, any irrefra-
gable Authority 149
Objections .......... 151
CHAPTER VIII. General Remarks on the Decrees of Synods . 158
CHAPTER IX. On the six CEcumenical Synods . . . .163
Sect. I. The Synod of Nice 165
Sect. ii. The first Synod of Constantinople .... 168
Sect. hi. The Synod of Ephesus ...... 171
Sect. iv. The Synod of Chalcedon 175
Sect. v. The second Synod of Constantinople .... 176
Sect. vi. The third Synod of Constantinople .... 177
CHAPTER X. Councils improperly styled oecumenical, held before
A.D. 1504 180
Sect. i. The Synod of Sardica • 180
Sect. ii. The Synod of Arirainum and Arianism . . • ISl
Objections 187
Sect. hi. The Latrocinium of Ephesus ..... 189
Sect. iv. The Synods of Constantinople and Nice in the question
of Images ........ 189
Sect. v. The Synods of Constantinople in the cause of Photius 203
CHAPTER XI. Councils of the Western Church after a. d. 1054,
improperly termed cecumenical ...... 205
Sect. i. The first, second, and third Lateran Synods . . 205
Sect. ii. The fourth Lateran Synod ..... 207
Sect. hi. The Synods at Lyons and Vienne .... 214
Sect. iv. The Synods of Pisa and Constance .... 217
Sect. V. The Synods of Basle, Florence and Lateran . . 221
CHAPTER XII. The Synod of Trent 224
CHAPTER XIII. On the authority of particular Synods, and of
the Roman Pontiffs in Controversies ..... 235
Sect. I. Of particular Synods 235
Sect. II. The authority of Papal and Patriarchal Decrees . . 241
CHAPTER XIV. On the Articles of the Synod of London, 1562 . 242
Sect. I. On the nature of the Articles ..... 245
Sect. ii. On the right of the Church to demand adhesion to the
Articles 247
Sect. hi. On the Interpretation of the Articles .... 262
Sect. iv. On Subscription to the Articles 265
CHAPTER XV. Ofi llie Authority of the Church concerning Dis-
cipline and Rites ........ 270
CONTENTS. VU
PAGE
CHAPTER XVI, On the Exercise and Sanctions of Ecclesiastical
Discipline 274
Sect. i. On Ecclesiastical Tribunals 274
Sect. ii. On Ecclesiastical Censures 277
Sect. hi. On Penitence and Absolution ..... 280
Sect. IV. On Censures of Churches by other Churches . .281
Objections .......... 282
CHAPTER XVn. On the powers of Universities in Theological
Questions 284
PART V.
on the relations of church and state.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . .291
CHAPTER I. On the original Independence of Church and State 294
CHAPTER II. The Right and Duty of the State to protect the true
Religion .......... 297
CHAPTER III. On the Extent and Nature of the Protection afforded
by the Civil Magistrate to the Church .... 303
CHAPTER IV. On the Temporal Establishment of the Church . 306
CHAPTER V. On the Duty of the Sovereign to defend the Christian
Faith and Discipline 310
CHAPTER VI, On the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Christian
Sovereign ......••• 318
Appendix i. On the Expulsion of Bishops by the Temporal
Power . 325
Appendix ii. On Nomination to Bishoprics, and on Synods and
Convocations 329
CHAPTER VII. Certain DifficuUies solved 337
CHAPTER VIII. On Toleration 339
Objections • • • .• 342
PART VI.
ON THE SACRED MINISTRY.
CHAPTER I. On the Episcopate 349
Objections .......... 367
CHAPTER II. On the Presbyterate 374
CHAPTER III. On the Diaconate 382
Appendix. On the Minor Orders 386
CHAPTER IV. On the Minister of Ordination . . • -388
Objections ....,..••• 395
Vlll CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER V. On the number of Bishops requisite to ordain . .399
Objections 402
CHAPTER VI. On Re-ordinations 405
CHAPTER VII. On the Subjects of Ordination . . . . 413
CHAPTER VIII. On the Sacrament of Ordination . . .417
CHAPTER IX. On the Celibacy of the Clergy . . . .421
Objections . 424
CHAPTER X. On the Validity of the English Ordinations . . 427
Objections . 435
CHAPTER XI. On Romish Ordinations 443
PART VII.
ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
CHAPTER -I. On the Pre-eminence of St. Peter . . . .451
Objections 465
CHAPTER II. On the Duration of St. Peter's Pre-eminence . .466
CHAPTER III. On the Origin of the Pre-eminence of the Roman
Church 470
CHAPTER IV. The Roman Pontiff has not, jure divino, any ordi-
nary Jurisdiction over the Universal Church . . . 478
Sect. i. The Roman Bishop has not, jure divino, any ordinary
Jurisdiction over the Clergy and People of other Bishops . 478
Sect. ii. The Roman Bishop has not, jure divino, any ordinary
Jurisdiction over other Bishops . . . . . .480
Objections 489
CHAPTER V. On other pretended Privileges of the Roman See . 494
Sect I. On the doctrine of the Papal Infallibility . . .495
Objections . 496
Sect. ii. On the Roman Centre of Unity 498
Objections .......... 501
CHAPTER VI. On the legitimate Authority of the Roman See . 504
CHAPTER VII. On the Patriarchate of Rome . . . .506
Objections 510
CHAPTER VIII. On the Progress of the Power of the Roman
Pontiff 514
Supplement, containing Replies to Objections against this Work . 529
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART III.
ON SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.
VOL. II. — 2
A TREATISE
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
PART III.— CHAPTER I.
ON THE PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE.
In the preceding portion of this work, I have endeavoured
to estabhsh and to apply briefly, the general principles which
enable us to discriminate the true church of Christ from all other
societies calling themselves Christian. I now proceed to con-
sider the rules by which the doctrines of Revelation may be as-
certained, and to this end, shall treat in this Part on the perfec-
tion of holy scripture, on the use of tradition, and of 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 universal.
The genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of scripture,
are proved by the same arguments against infidels and deists by
all believers : but when we proceed further to establish the per-
fection of scripture, and its adaptation to the determination of
Christian doctrine, we are at once involved in controversy with
various sects. The doctrine which I am about to maintain, is that
of the sixth Article, approved by the English synods in 1562
and 1571.
" Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation:
12 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
SO that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved there-
by, is not to be required of any man, that it should be beheved
as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to
salvation."
The first assertion of this Article is, that holy scripture con-
taineth " all things necessary to salvation," or as the context ex-
plains it, "all things which are to be believed as articles of faith,
or thought necessary to salvation "•— ^. e. all the Revelation of
God to us concerning faith and morality. This will be proved
in the present chapter. We may also infer from the wording
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 lawful, as well as every " article of
faith" or every doctrine "necessary to salvation." Nor does it
affirm, that men ought not to be required to acknowledge cer-
tain 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 theologians,'' it has been ob-
jected in limine, that one at least of the most important articles
of faith, namely, the inspiration and canonicity of several books
of scripture, is not proved to us by scripture itself, but by the
tradition of the church.'' It may be alleged, that our own theo-
«■ Stapleton, Principiorum Fid. Demonstr. Methodica, Controv. vii. lib.
xii ; Bellarmin. De Verbo Dei scripto et non scripto ; Melchior Canus, Loci
Theologici, lib. iii ; De la Luzerne, Dissert, sur Ics Egliscs Cath. et Prot.
t. i. p. 321 ; Delahogiie, Tract, de Ecclesia, Appendix de Tradit.
b Collet, Institut. Theol. Scholast. t. i. p. 29, 30 ; Delahogue, De Ecclesia,
Appendix de Traditione ; Bouvier, Tract, de vera Eccl. p. 15 ; Trevern, Dis-
CHAP. I.] INSPIRATION UF SCRIPTURK. 13
logians 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 scrip-
ture.^^ Whitaker acknowledges it is proved by the ecclesiasti-
cal 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 over-
thrown, because it is admitted 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 inspiration of any particular
book was the subject of actual revelation, because it would have
been sufficiently evident when the inspiration of its Author was
proved.^^ What the apostles and evangelists wrote, cannot but
be the word of Him who invested them with miraculous pow-
ers. Hence the inspiration of each book of scripture 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 scrif)ture
cussion Amic. t. i. let. iv ; Bailly, Tract, de Eccl. tom.'i. p. 299 ; De la
Luzerne, Dissert, sur les Eglises Cath. et Prot. t. i. p. 15 ; Milner, End of
Controversy, p. 69, &c. 106.
c Hooker's Works, vol. i. p. 335. 475. Ed. Keble.
d Whitakerus adv. Stapleton, lib. ii. c. 4, 5.
e Conference with Fisher, s. 16. p. 75.
f Field, of the Church, Book iv. c. 20.
6 Chillingworth, Relig. of Prot. chap. ii. sect. 25.
*• Van Mildert, Boyle Lectures, vol. ii. p. 400, 401.
14 PERFECTION OF SCKIPTUKE. [pART III.
" containeth all things necessary to salvation." From the nature
and end of scripture ; from the general 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 contain-
ed in scripture, and that the remainder 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 obedience, that
scripture is the word of God, and that it was written by His au-
thority. The Synod of Trent " receives all the books of the
Old and New Testament, because one God is the author of
both."' To 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 affecting the whole people of God, could
not have occurred without the Divine will. Scripture then was
written not casually or by the momentary impulse of the apos-
tles and evangelists, however apparently it may have been so :
• " Sacrosancta, oecumenica, et generalis Tridentina Synodus
perspiciensquc banc veritatem et disciplinam (evangelii) contineri in libris
scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis
acceptae, aut ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus
traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt ; orthodoxorum patrum excnipla sccuta,
omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus
sit auctor, nee non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem turn ad mores pertinentes,
tanquam vel oretenus a Christo rel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua
successione in ccclesia catholica conservatas, para pietatis affectu ac
reverentia suscipit et veneratur." — Sess. iv. See Perceval on the Roman
Schism, p. 159.
CHAP. I.] PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. 15
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 ar-
gue from the apparently casual origin of some books of scripture,
that it was not designed to be a standard of faith.''
Now, I would ask of our opponents, for what conceivable 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 scrip-
ture was not designed to be a judge in controversy, that it was
not calculated to teach the Gospel.^ They show abundantly
that heretics have made an evil use of it, and pretended to con-
firm their errors by its words.™ The question then recurs with
still greater force : Why did God cause the scripture to be writ-
ten? It was evidently for the purpose of preserving an authentic
record of his Revelation. But if so, the whole Revelation of
God must be contained in scripture, because otherwise it would
accomplish 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 supposed that he will omit a portion of them.
He will indeed provide some mode of mterpreting and execut-
ing those laws : but he will not designedly leave any portion of
them out of the record.
k Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 180, &c. Milner, End of Con-
troversy, p. 56. 82. These and other writers assert that Christ gave no
command to his apostles to vnrite the Gospel ... a proposition which, in a
sense very derivable from their use of it, is heretical. The irreverent mode
of argument occasionally employed by Romanists in opposing the exagger-
ated views of some of their opponents as to the sufficiency of scripture,
cannot be too strongly censured,
' Tournely, Prelect. Theol. de Eccl. Christi, t. i. p. 281, &c. ; Bailly,
Tract, de Eccl. Chr. t. i. p. 294, &c. ; De la Luzerne, Dissert, sur les Eglises
Cath. et Prot. t. i. p. 25 ; Collet, Theologia Scholast. t. ii. p. 499.
■n Milner, End of Controv. let. viii ; De la Luzerne, Dissert, sur les
Eglises Cath. et Prot. i. 20 — 25 ; Delahogue, p. 90. — Melchior Canus, De
Loc. Theol. 1. iii. c. 2.
16 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE, [PART III.
2. If tradition alone is supposed to convey some articles of
the Christian faith, I ask, why does it not convey all ? 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 sup-
ported by tradition only ; and therefore that God meant to estab-
lish a distinction between the necessity of those doctrines. For
surely it is in the highest degree improbable, that doctrines
equally necessary should be left with totally unequal evidence,
that some articles of the faith should be delivered by scripture
as well as tradition, and others by tradition only. Such a mode
of proceeding would seem inconsistent with the order, the uni-
formity, 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 apparent irregu-
larities were all conducive : but in the absence of such direct
proof we must conclude in favoiu: 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
revealed truth to be supported by a uniform and equal author-
ity. All articles of faith, according to the Anglo-catholic doc-
trine, are proved by scripture, and by a universal tradition es-
tablishing the right interpretation, and corroborating the testimo-
ny of scripture. This is certainly a much more reasonable sys-
tem, 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
n " The Christian doctrine and discipline might have been propagated
and preserved by the unwritten word, or tradition, joined with the authority
of the church, though the Scriptures had not been composed ; however
profitable these most certainly are," &c. — Milner, End of Controv. let. x.
CHAP. I.] PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. 17
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 insufficient for the preservation
of Christian doctrine in the catholic church in all ages. Nor
can this argument be retorted on us, because we admit the
necessity of hoih scripture and tradition to prove every article
of faith, and therefore tradition is not superfluous.
4. Scripture comprises some things that are not essentials
of religion. It mentions several rites and regulations, 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 intro
duced 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 doc-
trine of the sixth Article. That doctrine was generally held
by the fathers and the schoolmen, and it is even more consist-
ent 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 scrip-
ture contains all the articles of the faith. Origen says : " In
the two testaments every word that appertaineth unto God may
be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of
things may be understood. 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."° Atha
o " In hoc biduo puto duo testamenta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat
onme verbrnn quod ad Deum pertinet (hoc enim est sacrificium) requiri et
discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam capi. Si quid autem super-
fuerit, quod non divina scriptura decernat, nullam aUam tertiam scipturam
tlebere ad auctoritatem scientiae suscipi . . . sed igni tradamus quod super-
VOL. II. — 3
18 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [PART HI.
nasius : " The holy and divinely inspired scriptures are suffi-
cient 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 with-
out the authority of the scriptures. "i 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 r^
The doctrine of the Oriental churches was the same. Basil
says : " Believe those things v^rhich are written ; the things
which are not written seek not,"^ " It is a manifest falling
from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy, 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 iipholden 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."^ Chry-
est, id est, Deo reservemus." — Orig. Horn. v. in Levit. t. ii. p. 212. ed.
Bened.
p AiircifKU; /uh ydf ii<nv ad ayitti tea) baTmuaTOi yfet<^(tt Trfo; tm Tm dAJifis/ac avuy-
ytkisLv — Athanas. Adv. Gent. t. i. op, p. 1.
<) " Ignorans (Origines) quod dsemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophis-
mata humanarum mentium sequi, et aliquid extra scripturarum authoritatem
putare divinum." — Theoph. Alex. Epist. Pasch. ii. Bibl. Patr. 1618. t. iv.
p. 716.
r "O yuf oha t'ifniKiV » fie/* ^-pst^j), Tivet <W t/ioVov Tfetpni^t^OjUldai, Kct) iv toIc dxxSwf
i;)(^ov<7-i Kd.'ra.xoytoujuiBa.; — Cyril. Alex. Glaphyr. in Gen. lib. ii. p. 29. t. i.
Oper. ed. 1638.
8 loll yiypsifjtfjimi; v^Tivi, ra fxii yiy fi^juuivx f^>i ^riTit — Horn. adv. Calumn.
S. Trinit.— Opor. t. ii. p. 611. ed. Ben.
t *av6Pa k^TTftxTK via-Tim; xsti v7ripn<f!tvw ictfryiyofia, « dflsTS/v ti rZv yeypsLfx/uiym,
H mua-ayw tZv (An yiyfAfxfxivoov. — Basil. De Fide, c. i. t. ii. p. 222.
" " Cum id nuUo scripturae testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improbabimus.
Lib. de Cognit. Dei, cit. ab Euthymio in Panoplia, pars i. tit. viii. n. 4.
V Asi yiif Tsei tZv diiav K'J.i ayiony thc Tria-rue; juurrufnev, /uiiSi to tv^ov cinu tIv Qtiigy
TrctfaJiSiirbtti yfi^Zv. — Cyril. Hierosol. Cat. iv. s. 56. ed. Milles.
CHAP. I.] TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH. 19
sostom : " The scripture, like unto a safe door, doth bar an
entrance unto heretics, placing us in security concerning all
we desire, and not suffering us to be deceived.'*^ . . . Whoso-
ever 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. Ire-
naeus 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 wo 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 are not written. That God was born of a
virgin, we believe, because we read it : that Mary did marry
after she was delivered, we do not believe, because we read it
w KotSaTTip ydf) rt; flJpa di7<|i«A«c, outcbc dTrcK-XiiU rot; dlperiKoic t))v lio'oS'ov, iv <5o-^a-
Ktlcf. K'tSts-rZa-a. ifxa; TTifi Zt av ^oukZfAiQu. Travrm, kx] ouk iZcrx 7rKctvcia-8xi. — ChrySOSt.
Horn. lix. al. Iviii. in Joh. t. viii. p. 346. ed. Ben.
I 'O yap f4» Tell; yp±<^du; (^Zfjuio;, d\Ka avct^MvceV aXKct^odtV rouTitrTlv lT(pctV
situr^fHtti (MM vivofjiia'/u.ivyiY Tif^veey oJov* ouro; kkitttm; ia-Ttv. — Ibid.
y " Legite dilig-entius id quod ab apostolis est evangelium nobis datum?
et legite diligentius Prophetas, et invenietis universam actionem, et omnem
doctrinam, et omnem passionem Domini nostri, praedictum in ipsis." — Ire-
naeus, Adv. Haeres. lib. iv. c. 34. ed. Ben.
I " Adoro Scripturas plenitudinem qua mihi et factorem manifestat et
facta. In evangelio vero amplius et mini strum atque arbitrum factoris in-
venio Sermonem. An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia,
nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis ofBcina. Si non
est scriptum, timeat Vae illud, adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum."
— Tertull. adv. Hermogen. c. xxii.
» " Lego quia primus est, lego quia non est secundus. Illi qui secundum
aiunt, doceant lectione." — Ambros. De Instit. Virg. c. ii. t. ii. p. 2G5. ed. Ben.
20 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
not."*^ Augustine : " Whatsoever ye hear (from the holy scrip-
tures) let that savour w^ell unto you : whatsoever is w^ithout
them refuse.'"' It would be superfluous to cite additional tes-
timonies to the same truth from Clemens Alexandrinus, Hip-
polytus, Cyprian, Optatus, Hilary, Vincentius Lirinensis,
Anastasius, Prosper, Theodoret, Antony, Benedict, Damas-
cenus, Theophylact, &c. which have been collected by our
writers, fi
Nor was this merely the doctrine of the primitive church.
It was the doctrine of the most eminent theologians in the
middle ages. The learned Gerson sa3^s, that " the scripture is
delivered to us as a sufficient and infallible rule for the govern-
ment of the whole ecclesiastical body and its members to the
end of the world. So that it is such an art, such a rule or
exemplar, that any other doctrine which is not conformable to
it, is to be renounced as heretical, or to be accounted suspicious,
or not at all appertaining to religion. "** Gregorius Ariminensis,
speaking of " those things whereby the most wholesome faith
that leadcth to true happiness is begotten, nourished, defended,
and strengthened," says : " It is evident every such thing is
b " Ut haec quae scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta,
renuimus. Natum Deum esse de Virgine credimus, quia legimus. Ma-
riam nupsisse post partum, non credimus, quia non legimus." — Hieroix
adv. Helvid. Oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 141. ed. Ben.
' " Quicquid inde audieritis, hoc vobis bene sapiat : quicquid extra est,
respuite." — August- Sermo de Pastor, c. xi. t. v. p. 238.
<i See Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, ch. ii. ; Jer. Taylor's Dissuasive, p.
ii. b. i. s. ii. ; Beveridge on XXXIX. Articles ; Tillotson, Rule of Faith,
at the end : Newman on Romanism, lect. xiii. ; Gary, testimonies of the
Fathers to the XXXIX. Articles (Art. vi.)
e " Attendendum in examinationc doctrinarum prime ct principaliter, si
doctrina sit conformis Sacrae Scripturse .... quoniam Scriptura nobis tra-
dita est tanquam regula sufficiens et infallibilis, pro regimine totius ecclesi-
astici corporis et membrorum, usque in finem saeculi. Est igitur talis ars,
talis regula, vel exemplar, cui se non conformans alia doctrina, vel abjici-
enda est ut haereticalis, aut suspecta, aut impertinens ad rcligioncm prorsus
est habcnda." — Gerson. De Exam. Doctrin. pars ii. con. i.
CHAP. I.] TAUGHT BY ROMANISTS. 21
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 de-
fence of our faith, which is contrary to S. Augustine,"^ &c.
Scotus argues that the scripture teaches what is the end of man,
determines 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."^ The same doctrine
is taught by Rupertus Tuitensis, Ockham, Cameracensis,
Waldensis, the author of the Destructorium vitiorum, Gros-
teste, Odo, De Lyra, &c. as our authors have proved.^ But
I not only claim the weight of traditional authority in confirma-
tion of the doctrine of the sixth Article, I claim the authority of
the synod of Trent in our favour. The doctrine of the church
of England in this Article is more conformable to the decree
of that council, than is the opposite opinion of Romish theolo-
gians. The synod declares that the Christian " truth and disci-
pline are contained in written books, and unwritten traditions."*
They were well aware that the controversy then was, whether
the Christian doctrine was only in pai't contained in scripture.
But they did not dare to frame their decree openly in accord-
ance with the modern Romish view : they did not venture to
affirm, as they might easily have done, that the Christian verity
" was contained partly in written books, and partly in unwrit-
f " Constat quia quidlibet tale vel expresse secundum se continetur in
sacra scriptura vel ex contentis in ea deducitur, alioquin non ipsa sufRceret
ad nostram salutem et nostrae defensionem fidei, &c. quod est contra Au-
gust."— Greg. Arim. in Sent. Dist. i. qu. i. art. ii.
2 " Patet quod Sacra Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessari-
am viatori." — Scotus, Prolog. 1. sent. qu. 2. Oper. t. v. p. 1.
^ See Taylor's Dissuasive, p. ii. b. i. s. ii. Field, Of the Church, Ap-
pendix to book III. chapter 2. TUlotson, Rule of Faith, at the end.
i " Perspiciensque banc veritatem et disciplinam (Evangelii) contineri in
libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus," &c. — Sess. iv.
22 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
ten traditions," Their decree maintains our doctrine. " The
Christian truth and disciphne are contained in written books."
We admit it. " They are contained in unwritten traditions
also." We admit it : these traditions confirm, and are identi-
cally the same with the doctrines of scripture. Thus, to say
the least, our doctrine has just as much support from the coun-
cil 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 concerns questions of
faith, there is nothing which is not in some manner contained in
scripture, since this tradition is nothing else but the explanation
and interpretation of scripture itself, so that it might be not
improperly said, that scripture is a sort of tradition folded and
sealed, and tradition is scripture unfolded and unsealed."^
Cardinal Du Perron says, " To affirm that scripture is suffi-
cient to bring us to salvation, if it. be understood mediately, that
is, with the addition of the means ordained for its explanation
and application, i. e. the ministry of the church ; this proposi-
tion is true and catholic. ^^^ Veron in his Rule of Faith says,
that " two things must be united in order that any doctrine should
be an article of the catholic faith : one, that it be revealed of God
by the prophets, apostles, or canonical authors (evidently refer-
ring to scripture) ; the other that it be proposed 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
Scripture, nor in the General Councils, and therefore theolo-
k Cassander, De officio pii viri, in principio. — Goldast. Politica Imperialia,
p. 1292.
1 Du Perron, Lettre a M. de Cherelles, p. 843. ffiuvres, Paris, 1622.
" Et partant affermer que I'escriture est suffisante pour nous conduire a salut,
si cela s'entend mediatement, c'est a dire, avec I'imposition du moyen or-
donne pour I'expliquer et appliquer, a s^avoir le ministere de I'Eglise, cette
proposition est veritable et catholique."
CHAP. I.] HELD BY ROMANISTS. 23
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 con-
tained 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
belongs 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 authority of the church, and necessity and truth
of traditions 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 mean-
ing of scripture,"i &c. La Mennais, in his Essai sur I'lndif-
fercnce, 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.''
And in fine, all the theologians of the Roman obedience tes-
tify involuntarily their persuasion that, after all, scriptural proof
is necessary, by attempting to prove for themselves from scrip
ture, 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
m Veronii Regula Fidei, cap. i. sec. 2.
° Bossuet, Defensio Declar. Cler. Gall. lib. i. sect. i. c. 6. CEuvres, t.
xxxi. p. 223. ed 1817.
0 White, Apology for Tradition, p. 171, cited by Tillotson, Rule of Faith,
part i. sec. 3.
p BaUly, Tract, de Eccl. t. i. p. 337.
" Ibid. p. 294.
r La Mennais, Essai sur I'IndifFerence, t. iv. p. 210.
24 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [pART Itt.
only proved by tradition.^ Bellarmine, Tournely, &c. prove
them from scripture.^ According to Milner and Melchior Canus,
the lawfuhiess of praying to saints, and worshipping their images
and relics rests only on tradition.^ Milner himself and the Wal-
lemburgs 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 fear of effectual contradiction,
that the opinion that scripture contains only a portion of revek'
tion, is not a doctrine which the Roman church has ever pro-
posed as de fide, or even declared to be true ; and that it is
nothing but a mere theological opinion, which happens to be
supported by the majority of their modern theologians. 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. Trevern"^ 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 catho-
lic church, or from mere prejudice and uncharitable feeling.
III. Arguments from Scripture.
Some of our writers argue from scripture itself in proof thai
8 Trevern, Discuss. Amic. t. i. p. 176. Delahogue, de Ecclesia, Append,
de Traditione.
t Bellarminus, Lib. de Bapt. c. 8, 9. Tournely, Tractatus de Baptismo,
p. 306.
" Melchior Canus, Loci Theolog. lib. iii. c. 3. Milner, end of Controv.
p. 109.
^ Milner, p. 251. Wallenburch, Tract. Generales de Controv. Fidei, t.
i. p. 444. 447.
w Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 174, 5. pretends that the princi-
ple of the sixth Article was adopted from our ignorance of antiquity. We
might with more reason say, that the opposite principle was. It is well
known that the writings of the Fatliers were better known to those who
promoted the Reformation than to those who opposed it.
CHAP. I.] PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. 25
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 interpretation.
The following texts are alleged. " Ye shall not add unto the
word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught
from it."^ " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the
soul,"y The first text seems merely to enjoin obedience to
God's word or commandments in general, whether they be writ-
ten or unwritten. The second acknowledges the law of God
to be a great blessing, but does not intimate that it is all con-
tained 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 remem-
brance."^ " 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, be-
cause 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
' Deut. iv. 2. y Ps. xix. 7. ^ Luke i. 3, 4.
=■ John XX. 31. '' 2 Pet. i. 15. c Rev. xxii. IS, 19.
•^ John V. 39.
VOL. n. — 4
26 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
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 tra-
dition. The Old Testament might testify of Christy and yet
there might be also divine miwritten 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 gos-
pel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be anathema."'' This passage 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 salva-
tion, 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works." f St. Paul here, apparently, refers to the Old Testa-
ment, 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 mot-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 ?" — " Iir vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men."'^ 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 refer to unwritten divine traditions, if there be any such.
' Gal.i. 8. f 2Tim. iii. 15—17.
^ It is thus understood by Whitby, Macknight, and Slade, in loc.
^ Matt. XV. 4. 9.
CHAP. I.] PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. 27
It appears to me that these various passages of Scripture,
adduced to prove that no part of Christian truth can be conveyed
by unwritten tradition only, are insufficient 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 improbable that God should
consign his Revelation to so uncertain 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 un-
certain 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 generally, it may cause very serious inconveniences,
for the authenticity and genuineness of the books of Scrip-
ture rest in no inconsiderable degree on the testimony of pri-
mitive tradition. This is affirmed by Hooker, Whitaker,
Field, Laud, Chillingworth, Lardner, Paley, Marsh, &c. But
though tradition might possibly suffice for the delivery of a
creed containing very few 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
Christianity.
From what has been alleged above from theological rea-
sons, and the general persuasion of Christians, and on the
assumption that our opponents cannot prove their position
(which will be shown in replying to Objections), I conclude
that the doctrine of the sixth Article, which affirms all matters
of faith to be contained in scripture, is true.
I also conclude that the contrary assertion of Roman theo-
logians is a serious error, because it is apparently inconsistent
with the Divine attributes, and is calculated to cause unneces-
28 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CH. I.
sary difficulties. But as it does not actually subvert revelation,
and is not directly opposed to scripture, it need not be re-
garded as absolutely contrary to faith.
OBJECTIONS.
I. Religion w^as preserved among the patriarchs till the time
of Moses by unv^^ritten tradition only, and tradition alone con-
veyed Christian doctrine at first, till the books of the New-
Testament were written. Therefore it is sufficient for the
conveyance of Christian doctrine. (Delahogue, Milner, &c.)
Ansiuer. (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 doc-
trine to the ffi-st converts, 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 preserved with
sufficient security without scripture, then it follows that scrip-
ture was given in vain, which would be an impious and detes-
table assertion. If it be meant that a par^ of the Christian
faith might have been conveyed by tradition, then I deny the
analogy of cases in which there were no scriptures, to that in
which the scripture 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.)
Ansive7\ We teach that scripture and tradition together
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 gos-
pel ; he did not command the scriptures to be written. The
apostles before their separation made no arrangements for com-
OBJECT.] TRADITION THE ORIGINAL RULE. 29
mitting 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.)
Answe7\ 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 cen-
sure, as manifestly erroneous, and tending to infidelity, because
they all lead to a denial of the divine inspiration of scripture.
In fine, it is rash and presumptuous to affirm that systematic
arrangement was necessary, in case God had designed to con-
vey 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 en-
tirely on the infallible authority of the existing cathohc church,
therefore you are bound to receive her testimony to all doc-
trines, even without scriptural proof.
Ansiuer. 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,^ prove the authenticity and genuineness
' 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 existing church. — De Eccl. Script, et
Dogmat. c. i. Lovanii, 1536. See also Bossuet, Histoire Universelle, part.
30 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CH. I.
of scripture against infidels, and which are our argunnents, are
invahd. If they affirm this, we shall know the principles of
our opponents : if they refuse to affirm it, their argument 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 doctrines must be implicitly
received without any proof from scripture.
Answer. Bossuet replies to this objection as employed by
infidels : " Qu'on me disc s'il n'est pas constant que do, toutes
les versions, et de tout le texte quelquHl soil, il en reviendra
toujours les memes lois, les memos miracles, les memos pre-
dictions, la memo suite d'histoire, le meme corps de doctrine,
et enfin la meme substance. En quoi nuisent apres cela les
diversites des textes ? Que nous falloit-il davantage que ce
fond inalterable des livres sacres, bt que pouvionsnous de-
mander de plus a la Divine Providence ?"''
ii. chap. 27. Huetii Demonstratio Evangelica ; Bergier, Certitude des
Preuves du Christianisme ; Hooke, Relig. Nat. et Rev. Principia, t. ii. ;
Fraysinnous, Defense du Christianisme, t. ii. — That the books of Scrip-
ture are only proved genuine and authentic by unwritten tradition, which
we are therefore bound to receive even without scripture in proof of catho-
lic 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,
Hseres. lib. i. c. 5. p. 25 ; Petrus Canisius, Opus Catecheticum, De Prae-
cept. Eccl. qu. 16. p. 161 ; Lindanus, Panoplia Evangelica, Col. Agrip.
1575, p. 3. 34. 70. 72. 79. 81. 480. 488 ; Cardillus, Disputat. adv. Protestat.
xxxiv. Haeret. fol. 149, Venet. 1564 ; Rutlandus, Loci communes, fol. 18 ;
Pighius, Hierarch. Eccl. lib. i. c. 2. The first part of their argument
(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 Scripture as a proof
of Christian doctrine, because we deny that any doctrine so universally
received can be without scriptural proof also.
'' Bossuet, Histoire Universelle, t. ii. p. 193.
OBJECT.] INFANT BAPTISM. 31
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 mani-
fested in the flesh," the validity of infant baptism, and of bap-
tism by heretics, and baptism by sprinkling, the non-obligation
of the precept concerning blood and things strangled, the ob-
servation of the Lord's day instead of the Jewish sabbath.
Ansiver. The Fathers and the theologians of the Roman
church prove the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and the Di-
vinity and Procession of the Holy Spirit from scripture.^ The
perpetual virginity is gathered from scripture by some writers."*
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 decided by the church." 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
' Athanasius, Ephiphanius, Gregory Nyssene, and others, proved the
Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, and the Trinity, from scripture.
Athanasius asserts that it affords 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 articles of the
catholic faith, have no resource except to corrupt and to mutilate the text
of scripture.
m Jerome, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, adduced scripture in proof
of the perpetual virginity. See Bp. Taylor's Dissuasive, part ii. b. i. s. 2.
p. 211. Oxford ed. See also Pearson on the creed, Article III.
° Bellarminus, Lib. de Baptismo, c. 8, 9 ; Tournely, Tractat. de Bap-
tismo, p. 306, &c.
o The authority on which modern writers allege that the church con-
demned the re-baptizing of heretics is that of St. Augustine, who affirms
that it was condemned by a general council ; but it is impossible to deter-
mine exactly what council St. Augustine means. See Tournely de Sacra-
mentis in genere, 463, &c.
32 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CH. I.
conferred by heretics with the usual form, it must necessarily
be acknowledged. p With regard to the precept concerning
blood and things strangled, it would seem that the tradition of
the catholic church is rather in favour of its continual obliga-
tion. Certain it is, that Tertullian, 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 preseiit day ; and if
the West seems to have not adhered generally to it, there has
been no definition of the church abrogating it. The contrary
custom may have arisen from abuse. ^ With regard to the sab-
bath, 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 ob-
ligatory, there have been disputes as to the authority on which
the former rests. Roman theologians themselves are divided on
P See chap. iv. s. ii. and part vi. chap. vi. Heretical baptism was dis-
allowed in the churches of Africa, Alexandi-ia, and the East, by St. Cy-
prian, Firmilian, Basil, Athanasius, Optatus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and by
the apostolic canons and the canonical epistle of Basil, which are still re-
ceived 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 Constantinople admitted the baptism of some heretics
and rejected that of others. Altogether it seems that the catholic church
is free to confirm or disallow the baptism of heretics, as she judges most
for the interest of religion. [A strange remark ! The commission to bap-
tize is from Him who ordained the sacrament, and dispenses the sacra-
mental grace. It is validly possessed, and lawfully exercised, or not. It
lies with the church to declare the fact : but, that once ascertained, how
will her judgment affect the ordinance ? Will it supply the defect of com-
mission, if that be invalid ? If otherwise, will the church's disallowance
destroy the sacrament, validly though irregularly admininistercd ; or hin-
der its availment to the receiver, on his renunciation of the heresy of the
minister ? These are questions not to be settled in the fag end of a note.]
q See Grotius, quoted in Pole's Synopsis on Acts xv. ; Taylor's Ductor
Dubitantium, b. i. chap. ii. rule ii. ; see also b. iii. chap. vi. rule vi. where
he proves that mere custom cannot abrogate a law.
OBJECT.] SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT OF ROMANISTS. 33
the question whether the observation 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 fro7n
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 Chap-
ter IV.
VIL Scripture is extremely difficult, obscure, and liable to
be misunderstood.' Therefore tradition is requisite to deter-
mine its meaning.
I answer (1) that scripture plainly teaches the Catholic faith,
as the holy fathers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Chrysos-
tom, Cyril of Alexandria, believed. (See Bishop Taylor's
Dissuasive, p. ii. b. 1. s. 2.) And as we have seen above (p.
18, 19,) 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 acknow-
ledge that the scripture plainly establishes the authority of the
church, the 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
r See Jo. Azorii Institut. Moral, pars ii. lib. i. c. 1, 2 ; A. M. de Ligorio,
Theol. Moral, lib. iii. tract iii. n. 265; Dens, Theologia, t. ii. p. 371.
8 Acts XX. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2 ; Rev. i. 10.
' The difficulties and obscurities of Scripture are detailed at great
length by Michael Medina, De Rect. in Deum Fide, lib. vii. ; Bellarmine,
De Verbi Dei lib. iii. ; De Verbi Dei Interpretatione, c. i. ; and others innu-
merable. Milner, End of Contr. let. ix. employs the same arguments.
Chemnitz says that Eckius, Emser, and the first writers against the Refor-
mation, did not refuse to argue from scripture ; but Pighius, finding this
detrimental to his cause, invented the mode of arguing on the insufficiency,
obscurity, and ambiguity of scripture, and the necessity of unwritten tra-
dition, in which he was followed by all the Roman theologians. — Examen
Concilii Trid. p. 13.
VOL. II. — 5
34 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CII. I.
deny that tradition is requisite to confirm the plain meaning 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.) "Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle."^
Ajiswer. It is evident there are many revealed truths not
contained in the epistles to the Thessalonians ; but those
truths may 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 aro 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 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." Ansicer.
Admitting, what cannot be proved, that Christ did then or at
any time teach truths which were not afterwards written, those
truths may not have been necessary for the church generally,
but designed only for some temporary or particular use. Tliere-
" These texts are employed by Delahogue, Trevern, De la Luzerne
Milner, &c.
V 2. Thess. ii. 15.
" I Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 13 ; iL 2. - Acts i. 3.
OBJECT.] ROMISH ARGUMENT FROM THE FATHERS. 35
fore there is no sort of proof from this, that' the whole of re-
vealed truth designed to be believed by men in all ages, was not
written afterwards.
IX. Various passages of the fathers prove that scripture
does not contain the whole of revelation.
(1.) S. Irenseus : " Nothing is more easy to those who seek
for the truth, than to remark in every church the tradition
which the apostles have manifested to all the world."y — "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 differently 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.
Ansvjer. All these passages merely establish the authority
of tradition, which our catholic churches admit : they do not
afford a shadow of proof that scripture 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 uncer-
tain .... the question is : to luhom was that doctrine commit-
ted by which we are made Christians ? For where this doc-
trine 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
behef."^
Answer. In the first passage Tertullian, in order to refute
the perverse interpretations of heretics, establishes our doc-
trine, that the church's tradition is the true interpretation of
scripture. He does not allude to the question whether tradition
y Irenaeus adv. Haeres. 1. iii. c. 5.
I Lib. i. c. 3. Lib. iii. c. 4. -
a Tertullian, De Prajscript., c. xix.
b Tertullian, De Corona Militis, c. iv.
36 PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CH. I.
conveys any truths of revelation which are not also in scripture.
In the second passage he establishes the lawfulness of certain
practices 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 practice 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 whois but slightly vers-
ed in ecclesiastical rights."'' &c.
Answer. S. Basil held our opinion, as we have seen (page
18). He is here arguing with those who objected to the form
of ascribing glory to the Holy Ghost used in the church, be-
cause it was not expressly written in scripture : against such
he argues that tradition alone is sufficient to justify forms and
rites ; for that this is his meaning appears, by his referring to a
number of rites and forms which were only derived from tra-
dition. 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 hsereti-
cos 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
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 tradition, for all
things cannot be learned from scripture. For which reason
c Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. See also c. 29. t. iii. oper. Ben.
d Delahogue, Do Ecclesia Christi, p. 436.
^ Vincenlii Lirinens. Commonitor. c. 28.
OBJECT.] ROMISH ARGUMENT FROM THE FATHERS. 37
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."^
Answe?-. S. Epiphanius alludes to matters of discipline,
which we admit were not all written. Chrysostom, as we have
seen (p. 19) maintained the perfection of scripture. He here
piously urges the credibility 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 con-
sider it as an inaccuracy, which cannot have any weight against
the general sentiment of the church.
(5.) The synod of Nice determined the consubstantiality of
the Son both by scripture and tradition, therefore the principle
of the sixth Article is wrong.^^
Anstuei'. The Article does not deny that Christian doctrine
should be proved both by scripture and tradition, which is the
doctrine of our churches. Our opponents hold that tradition
only is sufficient, therefore they, and not we, contradict the
synod of Nice.
^ Epiphanii Haeres. Ixi. Oper. t. i. p. 511.
g Chrysostom. Horn. iv. in 2 Thess. c. iii. Oper. p. 532. t. xi.
'' Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 185.
CHAPTER 11.
ON DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE,
Having established the first truth of the sixth Article, I now
proceed to another, which is of even greater importance ; name-
ly, that not only what is " read " in scripture, but what is
" proved thereby," may be an article of faith. It has been al-
leged that the article merely implies that if a point cannot be
proved out of scripture, 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 revela-
tion. The simple question is, whether the Article does not ad-
mit " scriptural proof" as much as the express words of scrip-
ture, to be sufficient 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 ques-
tions :
First, whether any deductions from scripture, in the sense of
interpretations, are matters of revelation and articles of faith ?
Secondly, whether all deductions from scripture interpreta-
tions 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 affirmative, it is most true, as
it has been alleged, that the differences between the various so-
'^ Hampden, Observations on Religious Dissent, p. 9. 2d ed.
CHAP. II.] INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 39
cieties of professing Christians are unimportant.^ Socinians,
Pelagians, &c. cannot be regarded as heretics, ° for the doctrines
of the Trinity, the real divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin,
&c. being only "prowetZ" by scripture, are of course to be re-
garded as human speculations. On the same principle the doc-
trinal statements of the Articles and Creeds in general are mere-
ly " pious opinions,"*^ which it must be uncharitable to urge as
matters of faith, or as a mark of discrimination between Chris-
tian and Christian. «> Thus the necessity of believing the most
vital truths of Christianity is subverted.
If the former question be determined in the negative, that is,
if no " interpretations " of scripture be matters of faith,*" then the
same consequences as before follow in a still greater degree, be-
cause every doctrine and duty of religion rests on the interpreta-
tion or meaning 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 salva-
tion, it must have a fixed meaning impressed on it by God him-
self, 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 contrary 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 inter-
pretation. Language would be entirely worthless in a revela-
tion, except as a medium for conveying the Divine meaning.
!> Hamp. p. 4, 5. " If I prove my point," said Tindal the deist, " I shall,
it may be hoped, in some measure put an end to those otherwise endless
disputes which divide and distract the Christian world."— Christianity as
old as the Creation, p. 121.
^ Hamp. p. 19, 20, 21. 26, 27. ^ Ibid. p. 14.
• Ibid. p. 5. compared with p. 14. 21, 22. f Ibid. p. 4. 7.
40 DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
Those therefore who maintain that all interpretations of the lan-
guage of scripture are merely human, and that no one inter-
pretation is necessary to be held, must advance another step,
and either admit that the scriptures do not contain any Divine
revelation necessary to be beheved,^ or else blasphemously as-
sert that God made a revelation consisting of language loitJiout
meaning, or at least w^ithout 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 substance
and reality of the Gospel, of which the words are only signs. I
need scarcely dwell further on this point : for it involves so di-
rectly the question of the necessity of belief in any Christian
doctrine, and therefore the necessity and truth of the whole
Christian revelation, that a believer cannot hesitate in deciding
•on which side Christianity lies.
II. In maintaining that deductions from scripture rightly in-
terpreted, 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 premises that the conclusion is manifestly taught by scrip-
g Morgan the infidel argues, that after the most honest inquiries, men
understand the same verbal propositions of Scripture in different senses, and
that " the doctrines doubtless consist of the sense and not in the verbal pro-
positions abstracted from their meaning ; and therefore if two men believe
the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Christ's satisfaction, &c. in differ-
ent senses, they really believe different doctrines about the same thing : but
is it not strange that God should reveal a religion as of any necessity or
use to mankind, which is not to be understood in any one certain deter-
minate sense, but may be taken in as many different senses," &c. '\ — Moral .
Philosopher, p. 18.
CHAP. II.] DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 41
ture itself. E. g. if in one part of scripture attributes are as-
cribed to a Being, which we are elsewhere told belong to God
only, it follows necessarily that this Being is God. The con-
clusion is irresistible. If the scripture teaches the premises it
teaches this conclusion : and to suppose that the conclusion is
not true, or that it may be held doubtful or needless to be believ-
ed, is to suppose that scripture is calculated to lead men into
error.
The same may be observed of conclusions which follow from
a truth revealed in scriptiure, and from some other truth self-
evident, or supported by the testimony of sense, and always imi-
ver sally 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 there-
fore must presuppose all those principles and notions which are
essential to human nature.
It is not meant that evei'y 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 speak-
ing 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 provide in his chufxh, means by which
those conclusions might be taught and proved to all from scrip-
ture. He might design by this method to excite men to the
study of scripture, and to impose an important duty on his min-
isters. •
If the apostles, if Christ himself, acting as we believe under
Divine inspiration, taught either by word or writing 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 unquestionable declaration made by the
VOL. 11. — 6
42 DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
same authority, that the former truths alone were hindivg on
Christians as articles of faith, it must have been the intention
of Christ and the apostles that both kinds of truth should be be-
lieved equally ; for it is impossible that they could have designed
to oblige men to believe w^hat was unnecessary, and equally im-
possible that they should have deceived them through inadver-
tence, 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 un-
questionable 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 scripture.^ A practice which was adopted uniform-
ly 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 here-
sies,^ has so great a weight of authority and probability attached
to it, that the strongest evidence alone could demonstrate its in-
efficiency. It is surely to the last degree improbable, even hu-
manly speaking, that the whole body of Christians from the be-
ginning 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, was designed to be
believed by those to whom scripture is addressed, we make no
improbable assumption. We merely assume 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
h Thomas' Tracts on Scrip. Consequences, p. 58. 92.
i Spanhemii Disputat. Theol. pars ii. disp. xxvi. See Mr. Thomas'
Tracts, p. 62, 63.
t Ibid. p. 82, 83. ' Ibid. 62—64.
CHAP. II.] DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 43
certain conclusions. We do not assume here that there are ac-
tually in scripture doctrines from which others inevitably fol-
low : we only affirm that if there are such, the conclusions are
binding.
The denial of this without clear proof from revelation is not
merely an error. It is a presumptuous and pernicious error,
because it decides the particular mode in which God's revela-
tion must be made, and thus would permit man to disbelieve
whatever has not been revealed in the way he judges fit. On
this principle infidels reject Christianity as only a partial revela-
tion, or as not brought home to every man's mind by special
illumination.
This has always been the mode in v^^hich the opponents 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
Apolinarians, the Monophysites,° the Anabaptists, Familists,
Antinomians, modern Arians, Socinians, and Rationalists, p have
all in their turn sheltered their errors from the otherwise irre-
sistible force of scriptural argument, by insisting on the express
words of scripture. This train is appropriately closed by Mor-
gan the infidel, who assailed the doctrine of Scripture Conse-
quences, early in the last century.^ It will be found on examina-
■n Vigilii Tapsensis Dialog, contr. Arium, lib. i. oper. p. 93. ed. 1664.
° Gregor. Nazian. Orat. 5. de Theologia.
° Maximus Monarchus, see Mr. Thomas' Tracts, p. 90.
p Ibid. p. 49, 100. 127. 204. The Rationalist Bretschneider triumphantly
asks where in Scripture are the words trinity, atonement, original sin, &c.
— Rose, State of Protestantism in Germany, Appendix, p. 76. I take this
occasion of expressing a deep sense of the value of a work which cannot
be too widely known or too highly prized. Christians cannot fail to be in-
spired with greater zeal for the faith, and more watchful care of that pre-
cious deposit, by the perusal of " the State of Protestantism in Germany."
•i See his Letter to the Rev. J. Gumming, cited by Mr. Thomas in his
" Tracts on Scripture Consequences," p. 10.
44 DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. [PART III.
tion, 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 vi^ith*the Lutherans which had been first
invented by Du Perron, Verron, &c.), went partly into this prin-
ciple."" The general outline of this system was, to show that
the onus probandi lay with the Protestants as accusers, reform-
ers, and separatists ;^ that they were bound by their own princi-
ples and professions 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 ambi-
guity of consequences, and the incapacity of the people to follow
them.* Having yielded a confession that the questions in debate
were not decided by the express words of scripture, the adver-
sary was next to be required to prove it by consequences
deduced from scripture, which were in every instance to be
objected to on some of these grounds:" 1. Because the pro-
posed interpretation was made without any authority ; 2. Be-
cause, if it be founded on a comparison of other texts, there is
no assertion in scripture that they were designed to explain that
under consideration ; 3. Because scripture 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 deduction ; 6. Because one of
the premises in the deduction is derived from human reasoning.
' Tractatus Generales'de Controversiis Fidei per Adrian, et Petrum de
Walenburch, t. i. p. 15, &c. and p. 229, &c. Edit. Colonic Agripp. 1670.
It seems indeed as if some of the Lutherans had spoken injudiciously on this
subject. Eckius argues against their mode of requiring the express words
of scripture in proof of doctrines. Enchiridion, p. 40, 41.
• Walenburch, p. 16. 246, &c. ,
« Ibid. p. 17. 293, &c.
" Ibid. p. 18—20. 313, &c.
CHAP. II.] DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 45
and therefore uncertain ; 7. Because scripture does not decide
that conchisions, deduced from premises, one of which rests on
human reason, are matters of faith, &c. These objections were
to be put in the form of questions, and the adversary was to be
obhged, 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 thought-
lessness. Had they not placed themselves in a false position,
by pretending to be voluntary separatists, when their predeces-
sors had not separated,^ the onus prohandi could not have been
laid on them. Had they preserved the respect for catholic tra-
dition which the Reformation had so often shown,''' and not
exaggerated the uses of scripture, they could not have been
limited to rigid scriptural demonstration. Had they remembered
that the Reformation declared that it did not differ in articles of
faith from the Roman church,^ they could not have been re-
quired to prove the doctrines in dispute to have been articles of
faith. The Wallenburghs themselves acknowledged not only
that CQiiclusions derived from two scriptural premises were de
Jide,'^ 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 voluntary separation from
the church, of which they chose to accuse themselves.
Had the Wallenburghs held that articles of faith could not be
deduced, when one of the premises was a merely speculative
^ See above. Part I. chap. xii. sect. 1. w Ibid. sect. 3.
» See above. Parti, chap. xii. sect. 1. and chap. xi. sect. 1.
y WalenburchjUt supra, p. 354. " Convenit inter omnes . . . non esse
disputandum de syllogismis quorum utraque prsmissarum est Scripturaj."
■^ Ibid. p. 334. " Pro instructione catholici notamus, quando ahera pra?-
missarum est scripturae, altera evidens, et forma argumentationis bona ; tunc
sequi conclusionem theologicam, prorsus certam et veram ; imo talem con-
clusionem, ex quorundam sententia, non incommodo aliquando dici divinajn."
46 DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. [p. III. CH, II.
truth, by no means self-evident, and in fact disputed among men,
there would have been nothing to object to in their principle.
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 individuals are
uncertain, and insufficient to serve as a foundation for faith, be-
cause no man is infallible. If, indeed, the true interpretation of
scripture were certainly discernible, it would be obligatory on
men ; but the age of inspiration, and therefore of infallibility,
has passed 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 obliged to mutilate it :
but we have an unerring guide to the true meaning of scripture
in the doctrine of the universal church in all ages, and in the
formal and legitimate judgments made by that church in'^ontro-
versies of faith. To these I maintain that every private Chris-
tian 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 scripture, but by the uniform doctrine of the church in all
agcs,^ and especially its unanimous legitimate judgment in the
Council of Nice. I know that Unitarianism was from the begin-
ning viewed and treated as a heresy by all Christendom, there-
fore I ca.nnot possibly err in regarding it as such, and in main-
taining the catholic faith. Nor am I in the slightest degree
obliged to receive on the same principle, the errors of Roman-
ists ; unless it be proved that they rest on the same authority,
which cannot be done.
a The weight of universal tradition against heresies is not only admitted
by our theologians, but even by Daille, and Whitby the Arian. See Wa-
terland's Works, vol. v. p. 275 — 8.
OBJECT.] DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 47
II. The ignorant cannot make deductions from scriptural
truths, therefore the doctrines so deduced cannot be necessary
to salvation.
Answer. Though they may not be able to make them them-
selves, they 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 reasoning.
Answer. There is no proof that scripture was designed to
supersede the necessity of the Christian ministry.
%
CHAPTER III.
UN 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 w^hich have been commonly maintained in some particular
age only, or which a portion of the church has main^iaed with-
out separating from the rest ;^ and tkose which the great body
of Christians from the beginning have always 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 irresistible confirmation of the doctrine of scripture, and a
certain test of the correctness of scripture interpretation.
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 traditions and judgments of the universal
church. Even the members of the Roman Obedience do not
a Such was the doctrine of the Millennium as held by Papias, Justin,
Melito, Irenaeus, TertuUian, Nepos, Adamantius, Victorinus, Lactantius,
ApollinariuSj Sulpicius Severus ; and rejected by Origen, probably by Cle-
ment of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augus-
tine. Even Justin Martyr says that there " were many even of those whose
sentiments as Christians were sound and pious, that did not recognize
it." — See Mr. Greswell's interesting disquisition on this subject. Exposi-
tion of the Parables, vol. i. chap. xxi. part ii. This truly learned writer,
who adopts the opinion of the majority of the early writers, regards it as a
question in which " great latitude and diversity of sentiment may be inno-
cently and safely allowed to different minds." — Preface.
CHAP, III.] RELATIONS OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 49
universally assert any such necessity, though it is too commonly
taught by them.^ Cardinal de la Luzerne says, " Our asser-
tion is not that all the passages of scripture are so obscure,
that in order to explain and fix their meaning, it is indispens-
able 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 sufficient for 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 scripture, the doctrine or tradition of Christians of all ages,
i. e. of the catholic church, is presented to us as a confirmation
of the true meaning of scripture. It is not meant that this
tradition conveys to us the exact interpretation of all the par-
ticular 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 scrip-
tural. That doctrine which claims to be deduced from scrip-
ture, and which all the church from the beginning reprobated
and abhorred, must be founded on a perversion and misrepre-
sentation of scripture.
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 supplementary to scripture, convey-
ing doctrines which scripture has omitted. "We hold," says
'' See Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 196. Oxford ed. 1836 ; Crakanthorp, De
loco arguendi ab Authoritate Logicae, p. 323. See above, p. 31. 33,
c De la Luzerne, Dissertation sur les Eglises Cath. et Prot. t. i. p. 59.
■^ Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 217, &c.
VOL. II. — 7
50 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL TRADITION. fPART III.
de la Luzerne, " that unwritten tradition is an irrefragable rule
of faith in two ways : first, hy itself, because there are truths
which have only been given to the church by this way : se-
condly, 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 meaning
of scripture, must be true, is evident. I am not here arguing
with infidels ; and therefore may assume that Christianity was a
revelation, that no revelation 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 doc-
trine was universally believed by those Christians who had been,
instructed by the apostles, and the disciples 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 doctrines 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 promul-
gated : such a doctrine must be a truth of revelation. It rests
on evidence not inferior to that which attests the truth of Chris-
tianity. 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 be-
lieved their salvation to depend ? And this while the scriptures
were in their hands, and the care of God was (as Christians be-
lieve) 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
• De la Luzerne, t. ii. p. 321.
CHAP. III.] PROOFS OF UNIVERSAL TRADITION. 51'
adtnit that any doctrine established by universal tradition 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 religious community called Chris-
tian, from the beginning ? This is evidently to be proved only
by authentic documents, monuments, and facts : and we aa
cordingly adduce the creeds or professions of faith acknow-
ledged 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 pro-
duce 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 objec-
tions of infidels, and of sectaries, concur in establishing what
was the real faith of the cathohc church in all ages.
If proofs like these be rejected on the ground of the uncer-
tainty of all human testimony, then there can be no certainty
of any of the facts of history, and we are reduced 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 rejected, the external evidences of Chris-
tianity are subverted. The authenticity of primitive tradition
and its records, of scripture and its doctrines, and of Chris-
tianity as a revelation, stand or fall together. It is not 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 Chris-
tianity : in later times it has assumed the name of Christianity
itself, in order to pursue with more success its plans for the
52 CONNEXION OF RELIGION [PART III.
subversion of faith/ The Enghsh deists were the predeces-
sors from whom sprang the Rationalists and the Unitarians.^
These sects are in fact and essentially infidel ; for whatever
rehcs 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 received only
on the authority of human reason.^ But what is their line of
argument ? Tindal, the deist, commences his attack on revela-
tion 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 scripture, ^ &c.
The further back we go the more frauds we find."" Hence, he
concludes that external 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 contradic-
tions ; that it has been corrupted ; that it is not a rule adapted to
' Magee, on Atonement, vol. ii. Append, p. 71 ; and Rose, Protestantism
in Germany, p. 145. 237 — 240. Append, p. 34. 95. justly remark on the dis-
honesty of the Socinian and Rationalist infidels, in using the language of
Christianity as if they believed its mysteries.
g See Rose's Protestantism in Germany, p. 51, &c. and the remarks of
Dr. Pusey there cited. See also p. 164, and Appendix p. 76, for the iden-
tity of the English Socinians and the Rationalists. Belsham, one of the
leaders of the former, confessed that the Unitarian creed was the same as
that of the French Theophilanthropists or Deists, except in the single point
of the mere fact of a man's resurrection. — Magee on Atonement, vol. i. p.
175. See also vol. ii. p. 411. 489.
*" See Rose, State of Protestantism, p. xxiii. xxiv. for some valuable
observations on this subject.
' Tindal, Cliristianity as old as the Creation, p. iii.
" Ibid. p. 89, 90. 101. ' Ibid. p. 158. 161—4.
"' Ibid. p. 162. " Ibid. p. 184—194.
CHAP. III.] AND TRADITION. 53
mankind generally ; in fine, that it is not a revelation." Morgan
adopts the same principle. The first disciples, according to
him, invented tales about Christ, interpolated passages in the
scriptures, which seemed to represent him as God,, ascribed
miracles to him, united Judaism and Christianity. p The
catholic church of the first three centuries was persecuting,
idolatrous, antichristian,i &c. Semler affirmed that the writ-
ings 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 accordingly the only proof which he admitted of the divine
origin 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 theo-
logy at Zurich, assails the veracity of the early fathers, imputes
to them fraud, ignorance, errors, &c. Hence, he infers that their
" Ibid. p.. 96. 158. 195. 216, &c. Tindal ar^es that the scriptures must
have been corrupted, because of the bigotry of those to whom in all ages
they were chiefly committed, p. 158. Even the Protestant -writers, ac-
cording to him, are full of calumnies, impostures, &c. p. 160.
p Morgan, Moral Philosopher, p. 440.
"J Ibid. p. 378 — 381. According to him, even from the age of the apos-
tles, the hierarchal bishops and clergy, with their party the catholic church,
" assumed a dominion over conscience, lorded it over God's heritage, and
claimed and exercised a power absolutely inconsistent with private judg-
ment, rational inquiry, and free choice in religion," p. 383. He observes
that the truly primitive Christians in those ages who constituted the mi-
nority, were styled Heretics, Gnostics, &c., and that the Protestants are
their successors ! (380, 381) as the Roman catholic church is the true suc-
cessor of the catholic church of the three first centuries, 378, 9. Morgan
styles his opponents " Judaizing clergy," p. 357, 8.
' Bishop Kaye on Tertullian, p. 71.
9 Rose, State of Protestantism in Germany, p. 82. 2d ed.
' Ibid. p. 83, &c. Semler held that " the prophets may have delivered
the offspring of their own brains as divine revelations." See Magee on the
Atonement, vol. i. p. 174.
54 CONNEXION OF RELIGION [PART III.
testimony to the genuineness, authenticity, and canon of scrip-
ture is of no weight ; that scripture has no external evidence
whatever ; that it must be subjected tp 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 inven-
tions.^ Hence, he glories in the hope that the day will come
when men will not appeal to scripture, but receive doctrines
simply as they approve themselves to reason/
It may be observed in general indeed of the various denomi-
nations of deists, whether Freethinkers, Theophilanthropists,
Socinians, Rationalists, or Unitarians, that, if they unite in
treating the body of the early Christian writers of the univer-
sal church with contempt or abuse ; the scripture itself meets
no better treatment from them.""^ The testimony of the early
Christians must be got rid of by any means, because it is dia-
metrically 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.
" Symbolae ad internam crit. Librorum Canonic. &c. ab Jo. Schulthess,
Turici, 1833, t. i. Praefat. and p. 76.
* Praefat. p. xiv.
* Middleton (Free Enquiry, p. Ixxvi — Ixxxvi.) accuses the early fathers
of recording and solemnly attesting falsehoods, charges them with forgery,
&c. The early ages of the church, according to him, were any thing but
pure, heresy abounded, &c. In fine, the opinions or practice of the primi-
tive fathers are to be viewed with perfect indifference. Middleton, in per-
fect consistency with these notions, represented the fall of man as a mere
fable ; thereby undermining the whole fabric of Christianity. Hoadly also
contemned the tradition of the universal church, but Hoadly declared that
original sin was a contradiction in terms, and asserted the right of every
man to deny the doctrines of Christianity. Blackburn assailed the fathers
(Confessional, chap, viii.) ; but he asserted the right of each individual to
separate from all existing religions, and disbelieved the orthodox doctrine
of the Trinity.
CHAP. III.] AND THADITION. 55
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 interpolations, errors, absurdities. The sacred
writers are accused of ignorance, contradictions, and deceit :
and the legitimate and irresistible conclusion follows, that
Christianity was not a revelation, that Christ was only a philo-
sopher, 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 Christian tradition.
If the early writers of Christianity were all ignorant, bigoted,
credulous, enthusiastic, designing, persecuting ; if they were
guilty of fraud, falsehood, forgery, priestcraft, &c. it is incon-
ceivable 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 contradictions of
deists show that they are led merely by prejudice and hatred to
assail the credit of the Christian writers, 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 en masse, admitting their genuineness, and charg-
ing 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 tradition are the doctrines of the
real divinity and personality of the Son and the Holy Ghost,
the incarnation, suffering, resurrection, atonement, and media-
tion of Jesus Christ, the necessity of divine grace, the obliga-
tion of good works, together with all the other articles of our
» The apophthegm of TertuUian would apply with still greater force in
this case. " Quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed tradi-
tum. — De Praescript. c 27.
56 TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. [PART III.
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 reasonahly feel so certain, that
no argument, no difficulty should for an instant shake our con-
viction, and that if an angel descended from heaven and denied
any one of them, we should be prepared to say, " Let him be
. anathema."^
An objection may be raised to this mode of confirming
Christian truth by tradition, as exacting to.o minute and exten-
sive 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 credi-
ble 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 pre-
sent day. They are incapable of instituting the critical re-
searches which would enable them to dispense on these points
y Beveregii Codex Can. Eccl. Prim, vindicatus, &c. Preefat.
* It may be observed that those who despise the testimony of the catho-
lic church to Christian doctrine, generally either forsake the truth or have
no settled belief. Episcopius (Opcr. t. i. part. ii. p. 127, 128. 132.) and
Curcellseus (Oper. p. 32, 33. 694,) disregarded the fathers : but they also
held the doctrines of the trinity and the divinity of Christ to be matters
non-essential (Episc. Oper. t. i. part i. p. 338, &c. Curcel. Oper. p. 19.
29). The infidel Rationalists of Germany, who also despise the fathers,
boast that they alter their belief " as often as any neiv vieivs require it." —
Rose, State of Protest, p. 24.
CHAP. III.] TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 57
with the testimony of their church, their pastors, their acquaint-
ances, and every thing around them. If it be said that the
doctrines 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, without 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 appeal to that doctrine in controversy ;
if there be a perpetual and confident appeal to it in fact ; if
this be so notorious, 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 side, 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 coun-
cils, the theologians of all ages. On the other we find Ari-
ans, Socinians, Sabellians, Anabaptists, Unitarians, Deists,
Rationalists, Pelagians, Antinomians, &c., who, differing be-
tween themselves 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 endeavour-
* See above. Part II. Chapter VI.
I' Such as Socinus, Biddle, Tindal, Morgan, Clarke, Hoadly, Middleton,
Blackburn, Semler, &c.
VOL. II. — 8
58 TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALI,. PART III.
ing 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 senti-
ments 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 have been, e. g. that of Augustine,
Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point
where it contradicts scripture. We consider all these writers
as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors
like other theologians. Therefore, it involves a studied misre-
presentation of our meaning and principle, when we are met by
assertions or proofs that particular fathers have taught errors in
faith or morality f that they were credulous ; that their writ-
ings are in some points obscure ;'^ that their criticisms or inter-
pretations of scripture are sometimes mistaken ;^ that they in-
vented scholastic doctrines, and were tinged with false philoso-
phy ;^ that the latter fathers were better theologians than the
*^ See Waterland, Works, vol. v. p. 313, 314, and Thorndike and Sher-
lock referred to by him.
d Whitby, Dissert. Praef. s. iv. p. 15, &c. For replies to this, and all
the succeeding objections against the fathers, see Waterland on the impor-
tance of the doctrine of Trinity, chap. vii. Melchior Canus de locis Theo-
logicis, lib. vii. and Scrivenerus adv. Dallaeum, and others cited by Water-
land, Works, vol. V. p. 294.
« Daille, of the Right Use of the Fathers.
<■ Whitby, Dissert, de Script. Interpret.
g Hampden, Scholastic Philosophy, passim. The imputation of scho-
lasticism to the doctrines of the catholic faith, is a mere hackneyed artifice
of deists and misbelievers. Under this pretence, Steinbart the deist, profes-
sor of theology at Frankfort, assailed the Christian doctrine (Rose, State
of Prot. p. 70). He had been preceded by the Socinian Dr. Bury, who
was expelled from the University of Oxford for his heresies ; by Morgan,
the infidel, &c. The same pretence is common in the writings of Socini-
ans. — See Mr. Thomas, Tracts on Script. Conseq. p. 6 — 11.
CHAP. III.] TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 59
earlier ;^» that there are fathers against fathers, and councils
against councils, on some points.' This is all calculated
merely to excite prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of
the church, by misrepresenting our 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 testimony to the facts of Christianity, and
the external evidence of revelation is subverted.
II. Pretended respect for religion.
Under this head may be classed that mode of argument
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 opposition 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 e7id of all this pretended reve-
rence for scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpret-
ing it according to our own reason and judgment, even in oppo-
sition to the belief of all Christians from the beginning.' But
'' Hampden, Scholastic Philosophy, Lect. viii.
' Chillingworth's rash and unguarded 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
interest to ascertain what proportion 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.
^ Whitby, Dissert, de Scriptur. Interpret. Prasf. p. 8, 9, 10. 19. Socinus
boasted that he acknowledged no master ; " Sed Deum tantummodo prae-
ceptorem habui, sacrasque literas." — Ep. ad Squarcialupum, 0pp. t. i. p.
362. Accordingly, he strenuously denies the authority of the fathers and
councils, the primitive church, &c. t. ii. p. 617, 618.
I See Waterland's just remarks, Works, vol. v. p. 282. Oxford ed. Lind-
say, the Socinian, in his publication entitled the Catechist, asserts, that
60 TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. [pART III.
in asserting this liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no
particular interpretation of scripture is necessary to salvation j
that scripture has no divine meaning ; that it is not a 7'evelation.
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 de-
fence of the Reformation, which infidels. Unitarians, 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 Reformation,^'' they say,
" every religious opinion and practice is to be brought to the test of God's
word,'''' i. e. to the exclusion of councils, synods, bishops, presbyters, &c.
Together with this, he teaches that the true doctrine began to be corrupted
very soon by heathen inventions, even from the times of the apostles ; and
that " Luther and Calvin left the dregs " of the Roman antichrist " behind."
Evanson, another Socinian praised by Belsham, declares that the gospels
" contain gross and irreconcileable contradictions." Priestley regards the
Mosaic narration of the creation and fall of man as a lame account. Bel-
sham holds that the gospel teaches only the Deism of the French Theophi-
lanthropists, except in the single yac^ of the resurrection of a human being ;
and engages that Unitarians shall shovi' that whatever supports anything else
is either " interpolation, omission, false reading, mistranslation, or errone-
ous 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 Rationalist infidels. They all regard scrip-
ture as interpolated, treat the gospels as spurious productions, &c. — Rose, p.
100, &c. Some of them hold that the scriptures contain pions frauds and
deceptions. — lb. 117. Some impute to our Lord and his apostles deceptions
for evil purposes.-Ib. 119. Others affirm that the apostles, as low and igno-
rant men, natives of a barbarous country, had not tiie power of relating every
thing as it really happened : — lb. 120, and that the only method of getting at
truth, is to subject what they had written to a critical examination, to sepa-
rate the " ivhcat in scripture from the chaff.'''' — lb. 121. This is Dr. Hamp-
den's method with St. Paul. — Scholastic Philosophy, p. 375. All these
writers reject the doctrine of the fathers.
m Tindal the infidel, declares that what he says is in defence of the
Protestant. Telig'ion, (p. 212.) that they who do not allow reason to judge in.
CHAP. III.] TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, 61
"cannot be defended if this appeal 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 Reforma-
tion whether positive or negative, to prove the Reformation itself
needless, erroneous, bigoted, 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 un-
thinking, than this effort of Deists and heretics to set aside tra-
dition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are
the opponents of the Reformation. They are the representa-
tives of those whom the Reformation condemned. They reject
its doctrines, they charge it with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance,
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 connex-
ion 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 suit-
ed to its interests.
III. Statements directly untrue.
matters of opinion or speculation, (i. e. as to the truth of any doctrines, &c.
alleged) are guilty of as great absurdity as the papists ; (p. 178.) that if we
do not allow reason to judge scripture in opposition to all authority, we can-
not show the absurdity of the plea of the papists to implicit faith, p. 211. He
cites " Hoadly, the strenuous assertor of our religious as well as civil rights,^*
as saying that " Authority is the greatest and most irreconcileable enemy to
truth and argument"-that " against authority there is no defence,'''' &c.-p. 215.
The assumption of authority by Protestants according to Tindal is incon-
sistent with the defence of the Reformation. — p. 300. This hypocrisy
cannot deceive any one possessed of common penetration.
62 TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. [PART III.
Under this head may be included the palmary argument em-
ployed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of the
church universal, namely, that it was the principle of the Re-
formation 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
acknowledged and appealed to the authority of catholic tradition,
though it denied the infallibility of particular fathers and coun-
cils." With equal veracity it is asserted that the church of Eng-
n Heretics seem never weary of attributing to the Reformation principles
which it abominated. Wegscheider, Clarke, and others, have pretended
that it is essential to a " Protestant " church to possess the power of vary-
ing her belief; and this, notwithstanding that the whole Reformation re-
ceived the Athanasian Creed, which declares that the catholic faith there
taught is necessary to salvation, and that unless it shall be kept whole and
undefiled by every man he shall perish everlastingly.
•> 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 cir-
cumstance (i. e. reverence for the fathers,) which has been made a subject
of reproach against the early reformers by the modern school of theology,"
— p. 37, and that this rationalist or infidel school assert that " down to the
eighteenth century,'''' " appeals were made only to the ivritings of the fathers,
whose ignorance, prejudices, and want of philosophical illumination, deprived
their evidence and opinions of all value." — p. 39. If Luther and others
occasionally opposed themselves to the opinions of particular fathers, and
used strong expressions on the subject ; we must in reason suppose that they
viewed those fathers then only in their capacity of theologians or vvrriters,
and not as witnesses of catholic tradition. It is certain that we are not
bound to adopt the sentiments of any father merely on his ovm authority.
Luther, however, was far from rejecting them even as theologians. He
recommended the works of Augustine, Bernard, Ambrose, and Peter Lom-
bard to students, though he disapproved of those of Origen, Jerome, and
Basil. — Walchii Bibliotheca Patrist. cap. xv. s. 12. Even the Roman bish-
op Trevern admits, that Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Leibnitz, and other distin-
guished adherents of the Reformation, respected catholic tradition. — Dis-
cussion Amicale, t. i. p. 196 — 206. The Walienburghs cite sixteen Luther-
an and reformed theologians, to prove that the reformation allowed the au-
thority of the curly church. — Oper. t. i. p. 237. The Roman theologians
themselves treat the fathers with too little ceremony where their sentiments
CHAP. III.] TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 63
land rejects tradition by her sixth article of religion,? when it is
manifest that her object is simply to maintain the necessity of
scriptural proof for articles of faith ; while our canons, our ritu-
al, and the whole body of our theologians have so notoriously
upheld the authority of tradition, that it is a subject of unmea-
sured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the doc-
trines of the church.i
The nature of these various arguments testifies sufficiently
that the doctrine of the universal church is opposed to those who
employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on
this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual
misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The
employment of these weapons by all sects, in order to prevent
any appeal to universal tradition, proves two points. First, as
the sole fundamental principle on which they all agree, is, the re-
jection of an appeal to the doctrine of the church as a check on
are opposed to those of Rome. Medina accuses Jerome, Ambrose, Augus-
tine, &c. of holding Arian sentiments. Maldonatus charges Chrysostom
with Pelagianism. See many instances collected by Crakanthorp, Logicae,
lib. V. cap. xvi. Reg. xix. p. 340. See also Mr. Newman's valuable ob-
servations, Lectures on Romanism, p. 59 — 99.
P Whitby, Dissert, p. 4.
•I I have already (Part TI. Chap. VI.) cited the words of Walchius and
of Blackburn. Middleton, the author of the Free Inquiry, who resolved the
Mosaic account of the fall of man into a fable, and is supposed to have been
an infidel, says, " Though this doctrine of the sufficiency of the scriptures be
generally professed through all the Reformed churches, yet it has happened,
I know not how, in our own, that its divines have been apt, on aU occasions,
to join the authority of the primitive church to that of sacred vn-it ; to sup-
ply doctrines from the ancient councils, on which the scriptures are either si-
lent or thought defective, to add the holy fathers to the coUege of the apostles ;
and by ascribing the same gift and powers to them both, to advance the
primitive traditions to a parity with the apostolic precepts." — Free Inquiry,
Introduct. p. xcviii. He then traces the prevalence of this evil principle in
the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, (when Cranmer and Ridley
unhappily appealed to it,) Elizabeth, James, Charles, &c. Page xli. he
complains of " the prejudice in favour oi primitive antiquity ^ which prevails
in this protestant country."
64 TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. [PART IIT.
the interpretation 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 doctrine of the universal church from the
beginning must condemn that of all modern sects, in every point
in vi^hich they differ from our catholic and apostolic churches ;
and therefor^ on every such point they are in error and misinter-
pret scripture, and the church is in the right.
But what if two opposite parties both appeal to primitive tra-
dition 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.'' 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 authority.* With regard to controver-
r See Waterland on the Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity,
Works, vol. V. p. 327. The Ebionites were rejected as heretics. — See
Bull's " Primitiva and Apostolica Traditio." The ancient heretics Basili-
des, Valentinus, the Marcionites, pretended to a private tradition contrary to
that of the catholic church. The Artemonians pretended that their doctrine
had been formerly held by the church, though it had been long ago con-
demned and execrated by all Christians. The Arians, too, and Macedoni-
ans pretended to tradition in favour of their errors, but when they were
asked whether they would admit the common doctrine of the ancients, and
be concluded by it, they refused the trial — Socrat. Hist. Eccl. v. 10 ; Sozom.
vii. 12 ; see Waterland ut supra, p. 323 — 32.5. As for the modem Arians
and Socinians, Whiston, Clarke, Whitby, Hoadly, &c. they either rejected
and despised the writings of the fathers, or else admitted them only partial-
ly, rejecting such writers as they pleased. — See Waterland ut supra, p.
327, 328.
° It is related of Biddle, the founder of the English Socinians, that "he
gave the holy scriptures a diligent reading ; and made use of no other rule
to determine controversies about religion than the scriptures, and of no other
authentic interpreter, if a scruple arose concerning the sense of scripture,
than reason^ Afterwards, indeed, it is said that he adduced some of the
fathers of the first two centuries, not that he regarded them himself, but
CHAP. III.] TRADITION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 65
sies between the churches of England and Rome, it may be
observed, that while both parties appeal with equal confidence to
catholic tradition, the former usually prefer to limit the ap-
peal to the earlier centuries, while the latter are anxious to in-
troduce 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 salva-
tion ; and therefore that we are perfectly secure in following the
doctrines and practice of our own churches, and Romanists were
not justified in separating 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.
" for the sake of the adversaries who continually crake, the fathers, the fa-
thers.''''— Life by Touhnin amongst the Unitarian Tracts.
* See Part II. Chapters II. and IX., where it is shown that the Roman-
ists separated from our orthodox churches.
VOL. II, — 9
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 necessa-
ry that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one and utterly
like ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be chang-
ed 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 tradi-
tions of the church are lawful and changeable, and for discrimi-
nating 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 rea-
son objected to several traditions which our churches have re-
ceived from the remotest ages ; as the use of sponsors, the sign
of the cross, the ministerial vestments, the offices of archbishop,
dean, chancellor, &c. These were according to them unlaw-
ful, because they were not mentioned in scripture.'' Hooker
has argued well against this principle in his second and third
* See the objections of the Puritans in Hooker, and those of the modern
dissenters in Towgood on dissent.
€HAP. IV.] RITES, WHEN LAWFUL. 67
books. The church has always admitted, that rites and disci-
pline which can be proved contrary to scripture, directly or in-
directly, are unlawful : the Article above-cited, and the twenti-
eth, 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 scrip-
ture, from which every thing that is lawful may be justified.
The question then is, whether every thing that is simply lawful
in worship and discipline must be expressly mentioned in scrip-
ture. This T deny, for the following reasons :
1. There is no assertion to that effect in scripture itself, 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 scripture says, " Where
no law is, there is no transgression.'"^ " Sin is the transgres-
sion of the law."'' Therefore, whatever is not directly or indi-
rectly 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. "'^ " Let all things be
done unto edifying.""^ " Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory
of God."^ " Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the
Gentiles, nor to the church."^ Therefore, the scripture recog-
nizes a power of regulating externals which is guided by gene-
ral scriptural rules, not by specific scriptural enactment or pre-
cedent.
4. Every church and every sect from the foundation of Chris-
tianity has practiced a number of rites and matters of discipline
which are not in scripture. Bingham, in tracing the rites of
the primitive church in the administration of the sacraments and
public worship, exhibits a multitude of various rites, ceremo-
nies and disciplines, in the churches of the East and West,
'' Rom. iv. 15. c 1 John iii. 4. ■* 1 Cor. xiv. 40.
" Ibid. ver. 26. ^ 1 Cor. x. 31.' g Ibid. 32.
68 TRADITIONAL RITES AND DISCIPLINE. [PART III.
which cannot be traced in scripture.^ Tertullian says, " Let
us then inquire whether no tradition (in this case) should be ad-
mitted 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 cus-
tom, without any authority of scripture. To begin with bap-
tism ; 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 pre-
scribed. Received thence, we taste a mixture of milk and ho-
ney; 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 an-
nual day for the martyrs' birthdays, &c.' " The day would fail
me," says St. Basil, " if I were to relate to you all the rites
^ See Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church.
' " Ergo quaeramus an et traditio nisi scripta non debeat recipi 1 Plane
negabimus recipiendam, si nulla exempla prsejudicent aliarum observationum,
quas sine uUius scripturae instrumento, solius traditionis titulo et exinde con-
suetudinis patrocinio vindicamus. Denique ut a baptismate ingrediar, aquam
adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in ecclesia sub antistites manu con-
testamur nos renuntiare diabolo, et pompae, et angelis ejus. Dehinc ter
mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Domiuus in evangelio de-
terminavit. Inde suscepti, lactis et mellis concordiam prajgustamus, cxque
ea die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadam abstinemus. Eucharistae
sacramentum, et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam
antelucanis ccetibus, nee de aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus.
Ohlationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus. Die Dominico
jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculus adorare. Eadem inniiunitate a
Die Paschae.in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. Calicis aut panis etiam nos-
tri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur. Ad omnem progressum atque
promotum, ad omnem aditum et exitum, ad calceatum, ad lavacra, ad men-
sas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, qua^cunque nos conversatio exercet,
frontem crucis signaculo terhnus." — Tertull. De Corona, c. ii. iii. iv.
CHAP. IV.] TRADITIONAL RITES UNIVERSALLY RECEIVED. 69
transmitted to the church without scripture. I omit the rest :
this profession of faith in God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit (the creed), from what scripture have we it?"''
J. adduce these passages, merely to show that the primitive
church practised many rites which are not contained in scrip-
ture. Such also it is plain, has been the invariable custom of
all the Oriental, all the Roman, all the British churches, down
to the present day. The Lutherans and the Calvinists also fol-
lowed the same rule, as might be instanced in their use of litur-
gies, organ*, 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, church-
ing of women, burial of the dead with hymns and prayers, titles
and offices of antistes, praepositus, archbishop, dean, chancellor,
provincial and national synods, moderators, &c.^ These rites
were practised by some or all branches of the foreign Reforma-
tion. 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 like."
" Nor is it necessary that human traditions, or rites and cere-
monies introduced hy men, should be alike everywhere."'" The
Apology of the Confession says : " We willingly observe the
ancient traditions which were constituted in the church for the
sake of utility and quietness," &c.° The Tetrapolitan Confes-
sion, drawn up by Bucer in 1530, observes, " The opinion of
our party concerning the traditions of the fathers, or those which
the bishops and churches approve now, is this : they include no
traditions amonff the human traditions which are condemned in
^ Basil. De Spiritu Sanct. c. xxvii. n. 67. t. iii. oper. p. 56.
' See Durel on the Reformed Churches.
" Confessio August, pars i. art. xv. and vii.
■ Apologia Confessionis, viii. De tradit. humanis in Ecclesia.
70 TRADITIONAL RITES APPROVED. [pART III.
scripture, except such as are repugnant to the law of God. . .
Those which agree with scripture and were instituted to pro-
mote good manners and the pubhc utiUty, even though they be not
expressly written in scripture, yet since they arise from the pre-
cept of charity, are to be accounted divine rather than human.""
The same views are taken by the Bohemian, p the Polish, i the
Helvetic'' Confessions, the Formula Concordiae,^ &c. Calvin
expressly defends the obligation of human traditions,* and
amongst the rest approves of the constitution of the primitive
church, of synods, patriarchs, primates, archbishopsf metropoli-
tans, bishops, archdeacons, subdeacons, readers, acolytes, and
in short, the whole hierarchy. This system he regarded as
scarcely in any respect dissonant from the word of God.^ In
fine, the dissenters themselves adopt a number of rites and mat-
ters 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 eucharist 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 congregational and baptist
unions, conferences, (fee. ; build chapels and colleges, and estab-
lish trustees, committees, and professors. None of these things
are mentioned in scripture, nor do we read there any such
" Confess, Tetrapolitana, cap. xiv.
p Confess. Bohcmica, art. xv.
1 Declaratio Thoruniensis, art. v. vi.
' Confessio Helvetica, cap. xxvii. • Pars i. art. x.
t Calvini Institut. lib. iv. c. iii. sect. 27 — 32. " Ibid. cap. iv.
' James' Church Memb. Guide, p. 12. 2d ed.
CHAP. IV.] TRADITIONAL RITES PRACTISED BY SECTARIES. 71
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 discipline 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 beginning must have mistaken their own religion, and
acted as enemies of Christ, until at last in the sixteenth or seven-
teenth century, a handful of Puritan and Anabaptist schismatics
discovered the truth : a supposition which is too absurd to merit
a serious refutation.
SECTION II.
ON THE MEANS OF DISCRIMINATING VARIABLE FROM INVARIABLE
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 dis-
criminate those traditions or customs 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 after-
wards ; such as trine immersion in baptism, the administration
of confirmation at the same time, the administration of the eucha-
rist in both kinds, &c.
Are then all rites and points of discipline contained in scrip-
ture and tradition non-essential and variable ? I reply that they
are not.
First, there can be no doubt of the perpetual obligation of
those rites which Christ declared necessary to salvation, and
which all Christians from the beginning believed to be so : I
72 VARIABLE AND INVARIABLE DISCIPLINE. [PART III,
mean baptism and the eucharist. And we are bound by a sense
of the importance of those rites, to adhere to that form of admin-
istering them which is found in scripture, and which the universal
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 whole 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 have ordained them every-
where ? Such are confirmation, ordination, episcopacy,^ matri-
mony, reading of scripture in the church, 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 of grace, or appears plainly either not to have been
delivered in all churches by the apostles, or to have been gene-
rally held non-essential and changeable in primitive times,
then it must be regarded as designed only for temporary pur-
poses, 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
eceived by the church. Hence, we may infer that the feasts of
charity, the kiss of peace, the wearing of long hair, the order
of deaconesses, as not being connected with grace ; and the
unction of the sick, as not universally received,^ were change-
able rites.
w [As a mode of government, namely ; and as regards jurisdiction ; as
the channel for the transmission of the divine commission it is surely not to
be classed among " rites," nor degraded to the rank of a mere " custom."
See Part VI. chap, i.]
" The first writer who clearly mentions this rite as customary is Tnnocen-
CItAP. IV.] VARIABLE AND INVARIABLE DISCIPLINE. 73
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 supported by ancient tradition only, might be omitted
by the church for special reasons. Such are, trine immersion
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 received 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 Reformation, as being inconvenient and burdensome ; the
rebaptizing of heretics or the opposite practice ; the Roman
jurisdiction over other particular churches,'* administering milk
and honey after baptism, standing at prayers between Easter
and Pentecost. In fine, those rites which are not mentioned in
tius, bishop of Rome, who lived in the fifth century : the earlier testimonies
are disputed by Romanists themselves. If it were supposed that the sick
might receive some consolation by this rite, it is plain that what Romanists
regard as its principal object, the remission of sin. is previously obtained by
repentance, absolution, and the reception of the holy eucharist. Indeed, it is
disputed among themselves whether the unction remits any but yen/aZ sins,
(Bellarmin. De Extr. Unct. lib. i. c. vii.; Tournely, De Extr. Unctione, p.
68) or whether the faithful are bound by any divine or ecclesiastical precept
to receive it, and whether St. James's words are not to be understood as
advice, not as precept. — Tournely, p. 74.
y [The extremely slender support of the eucharist of infants by " ancient
tradition " hardly justifies its place in this catalogue. See the Dissertation
of Dr. Waterland. Works. Vol. IX.]
* Melchior Canus observes that the Lent fast, though apostolical, is
changeable. — De loc.Theol. lib. iii. c.5.
"^ Though the precedence of the Roman church above the rest was early
VOL. II. — 10
74 VARIABLE AND INVARIABLE DISCIPLINE. [pART III.
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 ceH-
bacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, and tlie use and
honouring of images. The practical evils of such rights afford
an abundant reason to justify their removal : but it should be
observed, that piety as well as prudence would prevent us from
affirming, 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 anti-
christian. The church universal might not always be aided to
perceive what was most expedient 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.
Ansiue7\ The word faith here means a fvll persuasion that
what we do is lawful, as appears from the context. Bat this
persuasion or faith is immediately attained, on observing that the
law of God does not forbid that action : for " sin is the trans-
gression of the law."° Therefore, there is no necessity that the
"faith" here meant, should rest on the express institutions or
precedents of scripture.
and universally acknowledged, and does not appear to have been originally-
instituted by any council ; still in this case the rule of St. Augustine, " Quod
universa tenet ecclesia, nee conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est,
non nisi aucloritate apostolica traditum rcctissime creditur," does not apply ;
because the origin of this precedency may be reasonably accounted for with-
out supposing any apostolical institution. See Part VIII.
'' Rom. xiv. 23. See Hooker, vol. i. p. 368. ed. Keble, for the puritan
use of this text.
" 1 John iii. 4.
CHAP. IV.] PURITAN OBJECTIONS. 75
II. " My son, if thou wilt receive my words, &c. . . so tliat
thou inchne thine ear unto wisdom . . . then shalt thou under-
stand righteousness, and judgment, and equity : yea, every
good path."*^ Therefore, no action is good which is not con-
tained in scripture.
Answer. I admit that the wisdom here spoken of, and which
enables us to understand every good path, is contained in scrip-
ture : but with regard to certain good works, /. e. those of varia-
ble rites and discipline, it furnishes general rules only.
III. " Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."° Now,
no man can glorify God except by obedience, and obedience has
respect to the word of God. Therefore, every action of man
must be directed by the word of God.
A^isiuer. 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
disciphne is, by general rules, not by specific enactments.
IV. Several passages from Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome,
Hilary, &c. are cited,^ in which the absolute necessity of scrip-
ture 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 soldiers
wearing garlands, asks, " where it is commanded in scripture ;"
in reply to. his adversaries' question, "where it is forbidden in
scripture."^ Therefore, both parties appealed to scripture as
conclusive in the question.
Answer. 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.
"* Prov. ii. 1, &c. Hooker, p. 363.
e 1 Cor. X. 31. Hooker, p. 365.
^ See Hooker's Works, vol. i. p. 378, &c. ed. Keble.
g Tertullian, De Corona Militis, see Hooker, p. 387, &c.
76 PURITAN OBJECTIONS. [PART III.
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 utihty of the scripture would have
been less, if all rites and disciplines which might be useful to
the church had ^een expressly mentioned. For, the univer-
sality of the church in respect of time and place, would render
the expediency of things exceedingly variable. Consequently,
scripture would have contained many things obsolete or useless,
and instead of comprising scarcely any thing but the unchange-
able 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 apf>arently 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 licentiousness of
private judgment and action that would have filled the church
"with confusion,
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 produc-
tion of faith. This is the position which I am about to main-
tain, avoiding on one side the error of those who would found
faith solely on the examination 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 . . . teach-
ing 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 knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man,'"' &c. " The things that
thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same com-
mit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.""
"Remember them which have the rule over 3^ou, who have
spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow.""^
" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your-
selves : 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 instruc-
Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. " Eph. iv. 11, 12. = 2 Tim. ii. 2.
^ Heb. xiii. 7. • Ibid. 17.
78 RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO FAITH. [PART III.
tion ; " How shall they believe in him of whom ihey 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 designed to
produce Taith.
Besides this, Christian parents are to teach their children
the gospel, to "bring them up in the nurture and and admoni-
tion of the Lord :"^ all Christians are to love their neighbours
as themselves ; and on this principle, " Let no man seek his
own, but every man another's wealth,'"^ they are to " comfort
themselves together and edify one another.^^^ In fine, the
gospel is equally the privilege of all the faithful ; and all in
common, according to their degree, are exhorted to "contend
earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints."'^
The church, then, is a society, in which, by the divine insti-
tution, a great and complicated system of instruction is always
to continue. The admonitions of preachers, the words of pa-
rents and friends, the conversation and acts of all the brethren,
all combine to impress the 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. Irenajus
says : " It is necessary to hear the presbyters of the church
who have sticcession 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."^ Tcrtul-
lian : " To know what the apostles taught, that is what Ciirist
revealed to them, recourse must be had to the churches which
they founded, and which they instructed by word of mouth,
f Rom. X. 15—17. s Eph. vi. 4. >> 1 Cor. x. 24.
' 1 Thess. V. 11. '' .Tude. 3.
' Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses, lib. iv. c. 26. " Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia
sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionein habeat ab apostolis'
■sicut oslendimus ; qui cum episcopatus succcssionc charisma veritatis cer-
ium secundum placitum Patris acccperunt."
CHAP, v.] RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO FAITH. 79
and iheir 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 succeed to them. He that heareth you heareth me,
and he that despiseth you despiseth me."° Augustine : " The
authority of the scriptures themselves commends the church ;
therefore, since the holy scripture cannot deceive, let him who
fears to be misled by the obscurity of the present question
(concerning baptism) consult concerning it the same church,
which without any ambiguity the holy scripture demonstrates."^
By preaching the apostles converted heathen nations before
the scriptures were written, and Irensus testifies that in his
time, some nations believed the gospel without being able to
read the scriptures. i So it has been even to the present day,
m " Quid autem prajdicaverint, id est quid illis Christus revelaverit, et
hie pi-ffiscribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas
ipsi apostoli condiderunt, ipsi eis prsedicando, tam viva, quod aiunt, voce,
quam per epistolas postea." — Tertull. De praescript. c. xxi.
a " Si vero secundum banc intelligentiam, quam docet ecclesia, aceipia-
tur, Dei lex, tunc plane omnes humanas supereminct leges, et vere Dei
lex esse credetur." — Origen, Hom. vii. in Levit. t. ii. p. 226. ed. Benedict.
0 " Qui dicit ad apostolos ac per hos ad omnes prcepositos, qui apostolis
vicaria ordinatione succedunt : Qui audit vos, me audit ; et qui me audit,
audit eum qui me misit. Et qui rejicit vos, me rejicit, et eum qui me mi-
sit." — Cyprianus, Epist. ad Florent. Pupian. Ixix. ed. Pamel.
p " In hac re a nobis tenetur Veritas cum hoc facimas quod universal
jam placuit ecclesiae, quam ipsarum scripturarum commendat auctoritas ;
ut quoniam sancta scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit hujus
obscuritate qusestionis eamdem ecclesiam de ilia consulat, quam sine ulla
ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat." — August, contr. Cresconium,
lib. i. c. 33. t. ix. p. 407.
1 Irenaeus, xVdv. Haeres. lib. iii. c. iv. " Cui ordinationi asscntiunt
multffi gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et
atraraento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutcm, et veterem
traditionem diligenter custodientes, in unum Deum credentes," &c.
80 RELATION OP THE CHURCH TO FAITH. [PART III*
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 Chris-
tianity, of the authenticity, inspiration, and uncorrupted pre-
servation of scripture, of the accuracy of translations, of the
universality and antiquity of the church, of the nature of its be-
lief in all ages. It is true that those who have more information
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 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 afiirmed
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 expand-
ed and cultivated, it is enabled to perceive a wider range of
evidence : but the certainty of faith does not vary with the
amount of the understanding : the evidence which an unlettered
man has of Christian truth is suflEicient to produce the firmest
faith.
We are here met by two opposite parties, who unite in as-
serting 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 infallible authority of the
existing church, or else solely on the infallible authority of
scripture.'^
' This argument was common to Roman controversialists and their op-
ponents in the 16th and 17th centuries.
CHAP, v.] HUMAN AND DIVINE FAITH. 81
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 Chris-
tian truth is believed because God hath spoken it, that belief is
divine, by whatsoever means it may have been produced. The
patriarchs and apostles had this faith by means of immediate
inspiration, 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 patents'
instruction, some by means of the scriptures only ; but in all
these cases, divine faith exists whenever the doctrines of reve-
lation are believed finally on the authority of God.
Secondly, the testimony of the church, though given by fal-
hble men, is a means sufficient to produce the firmest convic-
tion that certain doctrines were revealed by God.
Those professing Christians who rashly and inconsiderately
deny this position, and who set aside human testimony as un-
certain, in order to establish some system 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
genuineness, authenticity, and uncorrupted preservation of scrip-
ture is uncertain : if all human testimony be uncertain, then all
the evidence of the perpetual existeyice, universality, belief,
and judgments of the church, is uncertain. Thus there is no
external evidence of rehgion left, except the assumed infalli-
bility of the existing church, which itself can only be known
to exist universally, or to give any particular evidence on any
point, by human 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 C^sar or Alexander
the Great ever lived, whether any country which we have not
visited ourselves exists, whether there be a sovereign if we
VOL. II. — 11
82 RESOLUTION OF FAITH. [PART III.
have not ourselves seen him, or magistrates if we have not
witnessed their appointment.^
Such a principle then is opposed to common sense. It is
evident that human testimony in all these instances is capable
of producing so high a degree of certainty, and is really so
credible, that he who disputed it would be justly regarded as
insane. Hence, I contend that human testimony is a sufficient
means of conducting us to divine faith, by assuring us infalli-
bly 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 individuals, is an ordinary
means of producing faith ; that faith does not rest entirely or
finally on the authority of the existing church.* This autho-
rity assures us most credibly that God revealed certain truths,
that the scriptures which we have, may be relied on as his
wordjt hat the Christians have always believed as we do. Nor
are we prevented, but encouraged, according to our opportuni-
ties, to confirm our faith and enlarge our knowledge, by con-
sulting the word of God and the records of the church. The
learned w^ill at last rest their faith on the word of God, that is,
on the true meaning of scripture, established by the consent of
all ages and the irrefragable judgments of the universal church."
* See the very able argument of M. Fray sinuous, bishop of Hermopolis,
in his " Defense du Christianisme, ou Conferences sur la Religion." (Sur
le Temoignage, torn, i.)
t " By experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading
men so to esteem of the scriptures " (that they are the oracles of God)
"is the authority of God's church. For when we know the whole chutch
of God hath that opinion of the scripture, we judge it even at the first an
impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the church, to be of a
contrary mind without cause." — Hooker's Wojks, vol. i. p. 475, ed. Keble.
"The authority of God's church prepareth us unto the faith and serveth
as an introduction, to bring us to the discerning and perfect apprehen-
sion of divine things, but is not the ground of our faith, and reason of be-
lieving."— Field, Of the Church, book iv. c. 8.
" Michael Medina (one of the theologians at Trent) attempts to prove
CHAP, v.] RESOLUTION OF FAITH. - 83
It is therefore in vain objected, that if the testimony of the
existing church be the ordinary means of faith, Luther and the
reformers were unjustifiable in disputing 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 ex-
isting church as supernatural or infallible ; and if in any point
the more common opinion be found on attentive examination
inconsistent with scripture and the opinion of former ages, it
may be rejected ; because the testimony of the existing church
derives its value only from its faithfully representing the doc-
trine of scripture and of antiquity. I do not ajffirm, however,
nor is it to be believed, that the whole existing church would
unanimously teach what was contrary to the articles of the
faith certainly revealed by Christ ; and the Reformation pro-
fessed that it did not differ in any such points from the catholic,
or even the Roman church, but only concerning matters of
opinion and practice. It would also be in vain to object to
our doctrine, that we cannot make an act of divine faith before
we first open the scriptures to the following effect : " As I be-
lieve that God is, so I beheve 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 beer^ already shown that the testimony of the church
when unanimous, as it is in this case, is capable of producing
the most perfect conviction, though it be supposed nothing-
more than human testimony.
We are not guilty of arguing in a circle, when we prove the
church from scripture. We believe that a falsehood cannot
that the tdtimate resolution of faith is into the authority of the church. — ■
Be recta in Deum Fide, lib. v. c. 11. Melchior Canus denies this, and
teaches that our faith rests finally on the authority of God. — De locis
Theol. lib. ii. c. 8. Stapleton also says: "Ecclesiae vox non est ultima
fidei resolutio, ita ut in ea tanquam in authoritatem supremam desinat in
eaquesistat mens fidclis." — Lib. viii. Princ. cap. 20.
V Bossuet, Conference avec M. Claude, CEuvres, t. xxiii. p. 300.
84 ARGUMENT IN A CIRCLE. [pART III.
have obtained universal currency among the learned and the
good, among conlradiclory sects and parties. We think it
rational to believe the testimony of all men to that vi^hich most
men can have no interest in supporting it if it be not true. We
believe on that testimony, that the Bible is genuine, authentic,
uncorrupted, that it has always been received by Christians as
we find it, that it is fairly translated. And from the plain lan-
guage 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 argu-
ment which is perfectly absurd, and which Roman theologians
are obliged insLantltj to relinquish, when they attempt to defend
Christianity against infidels. 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 the church's divine
j)rivileges.^''
" Cardinal de la Luzerne, in replying to llie charge of arguing in a cir-
cle, observes : " It is false that we prove the authenticity of the books
and the true meaning of the texts we employ, only by the infallible autho-
rity of the judge of controversies. With regard to authenticity, we only
employ, to prove infallibility, passages taken from books which the protes-
tants receive as we do. We suppose their authenticity as a matter agreed
on both sides. If we had to prove this aullicrdicily, we should indeed
argue from the testimony of the church, not of the church as an infallible
judge, but as a constant and perpetual witness since the publication of those
books ; and as having always regarded them as her law. It is thus that
we are sure that the Alcoran was truly the work of Mahomet. It is thus
we know the authenticity of all books whatsoever." — Dissert, sur les
Eglises Cath. et Prot. t. ii. p. 263, 264. This is precisely our mode of
argument. In the same manner Delahogue says : " When we have to do
with adversaries who deny both scripture and the church, we argue dilTer-
cntly. First, we prove the authenticity of the scriptures in the same way
as it is customary to prove the authenticity of other ivorks : then we prove
CHAP, v.] CONTROVERSY BETWEEN BOSSUET AND CLAUDE. 85
The controversy betvv^een Bossuet and M. Claude, Calvinist
minister at Charenton,^ in which the former had evidently the
advantage, turned very much on two points ; first, whether
behef founded on human testimony must necessarily be human
and uncertain : secondly, whether it is essential to true faith to
be founded on personal examination. Claude incautiously ad-
mitted the former : whence Bossuet inferred, not unreasonably,
that the Protestants have nothing but an uncertain faith in
scripture, which is the very foundation of their whole religion.
Claude also maintained the latter in the affirmative, which ena-
bled 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 quarters 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 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 " per-
petual 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
that their authors were inspired, who committed to writing what they were
commanded by God to teach everywhere." — (Tract, de Eccl. p. 107.)
After this, the church, he says, is jiroved from scripture, and here certainly
is no vicious circle : but how absurd is it then to turn upon us, and call on
us to admit doctrines solely on the infallible authority of the church, because
we have no other proof of the authenticity of scripture except that infalli-
ble authority !
* Ut supra.
86 ARTIFICES OF ROMAN CONTROVERSIALISTS. [PART III.
who act on it in all the concerns of life, cannot, without incon-
sistency, 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 testi-
mony should only be found amongst the followers of the infi-
dels Tindal and Hume.
In controversies with professing Christians we have a right
to assume the truth of revelation, the authenticity, genuineness,
and inspiration of scripture : if these be denied, we no longer
argue with Christians. Romanists, who in controversies con-
cerning Christian faith, call on us to prove the authenticity,
genuineness, and inspiration of the scriptures, should be
met by d^ positive refusal ; because this is not a point in con-
troversy 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 proof of scripture is invalid,
and we may then meet them, but not as members of the Ro-
man Obedience, not as believers.
The mode of argument adopted by too many Romanists 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 uncorruptcd preservation of scripture, in order
to establish 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
y It is stated on the authority of Bossuet that Petavius retracted this
opinion. — ^Watcrland's Works, vol. v. p. 257. Oxford edit.
CHAP., v.] ARTIFICES OP ROMAN CONTROVERSIALISTS. 87
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 catholic 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.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE ALLEGED NECESSITY OF EXAMINATION AS A FOUNDA-
TION OF FAITH.
It has been maintained by some persons among the oppo-
nents of the Roman church, that faith in order to be real and
saving, must be founded solely on individual examination of
scripture. Hence, they would send every individual to the scrip-
ture to form his own religion 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 Christians to read
the scriptures, for the confirmation of then- faith and the increase
of their knowledge : but I deny that it is essential to faith, that
it be founded on personal examination of scripture ; it is suffi-
cient if by any testimony, the mind be convinced that the doc-
trines 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 produced : therefore personal
examination of scripture cannot be the only essential means.*
If it were, the 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, before they had examined them. The chris-
tian ministry instituted by God himself, would be not only useless
but injurious ; because their instructions could not fail to inter-
=• See some most just observations on this subject in Dr. Hook's Sermons
before the University of Oxford, Serniou III. on the Authority of the
Church.
CHAP. VI.] PRINCIPLE OF EXAMINATION. 89
fere 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 notions 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 themselves. 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.""
Ansvjer. Our Lord admonished the unbclievintj Jews to search
the scriptures, that is, to examine the prophecies which spake
so plainly of him. But besides these, 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 vnthout searching the scriptures they had
already believed in Jesus for " his works' sake ?" Certainly
they would : and therefore our Lord did not mean that " search-
ing the scriptures " was the only means of obtaining faith.
IL " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, 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 believed."'^
Answer. (L) We read that three thousand souls believed on
the apostle's vjords,^ therefore it was not essential to examine
the prophecies before they believed. (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
•> John V. 39. <= Ibid. 3.3—37.
'' Acts xvii. 11. , ' Ibid. ii. 41.
' Ibid, xvii. 5 — 10.
VOL. II. — 12
90 PRINCIPLE OF EXAMINATION. [p. III. CH. VI.
on an examination of the prophecies ; but because they were
wiUing to receive the v^^ord, 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 scriptures alone are a sufficient founda-
tion 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 foun-
dation of faith, so that he who does not derive his faith from
such examination, is devoid of faith.
IV. It is the principle of the Reformation that faith is only
to be founded on scripture. The Church of England sends
her members to the Bible, to examine whether her religion is
true or false.
Answer. (1.) The Reformation maintained that all articles
of faith should be proved from scripture ; but it did not affirm
that each individual must himself examine scripture, before he
believed any doctrine. On the contrary, every branch of the
Reformation taught children to believe the articles of the Chris-
tian faith, before they could possibly examine them. (2.) The
Church of England sends her members to the scripture, 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,"'
s 2 Tim. iii. 16. ^ Canons 1603 and 1640.
« Athanasian Creed.
A
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART IV.
ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN MAT-
TERS 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 doctrine of
Christians in all ages as a testimony which cannot reasonably
be rejected, and have briefly touched on the office of the ex-
isting 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 judg-
ments have on individuals.
I shall, in the first place, trace the right of the church uni-
versal 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 ; secondly, 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.
CHAPTER I.
THE CHURCH IS A JUDGE IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES.
In maintaining the right of the church to judge in controver
sies, it is necessary to hmit her authority to its proper object.
It is not, then, supposed by any one, that the church is autho-
rized to determine questions relating to philosophy, science,
legislation, or any other subjects beyond the doctrines of Reve-
lation : her office relates entirely to the truth once revealed by
Jesus Christ.^
The position which I am about to maintain is, that the
w^hole catholic church of Christ, consisting of pastors and peo-
ple, and every portion of it, are divinely authorized to judge in
questions of religious controversy ; that is, to determine whe-
ther a disputed doctrine 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 opponents of church authority
who believe in revelation, that individual Christians are autho-
a This is admitted by Roman theologians. " Requiritur ut res sit defini-
bilis de fide, videlicet ut sit mediate vel immediate revelata. Unde si, prae-
ter institutionem suam, Concilium Generale pronuntiaret circa questiones
physicas, mathematicas, ad studia legum 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, Bellar-
minus, Veron, in sua regula fidei, Bossuet, in Defens. dcclar. part. i. 1. 3.
c. i. Tournely, Delahogue, p. 216, &c. Hinc etiam si concederetur con-
cilium Lateranense, i. et iv. erravisse approbando expeditiones vulgo dictas
les Croisades, nihil inde sequerctur." — Bouvier, Episc. Cenomanensis,
Tract. deVera Eccl. p. 235. See also Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 210,
after VcitJn ; Melfchior Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. ii. c. 7, p'roposit. 3 juxta
fin.
CHAP. I.] THE CHURCH A JUDGE IN CONTROVERSIES. 95
rized by God to judge what are the doctrines of the Gospel ;
therefore, as a necessary consequence, many, or all Christians,
i. e. the church collectively, must have the same right. What-
ever 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 .ndi-
viduals to judge, directly establishes that of the church.
II. The scripture says, " If there come any unto you and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house ; nei-
ther bid him God speed, for he that biddeth 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, which is according to
godliness . . . from such withdraw thyself."'^ " We command
you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disor-
derly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."*^
" If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a
heathen man and a publican."® These and many other texts
establish the right, or rather obligation, of Christians to pre-
serve their religion, by holding no communion with open sin-
ners, 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 com-
munion those who teach doctrines contrary to the Gospel, the
t 2 John, ver. 2. * 1 Tim. vi. 3.
^ 2 Thess. iii. 6. • Matt, xviii. 17.
96 THE CHURCH A JUDGE IN CONTROVERSIES. [PART IV.
right of the church (which is the same thing) is directly estab-
lished.
III. The same pov^rer is specially and peculiarly given to the
ministers of religion. They are authorized to teach the tru h,
and therefore to discriminate it from error, and to oppose them-
selves to false teachers, and separate them from their com-
munion. This appears from the following texts : " Go ye and
teach all nations .... teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you."^ " Of your ownselves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disci-
ples after them ; therefore watch,"^ &c. " I besought 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 witness-
es, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also,"' " That he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.'"' " A man that
is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject."^ &c.
IV. "The church of the Hving God" 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 com-
munion 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 pur-
pose of preserving and propagating his revelation, by which is
the way of salvation. Therefore it must be furnished with
f Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. « Acts xx. 30. ^ 1 Tim. i. 3.
i 2 Tim. i. 9. ^ Tit i. 9. '1 Tit. iii. 10.
■" 1 Tim. iii. 15. "1 Cor. xiv. 23. " Tit. i. 11.
CHAP. I.] THE CHURCH A JUDGE IN CONTROVERSIES. 97
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 doctrines 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.
This conclusion is confirmed by the universal practice of
professing Christians in every age. We know from Irenseus
and others, that the Christians avoided all intercourse with here-
tics.p 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 condem-
nation of heresies, or confirmation of the truth ; and these being
approved and acted on by the faithful and their pastors, in every
part of the world ; the judgment 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, Do-
natists, cScc, established suflEiciently 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 conscience."'^ Owen, and other Indepen-
dents, claim for particular churches the right of judging in mat-
P I enpeus adv. Haeres. lib. iii. c. 3. cited above, Vol. I. 106.
q Westminster Confession, chap. xxxi. art. 3,
VOL. II. 13
98 THE CHURCH A JUDGE IN CONTROVERSIES. [PART IV.
ters of faith, and of expelling heretics ; and for the churches
collectively, the right of judging particular churches, and sepa-
rating them from communion if heretical/ It is the same with
every other sect.
The Lutherans acknowledged the right of the church to
judge in controversies : they appealed to the judgment 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
which the highest decided controversies in faith. Those of
Holland, in the synod of Dort, condemned the Arminians : the
reformed confessions approved of the ancient judgments 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 affirm that " the church has authority in
controversies of faith.""" They exercised this authority in fram-
ing articles of doctrine, approving of the ancient creeds, con-
demning 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 religious communities, renders it superfluous to adduce the
accordant sentiments of theologians in different ages. It also
renders any attempt to adduce the opposite opinions of indivi-
duals perfectly futile.
The right of the church to judge in controversies, and to act
' Owen's Gospel Church, chapters x. and xi.
• See Part I. c. xi. s. 1. ' Ibid. s. 3.
u Ibid. s. 3. T Article XX.
«- In the synod, x.v. 1640. ' Canon v.
CHAP. I.] THE CHURCH A JUDGE IN CONTROVERSIES. 99
on her judgments, by separating those who oppose them, is all
I here contend for. What the autliority 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.
i^:
CHAPTER 11.
ON THE MODES OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS.
It would be unreasonable to maintain that the judgment 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 accounted to be the judgment of the remainder. If a law
be made by tlie rulers of a commonwealth, which, being pub-
lished to all, is notoriously approved by many within that com-
monwealth, 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 individuals, by one or more of the mem-
bers in the name of all, the rest being present and showing no
sign of disapprobation, but, on the contrary, receiving and act-
ing on the sentence, that sentence is evidently authorized by all.
In the same manner, the judgment of the church may be abun-
dantly 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 apostles themselves confirms this. When
" all the multitude 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 Anlioch,
Syria, and Cilicia, in the name of the apostles, elders, and
brethi'en,^ concerning the matter in controversy; thus declaring
the approbation of the multitude of the faithful at Jerusalem,
though there is no evidence that they individually expressed
their judgments, nor perhaps were in any way consenting, ex-
" Acts XV. 23.
CHAP. II.] MODES OP ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. 101
ceptby silence. In the same manner the judgment of the Coun-
cil of Nice, in the case of Arius, was fairly esteemed the judg-
ment 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 empowered to issue formal judgments or decrees in
controversies of religion, or is every individual equally author-
ized to do so ? I reply that
The right of making public and formal decrees, in contro-
versies of religion, is vested in the ministers of Jesus Christ.
I argue this from the nature of the office of the ministers of
Christ, who are leaders of the church in matters of religion,
" ensamples to the flock."^ . . . The office of every pastor is to
be " an example of the behevers ... in faith."'' The duty of
the faithful is to attend to their admonitions : "Remember them
which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the
word of God, whose faith /o//oio."'^ " 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 people,
who, when they see the sword coming, are to blow the trum-
pet, and give warning to the people.^ They alone are the shep-
herd's 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,"'^
and to guard 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 peculiarly com-
manded to censure and rebuke gainsayers of the truth : " Re-
buke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith ;"^ " A
man that is a heretic after a first and second admonition, re-
ject.""' Therefore the ministers of Jesus Christ are authoriz-
'' 1 Pet. V. 3. <= 1 Tim. iv. 12. ^ Heb. xiii. 7—9.
« Heb. xiii. 17. *" Ezek. xxxiii. s 1 Pet. v. 4.
f" Acts XX. 28—31. ' Acts xx. 29. ^ 1 Cor. xii. 29.
' Tit. i. 13. " Tit. lii. 10.
102 MODES OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. [pART IV.
ed, 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 assume 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 observances, the brethren of
Antioch did not think it necessary 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 in many
parts of the world. Paul of Samosata was condemned by
seventy bishops of the Oriental diocese. The innumerable
synods of the East and West generally comprised only bishops,
and the deputies of absent bishops. Each church was repre-
sented by its pastor, and the other believers never esteemed it
necessary or expedient to attend these assemblies and unite in
their decrees, though, some were occasionally allowed to be pre-
sent, and to subscribe. Even the Independent, Owen, holds
that in synods, which consist of the delegates 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 exercise 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 controversies
of religion are sometimes made in oscumenical synods, consist-
» Owen's Gospel Church, p. 432.
CHAP. II.] MODES OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. 103
ing 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.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE CONDITIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS.
The judgments of bishops or councils in religious controver-
sies, are of little weight in the church, unless they be given law-
fully. If their decisions are not free, but constrained by exter-
nal force and violence, they are in themselves of no weight, be-
cause they do not exhibit the genuine judgment of those who
made them. If they manifestly act under the influence of pre-
judice and passion, or in blind obedience to some leader, their
decrees are also devoid of authority in themselves. The church
has often rejected the decisions of such synods. Thus the synod
held at Ephesus, under Dioscorus, against Flavianus, patri-
arch of Constantinople, and that of Ariminum, where the
Arian party deceived the orthodox, were 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 whether 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 irregularity in the original proceedings
be pleaded in proof that it is not a lawful judgment of the uni-
versal church.
Certain conditions, however, must be found in all real judg-
ments of the church.
I. They must be decreed and published by a sufficient au-
CIUP. III.] CONDITIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. 105
thority, 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 cer-
tain doctrines as heretical, and establishing the contrary truth,
this decree must necessarily be known throughout the whole
church.
II. They must be universally received and acted on. If the
church know^s of such decrees, and yet does not receive or act
on them, the)'- are evidently not generally approved. If the
church universal acts on those decrees, she evidently approves
of them. If they are only received and acted on in a part of
the church, they represent only the judgment of that portion
of the church : e. g. the Latin synods were only received in
the Latin churches.
III. There must be no proof that they are received every-
where by a mere act of submission to authority, by a blind
impulse, without any examination or judgment 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 presumption, however, that the church
generally has not exercised any judgment on certain decrees,
would be insufficient to reduce the authority of those decrees
to that of their framers, if the church has acted on them : be-
cause it is not to be supposed, without evident proof, that any
great Christian community would fail to exercise a conscien-
tious vigilance over the faith. ., ,,.,
In speaking of a universal or unanimous reception and appro-
bation 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
VOL. II. — 14
106 CONDITIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV.
the judgment. Scripture, in teaching us that heresies were to
exist, shows tliat a judgnme.nt, 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 con-
tested. Where parties approach to any thing like an equality
in numbers, learning, &c. there is an evident want of una-
nimity ; 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 Nestorians 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 heretics or schismatics, and thus manifested
the nioral unanimity 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 question of re-
baptizing heretics, the opposite decrees of the African synod,
and of the Roman see, were respectively supported by nume-
rous adherents. 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, provincial, 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 pronounced,
it now remains to inquire, w^hat authority this judgment is in-
vested with ; that is, whether individual Christians, then and
in all future time, are, or are not, bound to submit to it. In or-
der to narrow the question, let us suppose that a judgment in a
controversy of faith has been made by a great council of bish-
ops, assembled from all parts of the world ; that this, their
judgment, has been transmitted to all churches, publicly ap-
proved by many, received, accepted, and acted on by all : that
no opposing voice has been heard ; or, if a few individuals have
objected, that their very fewness has evinced the sentiment of
the vast majority, who also separate them from their commu-
nion as heretics : let us suppose that this judgment is not con-
strained by force and violence, nor given under the influence
of any authority which destroys its freedom : the question now
is, whether 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 sepa-
ration 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 mani'
festation, for the following reasons :
1. It has been already proved that the universal church is
divinely authorized to judge in religious controversies, and to
expel from her communion those who teach what is opposed
to her faith. But Christ cannot have authorized two contra-
108 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV,
dictory judgments or actions ; therefore, when the universal
church has manifested 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 con-
trary 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 ana-
thema."^ It would also be sinful and detestable in the sight
of God, to teach merely human theories and opinions as 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 doctrines 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 church universal could positively condemn
and extirpate the revealed truth, or pollute it by the admixture
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 inconsistent with the promises of Christ
himself: " Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
world ;"° " The Spirit of truth shah abide with you for ever ;"'i
For how could Christ be with a church which publicly and
unanimously contradicted his word ? That a large portion of
the church might, for a time, receive errors, from ivant of in-
quiry, or merely by implicit obedience to an authority supposed
to be infallible, may be readily conceded ; but that the whole
church, with the apparent use of all means, should unite in a
regular and orderly condernnation 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 necessary
» Gal. i. 8. "1 Tim. iii. 5. <^ Matt, xxviii. 20. ^ John xiv. 16, 17.
CHAP. IV.J AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 109
to salvation, would be inconsistent with the promises of Him
whose word cannot fail. Hence, I infer that such a judgment
as I have supposed, cannot be false or contrary to the Gospel ;
and, therefore, individuals cannot be justified in opposing their
private opinions to it, and incurring the sentence of excommu-
nication 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 revela-
tion, than the body of Christ's ministers throughout the world,
together with the great body of believers. How can it be sup-
posed 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 when the multitude of the believers unite in a judg-
ment contrary 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 judg-
ment.
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 believers 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 brethren
e 1 Cor. xiv. 36.
110 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV.
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, tur-
bulence, division, heresies ; and, at length, when the human
mind is wearied with 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 Protes-
tant, afford a strong argument for the necessity of submission
to the judgment of the universal church ; for, surely, it is im-
possible that Christ could have designed 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 radi-
cally 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 judgment 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 individu-
als to judge in questions of controversy ; and, therefore, the
judgment of all the church cannot be binding on them. I re-
ply, that God has indeed authorized individuals to judge, ac-
cording to their means of judging ; but their judgment is limit-
ed by the divine will, for every one admits that it is not free to
reject any doctrine of revelation. Now, all I contend for here
is, that their right of judgment is so far limited, that it is not
entitled to reject what is manifested to be a doctrine of revela-
tion, by so great an evidence as the legitimate judgment of the
universal church. They are not entitled to oppose their own
opinion, devoid of all authority, to the judgment of the multi-
tude 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. ^
*" See Chapter I.
CHAP. IV,] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. Ill
The right of individual judgment is positive and unquestion-
able, as far as it. extends. 1 allow, that individuals exorcise a
sacred right, or rather dt/ti/, in examining and judging of doc-
trines under controversy, according to their capacities and sta-
tions. But this process of examinationprecet/<?5 the time when
the judgment of the universal church is manifested : till that
period different opinicnis may he held : but afterwards reason
and piety require the sacrifice of a private opinion to the judg-
ment finally ratified by the universal consent.
II. I maintain, further, that such a judgment is irrevocable,
irreforniahle, never to be altered.
First : all individuals are bound to submit to such a judg-
ment, as I have shown ; consequently, no one can lawfully
bring the doctrine once decided, into controversy again ; and
there can be no new decision on it. ' '
Secondly : the church in one ago has no greater promises
from Christ than in another ; if, therefore any new decision be
binding on individuals, the decision formerly made nnist have
been equally so : if a new decision should not be allowed to be
obli^-atory, it would be superfluous to alter that which was for-
merly made.
Thirdly : the universal church could not reverse her judg-
ment, without admitting that, although to all ap})earance she
had employed all lawful modes of attaining to the truth, she
had failed ; she would, therefore, be obliged to admit, that not
even under the most favourable circumstances, could the pro-
mised aid of the Holy Ghost be securely relied on : in this case
it would, at least, be just as probable that licr former decision
was right, as any other wjiich she could now make. But the
supposition that the church could not, under any circumstan-
ces, 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 con-
trary to that of Christ, and excommunicate those who maintain
112 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV,.
the revealed 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 supposed, cannot be al-
tered or revoked ; because by virtue of Christ's promises, as I
have shown, it must be true and in accordance with the Gos-
pel.
The doctrine of Christians, from the earliest period, recog-
nized the authority attached to the faith of the universal church :
" Where the church is, there is the Spirit of God," says Ire-
nreus : " and where the Spirit of God is, there also the church
and every grace exist : but the Spirit is truth. "^ " It is neces-
sary 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 Irenaeus, the judgment of the whole body of tlie successors
of the apostles, cannot be false. Clement of Alexandria says :
" He ceases to be faithful to the Lord, who revolts against the
received doctrines of the church, to embrace the opinions of
heretics."' TertuUian : " 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 testi-
mony ; that the Holy Spirit who 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 Stew-
ard of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected his office, permitting
g " Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei ; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic cc-
clesia et omnis gratia. Spiritus autem Veritas." — Irenaeus adv. Haer. lib.
iii. c. 24.
1" Irenaeus adv. Haeres. iv. 26. See above, p. 78.
fw iUKKna-Mo-TUiiv Tnt^dSoa-tv. — Clemens Alexandr. oper. p. 890. cd. Potter.
^ " Omnem vero doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapiat
contra veritatem ecclesiarum, et Apostolorura, et Christi, et Dei." — Tei-
tuU. de Praesoript. c. 21. p. 209. ed. Rigalt.
CHAP. IV.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 113
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 /"^
&c. Alexander of Alexandria : " We believe so as it pleases
the apostolical church . . . these things v^^e teach, these we
preach, these are the apostolical doctrines of the church, for
which we are ready to lay down our lives."'" Hilary of Poic-
tiers : " The reason of our Lord's silting in the ship, and the
crowds standing without, arises from the accompanying cir-
cumstances. He was about to speak in parables, and by this
sort of proceeding 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 resem-
ble -barren and useless sands, cannot understand it."'' Cyril of
Jerusalem : " The church is called catholic, because it teaches
catholicity, and without omission, all points that men should
know."° Maximus : " I wish you, with all your power, to
' " x\ge nunc, omnes erraverint ; deceptus sit et Apostolus de testimonio
reddendo : nuUam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus, uti earn in veritatem dedu-
ceret, ad hoc missus a Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset doctor
veritatis ; neglexerit officium, Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, sinens eccle-
sias aUter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quod ipse per apostolos pras-
dicabat : ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantse in unam fidem erraverint 1"
— Tertull. Prsescript. Hasret. c. 27, 28.
TctuTa. lUie'JTTO/uiV, TXVTOL T»c iKKKxtriai; Ta d-TTrxTToXtKa i'oyy.a.TO., Cttsp Zv KAt dTTcBviior-
iKfxit. — Alexander Alexandr. apud Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. iv.
° '■ Sedisse Dominum in navi, et turbas foris stetisse, ex subjectis rebus
est ratio. In parabolis enim erat locuturus : et facti istius genere signifi-
cat eos, qui extra ecclesiam positi sunt, nullara divini sermonis capere posse
intelligentiam. Navis enim ecclesiae typum praefert : intra quam verbum
vitce positura et praedicatum ; hi qui extra sunt, et arenas modo steriles
atque inutiles adjacent, intelligere non possunt." — Hilar. Pictav. com. inS.
Matt. c. xiii. p. 675. ed. Ben.
° K:t9oX<K» fMV oiiv KU-XilTctt , . . cT/i TO iiSdjKiiv >ci.SikiK2; Hi.) dn>XUvZ;, a-rcoiTx
VOL. II. — 15
114 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV.
turn away from all those who do not receive the pious and sav-
ing doctrines of the church."? Ambrose : " How can the tra-
veller 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."i Pacianus : " the church hath
neither spot nor wrinkle : that is, hath no heresies ; neither the
Valentinians, the Cataphrygians, nor the Novatians."'' Vincen-
tius : " The church of Christ, a diligent and careful guardian
of the doctrines entrusted to her, never changes aught in them,
diminishes nothing, adds nothing."^ The practice of the church
was accordant with these principles. Those who opposed the
universal faith were always accounted heretics ; and whenever
the judgment of the whole church was ascertained, the contro-
versy was held to be decided. That judgment was ever after-
wards 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 univer-
sal church acknowledged. The whole reformation professed
its adherence to the decisions of the ancient and genuine oecu-
menical synods.* The reformation maintained the perpetuity
T(x tU yvZa-iY dvflgwirav ik6uv o<^iiMvra Soyf/.!*.Tct. — Cjrril. Hierosol. Cat. xviii. p.
270. ed. Milles.
K-ti a-ctnti^nt SiyfxcLTo.. — Maximus, Oper. i. ii. p. 284.
q " Et tu in nocte es saeculi ; monstret tibi ecclesia viam." — Ambros.
Enar. in Ps. xxxv. Oper. t. ii. p. 776. ed Ben.
>■ " Ecclesia est non habens maculam neque rugam, hoc est hsereses non
habens, non Valentinos, non Cataphrygas, non Novatianos." — Pacian. Epist.
iii. ad Sempron. Bibl. Patr. t. ii.
9 " Christi vero ecclesia, sedula et cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum
custos, nihil in liis unquam permutat, nihil minnit, nihil addit." — Vincent.
Lirin. Commonitor. c. xxiii.
' See Part I. chap. xii. sect. 3. The Confession of Augsburg, received
by all the Lutherans and Reformed, says : " Non enim aspernamur con-
CHAP. IV.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS, 115
of the church, and the necessity of the truth revealed by Jesus
Christ;"^ therefore 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 scripture, *' she cannot
err ; ""^ and he observes, when urged with the text, " If he will
not hear the church, let him be unto ihee 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 de-
liberate 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
replied ; "If you understand by your church the church catholic,
sensum catholicae ecclesiae, nee est animus nobis ulliinni novum dogma et
ignotum sanctae ecclesiae invehere in ecclesiam, nee patrocinari impiis aut
seditiosis opinionibus volumus, quas ecclesia catholica damnavitJ^ — Confess.
August, c. 21.
" See Part 1. chap. i. sect. 2 ; chap. v. sect. 2 ; chap. xii. sect. 3.
V " Nos si demus illud primum, errare non posse ecclesiam in rebus ad
salutem necessariis : hie sensus noster est,"ideo hoc esse quod abdicata omni
sua sapientia, a Spiritu sancto doceri se per verbum Dei patitur." — Calv.
Instit. lib. iv. c. viii. s. 13.
" "Quid enim tandem obtinebunt (Romani) nisi non spernendum eccle-
siae eonsensum, quae nunquam nisi in veritatem verbi Dei consentit ? Eccle-
sia audienda est, inquiunt, Quis negat ? quandoquidem nihil pronuntiat
nisi ex verbo Domini. Si plus aliquid postulant, sciant nihil sibi in eo suf-
fragari haee Christi verba," &c. — Calv. Inst. iv. cap. viii. s. 15.
116 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [PART IV,
probably I should answer no ; but if you understand 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 the church should ever, by apostasy and
misbelief, wholly depart from God ... so we hold it never
falleth into any heresy ."^ Dr. Hammond, also, ypeaking the
general sentiment, declares that " We do not beheve that any
general council, truly such, ever did, or ever shall err in any
matter of faith ; nor shall we further dispute the authority,
when we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any
sucli."^ Bishop Pearson observes, 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 professes
behef in a universal church " to be propagated to all ages,
to contain in it all truths necessary to be knownJ'''^ Archbishop
Bramhall : " We are most ready, in all our differences, to
stand to the judgment of the truly catholic church, and its lawful
representative, a free general council."'' Dr. Saywell, Master of
Jesus College, Cambridge, says : " The divine wisdom has pro-
vided a more effectual means for removing of schism out of the
church, by erecting an authority in her, to end all disputes 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 con-
summation in glory : and thereupon our Saviour himself has
pronounced of every one that shall neglect to hear his church,
X Conference between Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar, near the be-
ginning.— Chillingworth's Works.
y Field, Of the Church, book iv. c. 2.
» Hammond, Of Heresies, p. 163.
» Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix.
b Bramhall, Works, p. 56.
CHAP. IV.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 117
' Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a pubhcan.' ""^
" St. Paul admonishes the bishops (Acts xx.), that of them-
selves should men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them : and this may happen even in large coun-
cils. But nothing like this can be said of the college of pas-
tors, or of councils truly oecumenical, 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 coun-
cil universally received and approved : for they teach the sa/ne
thing, and equally declare the evangelical faith ; nor do the pas-
tors, either when dispersed abroad or collected in a really free
council, bear a discordant testimony. The sa?ne truth is con-
tained in scripture, in tradition, in oecumenical synods. It
cannot be that an oecumenical council, or the free and true tes-
timony of the college of pastors, should be contrary to the tra-
dition of the church ; nor can any doctrine be confirmed by
the tradition of the church, which is repugnant to sacred scrip-
ture, since among all traditions none is more certain than that
of scripture. Therefore let the scripture retain its perspicuity
and sufficiency, tradition its firmness and constancy, the pastors
and oecumenical 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 in 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 Christian doctrine revealed in the holy scriptures, is, on
all hands, I think, denied : only that any particular church may
fall into such errors and practices, is, I think, as universally
granted."^ He also acknowledges that "when individuals
c Saywell on Schism, p. 82.
'' Praefat. ad Epist. Launoii, Cantab. 1689.
' Tillotson, Sermon xlix.
118 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [pART IV.
prove perverse and diobedient, authority is judge, and may re-
strain and punish them. This is true ; but then a question
occurs, who is to decide whether they be perverse and disobedi-
ent ? who is to judge whether they are heretics ? I say, of
course, authority."^ Bishop Bull, in speaking of the synod of
Nice, argues as follows : " In this synod the question was con-
cerning a chief point of the Christian religion ; namely, con-
cerning 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 supposed 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 Gos-
pel.^' This, indeed, would be inconsistent with the " godly
and wholesome doctrine " of the Homilies, which affirm that
the Holy Ghost was always to remain with the church : " Nei-
ther must we think that this Comforter was either promised, or
else given, only to the apostles, but also to the universal church
of Christ, dispersed through the ivhole loorld : for unless the
Holy Ghost had been always present, governing and preserv-
ing the church from the beginning, it could never have sus-
tained so many and great brunts of affliction and persecution,
with so little damage as it hath ; and the words of Christ are
f Sermon xxi. g Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaen. Procem. s. 2.
h See the very valuable Preface of Dr. Saywell to the Epistles of Lau-
noius, Cantabr. 1689.
CHAP. IV.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 119
most plain in this behalf, saying that " the Sjnrit of truth
should hide with them for ei;er," that " he would he with them
always (he meaneth by grace, virtue, and power,) even to the
world's endy^ 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, par-
ticular 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 autho-
rity ? What atom of authority would remain to tlie 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 Chris-
tian writer can be found, who has ventured actually to maintain
that the judgment of the universal church, freely and delihe-
ratelij given, with the apparent use of all means, might in fact
be heretical and contrary 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 endeavour to defend the truth ; and
something always remains for future generations to do, in criti-
cizing their particular arguments, and retaining those only
which are free from all defects. If we observe the general
' Sermon on Whitsunday, part ii. '' Article XX.
120 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [pART IV.
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 Ho-
sius, 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.^ Chillingworth ad-
dresses 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 absolute. '^ 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 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 justified in opposing
their own opinions 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 numerous, 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.
' Juelli Apologia. "" Chillingworth, Religion of Prot. chap. iii.
" Leslie, Case stated- between the church of Rome, &c.
OBJECT.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 121
OBJECTIONS.
I. 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, inde-
pendently of all other authority whatever.
Answer. (1.) Several eminent theologians maintain that the
word e^ivvZre should be translated "ye search." Of this opinion
are Beza, Lightfoot, Erasmus, and others cited by the Synopsis
Criticorum : also Dr. Campbell the presbyterian,^ who refers to
the dissenter Doddridge, to Worsley, Heylin, Le Clcrc, Beau-
sobre, &c. It has also lately been maintained ably by Bishop
Jebb.'i But if this translation be good, the objection falls to the
ground. (2.) These words are addressed to unbelievers, whom
Christ directs to search the prophetical scriptures of the Old
Testament, in order that the proofs afforded by his own mira-
cles, 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 enti-
tled them to doubt his own revelation in several points. There-
fore, no argument can be drawn from this text in proof of the
duty of believers to receive nothing except what they derive
from scripture 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 alleged the
° John V. 39.
p Campbell on the Gospels, in loc.
q Jebb, Practical Theology, vol. i. p. 286, &c.
' Acts xvii. 11.
VOL. II. — 16
122 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS, [P. IV. CH. IT,
prophecies, in proof that " Christ must needs have suflfered,
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 individually deduce from scripture ; and that, too, in
opposition to the judgment of the universal church.
III. To the Thessalonians it is said : " Despise not prophe-
sy 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.
Ansiuer. (1.) This interpretation would authorize Christians
to examine and dispute the doctrines revealed even by our Sa-
viour and his apostles. (2.) The direction to " prove all things,"
&c. relates to the necessity 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 au-
thorize Christians to oppose their own private opinions 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 inquirer 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 individuals not to hazard their salva-
• Ibid. 2, 3. t 1 Thess. v. 20, 21.
" 1 John iv. 1. ' John vii. 17.
OBJECT.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 123
tion, by reposing absolutely on their private judgment of scrip-
ture, vi^hen it is opposed to so great an authority as the deliberate
judgment of the church universal."'
V. " 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 profitable for doctrine,
&c. that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 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 appa-
rently against us. It is far more probable 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 written :
" All my children shall be taught of the Lord :"y " 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 libe-
rally, 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, "^^ &c. " He that be-
lieveth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself."®
Ansioer. I admit that all these passages prove the influence
w [Add, that the promise is general ; relative to the truth of revelatioa
in general, not of its particulars.]
^ -2 Tim. iii. 15—17. y Isaiah liv. 1-3. - Jer. xxxi. 33.
» John X. 27. ^ Ibid. xvi. 13. c James i. 5.
d 1 John ii. 27. ' 1 John v. 10.
124 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [p. IV. CH. IV.
of the Holy Ghost in leading believers into truth : but the pro-
mises are all general ; and if Christians universally, with all
the external signs of belief, with the use of all means, such as
prayer, the investigation of scripture, &c. agree in their judg-
ment, 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 interpre-
tation of scripture, cannot be legitimately drawn from it ?
VII. " Be not ye called Rabbi ; for one is your master, 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.
Answer, 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 heritage, 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 indivi-
duals 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 dis-
cover whether the church has actually judged in any particular
case. Why then should we not continue to exercise that rea-
son, in judging whether the decision itself is or is not conforma-
ble to scripture ? Why should we make use of our eyes to find
a guide, and then put them out to follow him ?
A^isiver. 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 dispute his doctrines,
or those of the apostles. In like manner, the inspiration of
scripture being once ascertained by reason, we cannot dispute
the doctrines revealed there, nor examine them by our own
f Matt. X. 20. e Ibid, xxiii. 8. " 1 Pet. v. 3. '2 Cor. i. 24.
OBJECT.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 125
reason. So also, if the church universal be authorized to
judge, wc are bound not to dispute her judgment, though we
may have exercised 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 doctrines 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. Therefore, some Western churches
subject to the Roman see, may have for a time received errors,
which better information 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
Augsburg.'' (3.) There is a great difference between common
opinions and practices, which may be received for a time with-
out examination, and by abuse ; and formal judgments of the
catholic church.^ The errors of Romanism were never sup-
ported by any such judgments.'"
X. The Articles maintain that the church and general coun-
cils have erred in faith.
Anstver. 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 approved and acted on the decree of any council
which opposed the faith of Christ.
^ Confessio August, pars i. art. 22 ; pars ii. prolog.
' See Chapter VI.
■" See Chapters X. XI. XII. where the authority of the councils alleged
by Romanists in proof of their opinions, is distinguished from that of the
catholic church.
126 AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. [p. IV. CH IV.
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 w^ith sound principle, to
maintain any authority except that of the Bible only, as binding
on Christians.
Ansiver. (1.) I 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 an-
other" in some points, that is, in matters of opinion, but not in
matters of faith. Chillingworth himself does not mean that
what he calls " fundamental " doctrines, i. e. those contained in
the creeds, have been denied by the universal church in any
age. Nor can it be proved, that any article of faith, ever con-
fessed by the universal church, has at any other time been relin-
quished or denied by the universal church."
n Chillingworth, Religion of Protestants, c. vi. sect. 56.
° See Bishop Van Mildert's impressive remarks in his eighth Bampton
lecture, where he observes, that " if a candid investigation be made of the
points generally agreed upon by the church universal, it will probably be
found, that at no period of its history has any fundamental or essential truth
of the Gospel been authoritatively disowned. Particular churches may have
added superstitious observances, and many erroneous tenets, to these essen-
tial truths ; and in every church, particular individuals, or congregations of
individuals, may have tainted large portions of the Christian community
with pestilential heresies. But as far as the church catholic can be deemed
responsible, the substance of sound doctrine still remains undestroyed at
least, if not unimpaired. Let us take, for instance, those articles of faith
which we have already shown to be essential to the Christian covenant . . .
At what period of the church have these doctrines or either of them, been
by any public act disowned, or called in question T No age of the
church has ever been entirely free from attempts to spread pernicious
errors ; yet at what period have they ever received its authoritative sanc-
tion "? " &c.
OBJECT.] AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL JUDGMENTS. 127
XII. The whole church fell into the Arian heresy m the time
of Athanasius, after the council of Nice had established the or-
thodox doctrine.
Answer. I deny that the universal church ever reversed the
decree made at Nice ; though many individuals 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.P
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.
Ansiver. The contradictory synods were not both approved
and acted on by the universal church. i
XIV. If God has authorized the catholic church to judge in
matters of controversy, then the true church rriust 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 communion, must be the true church.
Answer. 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.
p See Chapter X. section 2. "^ See Chapter X.
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 principle 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 sufficiently defended in many cases, without the
aid of any such judgment.
I. Some controversies, as every one admits, need no decision,
and may continue in the church. Some heresies .are so mani-
festly 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 w^hich have been known elsewhere, only in order to
be avoided.'"" Other sects, by their voluntary separation from
the church, or their formation exterior to it, are but little dan-
gerous to the faith of Christians. Even of those heresies which
a " Id tantum in ecclesia habendum est pro impossibili, quo facto, nullum
superesset veritati praesidium : at in casu, quern dicimus, tutum superesset
in ecclcsiae catholicae auctoritate pra3sidium : non ergo ille casus est impos-
sibilis."— Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. x. c. 36.
^ Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianor. lib. iv. c. ult. opcr. t. x. p. 492.
CHAP, v.] DOCTRINE OF A PERPETUAL TRIBUNAL REFUTED. 129
require to be condemned, very few need the united judgment
of the catholic church. More than sixty heresies were sup-
pressed before the synod of Nice, by the arguments and au-
thority 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 have been convened at any moment ; neither
could any bishop of Rome have made a decision in controversy
which would have been transmitted to, or acknowledged by all
the church. Consequently, the church was not at that time in a
condition to determine unitedly controversies 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 ac-
tually is at present), no new heresies shall be permitted to
arise, which would require the united judgment of the catho-
lic church ; but that any which do arise shall be capable of
refutation and suppression, by the light of scripture and tra-
dition, and the admonitions and judgments of the successors
of the apostles, either separately, or in provincial or national
synods. It may also be assumed, as a matter of certainty,
that if God should determine that the judgment of the united
c Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. ix. c. 1 ; Variations des Eglises
Prot. liv. XV. sect. 128; Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 331, &c. 360.
^ Roman theologians prove that none of these obediences were scliis-
matical. — See Tournely, Praelect. Theol. de Eccl. t. i. p. 643 ; Delahogue, De
Eccl. Cliristi, p. 34.
VOL. II. 17
130 DOCTRINE OF A PERPETUAL TRIBUNAL REFUTED. [PART IV.
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.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS
AND TRADITIONS, AND MERE COMMON OPINIONS.
Of doctrines and practices in tlie church, some have been
always universally received, and are matters of catholic tradi-
tion : 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 re-
linquished, as forming no part of the revealed truth, but rather
repugnant to it. It is now to be inquired whether such opin-
ions may at any particular time prevail 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 revealed by Jesus
Christ, may for a time prevail in a large portion of the cathohc
church.
1. No one pretends that individuals taken separately, 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 admitted by Roman theologians, that a
considerable part of the church may for a time be in error in a
matter of faith or morality, through soro.e mistake in a question
oifact : e. g. they do not deny that the Western churches very
" " Episcopos seorsum existentes non docet Spiritus Sanctus omnem
veritatem." " Singuli seorsum errare possunt." — Bellarmin. De Conciliis
et Ecclesia, lib. ii. c. 2.
132 COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE. [pART IV.
generally rejected the decree of the synod at Nice under the
empress Irene, in favour of honouring images.*^
2. The promises of Christ to his church did not extend to a
total exemption from all error, but to the preservation of the
truth revealed hy 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 in-
fallibility vi'as 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 a judgment made by the uni-
versal church, which always presupposes the use of all the or-
dinary means for attaining the truth. The necessity of this
vise of means is admitted by Roman theologians.*'
'' Bossuet, Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. vii. c 31 ; Delahogue, De Ecclesia
Christi, p. 177.
<^ Delahogue, De Ecclesia Christi, p. 148 ; Bailly, Tract, de Eccl. t. ii.
p. 269.
<i [Epist. Ccelest. ed Cone. Ephes. Act. II._Conc. Ephes.]
e In reply to the question on what conditions Christ promised to be with
councils, Hooke says ; " Si in nomine suo congregata fuerint, hoc est ser-
vata suffragiorum libertate, invocato cffilesti auxilio, adhibita humana indus-
tria et diligentia in conquirenda veritate .... Necesse igitur est episco-
pos in conciliis omnia adhibere humana et ordinaria media, industriac, dili-
gentiae, studii, collationis, disputationis, ad veritatem detegendam . . ;
neque enim illis nova fit revelatio, sod quod in purissimis scripture ac tra-
ditionis fontibus detegunt, hoc fidelibus proponunt," &c. — Relig. Nat. et
CHAP. VI.] COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE. 133
5. In fact, some opinions which are generally admitted to be
erroneous, have at various times prevailed commonly in a large
part of the church. Gerson says, that the false opinions con-
cerning 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 burn-
ing heretics, s and that of the pope's power in temporals.
The genuineness of the decretals of the early Roman pontiffs
was also universally held in the Western churches for some
centuries : and the error of fact in this case was most materi-
ally connected with doctrine ; for the papal supremacy, and in-
fallibility in matters of faith, are chiefly 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
Revel. Princip. t. iii. p. 390. So also Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 384.
Gregorius de Valentia observes, that the Roman 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 celebrationem hujus sacrosanctiE Constant, synodi,
sic occupaverat mentes pluriraorum, literarum magis quara literatorum ista
traditio, ut oppositorum dogmatizator fuisset de hceretica pravitate vel nota-
tus vel damnatus. Hujus rei signum accipe, quia post declarationem ex
theologiae principiis luce clariorem, et quod urgentius est, post determina-
tionera et practicationem ejusdem sanctee synodi, inveniuntur qui talia palam
asserere non paveant ; tam radicatum, et ut cancer serpens tarn medullitus,
imbibitum fuit hoc priscae adulationis virus Ijetiferum." — Gerson, De Po-
test. Eccl. consid. 12. Oper. t. i. p. 13.5. ed. 1606.
e This is argued at length by Eckius, Enchirid. p. 156, &c.
i» Melchior Canus, De locis Theol. lib. iv. cap. iv.
i See the very useful work of M. De Hontheim, bishop of Myriophyta,
entitled " Febronius," vi^here the influence of the spurious decretals in
raising the papal jurisdiction, is considered fully.
" Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 103. s. 28.
134 COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRITE. [pART lA'.
universally 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."^ 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 gene-
rally, in a large part of the church, may be in error : and in
fact Bossuet remarks, that " the united opinion of all the theo-
logians of modern times in a grave matter, makes only a pro-
bable opinion, which may not be despised without 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, eccle-
sia quae sunt contra fidem nee approbat nee tacet."P
6. Roman theologians admit that doctrines held even by
what they consider an infallible authority, and equivalent to the
I " Fieri potest ut opinio falsa communior sit inter theologos. Sic
sa?culo proxime elapso, omnes fere casuist<e sentiebant opinioni minus tutae
et minus probabili legitime posse adhajsionem fieri." — Bailly, De Ecclesia,
t. ii. p. 268.
m " Christus tantum promisit se futurum esse cum majore cpiscoporum
numero in iis qua ad fidem spectant, non in meris opinionibus quae variae
sunt pro variis temporibus." — Ibid. p. 269.
" " Id aperte incunctanterque profiteor, fore ut in gravissimos errores
impingat. qui non omnia saecula totamque tradilionis seriam mente com-
plexus, recentioribus se addixeret." — Bossuet, Defens. Declar. Cler. GaU.
Appendix, lib. ii. c. 14.
° Bossuet, ibid.
p Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 148.
CHAP. VI.] COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE. 135
universal church,i are not always de Jide, and therefore may-
be disputed. Bossuet says : " It is absolutely certain that
many things are said and done in (general) councils by which
cathohcs unanimously 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 contained in the uni-
versal councils, which are not de Jide. That is, whatever is
said obiter is not de jide.^'' And he also remarks on the con-
tents of the canons or chapters of such councils, that " this
only is de Jide which is actually defined, or as jurists speak,
the dispositivum arresti ; but the motiviim arresti, or its proofs,
are not de Jide^^ Thus, it is conceded, that even general
councils, which are supposed equivalent to the universal church,
may hold doctrines which are not de Jide, and may betiiisput-
ed ; and the reason of this is, because there is no discussion
or examination in the case, and the promises of Christ to his
church do not apply. Hence, we might infer on the principles
of these theologians, that some opinion even universally re-
ceived, is not de Jide, and may 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 probably 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 Jaith of the church."'^
This opinion was held by the author of the Glossa interlinearis,
S. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Turrecremata, and Alphonsus a
• Castro. Tournely says that " the church herself may err in
<j A General Council according to them is the representative church. —
See Eckii Enchirid. p. 16.
r Bossuet, Def. Declar. Cler. Gall. lib. iii. c. 1.
s Melchior Canus, De Locis Theol. lib. v. c. 5.
t Veron, Regula Fidei, c. i. s. 4.
" Melchior Canus, De locis Theol. lib. iv. c. iv.
136 COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE. [PART IV.
all -facts merely personal and historical, whose truth depends
on human testimony, in reporting the histories of martyrs and
other saints, in citing testimonies of the fathers as genuine
which are not so."^
8. In fine, T 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 authoritative declaration to this
effect has been adduced by Roman theologians.
We may infer from this, that if the Roman opinion of tran-
substantiation became very common in the West for two or
three ages before the reformation, this prevalence could not
make it an article of faith. Nor could the adoption of this
opinion afterw^ards by many of the Eastern Christians, confer
on it ayy binding authority. This opinion is disputed by seve-
ral churches, and is not universally regarded as a matter of
faith by Romanists.
II. 1 have thus endeavoured to show that some opinion 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 inquire
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 par-
donable mistake, as an article of faith. Bossuet sdiys, that
" some, many, or even most writers of an age, may say abso-
lutely and certainly, De fide est : erroncum est : haereticum
est : with more confidence than learning,"'^ And we know
V Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 431.
'■■' Bossuet, Def. Declar. Cleri Gallic. Appendix, lib. ii. c. 14. The
faculty of theology at Paris, in the fifteenth century, declared the immacu-
late conception of the Virgin to be de fide ; and in 1521 declared that the
doctrine of Clictovaeus, who held that Mary Magdalene was a different per-
son from Mary sister of Martha, and the sinner, was opposed to the doc-
trine of the catholic church, and should not be tolerated. Fleury, lib.
CHAP. VI.] COMMON OPINIONS NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE. 137
that in the Roman church, some of the Ultramontanes and
Cisalpines, and of the advocates of the immaculate conception,
regard tiieir own doctrines as matters of faith, and consider
their opponents as heretics. It is admitted by Roman theolo-
gians, that if national churches doubt on probable grounds
whether a certain oecumenical council is oecumenical, they are
not heretical in doubting its decrees :^ and on the same princi-
ple they are bound to 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 erro-
neous) to be matters of faith. This is actually exemplified by
the reception of the synod of Trent in the churches of the
Roman obedience.
III. May the church generally adopt a rite or custom 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 mo-
rality ; but this does not necessaril}'' 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
cxxvii. sect. 80. Launoy proves that the GalHcan doctrine of the superi-
ority of a general council to the pope, is de fide, and cites the Commoni-
torium of Cardinal de Lorraine in 1563, where he says, " Ego vero negare
non possum quin Gallus sim et Parisiensis academiae alumnus, in qua Ro-
manorum pontificem subesse concilio tenetur, et qui docent ibi contrariuin,
ii tanquam haretici notantur .'''' — Lauonii Epistolae, pars ii. ep. 5. ed. Can-
tab. 1689.
^ " Quandoque baud immerito ac bona fide dubitatur, utrum aliqua syno-
dus sit vere cBCumenica. Quale dubium contigisse vidimus Hispanicee et
Gallicae ecclesiee, circa synodum sextam et septimam, ad quas vocati non
essent." — Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. viii. c. ix. See also lib.
vii. c 29. 31. where it is shewn that several general synods were not re-
ceived by particular churches, which were nevertheless free from heresy.
See also Tournely, De Eccl. t. i. p. 401.
VOL. II. — 18
138 REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. [PART IV.
adopted the custom of honouring images, and invocating saints
to pray for us ; these customs might be afterwards accounted
very inexpedient 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 ; especi-
ally in ages when scripture and tradition were less consulted
by theologians^ 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 every-
thing from him, they can do nothing against his will, says,
" This doctrine falls of itself, on this account, that being un-
heard 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 proceed on philosophical reasonings of the
worst description, rather than to consult the fathers^y 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 studied the ori-
ginals. The schoolmen continually cite the Canon law as de-
cisive in matters of doctrine : and no one thought of disputing
the genuineness of the eary papal decretals, which are now
universally acknowledged 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
king S, Louis caused them to be sought for, and transcribed,
y Bossuet, Defensio Declar. Cler. Gallic, lib. viii. c. xi.
CHAP. VI.] REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. 139
and multiplied to the great advantage of learning ; and thence
arose the great work of Vincent of Beauvais, where wc see
extracts from so many ancient authors. In the preceding cen-
tury we see a great number cited in the works of John of Sahs-
bury : but this was the curiosity of some individuals. The
generahty of students and even of doctors, limited themselves
to a few books ; chiefly to those of modern authors, which they
understood better than the ancients."^ "I do not cease to
wonder that in times so calamitous, and with such 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 revive. " They did not engage in the
study of it, even in schools of theology, except with great luke-
warmness ; and they often contented themselves with imper-
fect extracts from it, found in the writings of some theologian
of little solidity, which they put in the hands of those who
wished to apply to theologica Iscience. Hence, the ignorance
which reigned in the clergy ; the few defenders which the
church found among them to maintain 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 afterwards, that " the theologians who preceded
the 14lh 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
^ Fleury, Cinqieme Discours sur I'Histoire Ecclesiastque.
a Ibid.
1) (xoujet, Discours sur le Renouvellement cies Etudes, printed with
Fleury's Discourses on Eccl. History.
140 REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. [P. IV. CH. VI.
Melchior Canus gives of the state of theology at the period of
the reformation, " Would that we ourselves had not known by
experience, that in the present age there were in the universi-
ties many, who carried on almost every theological disputation
by sophistical and absurd reasonings. The devil caused,
(what I cannot say without tears,) that when it was necessary
that the scholastic theologians should have been armed with
the very best weapons against the invading heresies of Ger-
many, they were absolutely destitute of any, except long reeds,
the trifling arms of children. Thus they were generally ridi-
culed, and justly too, because they possessed 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 sacred scripture, of which these men did not reach
even the shadows. Wherefore, being merety verbally doc-
tors of theology, they contended indeed against the enemies
of the church, but most unhappily." He afterwards says,
" Wherefore, we may account it sufficiently evident, how badly
men can dispute or write concerning theology, who either
reject, or are ignorant of the scripture, the apostolical tradi-
tions, the doctrines of councils, the decrees of pontifical law,
and the doctrine of the ancient saints." "= In 1530, the faculty
of arts of the university of Paris addressed to the parliament
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. Chrysos-
tom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, 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 doc-
tors of the church, and the Master of the Sentences.'^ All
these circumstances render it highly probable that several
opinions may have grown up during the middle ages in the
' Melchior Canus, De locis Theol. lib. ix. c. 1.
« Fleury, Hist. Eccl. lib. 133. sect. 91.
OBJECT.] REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. 141
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 cannot 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.) T 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
erroneous opinions 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 al-
ways remain with the faithful, and teach them all truth accord-
ing to his promise,
Ansioer. I do not suppose that the catholic church, defin-
ing formally and collectively, could do so at any time : it has
never yet done so : but the Spirit of Truth was given for the
preservation of the truth revealed by 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
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 judg-
ment, because all men would be bound to believe her ; but par-
ticular synods, and many members of the church dispersed,
142 REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. [p. IV. CII, VI,
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 tes-
timony 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 members of
the existing church be not infallibly true, we may doubt all
doctrines which have been taught us,
Ansiver. Though it be abstractedly possible that some pre-
valent opinion may be incorrect, yet we should not hesitate to
believe generally what is received in the visible church ; be-
cause the promises of Christ assure us, that the church, on
the whole, teaches the truth revealed by him ; and the autho-
rity 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.
Ansiver. These doctrines have been amply discussed long
ago, and approved by formal judgjnents of the church ; and
it is as notorious that they have been so approved, and always
received in the church as matters of faith, as it is that they are
so received at this moment. But doctrines which the universal
church has not defined, or matters held hy many individuals
without discussion and judgment are not equally certain,
VII, If individuals may at a particular time, commonly hold
an erroneous opinion, and through that opinion maintain an error
in doctrine, then there can be no binding authority in the tra-
dition of the church, which may have been corrupted at some
time.
Answer. Divine Providence would not have permitted any
OBJECT.] REFORMATION PROBABLY REQUISITE. 143
error, even one which is founded on ignorance, or on a mistaken
opinion, to prevail always in the church ; because it would, in
this case, have worn 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
prevailed 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 inquiry ^nd
discussion arose. Therefore, while I deny that the mere pre-
sent opinion and doctrine of individuals generally is absolutely
infallible, but affords only a probable reason, which may be relin-
quished when inquiry discerns evidently that a received opinion
is only modern ; I maintain, that universal apostolical tradition
is of irrefragable authority, as I have elsewhere said.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE NATURE AND AUTHORITY OF (ECUMENICAL SYNODS.
OECUMENICAL, 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 designate. 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 deter-
mining Vi^hether a council be oecumenical or not. Some con-
tend 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 the previous consent of the Eastern patriarchs, or
of temporal princes.^ These various opinions, as to the con-
ditions essential to constitute an oecumenical council, are dis-
cussed by Launoius, doctor of the Sorbonne ;^ and those
Romanists who affirm, as a matter of certainty, that the oecu-
menical synods are neither more nor less than eighteen, would
a For the various questions concerning general councils, and for a refu-
tation of the papal claims, see Field, of the Church, book v. c. 48 — 53 ;
Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy ; Crakanthorp, De loc. arg. ab author.
Logica;, c. 16 ; Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gallic, lib, vii. ; De Barral, Defens. des
Liberies de I'Eglise Gallicane, part iii. c. 2; De Hontheim, Febronius, c.
vi. ; Launoii Epistolae, pars vi. viii. ; Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 308, &c.
•> Launoii Epistolae, pars viii. ep. IL
CHAP. VII.] ON CECUMENICAL SYNODS. 145
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 respectabihty,
after Bossuet," that the only final proof of the oecumenicity of
a council, is its acceptance by the universal church as oecu-
menical ; and that this acceptance confers on it such an autho-
rity, 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 decrees, examines them
with the respect due to so considerable an authority, compares
them with scripture and catholic tradition, and by a universal
approbation and execution of those decrees, pronounces a final
and irrefragable sentence in their favour.
RomanistS; however, still most commonly contend 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 obedi-
ence ; and secondly, that it is an erroneous opinion.
SECTION I.
THE INFALLIBILITY OF A GENERAL SYNOD, LAWFULLY CELE-
BRATED, AND CONFIRMED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF ALONE, IS
ONLY A MATTER OF OPINION IN THE ROMAN CHURCHES.
It is necessary to premise that I here speak only of such a
synod as consists of the clear minority of the whole body of
<: Bossuet, Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. viii. c. ix. ad fin. ; Reponse a plu-
sieurs lettres de Leibnitz, let. xxii.
^ Subsequens ecclesiae dispersae approbatio est tantum signum, quo iUius
VOL. II. 19
146 INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL SYNODS [p. IV. C. VII.
catholic bishops, as has been the case in all synods hitherto.*'
I do not speaiv of a synod in which the great majority of bishops
vi^ere assembled, and decreed unanimously. Having stated this,
I argue thus :
1. According to the universal doctrine of those Roman theo-
logians who admit the infallibility of a general council con-
firmed by their pope, their infallibility, when united, arises not
from their union, but solely from that of one or other of the
parts, i. c. either from the council (as the Galileans hold), or
from the pope (as the Ultramontanes hold).^ But the infalli-
bility of either 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
cecumenicitas ita declaratur, ut de illius suprema et infallibili auctoritate
nullum moveri possit dubiura, sub quocumque praetextu conditiotuim quae in
illo desiderari dicerentur." — Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 166. See also
L. Jos. Hooke, Hcligionis Nat. et Rev. Principia, t. iii. p. 394.
e " Quisquis sit numerus episcoporum adstantium numquam constituit
majorem omnium universi orbis episcoporum partem." — Delahogue, De
Ecclesia, p. 166.
*" " Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem coneiliorum legitiniorum esse a
pontifice, non partim a pontifice, partim a concilio." — Bellarm. De Romano
Pontifice, lib. iv. c. iii. So also Turrecremata, Summa, lib. iii. c. 58 ;
Gregor. de Valentia, Analysis Fidei Cathol. lib. viii. c. 7. On the otlier
hand, Tournely holds, with the Gallican theologians, that the papal confir-
mation is not essential to the authority of a general counciPs decrees ;
observing, "Absque tali confirmatione . . . suam concilio cecumenico ....
stare firmitatem et auctoritatem, quam habet a Christo immediate, non a
S. Pontifice, cui proinde omnes christiani obedire tenentur cujuscumque
conditionis sint, etiam papalis, ut declarat synodus Constantiensis." — Tourn.
de Eccl. t. i. p. 219.
g Delahogue proves from the \Yalenburghs, Veron, Du Perron, the synod
of Trent, &c. that the papal infallibility is not dc fide. — De Eccl. p. 386,
&c. Bellarmine, Valentia, Canus, and the Ultramontanes generally, pro-
fess to prove that the infallibility of councils, apart from the pope's au-
thority, is so far from being de fide, that it is an error.
SECT. I.] NOT A MATTER OF FAITH. 147
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 tjhe 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 guard for the truth, and therefore it is not impossible
that such a council may err.
4. La Chambre, and other Roman theologians, have main-
tained, without any censure, that the catholic church herself
cannot define whether a disputed general council was really
general. This opinion is said by Delahogue, to lead to no
serious inconvenience, because its authors admit that the con-
sent given by the church to any council, confers on it all the
authority of a general council.' Nor is there any greater incon-
venience in our doctrine, which supposes that the approbation
of the church dispersed, gives to the decrees of any council a
ii " Id tantum in ecclesia habendum est pro impossibili, quo facto, nullum
superesset veritati praesidium : at in casu quem dicimus, tutum superesset
in ecclesia; catholicse auctoritate praesidium : non ergo ille casus est impos-
sibilis. Quas cum ita sint, ecclesia catliolica sola est, quee nunquam deficere,
nunquam errare possit, ac ne momento qaidem." — Bossuet, Defensio Declar.
Cleri Gallicani, lib. x. c. 36.
' " Quidam theologi ultra progressi sunt et dixere ipsam ecclesiam defi-
nire non posse aliquod concilium de cujus oecumenicitate dubitaretur, revera
cecumenicum fuisse : quia quod inquiunt, ibi agitur de facto de quo nihil
statui potest nisi innumerje expendantur circumstantia; ex quibus pendet
illius Veritas. Ita inter alios D. La Chambre in Gallico Tractatu de Ec-
clesia, t. iii. p. 16. et seq. Cum autem isti theologi admittant consensum
datum ab ecclesia alicui concilio cujus decreta approbat, illi omnem tribuere
auctoritatem concilii cEcumenici sive tale sit, sive non, ex hac opinione non
videtur grave sequi incommodum." — Delahogue, De Ecclesiaj p. 175.
148 INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL SYNODS, [p. IV. C. VII.
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 De Barral, archbishop of Tours, and by Trevern, bishop of
Strasburg, after Bossuet. The first says : " There are facts
which prove in an invincible manner, that neither the decrees
of popes, nor even those of councils, acquire an irrefragable
authority, except 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 representing 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 infaUihiliiy of its de-
crees."— " The council of Orange . . was by no means uni-
versal. 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 decisions
are no more disputed than those of the council of Nice, because
every thing depends 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 world conseyited then or afterivards,
those decrees are the decrees of the whole world. ... If We
go further back, Paul of Samosata was condemned only by a
'' " Quidam tamen theologi opinantur banc ecclesiae approbationem om-
nem auctoritatem concilio general! tribuere." — Bouvier, Tract, de Vera
Ecclcsia, p. 234.
' De Barral, Defense des Liberies de I'EgUse Gallicane, p. 284.
SECT. II.] GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. . 149
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 ad-
dress would be nothing), this decree is immoveable."™ Hence,
I conclude that the doctrine of the infallibility of a general
council confirmed 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
cathohc church. Bossuet, and many other theologians have
proved convincingly that he is liable to error and heresy, and
that his decision alone affords no infallible ground of faith. p
2. Assuming still that the synod consists of the minority of
° Reponse de M. Bossuet a plusieurs lettres de M. Leibnitz, — Lettre
xxii. cited by Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 222, 223.
" See the second division of the last Chapter.
° This subject is well treated by Ockham, Dialogus, part i. lib. v. c.'25 —
28, and lib. iii. prim, tract, iii. part. c. 5 — 13.
p See Bossuet, Gallia Orthodoxa, c. liv. and Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall,
lib. vii. c. 21 — 28, where he shows that Honorius erred though speaking ex
cathedra. The " Defensio Declarationis cleri Gallicani " is the best work
against the exaggerations of the papal power. See also Ockham, Dialogus,
part i. lib. v. c. 1 — 24, where the papal infallibility is refuted. Delahogue
shows that the papal infallibility may be lawfully denied by Romanists. — De
Ecclesia, p. 386, &c.
150 GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE, [p. IV. CII. VII.
the episcopal body, its judgment cannot be final and irrefraga-
ble, 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 minority of a tribunal so constituted, should be empow-
ered to decide controversies finally without the aid of the
majority.''
3. .The authority which is not common to all final and irre-
fragable judgments in faith is not itself final and irrefragable.
Now, decrees are received as such by Romans which have not
been made in general councils confirmed by a pope ; e. g. those
of the provincial 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 essential to
the preservation of the truth and the termination of controver-
sies, for it is undeniable that many heresies have been con-
•1 This is admitted by the theologians of Rome. " Verba quibus Christus
ecclesiae docenti inerrantiae donum pollicitus est, spectant ad corpus seu ad
collectionem episcoporum." — Bailly, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 592, " Privilc-
gium infallibilitatis non individuis sed corpori episcopormn fuit promissum ;
ita omnes sentiunt." — Bouvier, De Ecclesia, p. 189.
'' "Collegium quodcumque judicum nunquam minore illorum numero
repraesentatur, et autoritas quae definit semper est penes majorem numerum."
— Delahogue, De Ecclcs. p. 148. " Certum est minorem numerum epis-
coporum ceeteris contradicentibus, scntentiam infallibilem profcrre non
posse : nam infallibilitas corpori episcoporum promissa est : at minor nu-
merus majori oppositus corpus illud non reproesentat, ut evidcns est." —
Bouvier, De Eccl. p. 198. " Una est sola ecclesia militans quae contra
fidem errare non potest. Quia de sola universali ecclesia militante inveni-
lur in scripturis authenticis quia errare non potest. Concilium autem gen-
erale licet sit pars ecclesiae militantis universalis, tamen non est ecclesia uni-
versalis. Igitur temerarium est dicere quia concilium gencrale circa fidem
errare non potest." — Ockham, Dialogus, part i. lib. v. c. 25.
* See Bossuet, quoted above, p. 149.
OBJECT.] GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. 151
demned by bishops in provincial and national synods, and even
by individual bisliops ;' and the doctrine that heresy could not be
condemned, except by a general synod, w^as expressly censured by
the faculty of theology at Paris, in 1662, as it had been rejected
by St. Augustine.^ Therefore, these assemblies are not essen-
tial absolutely, and supposing that under certain circumstances
they may appear highly expedient or morally essential, yet their
infallibility is not so, because the subsequent consent and appro-
bation of the catholic church dispersed would furnish a suffi-
cient 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 therefore that Christ cannot have in-
stituted it for his church ; and besides this, an opinion cannot
serve as a foundation for certain faith, therefore, Romanists can
have no certainty 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 universal
church, and as in a commonwealth the representatives of the
t E. g. the Pelagians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, Aerians, Eustathians
See Melchior Canus, lib. v. c. 4. Many were suppressed by individual
bishops. — See Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 331.
" Bossuet, Gallia orthodoxa, c. Ixxxiii. Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p.
361. A.ugustine says : " Quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congre-
gatione damnata sit : cum potius rarissimae inveniantur, propter quas dam-
nandas necessitas talis extiterit ; naultoque sint atque incomparabiliter plures,
quae ubi extiterunt, illic improbari damnarique meruerunt, atque inde per
cfeteras terras devitandee innotescere potuerunt." — Aug. lib. iv. ad Bonifac.
c. ult.
152 GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE, [p. IV. CH. VII.
nation have the national authority, so the representatives of the
church have the church's authority. "^
Answer. I deny that bishops can properly or perfectly repre-
sent other bishops in deciding questions of faith, so as to render
the consent of the latter unnecessary. It is admitted that all
cathoUc bishops ought to be summoned to general councils,"^
and if any of them have a lavi^ful impediment, they are not bound
to depute 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 provincial synods. Gregory XIII. re-
plied 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. J' 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 responsibility to others. Therefore, bishops cannot be repre-
sented in a synod except in an imperfect manner, and such a
synod consisting of the minority of bishops, together with some
* Bellarmin. De Concil. et Eccl. lib. ii. c. 2. Ockham replies to this
ar^ment. Dialog, part i. lib. v. c. 25. Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p.
370. 376.
w " Omnes episcopi qui catholica communione inter se et cum Romano
Pontifice devinciuntur, convocandi sunt; nam jure divino omnes aequalem
habent potestatem de controversiis circa fidem judicandi ; ergo nullius con-
vocatio negligi potest quin jusdivinum leedatur." — Bouvier, De Vera Eccle-
sia, p. 224. See Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 382.
* Labbe, Concil, t. xv. p. 873.
y " Constat hujusmodi delegatos non nisi ex speciali concessione vocem
deliberativam in conciliis habuisse. Concilium Tridcntinum banc faculta-
tem ipsis denegavit." — Bouvier, De Vera Ecclesia, p. 187. So also Dela-
hogue, 182. See Paolo Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent by Cou-
rayer, vol. i. p. 221.
OBJECT.] GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. 153
deputies of absent bishops, does not represent the cathohc
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 delibera-
tion, have an exceedingly great authority in themselves ; but
until they are accepted and executed by the universal church
they are not to be considered 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 authority of the Nicene
creed, and even the canon of scripture, will be doubtful.^
Ansiver. If those ancient decrees were approved by the uni-
versal 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
scripture 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 incon-
sistent 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 obey
if" the synod "enjoins what is contrary to the divine com-
mands ?" 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 dis-
persed throughout all nations. The passages of scripture cited
I Melchior Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. v. c. 4 ; Turrecremata, Summa de
Eccl. 1. iii. c. 58 ; Bellarmin. De Concil. et Eccl. lib. ii. c. 4.
» Ibid.
VOL. II. — 20
154 GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. [P. IV. CH. VII.
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 contro-
versy all will be uncertain, or there will be imminent 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 obediently for the judgment of their pious
mother."^
V. The decrees of general synods are prescribed to be re-
ceived under pain of anathema : we must, therefore, blame the
fathers who composed them, if any subsequent aj)probation of
the catholic church was requisite.''
Answer. The decrees oi provincial synods, as that of Gan-
gra, 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 ; but it should be always understood as being
only intended to take effect under the supposition that it agrees
with the judgment of the universal church. To imagine other-
wise 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 promises 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
b Bossuet, Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. x. c. 36.
c Bellarmin. de Concil. et Eccl. lib. ii. c. 4,
d Melchior Canus, ut supra. Delahogue, Tract, de E"-.!. Christi,p. 173.
OBJECT.] GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. 155
cupidity. We might ask, why, when Christ said to his apos-
tles, ' Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world,' the bishops were not, like the apostles, to enjoy the pro-
mise of unfailing faith. "^
VII. Ambrose calls the decrees of general councils " here
ditary 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 de-
crees of her councils ; namely, to consign in writing to poste-
rity, what she had received by tradition from antiquity."'
Therefore these fathers believed such councils to be invested
with the authority of the whole catholic church.
Answer. They only spoke of synods universally received and
approved by the church, which we fully admit to be invested
with the authority of the catholic church.
VIII. Several passages of scripture prove the infallibility 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 hving God, which is the
pillar and ground of the truth. "'^
Answer. (1.) None of these passages can prove the point in
question, because I have already shown that it is nothing more
than a matter of opinion even in the Roman churches. (2.)
These passages, in promising inerrancy, relate to the church
• Bossuet, Defensio Decl. Cler. Gallic, lib. x. c. 36.
^ Ambros. de Fide, 1. iii. c. 15.
e Leo, Epist Ixiii. ad Theodoret. Labbe, Cone. t. iii.
•» Gregor. Epist. ad Joan. Constantinop. Episc. Epistolar. lib. i. c. 24.
i Vincent. Lirin. Commonitor. c. 13. 28.
^ Bellarmin. de Conciliis et Eeclesia, lib. ii. c. 2.
156 GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. [P. IV. CH. VII.
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 om* 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."i
Answer. (1.) Were this interpretation correct, it would prove
provi?icial synods infallible, and equal in authority to general
synods, which no one admits. Besides that, every thing would
be thrown into confusion, if in the tribunal of the church a
minority could issue a final judgment. (2.) The promise of
our 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 de-
scription 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, whicii
reckons the synod of Nice as the Jirst general council. Mel-
chior Canus says that this apostolic synod was not general but
provincial.'^ It is in fact a model for all synods which arc to
decide matters of controversy, and would prove the infallibility
J Tournely do, Ecclesia, t. i. p. 378.
" Tournely de Ecclesia, t. i. p. 387. Delahogue, Tract, dc Eccl. Chris-
ti, p. 167.
" " Quod enim ibi congregatum legitur, hoc non generalc sod provinciale
concilium fail." — Melc. Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. v, c. 4. conclusio 5.
OBJECT.] GENERAL SYNODS NOT INFALLIBLE. 157
of provincial synods, as well as that of general synods. Be-
sides 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 confirm-
ed 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, even by the Pope ;
and this decree was confirmed by Pope Martin V, The same
was decreed by the synod of Basil. Therefore, he who denies
the authority of a general council denies that of the universal
church. P
Ansiuer. (1.) I admit that a general council represents the
universal church, but not so perfectly as to be able to dispense
with the confirmation of the universal church dispersed. (2.)
Bellarmine affirms that the council of Constance was not oecu-
menical 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 examina-
tion.i The same objections are urged by Gregorius de Valen-
tia'' from Cajetan, and by Ligorio.^ The synod of Basil is re-
jected by the same writers as not oecumenical when it made
its decision.
o Melchior Canus, Loc. Theolog. lib. v. c. 4.
P See Ockham, Dialog, lib. iii. 1 tract, iii. partis c. 5.
q Beliarminusde Concil. Auctor. lib. ii. c. 19.
f Gregor. de Valentia, Analys. Fid. Cath. lib. viii. c. 7.
= Ligorio, Theol. Moral, lib. i. art. 129—133.
;.: • 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 cathohc
church approves the judgment of any council, she does not ne-
cessarily declare the validity of the proofs adduced in that judg-
ment to support it ; nor does she authorize every thing which
may be introduced in explanation, in reply to objection, or even
cursorily and incidentally. The church only approves the sub-
stantial doctrine which has been defined : and she offers no
opposition to incidental positions advanced in connection with
such doctrine, though she may judge them less probably true ;
provided 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 ques-
tions 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 controversy, by enabling us
to discriminate the real definitions of the catholic church from
extraneous matters which others may attempt to mix up with
them, to the disadvantage of the cause of revealed truth, and of
our catholic and apostolic churches.
Melchior Canus, whose doctrine in this point has been follow-
ed by all subsequent Roman theologians, says, " If all things in
councils arc not certain (for the Holy Spirit does not assist them
in every thing) by what method shall we discover those decrees
of councils which are certain in matters of faith ?" In reply to
this question he observes : "The doctrine of pontiffs and coun-
cils is a judgment of faith, if it be proposed to the whole church,
CHAP. VIII.] REMARKS ON THE DECREES OF SYNODS. 159
and if it be also proposed with an obligation to believe it. But
we should carefully remark 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 judg-
ments of doctrine 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 distinguished ? Certainly.
The first and most manifest is, when those who assert the con-
trary 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 excommmiication is denounced ipso jure
against those who contradict a doctrine A fourth, when
it is expressly and pecuharly declared 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 objections, or even obiter
and in transcursu, beyond the principal design, the matter ac-
tually 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 de
fide: — 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 discus-
sion of matters about to be defined.'' These principles are
^ Melchior Canus, de Locis, Theol. lib. v. c. 5.
'' Yeron, llegula Fidei, c. i. s. 4.
160 REMARKS ON THE DECREES OF SYNODS. [PART IV.
generally admitted by Roman theologians, as by Bossuet,'^ De-
lahogue,'! &c.
The second principle above mentioned, is also maintained by
Melchior Canus, Bellarmine, Veron, Bossuet, Tournely, Bou-
vier,'' &c. Delahogue says " Veron, in his 'Rule of Faith,' c-
4. p. i. no. 8, says, ' The object ought to be definable as a mat-
ter of faith : therefore doctrines relating to law or philosophy,
are not definable as matters of faith.' " He then cites Bellar-
mine, who (lib.iv. de Roman. Pontiff.) 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 in error
concerning /a?iA, fortius question did not pertain tofaith."^
Hence it follows that the church could never have defined as
a matter of faith the common Roman opinion of transubstantia-
tion, which supposes that the appearances and accidents of
bodies have a real existence, 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 deci-
sions concerning them be matters of faith. This seems to have
been felt indeed by several members 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 io faith and piety,"^ thus intimating his per-
suasion that the opinion of transubstantiation was not a matter
of faith. The learned Benedictine Barnes says, that "the as-
sertion of transubstantiation, or substantial change of the bread,
c Bossuet, Dcfens. Declar. Clcr. Gall. lib. iii. c. 1.
<i Delahogue, de Eccl. Christi, p. 213, 214.
e Bouvier, Episc. Cenomanensis, Tract, de vera Ecclesia, p. 235, where
he cites these theologians. See above, p. 94.
f Delahogue, p. 210.
£ Cassander, Consultatio de Artie. Relig. Oper. p. 939.
CHAP. VIII.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161
although the more common opinion, is not the faith of the
church. "1^ Des Cartes was charged by the doctors of Louvain
with advancing philosophical principles, which subverted alto-
gether the doctrine of transubstantiation.' In fact, though he la-
boured at first to prove the consistency of his views with that doc-
trine, in reply to Arnauld ; he ultimately taught that the real pre-
sence in the eucharist consisted in the union of the matter of bread
with the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ.'^ This doctrine, which
was entirely contrary to the common Roman opinion of transub-
stantiation 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 transubstantiation consisted in the conversion of
the substantial form of bread into that of our Lord ; the matter
of bread remaining. The doctors of the Sorbonne, in their cor-
respondence with Archbishop Wake, were willing to relinquish
the term transubstantiation 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 transubstantiation, as defined by the synod of Trent, was 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 dog-
ma." In fine, we may observe, that Roman writers generally,
in the present day, avoid as much as possible the question of
transubstantiation, and wish only to engage in controversies on
the real presence : and there are other reasons for believing that
h Barnes, Catholico-Romanus pacificus, s. viii. in Brown's Fasciculus
Rerum, t. ii. p. 849.
' Doctorum aliquot Lovan. Judicia, a.d. 1653.
k La Vie de M. Des Cartes, part. ii. p. 520. ' Ibid. 521.
™ See Maclaine's third Appendix to Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. The Com-
monitorium of Du Pin, which contains the above proposal, was, it seems,
read and approved in the Sorbonne.
° Courayer, Hist, du Cone, de Trente, from Sarpi, t. i. p. 547.*
VOL. II. — 21
162 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. [PART IV.
some of them do not view the former doctrine as an article of
faith.
With regard to the canons, or decrees of disciphne, made by
oecumenical synods, it may be observed, that they are of a dif-
ferent authority from their decrees on faith ; and that generally
they arc not binding on churches, except by their own consent.
But of this I shall speak more fully when the authority of the
church in matters of discipline is under consideration.
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE SIX (ECUMENICAL SYNODS.
The catholic church has never received or approved more
than six synods as oecumenical, which are as follows : 1. 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 630 bish-
ops at Chalcedon, a.d. 451 ; 5. the synod of 165 bishops at
Constantinople, a.d. 553 ; 6. the synod of 170 bishops at Con-
stantinople, A.D. 680. The oriental church admits one other
synod as oecumenical,^ the Roman churches now also acknowl-
edge 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 Andrewes, 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, properly speaking, condemn
any new heresy. Field says : " Concerning the general coun-
cils of this sort, that hitherto have been holden, we confess, that
in respect of the matter about which they were called, so near-
ly 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
' The synod of Nice under Irene, 787
164 THE (ECUMENICAL SYNODS. [P. IV. CH. IX.
it is not to be marvelled at, if Gregory profess that he honour-
eth the first four councils, as the four gospels, and that whoso-
ever 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,"^ &c. He seems,
however, to allow the second Nicene 787, and the fourth of
Constantinople 869, as general ; though disapproving 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.^
'' Field, of the church, b. 5. c. 51.
c Hammond, of Heresy, c. iii. s. 7 — 11.
d Saywell on Schism, p. 211,
e " Sex fuisse generalia legitima concilia nemini est dubium." Crakan-
thorp, de loco arguend. ab Authorit. Logicae, c. xvi. reg. 12. S. Ward,
Determinat. Theol. p. 103. cited by Saywell, Praefat. Epist. Launoii.
t Declaratio Thoruniensis, I.
g Calvin, says, " Sic priscas illas synodos, ut Nicaenam, Constantinopoli-
tanam, Ephesinam primam, Chalcedonensem, ac similes, quae confutandis
erroribus habitae sunt, libenter amplectimur, reveremurque ut sacrosanctas,
quantum attinet ad fidei dogmata : nihil enim continent quam puram et na-
tivam scripturae interpretationem, quam sancti Patres, spirituali prudentia,
ad frangendos religionis hostes, qui tunc emerserant, accommodarunt." —
Calv. Institut. 1. iv. c. ix. s. 8. He rejects the error of the MonotheJites,
condemned by the sixth oecumenical synod. — Inst. ii. 16. 12, The Helve-
tic Confession, 1566, cap. xi. receives the creeds and doctrines of the first
four and principal councils, and all others like them. The Centuriators of
Magdeburg admit the six oecumenical synods. — Saywell, Praefat. Epist.
Launoii juxta fin. cites the reformed divines, Chamier, Alsted, Daille, as of
the same sentiment.
SECT. I.] FIRST (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 165
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 Alex-
andria, who denied the divinity of the Son of God, maintaining
that he was a creature brought forth from nothing, and suscep-
tible of vice and virtue.' Though the authors of these blas-
phemies 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 afterwards, which addressed a
synodal letter to all churches ;^ yet the Arian party, headed by •
Eusebius of Nicomedia, having also held a meeting atBithynia,™
and addressed a letter to all churches in favour of Arius, the
judgment 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 pres-
byters, Vitus and Vincentius, attended as representatives of the
Roman bishop, but none of the ancient writers, except Gelasius
'■ Socrates. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 8 ; Sozomen. lib. i. c. 17 ; Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 4. 7.
i Socrates, i. 56. 59. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 9. Fleury, liv. x.
s. 39.
•^ Socrates, i. 6.; Athanas. or 1. cont. Arianos; Fleury, liv. x. c. 38.
' Socrates, lib. i. c 6; Theodoret, i.e. 4. 7.
■" Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15.
11 Eusebii Vita Constant, lib. iii. c. 10 ; Theodoret, i. 7.
° Richerius, (Histor. Concil. General, pars i. c. 2.) proves that Alexan-
der and other patriarchs presided. Launoius (Epist. ad Raimund. For-
mentin. Epist. p. 701. Ed. Cantab.) proves from the synodal epistle, Euse-
bius, Proclus, Felix HI. Facundus Hermianensis, Athanasius, Theodoret,
Sozomen, &c. that Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and
Hosius of Corduba, presided. ■ ,
166 FIRST OECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX,
of Cyzicum, 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. p
Arius was permitted to state his doctrines before the synod,^
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 disci-
pline. 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 rriade."^^
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 from nothing, that he did not exist before
he was ingendered, and that there was a time when he did not
exist ; that by his 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 hsten to such blasphemies."''
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 Cyzicum states that the prin-
p Launoii Epistolae, ut supra. i Socrates, lib. i. c. 9.
■■ E. g- by the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Pelagians, &c.
' Fleury, liv. xi. s. 14. t Ibid. s. 15.
" See Dr. Routh's Opuscula. ^ Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 9.
" Eusebii, Vita. Constant, lib. iii. c. 14, &c. j Theodoret, lib. i. c. 10;
Socrates, lib. i. c. 9.
SECT. I-] FIRST (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 167
cipal 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 J
Sulpitius Severus remarks, that the Arians themselves " not
daring to utter any thing 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 received, ap-
proved, and acted on by the church throughout 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
years, expelling from their sees the most orthodox 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 Arimi-
num 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,
X Gelasius Cyzicen. Hist. Cone. Nic. lib. ii. c. 35.
y Marius Victorinus, lib. ii. contra Arium. Bibl. Patr.
I Sulpitius Severus, Hist. Sacr. lib. ii.
a See Socrates, i. 26 ; Fleury, liv. xi. s. 58. In his confession of faith
he protested that he used the words in the sense of the church. See Har-
duini Concilia, t. i. p. 551.
1' Fleury, 1. xii. s. 33. •= Ibid. 35. <» Socrates, ii. 24.
" Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 1. iv. c. 17. Socrates, ii. 37.
16S SECOND CECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX.
Sardinia, Cyprus, Crete, Pamphylia, Lycia, Isauria, Egypt,
Lybia, Pontus, Capadocia, and ihronghout 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 every where, declaring that "hence-
foi'th no synod ought to be received in the church, but only that
of Nice."' In fine, the Nicene faith was confirmed by the oecu-
menical synod of Constantinople, a. d. 381,'' by those of Ephe-
sus,^ Chalcedon,'" and a multitude of others. The Nicene
faith has ever since been firmly held and believed by all Chris-
tians ; and therefore, as I have already shown, it is to be ac-
counted an irrefragable^ unalterable rule, which cannot be dis-
puted 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. p
SECTION II.
THE FIRST SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
The second oecumenical synod of 150 oriental bishops was
assembled by the Emperor Theodosiusi the elder, in 381, to
*" Athanasii Epist. ad Jovian. Imper. Oper. 781. p. Ed. Ben.
g Basil. Epist. 114. Oper. t. iii. p. 207. Ed. Ben.
•> Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. t. i. i Athanasii Opera, p. 901.
k Canon I. ' Harduin. Concilia, t. i. p. 1362.
"> Definitio Fidei apud Routh, Opuscula, p. 427, &c.
n Routh, Opuscula, p. 351. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 8.
o Routh, Opuscula, p. 354, &c. Bevercgii Pandect. Justelli Bibl.
Jur. Can.
p Socrates, i. 9. Theodoret, i. 6.
'* Natalis Alexander proves that it was assembled without consulting
SECT. II.] SECOND (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 16Q
appease the troubles of the east. Timothy of Alexandria, and
others, successively presided :'' and no one was present on the
part of Damasus 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 consubstantial Trinity had been taught
in the synods of Alexandria 362,* lllyricum 367," Rome 867,'' and
Rome 381 or 382.'^ The synod of Constantinople now anathe-
matized the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi, as well as the
Eunomians and other sects of Arians, the Sabellians, and other
heresies :^ and in opposition to the Apollinarians, and the Mace-
donians, enlarged the Nicene creed by some passages concern-
ing the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, and of the real
divinity of the Holy Ghost.^ Six canons also were made con-
cerning discipline.
The synod addressed an epistle to the Emperor Theodosius
informing him of their decrees, and requesting him to authorize
Pope Damasus. Hist. Eccl. Sacul. iv. Dissert, xxxvi. Richerius treats
of this synod, Hist. Cone. General, lib. i. c. 5.
r Natalis Alexander, ibid. Art. H.
» Theodoret, Heretic. Tabular, lib. iv. c. 5 ; Epiphanius, adv. Ha;res.
hair. Ixxiv.
' Harduini Concilia, t. i. p. 731. Athanasii Opera, t. ii. p. 770.
" Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 9.
" Harduin. Concil. t. i. p. 773 ; Theodoret, lib. ii. c. 22.
^ Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 11. Their decree ran as follows :
" Quia post concilium Nicaenum hie error inolevit, ut quidam ore sacrilego
auderent dicere, Spiritum Sanctum factum esse per Filium ; anathematiza-
mus eos, qui non tota libertate proclamant, eum cum Patre et Filio unius
potestatis esse atque substantias Anathematizamus Macedonianos
qui de Arii stirpe venientes, non perfidiam mutavere, sed nomen."
» Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 809.
y Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. Saec. iv. Dissert, xxxvii. traces the rea-
sons for the additions made to the Nicene Creed.
VOL. II. — 22
170 SECOND (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX.
them •,'^ and he accordingly pubhshed an edict commanding all
churches to be delivered to bishops who held the orthodox doc-
trine of the Trinity.'' Thus the decree of the synod of Con-
stantinople 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, con-
substanlial with the Father and the Son, was universally acknow-
ledged. It is not clear, however, that the synod of Constanti-
nople was immediately acknowledged every where 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 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, Constantinople, and Ephesus.*^ Eusebius of Dorylaeum
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
CECumenical synod of Chalcedon in 451, consisting of 630
bishops, approved the Constantinopolitan creed, which it caused
to be read after that of Nice.^ From this time the council of
Constantinople was acknowledged by all churches to be oecu-
menical ; 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.^
« Fleury, liv. xviii. s. 8. » Ibid. s. 9.
'■ Harduin. Concil. t. i. p. 1439. " Canon vii.
* Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 33. Harduin. Concil. t. ii. p. 7.
• Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 49.
*" Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 8. Sozomen, 6, 7.
g Synod. Chalced. Definitio Fidei, Harduin. ii. 451, 452.
^ Harduin. Concil. ii. 691—768.
SECT. II.] THIRD (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 171
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 ex-
pressed 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 Constantinople are,
its seven canons, creed, and synodal epistle to the Emperor
Theodosius.^
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. He 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 disappro-
bation at this doctrine, Nestorius endeavoured to defend him-
self by charging his opponents with errors which they did not
maintain, and by offering to employ the term Theotokos in a
' See Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. ut supra,
t See the creed and canons in Routh's Opuscula, p. 372, &c.
I Richerii Hist. Cone. General, t. i. c. vii ; Natalis Alexaader, saec. v.
Dissert. 7.
172 THIRD (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX.
sense which afforded no security for the orthodox doctrine.
The councils of Alexandria under S. Cyril,"' and of Rome un-
der Celestinus," condemned the doctrine of Ncstorius 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 confirmed by the oecumenical synod
01 Chalcedon of 630 bishops, p and ever afterwards acknowledg-
ed to be legitimate by the whole catholic church. Hence, it is
not to be supposed that the council of Ephesus unjustly con-
demned Nestorius ; though his ambiguous expressions and his
attempts to palliate his original doctrine, for a short time de-
ceived John patriarch of Antioch, and several bishops of that
patriarchate, into a belief that he w^as in reality orthodox. "J
Theodorct, bishop of Cyrus, for many years maintained the
orthodoxy 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 proceed-
ings of this synod, cannot throw any doubt on the case of Nes-
torius, because it is not credible that there should have been
any real injustice in a decree which the universal church de-
liberately ratified and approved. And if the synod, consisting
of two 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
m rieury, liv. XXV. s. 21. ° Ibid. s. 14.
o Harduin. Cone. t. ii. p. 13.59—62, 1387—95.
P Definitio Fidei, Routh Opuscula.
•I See Nalalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. v. Ssec. Dissert, vi. where Nesto-
rius is convicted of heresy, in opposition to the pretences of some modern
wi-iters. [See above : Notes on Part I. cli. xiv.]
t Concil. Clialccd. Act. VIII. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xxviii. s. 24.
• Fleury, liv. xivi. s. 21.
SECT. III.] THIRD ffiCUMENICAL SYNOD. 173
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. Nesto-
rius, it is said, was condemned unheard ; but the council sum-
moned him three 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 op-
position offered to llie 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 ratify-
ing 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 ap-
proved by every one of the bishops.'' This epistle was also
approved universally in the church. The synodal epistle of
St. Cyril to Nestorius, concluding with twelve anathemas
against the several Nestorian errors, was also read in the coun-
cil,"^ and authorized, as well as the former, by the synodal let-
ter to the emperor ;^ and though some persons pretended that
it was incautiously worded, it was afterwards approved, toge-
ther with the former epistle of St. Cyril, by the great council
of Chalcedon.y The fifth oecumenical synod afterwards con-
demned 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, that He ' who was
t Harduin. Concil. t. i. p. 1359—62 ; 1387—95.
" Fleury, liv. xxvi. s. 34. ^ Harduin. i. 1303—87.
w Harduin. i. 1395. ■ ^ Ibid. 1439—43
y Definitio Fidei, Syn. Chalc Harduin, Cone. t. ii. p. 451. Natalis
Alexander, Ssec. v. Dissert. 8. defends the epistles of St. Cyril from aU
charges of error.
' Collat. viii. Hacrduin. iii. 188*-202.
174 THIRD (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX.
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 ascend-
ed into the heavens.' These words and doctrines we ought to
follow, in considering what is 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 himsoU personally flesh, animated by a rational soul, became
man in an ineffable 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 dif-
ferent natures were joined in a real unity, and that there is one
Christ and Son, of two natures ; the difference 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 woman ; ' 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 ;
therefore 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, by the grace of God, as Paul saith, tasted death for every
man, lie is said to suffer death,"-' &c.
The acts of the synod of Ephesus are extant in all the col-
» Harduin. Concilia, t. i. p. 1274.
SECT. IV.] FOURTH (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 175
lections of the councils. It accounted the Pelagians to be here-
tics,*^ and made eight canons of discipline. "
SECTION IV.
THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON.
The fourth oecumenical synod, of 630 bishops, was assem-
bled by the Emperor Marcian in 451, at Chalcedon.*^ The le-
gates of Pope Leo of Rome presided at the emperor's desire.
This synod published a confession or definition of faith, in
which the doctrine and creeds of the three preceding councils
of Nice, Constantinople, 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 doctrine
of the existence of two perfect and distinct natures, the divine
and human, in the unity of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ,
was clearly defined.''
Eutyches, and Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, who main-
tained that there was only one nature in our Lord Jesus Christ
after the incarnation, or union of the divinity 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 and the pseudo-synod at Ephesus,^ called the Latro-
cinium, 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
^ Canons i. iv. ■= See Routh's Opuscula.
<i Richer. Hist. Cone. General, t. i. c- viii. Natal. Alexander, saec. v.
Dissert. 11.
' Harduin. Cone. ii. 451 — 455. On the authority of the Epistle of St.
Leo, see Natal. Alexander, saec. v. Dissert. 12. See the Epistle itself.
Harduin. Cone. ii. 290, &c.
' Harduin. ii. 110, &c. e Ibid: p. 71, &c.
176 FIFTH (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. IX.
Monophysile 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 bish-
ops of all provinces w^hich 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 ac-
cord 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 ; consub-
stantial with the Father according to the Godliead, and con-
substantial with us according to the manhood ; in all things
hke to us, without sin : who was begotten 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 acknow-
ledged one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-
begotten, in two natures, without mixture, change, division, or
separation ; the difference of natures not being removed by
their union, but rather, the propriety of each nature being pre-
served, and concurring in one aspect and one person,"' &c.
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 165 bishops, was convened
by the Emperor Justinian^ in 553 to determine the controversy
b Harduin. Cone. ii. 691 — 768.
' Definilio Fidei apud Routh, Opuscula, p. 425.
" Routh, p. 401, &c.
' Fleury, liv. xxxiii. s. 43. See Natalis Alexander, saec. vi. Dissert. 3.
De V synodi convocatione, praeside, auctoritate.
SECT. VI.] SIXTH ffiCUMENICAL SYNOD. 177
concerning the three chapters, or certain writings of Theodo-
rus, Ibas, and Theodoret, which supported 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 Theo-
doret of Cyrus against the twelve chapters of St, Cyril of
Alexandria, 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 Nestorius without examination, and de-
fended 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 ortliodox faith against the same errors.
It was received generally in the East, but some of the
Western bishops in Africa, Tuscany, Illyricum, and Liguria,
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 re-
ceived as orthodox. However, the greater part of them soon
concurred with the majority of the catholic church in acknow-
ledging 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
" Collatio viii. Harduin. Concil. t. iii. p. 188—202 ; Fleury, liv. xxxiii.
s- 50 ; see Nat. Alex. saec. vi. Diss. 4. in proof of the justice of the sen-
tence against the three Chapters.
VOL. II. — 23
178 SIXTH CECUMENICAL SYNOD. [p. IV. CII. IX.
by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus,"^ in 680, to terminate
the divisions in the church which had been caused by the
heresy of the Monolhehtcs, 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 definition of faith, in which they
received the preceding five oecumenical synods, and the Creeds
of Nice and Constantinople ; condemned the authors and sup-
porters of the Monothelite heresy, viz. Theodore of Pharan,
Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter of Constantinople, Hono-
rius, bishop of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius, 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 declared that in Christ are two
natural wills, and two natural operations, without division, con-
version, or confusion." The decree of this synod was univer-
sally 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 infe-
rior 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
n Fleury, liv. xl. s. 10. Nat. Alex. sacc. vii. Diss. 1.
o Actio xviii. Definitio Fidei. — Harduin. Cone. iii. i>. 1395 — 1402
The general tenor of the two Epistles of Agatho and the Roman synod,
which taught the doctrine of two wills and two operations, was entirely
approved by the bishops. — Ilarduin. iii. 1158.
SECT. VI.] SIXTH (ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 179
continued ever since : this doctrine is, according to the princi-
ples laid down in Chapter IV., irrefragably true, unalterable,
irreformable ; nor could any particular church forsake or
change this doctrine without ceasing to be Christian.
CHAPTER X.
COUNCILS IMPROPERLY STYLED (ECUMENICAL, HELD BEFORE
A.D. 1054.
I AM now to speak of various synods sometimes styled 03cu-
menical, and held before the year 1054, when the existing
divisions between the Eastern and Western churches com-
menced. Of these synods some are simply deficient in autho-
rity, 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 empe-
rors Constantius and Constans,'' to re-establish the union of
the Eastern and Western churches, which had been disturbed
by the violent proceedings of the Arianparty, who had expell-
ed from their sees St. Athanasius, and other orthodox bishops.
This synod, which consisted of 100 bishops of the western
provinces (the oriental bishops under the influence of the
Arians, having retired from it), restored St. Athanasius and
the orthodox bishops to their sees, confirmed the Niccne
creed,'' and made several canons of discipline, in one of which
they conferred on the Roman bisliop the privilege of desiring
a rehearing of the causes of bishops condemned by their pro-
vincial synods, *= This novel privilege, however, did not take
a Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 20.
>> Socrates, ibid. <= Canons iii. iv. v.
SECT. 11.] SYNOD OF ARIMINUM. 181
effect until some centuries afterwards.*^ This synod was ortho-
dox and always approved by the church, but as it made no new
definition in faith, so it was never accounted an oecumenical
synod, nor esteemed of the same authority as the synods of
Nice, Constantinople, &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 autho-
rity. Those who are desirous of overthrowing that authority,
affirm that the synod of Ariminum apostatized to Arianism,
and that the whole church fell along wdth it. I maintain that
neither the one nor the other fell into the Arian heresy, or deci-
ded 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 preten-
ces, its sincere defenders.® Arian bishops were unlawfully
intruded into several of the Eastern sees, and thus the heresy
gained ground among the chief rulers of the church ; while
the great body of the faithful remained attached to the truth.
The West was sound in faith ; synods at Rome 341, Milan
346, and Sardica 347, confirmed the catholic faith, and restored
to his see the holy confessor Athanasius, who had been unlaw-
fully 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.^
d See Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Dissert, ii. s. 3, 4.
e Socrates, i. 23, 24. 33. 35, 36 ; ii. 7.
f Socrates, ii. 24. s Ibid. 12.
182 SYNOD OF ARTMINUM. [P. IV. CH. X.
and been received into connmunion by the Western bishops
assembled at Milan.^
The emperor Constantius designed to convene an oecumenical
synod to terminate the existing controversies in a manner fa-
vourable to Arianism ; but considering the difficulty of assem-
bling the bishops in one place, he ordered the Eastern bishops
to meet at Seleucia in Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum.'
The synod of Seleucia was divided in sentiments, and the
semi-Arians, w^ho formed the majority, and whose sentiments
were substantially orthodox, approved of a creed made at Anti-
och, in which the word " consuhstantial " 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 Sirmium, and required that all
former confessions of faith should be abrogated, and this alone
be received.' The proposed formulary asserted in the strong-
est terms the divinity of Christ, but prohibited the use of
the term which the Nicene fathers had used to designate it.
The 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 re-
quest 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
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. Hi. s. 44.
' Socrates, 1. ii. c. 37. ^ Ibid. c. 40.
1 Ibid. 1. ii. c. 37; Sozomen, 1. iv. c. 17.
" Socrates, ut supra.
SECT. II,] SYNOD OF ARIMINUM. 183
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 banishment ; and
the Arian party having urged that the adoption of the proposed
formulary v^ould restore harmony and peace betv^^een the East-
ern and Western churches ;'' and, in fine, having anatliema-
tized the heresies imputed to them," and thus deceived the
orthodox into a belief that the creed was to be understood in
an orthodox sense, of which it was perfectly capable : the bish-
ops, 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 " consubstan-
tial."i
It appears plainly from this, that the bishops of the synod of
Ariminum were really orthodox in their belief, 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 orthodox in appearance, 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 Arimi-
num were certainly blameable for permitting themselves to be
deceived by the craft and subtilty 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
° Sozomen, iv. 17.
0 Hieronymus, Dial. adv. Lucifer, t. iv. p. 299, 300. ed. Ben.
P Sulp. Severus, Hist. Sacr. lib. ii.
1 Athanasius, Lib. de Synodis, n. 41. t. i. p. 755, observes, that those who
merely objected to the use of this vi^ord, but really believed the doctrine it
was intended by the church to convey, were not to be regarded as enemies
or heretics.
■■ Hieron. Dial. adv. Lucifer, t. iv.
184 SYNOD OF ARIMINUM, [p. IV. CII. X.
from any intentional error.^ Damasus, bishop of Rome, said that
it was through ignorance and simpHcity they were deceived,'^
and the synod of Paris testified 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 bishops
to subscribe it ; and those who refused were exiled and perse-
cuted/ 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 ques-
tionable prudence, lest heretical bishops should supersede them
in the government of their churches, and corrupt their people. ^
In fine, this subscription of bishops, exacted by 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 con-
demned the Nicene doctrine, or received the creed of Arimi-
num in an Arian sense : and as soon as the perfidy of the Arians
was made fully manifest, and the question had been really ex-
amined and discussed, the whole church solemnly confirmed
again the Nicene faith, rejected the creed of Ariminum, and
expelled the Avians from its communion.
9 Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 21. t. i. p. 387.
t Thcodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 22. " Flcury, liv. xiv. s. 27.
V Snip. Sever. Hist. Sacr. lib. ii. w See above. Vol. I. p. 198, &c.
z Socrates, Hist. P'ccl. ii. 37 ; Sozomen. iv. 17.
y Athauasii Epistola ad Rufinianum, p. 964. cd. Ben.
i
SECT. II.] ARIANISM NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH. ' 185
Hilary of Poictiers, having returned to Gaul from his exile,
about 360, held many synods in that country to extirpate Ari-
anism and annul the proceedings at Ariminum.^ The synod
of Paris shortly after revoked what had been done there through
ignorance ; excommunicated the Arian leaders, and transmitted
their resolutions to the Eastern bishops.'' Hilary even passed
into Italy, w^here the bishops assembled in synod; and annulled
the synod of Ariminum.^ At the same time another synod at
Alexandria confirmed the Nicene faith. ° In 363, only three
years after the synod of Ariminum, Athanasius testified that
the Nicene faith was received by the churches of Spain, Britain,
Gaul, Italy, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mysia, Macedonia, Greece, Af-
rica, 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, Pamphylia, 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 approved the Arian
heresy, though many bishops had either fallen for a time, or
been deceived by their crafty opponents into an apparent sanc-
tion of their errors.
So strong was the attachment of the Christian community at
all times to the original and apostolical doctrine of the proper
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Arians who were
intruded into bishoprics, 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
* Socrates, iii. 10 ; Sozomen. v. 13; Sulp. Severus, Hist. Sacr. lib. ii.
" Harduin. Concilia, t. i. p. 727.
b Fleury, liv. xv. s. 30. c Ibid. s. 26.
d Athanas. Epist. ad Imper. Jov. t. i. Oper. p. 781.
c Harduin. t. i. p. 742. ' Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 12.
8 Sozomen. lib. v. c. 11, 12. Theodoret. iv. 9,
VOL. II. — 24
186 SYNOD OF ARIMINUM. [P. IV. CH, X.
describing 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. 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 tlie 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 ' be-
fore time :' 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 cannot 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 Constantius, 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 appa-
rently conveyed the ancient and catholic doctrine : and hence
it occurred, that they were generally held and acknowledged as
h Hilar. Pictav. Lib. cont. Auxent. p. 1266. ed. Benedict-
' Lucifer. Calur. Quod moriendurn sit pro Filio Dei. — Bibl. Patr. t. iv.
. 1266.
SECT. II.] ARIANISM NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH. 187
catholics, even by those who heartily detested their genuine
doctrines."^
We may conclude, therefore, that neither the synod of Ari-
minum, 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."^
Ansiver. 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 scan-
dals, schisms, perfidies.""
Answe7\ This relates solely to the provinces of the Asiatic
diocese, which were 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 Arians." The remainder,
soon after, adopted the Nicene creed.
IH. Jerome says, with reference to the synod of Ariminum :
** Then it was proclaimed that the Nicene faith was con-
*" Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicaen. — Works by Burton, vol. v. p. 804.
1 Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21. t. i.
n. Hilar. Pictav. Lib. de Synodis, n. 63. p. 1186.
n Sozomen. iv. 22.
188 SYNOD OF ARIMINtJM. [p. IV. CH. X.
demned, 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 senti-
ments. St. Jerome proves in the same work, that the fathers
of Ariminum were deceived, and that they did not act here-
tically.
IV. St. Augustine says : " Who is ignorant that many per-
sons of small understanding were at that time deluded by am-
biguous 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, aod
who were able to understand the insidious words of the here-
tics, were few indeed in comparison of the rest : but yet even
they, sortie of them, bravely went into exile, others lay in con-
cealment throughout the world. "^ Therefore the majority
adopted the Arian heresy.
Answer. St. Augustine says that they were deceived, or that
\hej 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 circumstances of such great confusion : then, who-
ever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, by preferring
the ancient faith to the novel perfidy, escaped the defilement
of that contagion. "1 Therefore, the church approved Arianism.
o Hier. Dial. adv. Lucifer, t. iv. pars ii. p. 300.
p August. Ep. ad Vincent. Rogatist. c. ix. n. 31. t. ii. p. 244.
M Hist. Sacr. lib. ii.
BECT. III.J PSEUDO-SYNOD OF EPHESUS. 189
A7isioer. Vincentius says the bishops were deceived, he
does not affirm that they really adopted Arianism. The ob-
scurity which fell on the minds of men at the time of the
synod of Ariminum, arose from the temporary 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 unchangea-
ble truth of Christianity.
SECTION III.
THE LATROCINIUM OF EPHESTJS.
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 immediately rejected and annulled by the oecumeni-
cal synod of Chalcedon, and by the universal church.
SECTION IV.
THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND NICE i'n THE QUESTION
OF IMAGES.
The synod of Constantinople was assembled by the emperor
■■ The acts of this synod are found among those of the fourth oecumeni-
cal synod.
t
190 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. [p. IV. CH. X,
Constantino Copronymus,^ in 754, to suppress the use of ima-
ges. 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 the emperors Leo* and Constantino Ca-
ballinus.^ 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 con-
demnation of the ancient practice of the universal church in
permitting the use of pictures, and a charge of heresy and
idolatry against all who retained them."^ This was an unchari-
table and censurable proceeding ; and hence, it is not to be
wondered at, that the Western church, which permitted ima-
ges, but prohibited any bowing or other worship to them, re-
jected 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, and their worship was established in
the following terms : "We define . . . that like the image of
the precious and life-giving cross, the venerable and holy ima-
ges be set up . . . for according as they are continually seen
by image representation, so they who behold them are excited
to remember and to love the prototypes, and to pay these ima-
ges salutation and respectful honour : not indeed that true wor-
ship, which is according to our faith, which only befits the
B The acts of this synod are extant among tliose of the second Nicene
synod. — Harduin. Cone. t. iv. p. 327, &c.
t Fleury, liv. xlii. s. 1. 5.
» Goldastus, Imperialia Decreta de cultu imaginum, p. 19.
" Harduin. Cone. t. iv. p. 355, &c. 426, .&c.
™ Fleury, liv xliv. s. 29.
SECT. IV.] PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. 191
divine nature . . . but to offer incense and lights to their
honour, as has been piously ordained by the ancients."^
The decree of this synod was not universally received in
the east, and did not terminate the controversy ; 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 coun-
cil 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, y and in 815 another council assem-
bled at Constantinople, confirmed the former synod held at the
same place, and anathematized the synod of Nice ;^ which from
this 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 advo-
cates : 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
» Act. vii. Harduin. Concil. t. iv. p. 456.
y Du Pin, Eccl. Hist. Cent. viii. c. 3, says that the Emperor ConstantinCj
whose reign ended only ten years after the council, abrogated it. The
Emperor Nicephorus, who succeeded in 802, deprived the defenders of
image worship of all power to molest or injure their adversaries. Goldas-
tus, in his " Imperiala Decreta," cites the following decrees of the eastern
Emperors against images after the pseudo -synod. An edict of Leo IV.
in 814, commanding them to be destroyed, p. 604. An edict of Theophilus
in 830, against image worshippers, p. 758. Another edict in 832, against
the same, p. 700.
'■ Fleury, liv. xlvi. s. 17. Theodore Studita says, that all except a few
fell away. Epist. lib. ii. ep. 15. Ed. Sirmond. ^pe Raronii Annal. ad
an. 814.
0 Fleury, liv. xlviii. s. 6.
192 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. [P. IV. CH. X.
patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, in which he
intimates, that, though the synod of Nice was held in great
reverence, yet it was not reckoned among the oecumenical coun-
cils ; which, he argued, it ought to be.*" What may have been
the effect of this exhortation we know not, but in a great coun-
cil held under Photius in 879, it was recognized as " the sev-
enth oecumenical synod." It has been latterly admitted as oecu-
menical 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 cscumenical ; 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 orientals
still reckoned only six general councils,'^ thus denying the au-
thority 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 sup-
b " Fama enim et rumor quidam ad nos pervenit, quod nullae ecclesiae
earum quae vestrae apostolicee subjiciuntur sedi, usque ad sextara generalem
synodum annumerantes, septimam praeter eas nos agnoscunt, licet ea quae
in ipsa sunt decreta, magnam habeant venerationem." — Baronii Annales
ad an. 863.
c See Acta et Scripta Theolog. Witeberg. et Patr. Hieremiae, p. 56.
255 ; Methodii Archiepisc. Twer. Liber. Hist. p. 173 ; Summary of Chris-
tian divinity by Plato, archbishop of Moscow, published by Pinkerton in
his " Present state of the Greek Church."
^ Barlaam, Abbot of St. Saviour, was sent by Andronicus, emperor of
Constantinople, to Benedict XII. in 1339, to treat of the union of the east-
ern and western churches. He said to the Pope : " Quis ergo est modus,
qui et plebem et sapientes simul adducet ad unionem vestram? Ego
dicam. Audiendo communis populus, quod sexies factum est generale con-
cilium, et quoties factum est, ad pefectionem ecclesiae factum est, et ad
correctionem errorum, qui erant in illis teniporibus ; opinionem rcceperunt
omnes ad animas suas, quia quod sit dcterniinatum a generali concUio, rec-
tum et sanum est," &c. Leo Allatius, De Perpet. Consens. p. 790 ; Ray-
nald. Annales, an. 1339. n. 21 ; Bzovii Annal. Eccl. an. 1339. c. xxiv.
SECT. IV.] PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. 193
ported and approved it,) the churches of the west generally con-
demned 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 errone-
ous 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
Koman 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,^ trans-
mitted them into France to Charlemagne, to be confirmed by
the bishops of his kingdom ; and the emperor also received the
acts directly from Constantinople, according to Roger Hovedon.
These prelates, thus furnished with an authentic copy, and not
a more translation, composed a reply to the synod, in which
they absolutely condemned 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 church-
es ; not to adore them, but for historical remembrance, and or-
nament 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 mis-translation, attri-
bute this error to Constantine of Cyprus, a bishop of the
synod i^ but they distinctly rejected every act and kind of Avor-
« Strange is the mistake of Delahogue, " Sensum (Actorum) non apprime
percipientes errore facti crediderunt in illis reprobari imaginum cultum." —
De Eccl. p. 177. See, for much valuable information concerning this synod,
Basnage, Hist, de I'Eglise, liv. xxiii. c. 5.
'' Cited below in note ('), p. 195.
c " Dum nos nihil in imaginibus spernamus prseter adorationem, quippe
qui in basilicis sanctorum imagines, non ad adorandum, sed ad memoriam
rerurn gestarum et venustatem parietum habere permittimus." — Carol. Mag.
adv. Imag. lib. iii. c. 16. *^ Ibid. c. 17, 18.
VOL. II. — 25
194 PSEITDO-SYNOI) OF NICE. [p, IV. CH. X.
ship as paid to images. They prohibited " service," " adora-
tion," " honour exhibited by bending the neck or bowing the
head," " the oblation of incense and hghts."'' In fact, as the
learned Benedictine Mabillon allows, " the Gallican bishops ad-
mitted no worship whatever, whether positive or relative, to be
given to images ;"^ and one of their reasons for this was lliat 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 nothing else but what they
see."s
This work was published by the authority and in the name
e They rejected, " colla deflectere," (lib. ii. c. 1), "thiiris et luminaribus
honorem," (ib. c. 2), " observationem, adorationem,'' (ib. c. 27), "servituim,
obsequium," (lib. iii. c. 18), as applied to images.
*■ He observes that the author of the Caroline books, the s5mod of Paris,
and Agobard, object to all adoration of images. Jonas of Orleans rejects
their worship, but without any charge of idolatry. Walafrid Strabo, and
Dungalus the monk, teach that they are to be loved and honoured. — " Ex
lis quae hucusque dicta sunt, intelligimus quaenam fuit Gallomm sententia
de cultu imaginum ; et qua ratione explicari debeat honos ille divinus, (jucm
Scriptor Carolinus, libellus Synodi Parisiensis, Agobardus, et Jonas, pic-
turis sacris abrogant. Nempe sentiebant Galli imagines honore moderato
coli posse, eas scilicet decenli in loco collocando, ornando, curandoque ut
quam maxime niterent etnepulvere sordibusve injicerentur" Mabill. Act.
SS. Benedict, saec. 4. Praefat. p. xxiv. This honour no one could with
reason object to, if experience had not shewn its great liability to abuse.
e " Etsi a doctis quibusque vitari possit hoc quod illi in adorandis ima-
ginibus exercent, qui videlicet non quid sint, sed quid innuant, venerantur ;
indoctis tamen quibusque scandalum generant, qui nihil aliud in his praeter
id quod vident, venerantur et adorant. Unde cavendum est ne evangclicam
sententiam subeant, qui tot pusillos ad scandalizandum impellant . . . qui
pene omnem Christi ecclesiam aut ad imagines adorandas impcllit, aut ima-
ginum adorationem spcrnentes anathcmati submittit." Car. Mag. adv. Imag.
lib. iii. c. G.
SECT. IV.] PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. 195
of the Emperor Charlemagne, and with the consent of his bish-
ops in 790. Pope Hadrian composed a reply, in which he
maintained the decision of the Nicene Synod ; but, though the
Galilean bishops must by this time have been well aware that
the pope had apijroved it ; their opinion remained unchanged.
Charlemagne had received at least one copy of the authentic
acts direct from Cotistantinople, which he transmitted to the
bishops of England in 792, requesting their judgment on them.
These prelates, abhorring the worship of images, authorized
Albinus to convey in their name a refutation of the synod of
Nice to Charlemagne.''
At length, after due deliberation, and with the fullest means
of ascertaining the truth, by a controversy continued 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 council.^ The synod of Frankfort does
'' Roger Hovedon, who lived about a.d. 1204, says, ad an. 792 : " Carolus
Rex Francorum misit synodalem librum ad Britanniam sibi a Constantino-
poli directum, in quo libro (lieu proh dolor) multa inconvenientia, et verfe
fidei contraria reperiebantur ; maxime, quod pene omnium orientalium doc-
torum, non minus quam trecentorum, vel eo amplius, episcoporum, unanimi
assertione conlirmatum fuerit, imagines adorari debere ; quod omnino eccle-
sia Dei execratur. Contra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate
divinarum scripturarum mirabiliter afRrmatam ; illamque cum eodem libro
ex persona episcoporum ac principum nostrorum regi Francorum attulit."
' " Septima autem apud Graecos, vocata universalis, pseudo-synodus de
imaginibus, quas quidem confringendas, quidam autem adorandas dicebant .
non longe ante tempora nostra Constantinopoli est a quamplurimis
episcopis habita, et Romam missa. Quam etiam Papa Romanus in Fra^n-
ciam direxit ; unde tempore Caroli Magni Imperatoris, jussione Apostolicae
sedis, generalis est synodus in Francia, convocante prafato Impcratore,
celebrata ; et secundum scripturarum tramitem traditionemque majorum, ipsa
Graecorum pseudo-synodus destructa est et penitus abrogata." Hincmar.
Rem. Opusc. Iv. c. xx. contra Hincm. Laudun. N. B. This sjaiod of Nice
commenced at Constantinople.
196 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. [p. IV. CH. X.
not affirm tliat 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 west-
ern church was rescinded, or in some way speedily relinquish-
ed. 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 Frankfort."'' In proof of this it appears that in S24, (thirty
years afterwards,) the Galilean bishops and divines assembled
at Paris, agreed in condemning again the doctrine of the Ni-
cene synod, and the epistle of Pope Hadrian in favour of image
worship.^
But what is still more remarkable is, that even the Roman
jponiiffs themselves, though they always received and strenuous-
ly defended the synod of Nice, did not for a long time include
it in the number of (Ecumenical synods. In 859, Pope Nicho-
las 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 acknowl-
edged ; excluding as before, the synod of Nice." In this case
there can be no conceivable reason for such an omission, except
k Du Pin, Eccl. Hist. Cent. viii. c. 3. Launoius, Epist. Pars viii. Epist.
ix. says of the writers of the Western church, " Septimam enim synodum
vetcres, et cum primis G alii, pro cecumcnica non habuerunt."
1 See the Acts of this synod in Goldastus, Iniperialia Dccreta do cuitu
Imag. p. G26, &c.
ra " Et sub omni celeritate dirigatis, qualiter vos de ipsis quinta et scxta
synodis sentiatis."
" "Venerandorum ."fcrnnivcrsalitim conciliorum auctoritale." Nicolaus
P. Ep. ad Imp. Michael. liarduin. Cone. t. v. p. 138. Baronius, ad an 863.
SECT. IV.J PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. 197
that the church of Rome did not at this period reckon it amono'
the general synods. Even in 871, Pope Hadrian, in a letter
to the Emperor Charles the Bald, still only speaks of six gene-
ral councils," though before this time the eighth, (as it has since
been styled by the Romans,) had been approved and confirmed
by that Pope. At length, however, 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.P
The several chronicles of France and Germany during the
ninth and following centuries, uniformly speak of it as a "pseu-
do-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. "i It is also termed " pseudo-synod " in the Annales
Francorum, continued to 81 4,'' and in the anonymous life of
Charlemagne written after 814 ; ^ and is condemned in the an-
nals written after 819.* Eginhard, in his Annales Francorum,
written in 829, sa)'s that at Frankfort, " the synod which had
been called by the Greeks not only the seventh, but universal,
was entirely annulled by all, as of no force ; that it might neither
be held nor spoken of as universal." '^ In 824, the Gallican
0 " Sed de his nihil audemus judicare, quod possit Nicaeno Concilio, et
quinque cczterorum conciHorura regulis, vel decretis nostrorum antecessorum
obviare." Hadr. P. Ep. xxxiv. ad Carolum Calvum.
p Canisii Thesaurus, t. iii. p. 327.
1 " Pseudo-sjTiodus Graecorum, quam falso septimam vocabant pro ado-
randis imaginibus fecerant, rejecta est a pontificibus." — Annal. Francorum,
Du Chesne, Hist. Franc. Script, t. ii. p. 17.
^ Du Chesne, ibid. p. 38. = Ibid. p. 57. t Ibid. t. iii. p. 141.
" " Synodus etiam, quas ante paucos annos in Const, sub Irene et Con-
stantino filio ejus congrcgata, et ab ipsis non solum septima, verum etiam
universalis erat appellata ; ut nee septima nee universalis haberetur dicere-
turve, quasi supervacua, in totam ab omnibus abdicata est." — Eginhard.
Annal. Franc. Du Chesne, t. ii. p. 247.
198 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. [p. IV. CH. X.
bishops again condemned it at Paris.'' Hincmar, archbishop of
Rheims, about 870, 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. y The
chronicles of the monastery of S. Bertinus, written after 884,
speak of the synod of Constantinople 870, in which that of Nice
was approved, and the worship of images authorized, as " or-
daining things concerning the adoration of images contrary to
the definitions of the orthodox doctors,"^ &c. The Annales
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,
" Harduini Concil. t. iv. p. 1258. Goldastus, Imp. Deer.
" " Septima autem apud Graecos vocata universalis pseudo-synodus de
imaginibus, quas quidam confringendas, quidam autem adorandas dicebant."
— Hincmar. in Opusculo, Iv. c. 20. Contra Hincmar. Laudun. See p. 195.
^ Ado Vien. Chronic. ^Etat. vi. " psuedo-synodus, quam septimam Grsci
appellant.''
y Anastas. Biblioth. Praefat. in VII. Synod. Ilarduin. Concil. t. iii.
p. 20.
^ " Et synodo congregata, quam octavam nniversalem synodum illuc con-
venientes appellaverunt, exortum schisma do Ignatii depositione et Focii
ordinatione sedavcrunt : Focium anathcmatizantcs, et Ignatium restituentes.
In qua synodo de imaginibus adorandis aliter quam orthodoxi doctores antca
difRnierant, et pro favore Roman! Pontificis, qui eorum votis de imaginibus
annuit ; et qusedara contra autiquos canones, sed et contra suam ipsam
synodum constituerunt, sicut qui eandem synodum legerit patenter iiiveni-
et." — Annales Bertin. Du Chesnc, Hist. Franc, t. iii. p. 244.
a Annal. Franc. Fuldenses, Du Chesne, t. ii. p. 538.
'' Cited by DorschEeus, CoUat. ad Concil. Francoford. Argentor. 1619.
p. 8.
SECT. IV.] rSUEDO-SYNOD OF NICE, 199
written in the tenth century by Folquinus, a learned monk,
speaks of the " seventh synod of Constantinople of 384 bish-
ops ; "<^ (a synod held under Photius in 879, and not acknowl-
edged as oecumenical by the universal church ; ) shewing that
the synod of Nice was not yet considered the seventh (Ecumeni-
cal council. In 1025, Gerhard, bishop of Cambray, in a synod
held there, taught the doctrine of the western church, that the
church does not use images to he adored, but to excite us to
contemplate inwardly the operations of divine grace, &c.'^ Her-
mannus Contractus, a. d. 1054, speaks of the council of Nice
as a " pseudo-synod."*' The author who continued Aimon's
books de Gestis Francorum to the year 1165, reprobated the
(so called) eighth synod which approved the doctrine of this Ni-
cene 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 principal points of religion with the Germans,
and the adoration of images was forbidden in the two nations. ^
Roger Hovedon, a.d. 1 204, says that in the synod of Nice were
found " many things inconvenient and contrary to the true
faith ; chiefly that it was confirmed, that images ought to be
adored, which the church of God altogether execrates ."^"^ Con-
rade a Lictenau, 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-
c Martene and Durand, Anecdota,t. iii. p. 527. The note of Martene is :
" Pseudo-synodus Photiana octava et generalis falso a midtis nominata."
d " Ideo in sancta ecclesia fiunt, non ut ab hominibus adorari debe-
ant, sed ut per eas interius excitemur ad contempkndam gratiae divinas
operationem, atque ex eorum actibus aliquid in usum nostras conversationis
trahamus." — Synod. Atrebat. c. xiv. Spicileg. t. i. p. 622.
e Cited by Dorschaeus, ut supra.
<■ De Gestis Francorum, lib. v. c. 28.
g ^AffAiWK yap Kot< ' KKctfA.a.vm iTria-ng « TwV ayicev iWjVcev TTfpirKvnTl'; d'^KyjpiuTXi.
— Nicetas Choniates, Annales Isaac. Angel, lib. li. p. 258. Ed. Pans. 1647.
See above, note (''), p. 195. ' See Dorschaeus, ut supra.
200 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE. [P. IV. CH. X.
sis, about 1260, mentions its rejection by the great synod of
Frankfort.'' Matthew 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^ue 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
oecumenical council, possessed of the same authority as those
six which the church has always venerated : for had the Ro-
man 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 predominant ; and hence it is, that even to
this day France and Germany are less infected with supersti-
tion in this respect than Italy. A modern French theologian
explains the worship of images to " consist pnnc?pa//y in their
being placed decently and honourably in the churches, to the
memory and honour of those whom they 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 iheir private opinion, and can
have no authority. It arose from three causes : first, from ex-
aggerated notions of the authority of the Roman see, which had
^ " Magna synodus est coUecta et legati Adrian! papse adfuerunt. . . .
Synodus etiam quae ante paucos annos ab Irene et Constantino filio ejus
septima et universalis dicta est, quasi supervacua est ab omnibus abdicata."
— Albertus Stadensis Clironicon, ad an. 794.
1 Matthaei Westmonaster. Flores Historiarum, ad an. 793. p. 283. Ed.
1570.
" Bossuet admits that communion existed. — Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall,
lib. vii. c. 31.
" Collet, Theologia Scholastica, t. i. p. 635.
SECT. IV.] PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE, 201
been accustomed to admit this as a general council : secondly,
from its being included among the general councils by Gratian
in his " Decretum," or compilation of canons, completed in
1 1 50, and which was immediately received as a text-book in
all the universities of Europe :" 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 ecumenical, says : " In later .ages the Galli-
can writers, as occasion offered, held the seventh synod to be
universal and oecumenical. The reason why they did so, in
my opinion, was, that the loorship of lioly images decreed by
that synod pleased them. Therefore they admit it, and hold
that Hadrian the First presided in it by his vicars."? As super-
° The modern canon law was first reduced to a system, in the " Decre-
tum " of Gratian, who included in his collection all the spurious decretals,
and a number of other unauthentic pieces. Long before the end of the cen-
tury, the Decretum was taught with great applause and profit in the Uni-
versities of Bologna, 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 philosophy. Alexander of Hales, and other
schoolmen, commonly cite the canon law as a sufficient proof of doctrine.
Stephen, bishop of Tournay from 1192 to 1203, in his epistles, part iii. ep.
251, (cited by Du Pin,) 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 philosophy and theology, and to pre-
vent bishops from appointing to benefices and .dignities, those who were
only skilled in canon laws. (Bulaei 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, several erroneous opin-
ions should have become common.
P Launoii Epistolas, pars viii. ep. 9.
VOL. 11. — 26
•202 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF NICE- [P. IV. CH. X.
stition increased, even the synod of Nice began to find advo-
cates ; and it was styled general by the synod of Constance :
but since this latter is itself of doubtful authority, as I shall
prove ; and since it is questioned by Roman theologians whe-
ther the church has the power of determining whether a dis-
puted synod is really oecumenical ;i 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 acknowledg-
ed it, still it must always remain of dubious authority, and can
never be received except on mere opinion ; because the church
can only varij 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 pubhshed at Cologne, in 1540, the Nicene
synod with this title : " Synodi Nicaense 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. 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 men-
tion of this Nicene synod."'" This silence is very remarkable,
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. ^
q Delahojirue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 175.
■^ Bellarminus de Iinagin. sanct. lib. ii. c. 22.
» Thomas Waldensis Doctrinale Fidei, t. iii. tit. xix. c. 150.
SECT, v.] PSEUDO-SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 203"
SECTION. V.
THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE 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 pa-
triarch 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 that
pope Hadrian, in 871, only acknowledged six general councils ;^
that Cardinal Humbert, the Roman legate at Constantinople in
1054, only admitted seveji general councils ;'^ that the chroni-
cles of St. Bertin in the tenth century reject this synod ■/ that
the continuator 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 six oecumenical synods were commonly receiv-
ed in the East ;=^ that the synod of Florence, 1438, was styled
the eighth oecumenical synod by its own acts, and in the papal
t Harduin. Concilia, t. v.
» BaUly, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 463.
* Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 444.
w Hadr. Ep. xxxiv. ad Carol. Calv.
^ Canisii Thesaurus, t. iii. p. 327.
> Martene & Durand, Anecdota, t. iii. p. 527.
I Aimon, De Gestis Franc, liv- v. c. 28.
a Leo AUatius de perp. Consens. p. 790.
204 PSEUDO-SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE. [P, IV. CH. X,
licenses.^ 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 Phocius to the
patriarchal throne of Constantinople. It was attended by the
legates of John VIII. of Rome, and by 384 bishops. Phocius
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. Berlin alone describes it as the
" seventh synod of Constantinople."^'^ Launoy says that some
of the eastern writers called it the eighth 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
the Western churches among the oecumenical synods.
^ Launoii Epistolae, pars viii. ep. xi.
"= Harduin, Concilia, t. vi. pars i.
^ Martene & Durand, Anecdota, iii. 527.
^ Launoius, ut supra.
CHAPTER XL
COUNCILS OP THE WESTERN CHURCH AFTER A.D. 1054,
IMPROPERLY TERMED (ECUMENICAL.
Of the synods held in the West since 1054, when the patri-
archs of Rome and Constantinople separated mutually 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 advanc-
ed propositions which are very questionable and even errone-'
ous ; but it would be impossible to prove that the whole West-
ern 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 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 Innocen-
tius in 1139. Otho Frisingensis says, that 1000 bishops were
present ;=^ but this is evidently a mistake, and it is to be under-
a Otto Frisingensis, lib.-vii. c. 23. cited by Harduin. Concil. t. vi. p. 1215,
who says, that Urspergensis testifies the same. Were tliis true, this La-
teran synod would have been by far the greatest ever held.
206 FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, LATERAN SYNODS, [p. IV, CH. XI,
Stood that 1000 prelates of all sorts were present, including
bishops, abbots, deans, &c. In this synod the heresies of the
Manichaeans were condemned.^ These heretics rejected the
sacraments, infant baptism, holy orders, and lawful marriage,
Arnold of Brescia was admonished and silenced for his exces-
sive declamations against the clergy." Several canons of dis-
cipline were made. Nothing except what was laudable was
done in this synod in matters of faith. It is styled by modern
Roman theologians, the " tenth oecumenical synod."
The third Lateran synod was assembled by Alexander IIL
in 1179, and was attended by 280 bishops. There were no
decrees on faith, except that the heretics called Cathari, Pata-
rini, or Publicani, were for very good reasons excommunicat-
edA The principal act of the synod consisted of a regulation
.concerning the elections of the bishops of Rome. Some mo-
dern writers call it " the eleventh oecumenical synod."
These three synods were not oecumenical by convocation,
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, attended. 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 acknow-
ledged only six synods.*' The council of Constance in the
profession which was to be made by the newly-elected bishop
of Rome, only spoke of one Lateran synod 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
'' Canon xxiii. Harduin. p. 1212.
" Harduin. Cone. vi. p. 1215.
a Can. xxviii. Harduin. vi. p. 1683. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 73. s. 18,
19, 20.
^ See Barlaam cited above, note ('), p. 192.
^ Cone. Const. Sess. xxxix. Harduin. t. viii. p. 859.
SECT. 11.] FOURTH LATERAN SYNOD. 207
Florence the Greeks only received seven or eight synods.^
That synod was styled by its editor the "eighth oicumcnical,"
and is so termed in the papal license.'^ The historians Pla-
tina and Nauclerus do not term either of these Lateran synods
general. Albertus Stadensis speaks of the last as a " cele-
brated 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 Lateran synods among the oecumenical coun-
cils, 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 accounted equal to the
genuine oecumenical synods.
SECTION II.
THE FOURTH LATERAN SYNOD.
Innocentius III. convened this synod (which some modern
authors style "the twelfth oecumenical") in 1215 : it consist-
ed of 412 bishops, including some of the Latin patriarchs of
the East : and a number of ambassadors of various princes
were present. Pope Innocentius 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 Mani-
chasan heresy. These heretics denied the Unity and Trinity ;
maintained that there were two principles ; denied the autho-
rity of the Old Testament as the work of the evil principle ;
g Synodus Florent. Sess. v. vi. vii. Harduin. Cone. t. ix.
*" Launoius, Epistolar. pars viii. epist. xi.
' " Post hanc synodum Florentinam nonam cEcuraenicam, temporibus
nostris sub Julio et Leone Pontificibus fuit synodus Lateranensis." — Opera
Contareni, p. 563. ed. 1571. This edition is formally approved by several
doctors of the University of Paris.
208 FOURTH LATERAN SYNOD. [p. IV. CH. XI.
rejected the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection, the sacra-
ments of baptism and the eucharist, and marriage.''
The confession of faith pubhshed by Innoccnlius accordingly
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, suffering, bodily ascension into heaven ;
the resurrection of the body ; the importance and use of the
eucharist, the necessity of baptism, and lawfulness of mar-
riage.^ • ' .
This synod consisting only of Latin bishops, and having
never been received by the Oriental churches, cannot be con-
sidered as invested w^ith the authority of the catholic church.
It was not acknowledged as oecumenical -by the first edition of
the synod of Florence, nor in the license of pope Clement VIL ■
for pubhshing 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 laudable : it was directed against here-
tics who denied all that was most sacred in Christianity. But
this decree has not the authority which might have been ex-
pected, because it appears not to have been made conciliariter,
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 bishops seem to have remained
silent."
Du Pin remarks, that " no canons were made by the coun-
cil, but some decrees were composed by the Roman pontiff,
'' See Mosheim's Eccl. History, cent. xii. part ii. c. 5. In proof of their
denial of the real .'presence in the eucharist, see Mr. Maitlaild on the Albi-'
genses, p. 237. 308. 319. 347. 355.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. Ixxvii. s. 4.5, 46.
"" Launoii Epistolee, liv. Viii. ep. xi. This edition styled the synod of
Florence the eighth synod.
° Opera Contareni, p. 563.
° Matthsei Paris Hist. Anjjl. ad an. 1215.
SECT. II.] FOURTH LATERAN SYNOlD. 209
and read in the council, some of which appeared burdensome
to many." He says before, that they were not made coyici-
liariter, and that many historians 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 pub-
lished.' 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 Viterbiensis (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 canons were promulgated in that council, those which are
proposed under its name were made by Innocent III., not by
the whole council. Hence, in the title of this council by Jaco-
bus Middemportius (in the w^orks of Innocent III., published
at Cologne, 1607, apud Chohnum,) is the following: * Sacri
Concihi Generalis Lateranensis, sub Domino Innocentio Pon-
tifice maximo hujus nominis tertio, celebrati, anno Domini
1215, Decreta ab codem 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 tolerable to some, burdensome to others ; then he
commenced a discourse on the business of the crusade.' " p Du
Pin, therefore, justly concludes that the decrees of this synod
were not made conciliaritef.
This objection alone would render the authority of such de-
crees very dubious according to Bellarmine, Bossuet, Dela-
P Du Pin, De Antiqua Eccl. Discipl. Dissert, vii. p. 572, 573.
VOL. II. — 27
210 TRANSUBSTANTIATION, [p. IV. CH. XI.
hogue, &C.1 for the promises of Christ to aid his church in
determining the truth, always suppose the use of ordinary
means. These decrees were indeed known in the Western
church afterwards, rather under the name of pope Innocenlius,
than of the Lateran synod. "^
Hence, even if we admitted that it was the intention of this
synod to define the modern Roman opinion of transubstantia-
tion 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 Ro-
man doctrine of transubstantiation supposes the whole sub-
stance (in the Aristotelic sense, as distinguished from the acci-
dents) of bread and wine, to cease, by conversion into a differ-
ent substance : so that the eucharist cannot be called bread
after consecration, except in some figurative or tropical sense.
The decree made at this synod uses indeed the term " tran-
substantiation" to express the i^ircto-Toixiiuc-iq^ or transelementa-
tion, by which the sacramental elements become the body and
blood of Christ :^ as the fathers had used the words mutatio,
transitio, migratio, transfiguratio, ^eT«/3<)A)5, i^irecp'pit&iA.iini;^ fA.iroc.T-
xtvcca-iMi^ /Ltercta-rot^eiuB-K;^ fA.£rx7roi}i(nij &c. : * but tllOUgll the
•1 Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 212. 278.
■■ One MS. referred to by Harduin does not give these decrees any title :
the other is thus headed : " Incipiunt constitutiones Innocentii III. Papae,
&c." — Harduin. Cone. t. vii. p. 15. In the Decretals of Gregory IX. tit.
i. de sum. Trini. & fid. oath, we find the first canon headed " Innocentius
III. in concilio generali." In the next title we find " ex concilio Mel-
densi."
* AU the /j.ira.<rTo^tia>a-i(: of the Sacramental elements maketh them not to
cease to be of the same nature which before they were." — Bishop Pearson
on the Creed. Article III. Note on Eutychian heresy. The decree of
the Lateran synod was as follows : " In qua (ecclesia) idem ipse sacerdos
et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corj)us et sanguis in Sacramento altaris
sub spcciebus panis et vini veraciter contincntur, transubstantiatis pane in
corpus, et vino in sanguinem, potcstate divina." — Harduin. Concilia, t. vii.
p. 17.
• Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 664. Oxford ed. by Cardwell.
SECT. II.] FOURTH LATERAN SYNOD. 211
term " transubstantiation," as Bossuet observes, naturally im-
plies a " change of substance, ^^ "^ 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 corresponding to other changes whether
natural or miraculous, or entirely sacramental, spiritual, and
ineffable ; in fine, whether it be partial or total. Hence, those
who employed the torn transubstantiation with reference to the
mystical change, might quite consistently hold that the sub-
stance of bread was not physically 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 with
his soul, or with the Divine nature. All these opinions are con-
sistent with the use of the term transubstantiation, 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 transuh
stantiated into Christ's body," continues thus : " but whether
parts change into parts, or the ivhole into the whole, or the
entire 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 discuss."'''' Thus Innocentius declares
" Bossuet, Variations, liv. iii. s. 16.
' " Ecclesia Catholica Orientalis atque G raeco-Russica, admittit quidem
vocem transubstantiatio, Graece /uiTovo-laia-t; non physicam illam transuhstan-
tiationem et carnalem, sed sacramentalem et inysticam ; eodemque sensu
hanc vocem, transubstantiatio, accipit, quam quo antiquissimi ecclesiae
Graecae patres has voces /uereikK<tyyi, /uirdSiTt;, fAiTdL^TH^icecm: accipiebant."
— Plato Archbishop of Moscow, in reply to M. Dutens, CEuvres melees,
part ii. p. 171. This reply is referred to as of authority by Methodius, Arch-
bishop of Twer, in the Preface to his " Liber Historicus," Mosquse, 1805.
'" " Non enira de pane vel de vino materialiter formatur caro vel sanguis,
sed materia panis et vini mutatur in substantiam carnis et sanguinis, nee
adjicitur aliquid corpori sed transubstantiatur in corpus. Verum an partes
in partes, an totum in totum, an totale transeat in totale, novit Ille qui facit.
Ego quod residuum est, igni comburo. Nam credere jubemur, discutere
prohibemur." — Innocentius III. De Myster. Missae, lib. iv. c. 7, 8.
212 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. [p. IV. CII. X3»
that the total change of the substance is not a matter of faith ,
and he mentions, ivithout any condemnation, the opinion of
some who held that the bread and wine remained after conse-
cration, 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.y
This renders it very probable, that Innocentius in the synod
of Lateran did not intend to establish any thing except the doc-
trine of the real presence. In fact, the question was not then
with those who denied the modern doctrine of transubstantiation:
it was with the Manichreans, who denied the real presence of
Christ's body in the eucharist. Nor was the term transubstan-
tiation introduced specially into the decree to meet any par-
ticular heresy; as the term " consubstantial" had been intro-
duced 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 employed before, and continued to be cm-
ployed afterwards, to express the same thing.
That this was so, and that the whole Western church believed
the common opinion of transubstantiatiou not to be a matter of
faith, may be inferred absolutely and conclusively from the fact,
that while this opinion was held by the majority of scholastic
theologians till the period of the Reformation, several other opi-
nions, entirely inconsistent with it, were openly held and taught
by writers of eminence, loithout any condeinnation or censure.
Durandus a S. Porciano, about 1320, taught that the matter of
bread and wine remain after consecration.'^ Nevertheless, he
y. Ibid. c. 9. y Ibid. c. 7.
"^ Duraad. Commcutar. in Sent, lib, iv. dist. xi. qu. 3. He says, "pr»-
SECT. II.] FOURTH LATERAN SYNOD. 213
was SO far from being censured, that the pope made him bishop
of Annecy, and afterwards of Meaux ; and he is praised by Tri-
ihemius and Gerson, the latter of whom recommended his writ-
ings 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 different 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 sec that the common opinion of transub-
stantiation was only an opinion, and that different opinions were
held by " catholics." In fine, the scholastic theologians gene-
rally mention the different opinions without imputing heresy to
those that received them. From this it appears evidently, that
the common doctrine of transubstantiation 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 other of the best theologians, " When, all circum-
stances considered, it remains doubtful whether a council really
intended to define any doctrine, then the decision is not de fide;
for in order that any proposition should pertain to the catholic
faith, and be binding on all the faithful, it is not sufficient that
it be revealed and enunciated in any manner ; but it is requisite
that it be proposed clearly and without any doubt, by an infal-
dictus autem modus conversionis substantiaj panis in corpus Christi constat
quod est possibilis. Alius autem modus qui communius tenetur est intelli-
gibilis, nee unus istorum est magis per ecclesiam approbatus vel reprobatus
quam alius."
a See the preface to Durandi Comment, in Sent. Pet. Lombard. Antwerp.
1567.
i> Cardinalis de Alliaco in 4 dist. 6, art. 11. cited by Tourncly, De Eu-
charistia, t. i. p. 265. See also Field, Of the Church, Appendix to Part
iii. c. 17 ; Bull's Works by Bui-ton, vol. ii. p. 257.
214 FIRST SYNOD OF LYONS. [p, IV. CH. XI.
lible authority."" On this principle, the common Roman opi-
nion 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 discipline, which a synod of
the Western church could not render always obligatory on na-
tional 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 pon-
tiff, in the presence of the synod, which listened in astonish-
ment, 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 bishops and
churches, consequently it cannot be accounted 03cumenical.
It was also not acknowledged 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 pre-
tend that it was the " thirteenth oecumenical synod," " many
catholics," as Tournely says, have doubted its ajcumenicily 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
c Bouvier, De Ecclesia, p. 236.
'^ Canon xxi. Harduin. Cone. t. vii. p. 35.
e Matthaei Paris Hist. Anglic, ad an. 1245, cited by Ilarduin. t. vii. p.
401.
f Launoii Epist. 1. viii. ep. xi. s Contareni Opera, p. 5G3
SECT. III.] SECOND SYNOD OF LYONS. 215
time of the seventh general synod, which was the second Ni-
cene, 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 West-
ern provinces, which Bellarmine (lib. i, de Conciliis, cap. 17.)
regards as the last condition necessary to a general council
when celebrated in the West. So far from this being the case,
no bishops were present from Germany, Hungary, Italy, Brit-
tany, Spain, Sweden, Poland. The council of Constance, in
the formulary which it appointed to be subscribed by the pon-
tiff 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 sixteenth century, first gives it
that title."^ Delahogue also observes, that the cECuraenicity 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 ambassadors of the Eastern emperor, viz., Germanus, for-
merly bishop of Constantinople, and Theophanes of Nicsa,
George Acropolita, &c. were present ; when a letter was read
from the Greek emperor Michael, professing the doctrines of
h [This, too, is very evident from the tenor'^of the discussions in that
■ council. Both parties appeal repeatedly and without hesitation to seven
general synods ; both parties allude to the rival candidates for the title of
eighth, which they agi-ee to consider as particular, not general. (Concil.
Rom. IV. 349. conf. 371.) ; neither make any mention of a 7nnth or sub-
sequent synod claiming to be general.]
i Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 435, 436. See also Bailly, Tract, de
Eccl. t. ii. p. 379.
k Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 278.
216 SECOND SYNOD OF LYONS. [P. IV. CH. XT.
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 filioquc 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 condemnation 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
Palasologus, who was desirous of obtaining the political assist-
ance of the Roman see." This synod was not reckoned oecu-
menical by the editors of the synod of Florence, ° by Cardinal
Contarenus,p 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 con-
cerning the nature of our Lord and some other points, which
seem to have been generally laudable :p but it cannot have any
just claim to be accounted " the fifteenth ecumenical synod,"
1 Harduin. Concil. t. vii. p. 004—701.
■^ Constitutio i. Ilnrduin. t. vii. p. 705.
» Barlaam declares that this was the opinion of the Greeks. See Ray-
nald. Annalcs ad an. 1339, n. 21 ; Bzovii Annales, ibid. c. xxiv.
o Launoii Epist. viii. xi. p Contareni Opera, p. 563.
P The decisions made in this synod are contained in the liber Clementi-
norum, but are mixed up with others, which were not made by the synod
of Vienne. — Harduin. vii. p. 13.59. There seem considerable difficulties in
ascertaining what the precise decrees of the synod actually were.
SECT. IV.] SYNODS OF VIENNE, PISA, CONSTANCE. 2lT
as it is by some modern theologians. It was not styled oecu-
menical by Platina, Blondus, Trithcmius, the synod of Florence,
or Contarenus.
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 papacy. 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 XXIII. in
1414, consisted of about 250 Latin bishops. It decreed that
a general council was superior to the pope,i 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 approving the administra--
tion of the eucharist in one kind only.
In the eighth session (1415,) forty-five propositions taken
from the writings of WicklifTe, were censured as heretical, erro-
neous, 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
q " Ipsa synodus in Spiritu Sancto congregata legitime, generale conci-
lium faciens, ecclesiam catholicam militantem repraesentans, potestatem a
Chi'isto immediate habet, cui quilibet cujuscumque status vel dignitatis,
etiam si papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem,^et
extirpationem dicti schismatis, et reformationem generalem ecclesiffi Dei
in capite et inmembris." — Sess. iv. Harduin. Cone. t. viii. p. 2.52.
■■ The decree of condemnation says, " quibus articulis examinatis, fait
repertum (prout in veritate est) aliquos et plures ex ipsis fuisse et esse no-
torie haereticos, ct a Sanctis patribus dudum reprobates ; alios non catholi-
VOL. II. — 28
218 SYNOD OF CONSTANCE. [P. IV. CH. XI.
subject in the same sacrament. Amongst the other doctrines
condemned are many very erroneous, and even absurd, posi-
tions ;*" some, hov^^ever, are not so, e. g. the 38th, " that the
decretal epistles are apocryphal." This article is now generally
received as true in the Roman obedience. The condemnation
of these propositions in gloho, without affixing any particular
mark to each proposition, 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 tv^ro
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 con-
demnations of the thirty-nine propositions of Huss in the fif-
teenth session. 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 ia that species only
having been long observed, should be regarded as a law which
men should not reject or change according to their taste, with-
out the authority of the church.^^^ 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 his flesh truly existed, there his whole
body and blood could not be absent. Nor has this doctrine been
cos, sed erronoos ; alios scandalosos et blasphemes, quosdam piarum aurium
ofTensivos, nonmillos eorum temerarios et seditiosos." — Sessio viii. Harduin.
t. viii. p. 303. They also condemned 260 other propositions selected by the
University of Oxford, as heretical, seditious, erroneous, temerarious, scan-
dalous, or insane. — Ibid.
» WickliiTe certainly taught several serious errors. The Apology of the
Confession of Augsburg rcckoucul the Wickliffites as much in error as the
Donatists. " Satis clare diximus nos improbare Donatistas et
Wicleffistas qui senserunt homines peccare accipientes sacrameuta ab in-
dignis in ecclesia." — Apol. Conf. August, (iv.)
' Sess. xii. Harduin. Cone. t. viii. p. 381.
SECT. IV.] SYNOD OF CONSTANCE. 219
at any time reprobated by our catholic churches : indeed it
might perhaps be gathered from those woi-ds of our Liturgy,
" He hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to
die for us, 'but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in
that holy sacrament," and from the words of the Article : " In
no w^ise are they pg,rtakers 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 administering in one
kind only, an abuse which was introduced through a misdirected
devotion for this sacrament, and which, in order to obviate cer-
tain imagined irreverencies in its use, abrogated the practice
which had been instituted by our Lord himself, and received
universally in the cathohc church for twelve centuries. If such
an institution be not obligatory on the church, it is impossible
to prove any thing 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 cus-
tom by private individuals, without the authority of the church :
therefore 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 oriental churches
were not represented at this synod, nor did they ever acknow-
" Tournely observes, from Palavicini, lib. xii. c. 2. that the afRrmative
was maintained at the synod of Trent by Melchior Canus, Antonius Ugliva,
and Sigismund Fedrius ; and that it is maintained by Vasquez, in 3 part,
disput. 215. qu. 80. art. 2. and others referred to by him. Tournely, De
Euchar. t. ii. p. 34.
220 SYNOD OF CONSTANCE. [p. IV. CH. XI.
ledge 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 XXIII, 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 Cardinal 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. Paps', 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 ultramontanes
generally, only^ admit the.-last sessions of this synod as oecume-
nical, that is, .after the election of Martin V. in the forty-first
session, a. d. 1417. It should be observed that the objection of
the ultramontanes to the oecumenicity of the early sessions, on
the ground of their comprising the prelates of only one obe-
dience, affects those sessions in which the doctrines of Wickliffe
and Huss are condemned, and communion in one kind autho-
rized; for, as Bailly says, " the two obediences spoken of were
not then united with the third.''^ Hence, the decrees on these
matters are of most dubious authority.
"" Alph. de Ligorio Theologia Moralis, lib. i, art. 129 — 131.
" Bellarmiuus de Concil. Auctor. lib. ii. c. 19.
% Gregor. de Valentia, Analys. Fid. Cath. lib. viii. c. 7.
y Bailly, Tract.- de Eccl. t. ii. p. 289,
SECT. V.J SYNOD OF BASLE. 221
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 translating it to Ferrara, which the synod of Basle refused
to obey, and continued its sessions, in which the practice of
communicating in one kind was again confirmed. This took
place in the thirtieth session,^ and Bailly says that no
catholic admits the latter twenty sessions (out of forty-five) as
oecumenical. The Galileans admit the first twenty-five or six-
teen as oecumenical. The ultramontanes, who reject the entire
council,^ receive none. Alphonsus de Ligorio says, " Louis Du
Pin, who is followed by some other Galileans, 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 conven-
tion of Basle by no means deserves the name of a general
council ; and this appears manifestly from circumstances which
are beyond doubt. The number of bishops was so small, that
it never could by any means represent the universal church. . .
, . The decrees were not made by bishops 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 Eugenius asserted.
X Sessio XXX. Harduin. Concil. t. viii. p. 1244.
» Bailly, Tract, de Ecclesia, t. i. p. 471. , .
222 SYNOD OF FLORENCE. [p. IV. CH. XI.
..... St. Antoninus called this synod of Basil, ' a conventicle
devoid of power, and a synagogue of Satan.' S. John de Ca-
pistrano termed it ' a profane synod, excommunicated, and a den
of basihsks.' The bishop of Meaux called it ' a troop of dae-
mons,' &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 ambassadors of the Christian princes still re-
mained there. *= The synod of Basle still continued to be re-
cognized as oecumenical by France, Germany, and other coun-
tries. 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 pur-
gatory ; 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 consecrated, 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 oecume-
nical.
The synod of Florence was immediately rejected in the
eastern churches, and has never since been recognized by them.
In the west its authority has always been doubtful, because the
rival synod of Basle was holding its sessions at the same time,
'' Alphons. de Ligorio, Episc. S. Agathee, Theologia Moralis, lib. i. art
132, 133. I
" Flcury, Hist. Eccl. liv. cvii. s. 71. cviii. s. 50.
"' Fleury, liv. cviii. s. 39, 40.
SECT, v.] SYNOD OF LATERAN. 223
and acknowledged by France and Germany as oecunfienical.
Cardinal de Lorraine declared in the synod of Trent, 1563,
that the university of Paris did not hold the synod of Florence
as oecunnenical, because it consisted only of Italian bishops,
and Greeks who were schismatics at the beginning of the sy-
nod.^ Launoy s.ays 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 reimion of the Armenians was made by
Eiigenius IV. afte^r the departure of the 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 ultramontanes call it oecumenical,
Bellarmine says that it remained in his days a question among
cathohcs, whether it were truly so.^
e Fleiiry, liv. clxiv. s. 74.
f " Gallicana ecclesia nee Florentinum nee Lateranense concilium, quod
Leo X. habuit, universalibus conciliis adnumerat. Id testati sunt in Triden-
tino concilio Gallicani antistites de Florentino, et Pio IV. Caroli Cardi-
nalis Lotharingii opera, signiflcavere." He adds the following words of
Cardinal de Lorraine, " Ego negare non possum quin Gallus sim, &c, Apud
Gallos Constantiense concilium in partibus suis omnibus ut generale habe-
tur. Basiliense in auctoritatem admittitur. Florentinum perinde ac nee
legitimum, nee generale repudiatur : atque idcirco Galli de vita potius,
quam de sententia decedent." — Launoii Epist. lib. viii. ep. xi.
g Hooke, Relig. Nat. et Rev. t. iii. p. 373. Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii.
p. 309.
'' This is the opinion of Natalis Alexander, and many others. — See
Fleury, liv. cviii. s. 103.
' Bellarminus, lib. ii. de Cone. c. 13.
CHAPTER XII.
THE SYNOD OF TRENT,
In reviewing the clear and undoubted decisions of the west-
ern 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
cecumenicity 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 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 Ro-
man obedience, as oecumenical and infallible.
It is admitted generally now by Roman theologians, that the
only final proof of the cecumenicity and infallibility of any synod
is its reception by the universal church.^ On this ground Bos-
suet concludes that whoever does not acknowledge these quali-
ties in the synod of Trent is to be accounted a heretic, because
all the bishops, and the whole cathohc church, approve and re-
ceive it.'' Denying the conclusion, I most fully admit the prin-
ciple of Bossuet, properly understood ; and on this principle
proceed to prove,
First, that the decrees of the synod of Trent were not judg-
ments of the catholic church.
/ ■ " ' '
a See above, Chapter VII.
^ See the correspondence of Bossuet, in the works of Leibnitz, by Dutene.
SECT, v.] SYNOD OP TRENT. 225
Seco7idly, that they were not judgments of the Roman obe-
dience.
If these points are established, it will appear evidently 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
parts 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 infallible,
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, 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, Denmark, part of Ger-
many, 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 sepa-
rated 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 with the Roman pontiff be simply and absolutely
necessary under all circumstances, then he must be not only
infallible, but impeccable, 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.
« See Part I. ch. ix. x. and Part II. ch. ii. vi.
VOL. II. — 29
226 SYNOD OF TRENT. ' [PART IV.
11. 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 contro-
versy ; for it is certain that theological opinions were univer-
sally prevalent at that time in the Roman churches, which
obliged them to accept loithout any examination 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, ac-
cording 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 coun-
cil proceeded conciliariter, examining and discussing the vari-
ous 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 approved by the Roman pontiff. Assuming,
then, what every member of the Roman obedience believed,
that the catholic church was limited to the papal communion ;
the synod of Trent was apparently oecumenical, according to
all the received opinions.
Now, it is certain that during the whole of the sixteenth
century, and till long afterwards, it was the doctrine maintained
by all members of the Roman churches, that a general
council conformed, by 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, with-
out any hesitation, 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 councils independently of the pope;
CHAP. XII.] SVr^OD OF TRENT. 227
while the other, the GalHcan, maintained the infalhbility of gene-
ral councils, even without papal confirmation, and denied the in-
fallibility of papal judgments, except when they were approved
by the universal church. But, whatever were the differences of
these parties, both were bound, by their principles, to acknow-
ledge the infallibility 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 de-
crees were really conformable to scripture and tradition : they
could not examine them, except under an invincible prejudice.
Therefore, their reception of the synod of Trent was neither an
approbation nor a judgment, properly speaking ; it was a mere
implicit 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 luith a general council cannot err in making decrees of
faith."*^ In speaking of various doctrines as to the authority
of councils, he says : " The first is, that the pontiff even as
pontiff, although he should define any thing ivith a general
council, may be heretical, and teach others heresy, &c. . . .
d " Catholici omnes in aliis duobus conveniunt, non quidem cum haereti-
cis, sed solum inter se. Primo, pontiiicem cum generali concilio non
posse errare in condendis fidei decretis, vel generalibus praeceptis morum."
— Bellarmin. De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv. c. 2.
228 SYNOD OF TRENT. [PART IV.
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 assem-
bled in the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the pontiff, all per-
sons being admonished whom it concerns to attend ; I firmly
hold that such a council cannot err in matters of faith.''^ Mel-
chior Canus says : " A general council confirmed by the autho-
rity of the Roman pontiff, renders the faith in catholic doctrines
certain : which conclusion it is necessary to hold as so un-
doubted, as to believe the contrary heretical.'''"^ Gregorius de
Valentia afiirms, that when the Roman pontiff has confirmed
a 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 1 . . . Whoever does not acquiesce here,
but chooses to arrogate to himself a further judgment on his
judges, and to dispute whether the definitions made by the
e " Prima (sententia) est, Pontificem, etiam ut Pontificem, etiainsi cum
general! concilio definiret aliquid, posse esse hsereticum" in se, et docere
alios haeresim Ex his quatuor sententiis prima est hseretica." — lb.
f Bellarmin. De Conciliis et Ecclesia, lib. ii. c. 2. " Catholici vero
omnes constanter docent concilia generalia a summo Pontifice conlirmata,
errare non posse, nee in fide, nee in moribus. . . . Fide catholica tenen-
dum est concilia generalia a Summo Pontifice confirmata, errare non posse."
g Fischerus Roffensis, Assertionis Lutheranas Confutatio, fol. 160.
h Melchior Canus, De loe. Theol. lib. V. c. 4. "Tertia conclusio. Con-
cilium generale confirmatum auctoritate Romani Pontificis, certam fidem
facit Catholicorum dogmatum. Quam quidem conclusionem ita cxploratam
habere opus est, ut ejus contrariam haereticam esse credamus."
CHAP. XII.] SYNOD OF TRENT. 229
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 world.'" Such has always since been the pre-
valent 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 uni-
versally held.^ Bossuet, 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 ? Impious !
Heretical ! To be detested by all catholics !"^ In more mo-
dern 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 secure from error ? Most cer-
tainly not : and hence he may gather where all catholics agree
in lodging infallibility.""^
The infallibility of the pope was maintained in the sixteenth
century by the following theologians of the Roman obedience :
Melchior Canus, bishop of the Canaries, regarded it as dejide.^
Cardinal Bellarmine affirms that it is the opinion of almost all
catholics." Gregory de Valentia says it is to be believed with
certain faith. p Saurez maintains that it is a matter of faith. i
i Gregorius de Valentia, Analysis Fid. Cathol. lib. viii. c- 7.
^ Launoii Epistolse, p. 156. ed. Cantab.
' " An ut concilia cecumenica in fide errare possunt 7 Impium, heereti-
cum, omnibus catholicisdetestandum." — Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall,
lib. viii. c. 18.
m Milner, End of Controversy, Lett. xii.
n Melchior Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. vi. c. 7.
o Ballarminus, DeRom. Pont. lib. iv. c. 2.
i> Gregor. de Valentia, Analysis Fidei Cathol, lib. viii. c. 2.
'i Saurez, De Fide, disput. v. s. 8. n. 4.
230 SYNOD OF TRENT. [PART IV.
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 Chiozza,^' Dominic Barines, Duvallius, Coriolanus,
Comptonus,^ cardinal Fisher, Stapleton,"" Harding, Cochlccus,^
Sylvester de Prierio, Gretser,'' besides pope Leo X.'^ and the
Lateran synod, which taught this doctrine, at least by inference.
The infallibility of a general council was held in the six-
teenth century by the following theologians. Cardinal de Lor-
raine 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
■■ Pighius, Hierarch. Eccl. lib. iv.
s Cajetan, De Comparat. auctor. Papse et Concilii.
t Hosius, lib. ii. cont. Brent.
" Contarenus, De Potestate Pontificis.
' Eckius, lib. i. de Primal. Petri, c. 18.
" Jo. a Lovanio Liber de perp. Cathedrae Petri potest. &o. c. 11.
* Tapperus, Oratio iii. Theologica.
y Naclantus Clugiensis, Tract, de Potest. Papag et Concilii.
* Cited by Launoius, Epistolas, p. 156. ed. Cantab.
" Stapleton, Oper. t. i. p. 706, &c. ed. Paris, 1620.
'' Cochlaeus, De Canon. Script, et Eccl. Auth. c. xi.
<= Gretser, Def. Bellar. lib. iv. c. 2.
^ Leo X. Bull. adv. Luther, art. 28, referred to by Gregory dc Valentia,
Analys. Fid. Cath. lib. viii. c. 2.
* Launoii Epistolae, p. 158. ed. Cantabr.
f " Certum est concilium generale legitime congregatum, universam
repraesentans ecclesiam, in fidei et morum determinationibus errare non
posse." — Sacr. Facult. Paris, in censura Luth. art. xxii. See Hooke,
Relig. Nat. et Rev. t. iii. p. 394.
s Harduin. Concilia, t. ix. p. 1936.
•> See Bossuet, Gallia orthodoxa, c. xxvii. xxviii.
CHAP. XII.] SYNOD OF TRENT. 231
Adrian VI./ Almain,'^ Alphonsus a Castro, ^ archbishop of
Compostella, Jodocus CKctovKUs,'" Thomas Illyricus," cardi-
nal Campegius," Andradius, Driedo/ Matthias Ugonius, Vic-
toria, Celaia, and the bishop of Bitonto in the council of Trent. 'i
Of all the Galilean theologians in this century, John Major
alone held that the infallibility of general councils was a matter
of pious opinion.''
Thus the whole body of Roman theologians in the sixteentli
century held the infallibility of either the pope or a general
council ; and these different opinions were not then first in-
vented, but had been held by the majority of the Latin theolo-
gians for two or three centuries. The Ultramontane opinion
had been received by St. Anselm,^ Robertus Paululus, J. Se-
meca, the author of the glossa ordinaria on Gratian's Dccrc-
tum,*^ by Jacobus de Thermos,^ Augustinus Triumphans,^
i Bossiict, Appendix ad Def. Declar. lib. i. c. 1.
k Almain, De Auctor. Eccl. c. 10. Tract, de Potest. Eccl. c. 15, IG.
1 Alphons. a Castro, lib. i. adv. Hajres. c. vi.
m Jod. Clichtovseus, Anti-Lutherus, Paris, 1524.
° Illyricus, Tract, de Potest. Summi Pontificis, 1523.
o Campcgius, De Auctor. SS. Conciliorum.
p Andradius, De General. Concil. Auctor. lib. i. Driedo, De Eccl. Dog-
mat, lib. iv. c. 4.
•> Paolo Sarpi's Council of Trent, by Courayer, t. i. p. 208.
r Joh. Major, Commentar. in Evang. S. Matthaei, referred to by Tour-
nely, 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 Alliaco, in quaest. in Vesperiis agitata, t. i. oper. Gerson.
postr. edit. p. 622 et 3 part, de Eccl. Auctor. c. i. ; also from Joannes Bre-
viscoxa, Doctore Parisicns. Tract, de Fide Ecclesiae, Rom. Pont, et Cone,
general, t. i. oper. Gerson, p. 898. He also refers to Waldensis.
» Anselm, p. 41. 391. 430. oper. ed. Paris. 1675.
' Glossa in 24 qu. 1. voce quoticns ratio fidei.
" Tissier, Biblioth. Cisterc. t. iv. p. 2G1.
V Augustinus Triumphans, Summa qu. i. art. i. qu. vi. art. vi. qu. x. art.
i. iv.
232 ' SYNOD OF TRENT. [PART IV.
Alexander Halensis,"^ by Thomas Aquinas " the angehcal doc-
tor,"'^ cardinal Turrecremata,^ Thomas 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
Coesena,'^ in the fourteenth century, by cardinal Peter d'Ailly,
Gerson,^' Dionysius Carthusianus,*^ Nicholas de Clemangis,
iEneas Sylvius before he was raised to the papal throne, Al-
phonsus Tostatus, Nicholas de Cusa. It was established by
the great synods of Constance'^ and Basle,^ and by the parlia-
ment of France assembled at Bourges in 1438. ^
Such were the authorities on which the opinion of the su-
preme 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
"" " Apud Summum Pontiiicem est authorit.as plena : cujus sanction!
contradiccre non licet : sicut habetur 11 di. . . Anathemate innodatur, qui
dog-mata, mandata, interdicta, sanctiones, vel caetera pro Catholica fide,
vel ecclesiastica disciplina ... a Sedis Apostolicse praesule salubriter pro-
mulgata contemnit, 25 qu. 2. Si quis dogmata.'''' — Alexander Alensis,
Summa Theologise, pars iv. qu. 32. art. 3.
n " Ad illius ergo authoritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cujus authori-
tatcm pertinet finaliter determinare ea qucB sunt fidei ut ah omnibus incon-
cussafide teneantur : hoc autem pertinet ad authoritatem summi Pontificis,
ad qucm majores et difficiliores ecclesicE qusestiones referuntur, ut dicitur
in Decreto, dist. 17. c. multis," &c. — Aquinas, Secunda Secundae, qu. i.
art. X.
y Joh. do Turrecremata, Summa, lib. ii. c. 100, 110. lib. iii. c. 58.
X Thomas Waldensis, Doctrinale Fidci, lib. ii. c. 47, 48.
" Michael de Caesena, Tractatus contra errores Papae, c. 12.
'' Gerson, Considerationes de Pace, cons. 4.
■= Dionysius Carthus. Tract, de auctor. Papee et Concilii, art. xxxii. fol.
342.
•' Concil. Constant. Scss. iv. « Sessio ii.
' Fleury, Hist. EccI.'Jib. cvii. s. 104. Bossuet, Def. decl. cler. Gall.
CHAP. XII.] SYNOD OF TRKN T. 233
universal church, had been hcltl by 0(;kharn in the fourteenth
century,*^' and a})parcnlly by Waldensis'' and i*icLi.s Miranduhi'
in tlie lii'lecnth ; l)ut in tlie sixteentli, it was only avovvi;d on
one occasion by the. parhMiruuil, ol Pans,'' and by ibc lailhcraiis
and others who were esteemed heretics by those ol the ivonian
obedience.
Under these circnnistancea, I deny positively, that thi; de-
crees ol the synod til 'I'nMit can be regarded as judgments of
the church(!s of the Itoniau obedience. They are at the utmost
nothing but tlie decre(!s of tl^e |)0|)e anil 196 bishops asseiiibli^d
at Trent, not those ol the niajority ol th(; Ivoiiuiu bishops and
churches. The majority of those bishops and churches cannot
justly be accused of heresy in accepting the decrees of the
synod. The opinions universally jirevaldnt, })revented them
ai)sohileiy from exercising that right, or rather that solcinii 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 tilings which aj)pe;ir to us t(j be unwisely (ixpressed, and
to convey heterodox meanings, have been explained by eminent
Roman theologians in a tolerable sense. Nor do I here deter-
mine whether any thing contrary t(j the laiih be found in the
decrees of that synod : but at all events, we may believe that
the churches of the Roman obedience did not obstinately and
hereticaily receive the errors of Trent ; but were conipidled to
do so by opinions, which, tlioui^h unlouiided, wert; not in them-
selves contrary to faitii ; that they submitted to what they con-
scientiously and not absurdly believed an infallible authority ;
K "Ex. his, ;iliiH([ii(', pliinbim collJiriUir (jiiia ( !<iii(;iliiiiii g<!ii<;i"i.l(! J';i|):i
confirmat, ct ei auctoritatetn praestat. Papa autem potest errare contra
fideni : iffitur etiain coiiciliuriv geiiorale potest errare eontra fideni." — Ock-
liarn Dialotfi, lil). iii. i. U"u;t. iii. partin, c. 5.
'■ Tlioiiias Walileiisia, Docliiiiali! l""i<lei, lib. ii. c. 27.
' Pious Mirandiila, Tlieor. iv.
I* Paolo Sarpi, Concile do Trente par Couraycu-, t. i. p. 518.
VOL. H. — 30
234 SYNOD OF TRENT. [PART IV.
that they were only restrained by a reverential though mistaken
principle, from investigating the truth : and while we do justice
to their general intention, 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 opinions 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 approbation of the church
confers its whole authority on a general synod :"^ were this
opinion generally maintained by Roman theologians, and were
the " approbation" understood in the sense of a real approba-
tion, 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 reception among them-
selves ; the happiest results to religion and to the church could
not fail to ensue. Catholic truth could never be impaired by such
an investigation, 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 objects 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 ac-
knowledgment 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.
1 " Quidam tamen theologi opinantur hanc ecclesiae (dispersa;) approba-
tioiicm, omnem auctoritatem concilio general! tribuere." — Tractatus de
vera Ecclesia, p. 234. Cenomani, 1826.
CHAPTER XIII.
ON THE AUTHORITY OF PARTICULAR SYNODS, AND OF THE ROMAN
PONTIFFS IN CONTROVERSIES.
I HAVE already show^n from scripture,^ that the successors of
the apostles in the ministry of the holy church, are peculiarly
authorized to judge in controversies of religion. This power,
which belongs equally to all bishops, is to be exercised not
merely in oecumenical 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 au-
thority, when they decide questions regularly and in the mode
which ought always to be observed in Christian synods ; that
is, with invocation of the Holy Ghost, prayer for divine assist-
ance, diligent examination of the question proposed, 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 pur-
chased with his own blood," it ought to be piously held that the
same Spirit will assist them to maintain the truth.
. " ^ See above, p. 95. 100, &c.
236 AUTHORITY OF PROVINCIAL SVNODS. [P. IV; CH. XIII.
Such ought to be the persuasion of Christians generally :
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 pro-
ceedings, 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 minis-
ters who succeed them by vicarious ordinations, ' he that hear-
eth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me.'""
The faithful are therefore bound to hear and believe their spi-
ritual pastors assembled in a synod ; and though it be true,
that this does not prevent them from comparing- the decrees of
that synod with scripture and tradition, and in case of its being
in error, from respectfully remonstrating ; and in case of obsti-
nate error 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 obli-
gation in the decrees of the synod : if it be not, there is no
excuse for opposing 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 ordinary teachers. The
apostles, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, having estab-
lished particular churches, and given power to presbyters over
each church, established a special relation between those peo-
ple and their own pastors, by which the latter were to " give
account" for the " souls "'^ entrusted to their care. Hence, it
" Heb. xiii. 17. c Cyprianus, epist. Ixix. ed. Ben. <* Ileb. xiii. 17.
SECT. I.] AUTHORITY OF ENGLISH SYNODS. 237
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 jurisdiction, under pain of being
deposed or excommunicated.^
From this special relation between the faithful and their
own jKist07's, it follows, that the decree of a provincial or na-
tional synod in matters of religion, ought to have more weight
with the churches which it represents, than a contrary decree
made by a foreign synod, even though that foreign synod be
rather inore numerous. For the obligation to hear and obey
our own pastors is certain and imperative, while 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
church from error, can only be absolutely reckoned on where
there is a judgment of the universal church, morally unani-
mous ; but do not concern a small minority of bishops assem-
bled in synod. Hence, the decisions of the Enghsh synods in
1562 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 convention 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
« 1 Cor. xiv. 23.
f Concil. Ancyr. canon. 18 ; Nicen. 16; Sardic. 14. IS, 19 ; Antioch.
13-22; African. 54; Apostol. 16. 36.
238 AUTHORITY OF PROVINCIAL SYNODS. [p. IV. C. XIII.
the decrees of the former sessions, did so without any synodi-
cal examination of the question. And the decrees of the Eng-
lish 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
their bishop," "may and ought to be called j^rm 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."^ Bellarmine says :
" It is plain that a particular council, not expressly confirmed
by the pope, causes an argument so probable, that it is rash
not to acquiesce therein."'^ Tournely, having shown that Bel-
larmine and Maldonatus found the authority of provincial synods
on the words of our Saviour, " Where two or three are gather-
ed 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, Pe-
trus Aurelius 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 pre-
tence that they were not infalhble ? When did Novatus, Pela-
gius, and the many other heretics who were first condemned in
provincial synods, argue thus ? No one employed this sub-
terfuge,"' &c,
II. We are now to inquire 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
g Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 108.
J> Bellarminus, Dc Conciliis et Ecclesia, lib. ii. c. 10.
' Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 357.
SECT, I.] PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 239
theologians allege, that the synod of Antioch against Paul of
Samosata, and the synod of Orange against the semi-pelagians,
were approved by the universal church, and thus are of equal
authority with the oecumenical synods. "^ It seems to me, that
the decrees of the ancient provincial synods are of more autho-
rity as directed against heresies, than as positively defining the
truth.
If any doctrine was condemned as heretical by provincial
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
Roman church expelled Theodotus, Artemon, and their follow-
ers, 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 per-
sons 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 Sa-
mosata, for teaching that Christ was only a man, was expelled
from the church by the synod of Antioch ; as were the Nova-
tians, 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 : Pho-
tinus of Sirmium, who followed the Sabellian heresy, by coun-
cils 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 perfection, by councils at
Antioch and in Pamphylia. The Pelagian heresy, denying
original sin, and the need of divine grace, was rejected by the
'' See above, p. 148.
240 ALTHORITY OF PROVINCIAL SYNODS, [p. IV. CII. XIII.
synods of Carthage, Milevis, and several in tlie East ; as the
semi-pelagian vi^as by the synod of Orange.
All these sentences were so far ratified and acted on in the
Universal church, that those who held the condemned doctrines,
were accounted heretics by all Christians : but it does not appear
that the positive definitions 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 oecumenical synods,
which have always possessed a single and undivided authority
in the catholic church. When Gregory the Great professed
his adherence to the oecumenical synods as to the four gospels, he
added nothing of provincial synods. Vincentius Lirinensis
only appeals to the oecumenical synods in proof of the doc-
trines 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 au-
thority 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 authority alto-
gether 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 need-
less to say, that they are of no weight. Councils also which
were met by counter decisions are not of irrefragable authority ;
as, for instance, the synods of Carthage, of Iconium, and Syn-
nada, 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 observed also, that no
synod held in the east or west since the division in 1054, can
even pretend to represent the judgment of the universal church.
SECT. II. J PAPAL AND PATRIARCHAL JUDGMENTS. 241
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 patriarch of several provinces, his judgment oHuld not fail
to have more weight in the universal church than that of any
bishop or metropolitan. The patriarchs of Alexandria, 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 judg-
ments. 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. Pre-
viously 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 Rome, Constan-
tinople, &c. in matters of faith, however 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 judg-
ments by the light of scripture and tradition ; approved those
that were good, without making them rules of her faith ; re-
jected those that were heterodox ; and, in fine, reserved to
scripture, to catholic tradition, and to the decisions of the oecu-
menical synods, the supreme and undivided sway over the belief
of all nations.
VOL. II. — 31
♦
CHAPTER XIV.
ON THE ARTICLES OF THE SYNOD OF LONDON, 1562.
The Thirty-nine Articles of religion were, as it is well
known, ag||^ed upon by the metropolitans, the bishops, and the
whole clergy in the synod of London, 1562. In the first ses-
sion (January 19), the most reverend Archbishop of Canterbury,
as we 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 con-
vocation, to be diligently viewed, examined, considered, and, as
they may judge fit, corrected and reformed, and to be presented
in the next session."^ " These articles concerning the holy re-
ligion of Christ, were treated of, ahvays 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 themselves are then inserted in the acts, after which the
subscriptions of the bishops follow in this form : " These arti-
» " Ulterius proposuit, quod Articuli, in synodo Londinensi tempore nuper
Regis Edwardi scxli editi, traditi siiit quibusdam aliis viris ex ccetu dictae domus
inferioris ad hoc etiam electis, ut eos diligenter perspiciant, cxaminent, et
considerent, ac prout eis visum fuerit, corrigant et reforment, ac in proxima
sessione etiam exhibeant." — Wilkins, ConcOia, t. iv. 232.
b " De hisce articulis sacrosanctam Christi religionem concerncntibus, 20.
22. 25. 27. diebus nicnsis Januarii tarn in ecclesia collegiata D. Petri West,
quam in ecclesise D. Pauli London, domo capitulari, prsmissis semper pre-
cibus, tractatum fuit : donee 29 die ejusdem mensis tandem super quibusdam
articulis orthodoxse fidci inter episcopos, quorum nomina eis subscribuntur,
unanimiter convenit ; quorum quideni articulorum tenores sequuntur," &c.
Ihid. p. 233.
CHAP. XIV.] THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. 243
cles 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 ., accord-
ing to the computation of the church of England ; and the fifth
year of the most illustrious princess Elizabeth."'^ Then follow
the signatures of both archbishops and all the bishops. The
clergy afterwards subscribed in this form : " Those whose
names follow, 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 Canterbury, to
the lower house of convocation, February 5, mdlxii."
In 1571 the book of articles was examined, corrected, and
subscribed in the synod ; ^ and the archbishops and bishops
of both provinces enacted canons, by which all persons obtain-
ing faculties as preachers, were bound first to subscribe the
articles approved in the synod, and promised to uphold and
defend the doctrine contained in them, as most accordant to the
truth of God's word.® Another canon enjoined the same sub-
<: " Hos articulos fidei Christianae, continentes in universum 19 paginas,
&c Nos archiepiscopi et episcopi utriusque provinciee regni Anglise,
in sacra synodo provinciali legitime congregati, recipimus et profitemur, et
ut veros, atque orthodoxos, manuum nostraruna subscriptionibus approbamus
29 die mensis Januarii a. d. secundum computationem ecclesias Anglica-
nae mdlxh. et illustrissimas principis Elizabethae quiiito." — Ibid. p. 2.34.
d Wilkins, Concilia, t. iv. p. 261,262.
e " 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
articulus christianaj religionis publice in synodo approbatis, fidemque dent
se velle tueri et defendere doctrinam earn, quje in illis continetur, ut con-
sentientissimam veritati verbi divini." — Ibid. p. 263. " Imprimis vero vide-
bunt; ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri
et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae Veteris aut Novi Tes-
244 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XIV.
scription on all persons to be admitted into holy orders : ^ a
regulation which vi^as also made at the same time by the act
of the civil legislature.^ The synod of London, in 160,3 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 Ame-
rica, as the profession of those catholic churches.
The principal questions concerning the articles may be re-
duced 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 subscription.
tamenti, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina catholici patres et veteres episcopi
collegerint. Et quoniam articuli illi religionis christians, in quos consen-
sum est ab episcopis in legitima et sancta synodo, jussu atque auctoritate
serenissimse principis Elizabethae convocata et celebrata, baud dubie selecti
sunt ex sacris libris Veteris et Novi Testamenti, et cum ccelesti doctrina
quae in Ulis continetur, pej^ omnia congruunt. Quoniam etiam liber publi-
carum precum, et liber de inauguratione archiepiscoporum, episcoporum,
presbyterorum, et diaconorum, nihil continent ab ilia ipsa doctrina alie-
num ; quicumque mittantur ad docendum populum, illorum articulorum
auctoritatem et fidem, non tantum concionibus suis, sed etiam subscrip-
tione confomabunt. Qui secus fecerit, et contraria doctrina populum tur-
baveret, excommunicabitur." — Can. de Conciatoribus. — Ibid. p. 267.
^ " Quivis minister ecclesiae antequam in sacram functionem ingrediatur,
subscribet omnibus articulis de religione Christiana, in quos consensum est
in synodo ; et publice ad populum, ubicumque episcopus jusserit, patefaciet
conscientiam suam, quid de illis articulis et universa doctrina sentiat." —
Ibid. p. 265.
E Act 13 Eliz. c. 12.
h Bennet's Essay on XXXIX. Articles, p 358; Wilkins, Concilia, t. iv.
p. 379.
I Canon xxxvi.
SECT. I.] Nature of the xxxtx. articles. 245
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 necessity of belief in some of the most
holy doctrines of Revelation ; for although the articles be hu-
man compositions, the doctrine itself which some of them con-
vey is divine. For instance, the doctrines of the Trinity, the
incarnation, the sufferings, death, resurrection, atonement of
our Lord Jesus Christ, original sin, and other doctrines mani-
festly contained in the articles, are matters of faith, taught by
Scripture, by the decrees of oecumenical synods, and by catho-
lic tradition, and which it would be heretical to dispute or deny.
Therefore, 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 dif-
ferent 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 world, but should be unsupported
by the principles of the church of England herself, and op-
posed 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 particu-
lar churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred in
faith. It is theologically 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 jurisdic-
tion 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,
246 CATHOLIC OPINIONS IN XXXIX. ARTICLES, [p. IV. CII. XIV.
wliicli arc not self-evident, and on which men may be divided,
M^ithout doubting the doctrine of Revelation itself. E. g. If
some members 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 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 pro-
cession 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, lyrohahle, and catholic opinion, that the
wicked cat not the flesh of Christ in the eucliarist, because our
Lord himself said, " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh ray
blood, hath eternal life :" but since these words may possibly
refer to a xoorthy participation in the Lord's Supper, and since
many in the church have held that the wicked do in fact 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 matter 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
heretical ; which has never been the doctrine of this church.
Thus the articles comprehend not only doctrines of faith and
morals, but historical and theological verities, and pious, catho-
lic, and probable opinions.
SECT. II.] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES JUSTLY REQUIRED. 247
This is the sentiment of our theologians, Hall,'' Laud,^
Bramhall,'^ StilUngfleet,'' Sparrow," Bull,? Burnet,i 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 II. ■ , -
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 acknowledgment of articles
of faith ; secondly, her right to demand from them the pro-
fession of the otlier 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 ;"'i and their duty of " observing all things which Christ
commanded them ;"'' of " remaining stablished in the faith as
they have been taught,""' and of holding no communion with
those " who bring not the doctrine of Christ ;"^ infer the
'' Hall, Catholic Propositions, cited by Bull, Works, vol. ii. p. 212. ed.
Burton.
' Laud, Conference, s. 14.
■" Bramhall, Schism guarded, Works, p. 348.
n Stillingflect, Grounds of Protestant Religion, part i. ch. 2.
o Sparrow, Preface to Collection of Canons, &c.
P Bull, Vindication of the Church of England, Works, vol. ii. p. 211. ed.
Burton. ,
q Burnet, Exposition of XXXIX. Articles, p. 7. ed. 1737.
"■ Nicholls, Commentary on the Articles.
° T. Randolph, Charge on the Reasonableness of requiring Subscription,
1771. •
t Cleaver, Sermon on the design and formation of the Articles, 1802.
p. 1.
" Jude 2. " Matt, xxviii. 20. "' Col. ii. 7. * 2 John 9, 10.
248 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XIV.
necessity of soundness in faith on the part of those, who are
appointed to be their teachers. The very ofHce of " a minister
of Christ, a steward of the mysteries of God ,"^' " a pastor
and teacher" of Christ's flock,^ imphes; as one of its first
requisites, a behef in the doctrine of Christ " It is required in
stewards, that a man be found faithful."'' He who is to i)e
"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 direc-
tion for the choice of a bishop includes the condition of his
" holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught ; that
he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to con-
vince 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
who 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 parti-
cular method is of minor importance. Verbal or written decla-
rations or professions of faith made by the candidate ; his per-
sonal examination by way of question and answer ; or the pre-
sentation of a formulary 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.
y 1 Cor. iv. 1. 0 Heb. xiii. 17.
- Eph. iv. 11. « 2Tim. ii. 2.
a 1 Cor. iv. 2. f Tit. i. 9.
" 1 Tim. iv. 12. « 1 Tim. v. 22.
" Heb. xiii. 7.
SECT. II.] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES JUSTLY REQUIRED. 249
Thus the church is justified in demanding from candidates
for orders a subscription to the doctrines of faith, contained in
the Thirty-nine Articles.
II. Besides the duty of preserving the faith revealed by Je-
sus 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
judgment,"' obviously render it desirable that controversies 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 ahvays in the church, diverting the atten-
tion of the brethren from the sacred duties of religion to super-
fluous and interminable wranglings. The church has a duty to
Christian peace and harmony, as well as to revealed truth ; and
in points where the cathohc faith is not compromised, she is
bound to adopt measures to prevent, as far as possible, any dis-
turbance among the brethren. In such cases the church may
impose silence on opposite parties under pain of excommunica-
tion, 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 con-
trary opinion, without condemning those who privately hold it.
This power of suppressing needless disputes is certainly vested
in the church, for otherwise she would be exposed without reme-
dy to the most imminent danger of destruction from ignorant
and fanatical incendiaries, who, proud of their imaginary wis-
dom, and secretly excited by the evil spirit of earthly ambition,
might, in their frenzy, consummate the most irreparable mis
chiefs. The church cannot be without authority even to expel
from her communion those who should obstinately offend against
i John xvii. 11—23. * 1 Cor. i. 10.
VOL. II. — 32
250 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. . [p. IV. CH. XIV.
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 submit to their ignorant or fanatical dog-
matism. But if she judges it more advisable, in such a case,
to adopt the milder measure of requiring from those who are ad-
mitted to sacred orders, a sincere adhesion to the opinion she
judges most pious and probable ; no one, except he who is in-
veterately prejudiced, can deny that she exercises a laudable
and pious discretion. If indeed that opinion were contrary to
faitli, it would be unlawful either to impose or to adhere to it :
but if it4De 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 im-
putation of an undue assumption of authority, or of being cal-
culated 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 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 sup-
pressed by Sixtus V. in 1588, who forbad any disputation on
those points, whether in public or private, leaving the contend-
ing 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 controversy
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
theologians, in accordance with the several decisions of the Ro-
man pontiffs and of the synod of Trent, that the immaculate
SECT. II.] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES JUSTLY REQUIRED, 251
conception is not a point of faith, but a pious and catholic opin-
ion. 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 mem-
bers an adhesion to the doctrine. Thus Sixtus IV. in 1483,
having approved the doctrine of the immaculate conception, im-
posed excommunication ipso facto on all who taught that either
that or the contrary opinion was heretical, Pius V. in 1570,
decreed that whoever should dispute publicly on this question
on either side, should be suspended ipso ju7'e, 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 public lectures, sermons,
conclusions, or other public acts, that the Virgin was conceived
in original sin. Gregory XV. in 1622, extended the same pro-
hibition to discourses and writings, Alexander VII, in 1661,
again approved the opinion of the immaculate conception,
which, he says, is adopted 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 ad-
dition, 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, directly or indirectly,
byword 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 de-
prived 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
^ See Hoornbeeck, Examen Bulls Urb. VIII. p. 250, &c. ed. 1631. All
the above particulars are stated by Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, lib. vii, c,
ii. n. 244 — 263 ; and by Eusebius Amort, Theologia Eclectica, Moralis, et
Scholastica, Tract, de Peccat. Origin, t. viL p. 142 — 160. ed, 1752.
252 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [P. IV, CH. XIV.
to be only a matter of pious opmion. The obvious justifica-
tion 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 university of Paris for its continual prac-
tice even in the time of Bossuet, of exacting an oath from
every person who was to be received into the faculty of theo-
logy, to uphold the doctrine of the immaculate conception :^
a rule which in the Spanish Universities is extended to every
graduate, and which is even enforced in all corporations and
guilds, civil and religious, on the admission of new members."^
The Roman churches in sanctioning these practices, evince
their belief that it is lawful to require assent to a pious and
probable opinion, 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 promise to hold the
opinion of the immaculate conception as tJte more probable, or
at most, as theologically certain."
Hence, altogether it is evident, that the Romans cannot
object to the principle of requiring adhesions to pious and
catholic opinions, when the peace of the church would other-
wise be endangered.
III. If the church has a right to suppress disturbances
within her borders by exacting adhesions to pious and catholic
opinions, she has still more right to prescribe the adoption of
theological verities certainly true : more especially, if the
denial of those verities involves condemnation of herself as
heretical or sinful, opposition to her legitimate regulations for
the welfare of religion, denial of her rightful authority, or in-
I See Richcrius, Hist. Cone. Gen. lib. iii. p. 124, 125. 129 ; Bossuet,
G^uvres, t. xv. p. 20.
m See Doblado's Letters from Spain, p. 25.
" Bossuet, (Euvres, t. xxxviii. p. 315 — 320, where he meets the difficul-
ties as to this oath raised by M. Bertin. For a further discussion of these
difficulties see Launoii Pncscriptiones dc Conceptu B. Mariae Virg. Opera,
t. i. ed. Colon. Allobr. 1731.
SEC. II.] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES JUSTLY REQUIRED. 253
fringement of those liberties which she holds immediately from
om- Lord Jesus Christ. If the denial of certain truths, not
actually revealed, lead to these results ; and if there be immi-
nent danger of the growth of doctrines so injurious, then the
church is bound to take effectual 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 misettled doctrine of any of her own min-
isters.
To apply this to our articles of religion. If any one assert-
ed 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 doc-
trine of purgator}'-, the worship of images, &c. he would ren-
der nugatory the regulations of these catholic churches in such
points : besides charging them with error or heresy, and doing
an injury 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 proceed to show that the same evil results arise from
contradictions 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 permit her own min-
isters to bring about. For this reason the church of England
254 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XIV.
most justly requires all who are to minister in sacred things, to
profess sincerely 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 denoun-
ces excommunication ipso facto against any even of her lay
members, who shall presume to disturb the peace of the church
by asserting that any of her articles are superstitious or erro-
neous."
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 obedience to the apostolic
precept, " stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free,"P 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, "toe gave place hy subjection, no, not for an
hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."i
We are fully persuaded by experience, of the wisdom of the
holy synod of Nice, which decreed that " ancient customs
should be retained," and " the privileges of churches be pre-
served ;""■ 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 canons of
the fathers be transgressed, and the pride of worldly domina-
tion should 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."*
° Canon V. a.d. 1603. Du Pin says; "Si privatus quispiam advcrsus
phirium ecclesiarum aut etiam adversus ecclesiae suae consuetudinem insur-
gat, merito punitur et excommunicatur, ac schismaticus audit, ut sexcentis
ostendi posset cxcmplis." — De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 268. ed. 1686.
p Gal. V. 1. <i Gal. ii. 4, 5.
r Canon vi. Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 325.
» Decretum de Episcopis Cypri. — Harduin. t. i. p. 1619.
SEC. II.] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES JUSTLY REQUIRED. 255
But I proceed to show, that the principle of exacting adhe-
sions to doctrines such as I have mentioned, is also adopted by
the Roman churches. The Ultramontane churches required
their instructors to maintain the Ultramontane doctrines : the
Galilean imposed 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, while at the
Sorbonne it was not permitted to sustain the Ultramontane
opinions. I say laws of policy, and of a policy purely tempo-
ral, although at Rome they emanated from the authority of
the sovereign pontiff; for the laws of the church permitted
equally the maintenance of the two opinions, neither of which
was regarded 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 canonist Navarrus informs us, that at the end of the six-
teenth century these laws subsisted in all their force, since, in
his time, one of these opinions was maintained exclusively at
Paris, and the other at Rome. In good faith, does the anony-
mous 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 interdict signified
to the Pere Buhy by this inflexible pope, for having sustained
at Paris propositions incontestably true, or at least evidently
tolerated by the church."'^ .
t De Barral, Defense des Liberies de I'Eglise Gallicane, p. 77. ed,
1817.
D c Barral, p. 171.
256 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CII. XIV.
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 infallibility, his superiority to general
councils, &c. ; the opposite doctrines were equally prohibited
in the Gallican 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 subversion of her liberties or max-
ims : 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 object, not
as to the object itself.
But the conduct of the Gallican church in the seventeenth
century affords a precise parallel to that of the English in the
preceding century. The Roman pontiffs having shown a dis-
position to infringe on the liberties of France in 1681, forty
bishops, after a lengthened investigation of all the circum-
stances, 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 convocation of all the clergy of the king-
dom, and in consequence ordered the convocation of the pro-
vincial assemblies, in order to give ' the necessary powers to
those who should be deputed to the general assembly, to exam-
ine and deliberate on the matters contained in the proces-verbal
of the assembly of bishops held previously.' Thus all the
ecclesiastical provinces were assembled, and gave to their
deputies, as well of the first as of the second order, procura-
tions conveying power to dehberate on all the subjects men-
tioned. We sec, in effect, by the discourse of the president,
/ DeBajral, p. 123.
SECT. II.] GALLICAN ARTICLES. 257
on the day of the first session of the general assembly, that
the deputies are assembled for three things, ' 1 " for the promo-
tion 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 a
unanimous consent, borne in all the procurations, demand that
the assembly should labour to confirm the maxims and the lib-
erty of the Gallican church.""*
Thus solemnly convened, and vested with these specific
powers, the general assembly of the Gallican church met in
1682,^ and after due deliberation agreed on the celebrated de-
claration 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 ecclesiastical power ; that they cannot by the authority
of the keys directly or indirectly be deposed ; nor their subjects
absolved from their faith and obedience, or their oath of alle-
giance ; 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 autho-
rity, 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 Galli-
can 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 articles, ad-
w Ibid. p. 124, 125.
X " Nusquam visus est in Gallia coetus episcoporura et presbyteroruin
numerosior, virtutibus ac scientia commendatior, inquit D. de Bausset, in
historia Bossuet (t. ii. p. 121)." — Bouvier, De'Vera Eccl. p. 367.
y Sec Bouvier, De A''era Eccl. p. 3G9; Dc Barral, p. 40, &c. ; Leslie,
Case stated between the Church of Rome, &c.
VOL. II.— 33
258 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. C H. XIV.
dressed an encyclical letter to all the bishops of France, inform-
ing them of the result of their deliberations, and transmitting
the " Articles of their doctrine" in order that by the unani-
mous approbation of all the bishops of France, they may " be-
come to the faithful, venerable and imperishable canons of the
Galilean church."^ The assembly, of which the great Bossuet
was a conspicuous member, thus evidently expressed its belief
that the general consent of the 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 Galilean
clergy morally subscribed to them." Thus they were invested
with the authority of the whole Galilean church; and as such
all the Galilean theologians 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
» " Rogamus porro fraternitatem pietatemque vestram, reverendissimi
praesules, ut quondam concilii Constantinopolitani primi patres rogabant
Romanas synodi episcopos, ad quos synodalia sua gesta mittebant ; ut de iis
quae ad ecclesiae GallicariEe perpetuo sartam tectam conservandam pacem
explicuimus, nobis congratulemini, et idem nobiscum sentienles, eam quam
communi consilio divulgandam esse censuimus, doctrinam, in vestris singu-
lis ecclesiis, atque etiam universitatibus et scholis vestra; pastorali curse
commissis, aut apud vestras dioeceses constitutis, ita procuretis admitti ut
nihil unquam ipsi contrarium doceatur. Sic eveniet ut, quemadmodum
Romanae synodi patrum consensione Constantinopolitana universalis et oecu-
menica synodus effecta est, ita et communi nostrum omnium sententia,
noster consessus fiat nationale lotius regni concilium, et quos ad vos mitti-
mus doctrince noslrce articuli, fidelibus venerandi et nunquam intermorituri
ecclesia, Gallicance canones evadent." — Epistola Conventus Cler. Gall, ad
TJnivers. Eccl. Gall, prtesules. De Barral, p. 423, 424.
» " Omnis clerus Gallicanus moralitcr ei (declarationi) subscripsit.^' —
Bouvier, De Vera Eccl. p. 372.
b De Barral, p. 360.
SECT. ir.J GALLICAN ARTICLES. 259
articles, let us now see their confirmation by the state. In 1682,
Louis XIV. issued an edict commanding them to be registered
in all parliaments, universities, faculties of theology and canon
law in the kingdom, forbidding all clergy, secular and regular,
from teaching or writing any thing contrary to the doctrine of
these articles, ordering that all persons chosen to teach theology
in universities, shall subscribe the same previously, and teach
the doctrine explained there ; that where there are several pro-
fessors, 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 doctrine 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 throughout 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 arti-
cles in the preceding 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 doc-
trine : each was confirmed by the temporal power, made a part
of the law of the land, and to be subscribed by those who were
to teach theology. It is true that the Galilean church did not
oblige all the clergy to subscribe their articles : but she sanc-
tioned their subscription by those who were to teach the clergy,
which was in fact accomplishing the same object indirectly.
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 schis-
matics, and incurred the most furious opposition from the pope
and all the Ultramontane party, under the very same pretence.
- Ibid. p. 419, 420.
260 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XIV.
Bossnet and the Gallican 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 Gallican 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 incapable of
amelioration. One reason of this distinction 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 resolu-
tion to uphold her own liberties and the truth : while in France
symptoms of apprehension and concession were manifested.
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 oflfence, 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 " ?iot dec7'eed."^
The expression is equivocal, and may imply as Bossuet,^' De
Barral,^ Bouvier,' and others assert, that the Gallican articles
d Bossuet, Append, ad Defens. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. i.e. i. De Barral,
p. 127.
' De Barral, Pieces Justificativcs, n. ix.
f " Quidquid in iisdem comitiis circa ecclesiasticam potestatem et ponti-
ficiam auctoritatem decretum censeri potuit, pro non decreto habemus et ha-
bendum esse doclaramus. . . Mens quippe nostra non fuit quidquam decer-
nere." — Bouvier, p. 373.
K Bossuet, Gallia Orthodoxa, s. 6. h De Barral, p. 354.
' Bouvier, De Vera Eccl. p. 373.
SECT. II.J GALLICAN ARTICLES. 261
were " not defined as matters of faith ;" still it was apparently
a concession to the papal power, and has been represented 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
revoked, the parliaments 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 government 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 subscribe a promise to
teach the doctrine contained in these articles. In 1 826, the royal
court of Paris, declared that they formed part of the funda-
mental laws of the kingdom." Such, in fact, was the judg-
ment of the civil power ; though Bouvier, bishop of Mans, did
not see how the Gallican declaration could have the force of a
civil law.P 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 ap-
k Ibid. p. 375. ' Ibid.
m Memoires Eccl. de France, t. ii. p. 268. n Ibid. p. 363.
o La Mennais, Affaires de Rome, p. 52, 53.
p Bouvierj De Vera Eccl. p. 379.
262 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CII. XIV.
pear, 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.i This most fully justifies the clergy of England
for subscribing to some doctrines which are not matters of faith.
SECTION III.
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 importance 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
difficulties. First, it would not be easy to say who really com-
piled the articles. The convocation of 1562 may lay a fair
claim to this office, because, although they adopted certain ar-
ticles of 1552 as their basis, they examined, corrected, and re-
formed those articles,'' and thus in fact made them their own ;
and though they doubtless agreed in general with those who
compiled 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 arti-
cles ; and it may be said that where their work was not alter-
ed, their sense was preserved ; 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
bishops, together with certain Lutheran theologians, who were
engaged in a negotiation for a more perfect union with our
'' Ibid. p. 379, 380. ' Wilkins, ConcUia, t. iv. p. 232, 233.
SECT. III.] INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 263
churclies.^ The views of the compilers of these articles, if
known, might probably give a new complexion to the discus-
sion. Besides this, it is a matter of extreme difficulty, if not
totally impossible, to pronounce what the sense of these re-
spective bodies of compilers was individually, when they com-
posed 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 Arti-
cles. Besides, those individuals whose books remain, may
not have been exactly in the same mind when they composed the
articles, as when they wrote their books. In fine, it is uncertain
who actually composed the articles of 1552. Several bishops,
as Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, are said to have had a conside-
rable share in it, but various other theologians (we know not
how many) were also consulted, 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 exposition 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 autho-
rity which proposes them for adoption and subscription : and
in this opinion, rightly understood, I concur. The question
first arises, "By whom are the articles thus proposed?"
First : it is not the individual prelate who receives subscrip-
tions to the articles, for he only discharges an obligation impos-
ed on him by the spiritual and temporal powers. Secondly,
the clergy are obliged to profess the Thirty-nine Articles by the
act of parliament made in 1571, which being unrepealed, the
s Cranraer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. iv. p. 27.3. See also Mr. Jenkyns'
Remarks, vol. i. p. xx — xxiv.
' Todd's Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 288 ; Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. i.
p. cvii.
264 INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XIV,
power of the state imposes 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 confirmed by that of 1604,
has always since remained in force ; and therefore the articles
are proposed for subscription by the whole church of England.
The sense of the church of England, therefore, is the sense in
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 lime,
expressed any change of interpretation. In still continuing,
without remark, the same law which she enacted in the six-
teenth 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 1 I reply first, that the articles 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 interpre-
tation of the remainder : 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 sufficient testimony of their doctrine : for
they could never have intended that their articles should be in-
terpreted 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
u Synod, 1571. Can. de Concion. Wilkins, Cone. t. iv. p. 267 ; Synod,
1604, Can. iv. xxxvi. This rule was violated by Clarke and the Arian
party, who attempted to force an Arian interpretation on the Articles, in
defiance of the clear and manifest orthodoxy, not only of those formularies,
but of our creeds and ritual. — See Waterland's case of Arian subscrip-
tions.
SECT. IV.] IMPORT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 265
just and favourable construction ought to be allowed to all hu-
man writings, especially such as are set forth by authority,"'
it is apparently her desire, that where any doubt shall remain
of her 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 subscrip-
tion to the articles, declared at the same time the principle of
the church of England, that nothing should be taught as an ar-
ticle 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 predestination, employed language which 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 arti-
cles, 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 centuries, been debated in the universal
church.
SECTION IV. -.
ON SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ARTICLES. ' ^ ' '"
I have above shown 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 subscrip-
tion. It remains to examine the lawfulness and meaning of
this practice. . • *
The meaning of subscription to a body of articles, in the
case of a person at the age of reason, is an acknowledgment
"" Preface to Book of Common Prayer, &c. " See above, p. 243.
VOL. n. — 34
266 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. .CH. XIV.
that the doctrines comprised in them are sincerely those of the
subscriber. As the signature of a letter implies that the letter
conveys the sentiments of the person signing ; as the subscrip-
tion 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 confession of that individual's own be-
lief and persuasion.
The inscription of each apostolical epistle, comprising the
name of the apostle, and the particular subscription which was
sometimes added,'' testified that that epistle contained the doc-
trine 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 sub-
sequent ages of subscriptions to articles, the meaning 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, according to Eusebius, confirined the faith by
their subscriptions.'^ Socrates says that they approved and
adopted it,^ and that at length Eusebius of Caesarea agreed
with the others and subscribed.'^ The Emperor Constantino
had exhorted all to be of one mind and subsci'ibe the doctrine. "^
In all these instances, subscription is understood as equivalent
» 2 Thess. iii. 15 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.
y E. g- the synods of Carthage and Antioch in the third century.
z Euseb. Vita Const, lib. iii. c. 14. 'Ext/gouTo J" «/« x*/ tv >g«<|>»i tT/ vttovh'
fjKtStVtct; 'ntda-Tou ra Koivi Moyjuiva..
a Taurnv Ttiv mirTiv T^ixxca-fii /mh wgoc To7f <rsx.*^)cTw iyvaxrdv Tf ica) ea-Tfg^av jt«/ if
<f>i(r\v 0 Eiirs/S/oc, OiUstpaiv/iVavTSC x«« o^oJo^dV^vtic iyg*(p9V- — Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib.
i. c. 8.
b 0>Ta)c a/j-X T5K TToAXoK TTao-t a"t/v»iv4iT£i' T6 Kti (rviuTriypi-^e/ — Tbid.
« riavTic iruy>c-i.T3.bi<rbM K%i v^iyfd<fuv toi; J'oyfjtct.a-t, nou cv/uifaivity ToCrot; cdiTol;
^•atgsMAS JsTo. — I bid .
SECT. IV.] IMPORT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 267
to confirmation, agreement, or assent to the doctrine subscribed.
Subscription was viewed in the same hght by those who refused
to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius, and to the
creed of Ariminum. They believed that it would identify them
with proceedings which they disapproved. Several persons
went into exile rather than subscribe the decree of the oecu-
menical synod of Ephesus against Nestorius, which was enjoined
by the civil 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 con-
sented, is a heretic."® Flavianus, patriarch of Constantinople,
was obliged to excommunicate several monks who refused to
subscribe the condemnation of Eutyches by the synod at Con-
stantinople.^ 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 Theodore of Mopseuestia."^ In those ages,
subscription was always considered equivalent to a real appro-
bation and adoption of what was subscribed, and therefore,
whoever objected to the doctrine, refused to subscribe. I 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 signatures of bishops who subscribed
simply, those of many, who expressed in the very form of sub-
scription their approbation of the preceding formulary. Ac-
cording to Socrates, Hosius subscribed the Nicene creed thus :
" I, Hosius, believe as is above written."^ A frequent form is :
d Synodicon c. 148. 179. 183, &c. Baluzzi CoU. Cone. t. i. ed. 1683.
e Actio iv. Hard. Cone. t. ii. p. 418,
f Harduin. Cone. t. ii. p. 234.
g Facundus Hermianens. lib. iii. e. 1. ed. Sirmond, p. 472.
^ "Oj-io( imo-iuTro; KouS'fou^ne Is'Trotvist;, ouTct; jrts-Ttuee if Trpoyty^-jLTrTiti. — Socr.
Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 13.
268 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. [p. IV. CH. XI.'
" Ego N. consentiens subscripsi." The same form is observed
in the signatures to the confessions of the Reformation. The
articles of Smalcald are succeeded by subscriptions in this
form : " All consenting profess that they think according to the
articles, &c. and that they approve the article, &c. Therefore
they subscribe tlieir namesT^ Tlie Formula Concordige termi-
nates thus : " In the sight of the omnipotent God, and before all
the church of Christ, &c. vi^e openly and expressly testify that
this declaration ... is truly our doctrine, faith, and confession,
&c. In it, the Lord helping us, we will persevere constantly to
the end of our lives. In assurance of ivhich, with mature deli-
beration, &c. ... we have subscribed this declaration with our
own hands. "'^ Those who objected to the doctrine of such arti-
cles refused to subscribe them : thus Peter Martyr and Zanchius
were obliged to leave Slrasburg, because they would not sub-
scribe the confession of Augsburg, at least, without some limi-
tation. The Arminians went into banishment rather than
subscribe the doctrines of the synod of Dort, which they dis-
believed. The puritans refused to subscribe the English articles
which related to discipline.
The forms of subscription to the English articles by the con-
vocations in 1562, 1571, and 1604, all equally and formally ex-
pressed their assent, approbation and adoption of those articles
as true and consonant to the word of God. The form subscribed
' De mandato illustrissimorum principum, &c. . . relegimus articulos
confessionis exhibitaj imperatori in conventu Augustano, et Dei beneficio,
omnes concionatores qui in hoc Smalcaldensi conventu interfucrunt, conscn-
tientes profitentur, se juxta articulos . . . sentire. . . . Profitentur etiam se
articulum de primatu papae . . . approbare. Ideo nomina sua subscribunt."
— Artie. Smalcald.
^ " Clara voce et diserte testamur, quod declaratio ilia nostra de omnibus
commemoratis controversis articulis, et nulla prorsus alia, revera sit nostra
doctrina, fides et confessio ... in ea, Domino nos bene juvante, usque ad
vitpe finem constantes perseverabimus. In ejus rci fidem, matura cum
deliberatione, in timore Dei et nominis ipsius invocatione, propriis manibus
huic declarationi subscripsimus." — Formula Concordiae.
SECT. IV.] IMPORT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 2G9
by all the clergy in obedience to the synod of 1603 — 4, and
practised ever since, even to this day, declares that all the Thir-
ty-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 profession and adoption of the doctrines contain-
ed 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 heretics 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.
' Canon xxxvi.
CHAPTER XV.
ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING DISCIPLINE
AND RITES.
I HAVE elsewhere shown the lawfulness of instituting discipline
and rites which, though not expressed in scripture, are not con-
trary to its precepts.^ It only remains to consider more parti-
cularly 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
discipline, transmitted from our Lord and his apostles, to be
preserved. We also suppose that other general and lawful re-
gulations 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 re-
gulations in such points, without the addition of any other mem-
bers 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-
eth you hcareth me : " and " As my Father hath sent me, even
so send I you." And, therefore, as the apostles were commis-
sioned not only to teach but to make regulations of good order :
and as they not only exercised this power, but transmitted it to
others, (" For this cause have I left thee at Ephesus, that thou
» See Part III. Ch. IV.
CHAP. XV.] .CONCERNING DISCIPLINE AND RITES. 271
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 par-
ticular synods, where bishops alone most commonly made en-
actments concerning rites and discipline.
But since the authority of bishops is paternal, and is not de-
signed to be of the same nature as an earthly domination, be-
cause the apostle says, that they should not " lord it over God's
heritage,"'' nor have they " dominion over our faith f'^ it has al-
ways 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 gracefulness and facili-
ty. 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." *"
11. May parlicular bishops and churches make and adopt re-
gulations in matters of discipline and rites ?
I reply, that this power is originally inherent in every particu-
lar church : and has been repeatedly exercised in all ages, as
we may see by the canons of diocesan synods, and by the
various rituals and liturgies 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 exercising their inherent powers, and to
adopt uniformity of rites and discipline. And where this cus-
tom has been long continued, and no valid reason can be assign-
ed 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
'- Tit. i. .5. « 1 Pet. V. 3.
" 2Cor. i. 24. * Heb. xiii. 17.
272 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [PART IV.
where no such rule exists, particular churches may exercise
their natural liberty.
III. Are provincial and national churches bound by the regu-
lations concerning 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 provincial syn-
ods ; and. on this ground we might easily show, that some re-
gulations 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 obligator}^ on national or particular
churches. Some canons of the synods of Constantinople, Ephe-
sus, 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 acknowledge to be an oecumeni-
cal synod. Therefore, it is clear, that the regulations of oecu-
menical synods concerning variable riles 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 regulations
concerning rites and discipline may be injudiciously exercised.
God does not always vouchsafe, even to men of good inten-
tions, the gifts of wisdom and moderation, and an insight into
the practical consequences of things ; and thus he did not inter-
fere to prevent the introduction of several rites into His church,
which, though arising in some instances from a spirit of devo-
tion and humility, yet were found by experience to be preju-
dicial to piety, and as such were removed by the authority of
C HAP. XV.] CONCERNING DISCIPLINE AND RITES. 273
our catholic churches. It is also true that this power may be
too largely exercised : and that the multiplication of rites, in
themselves harmless, may become so great, that the church
may be obhged to prune away their redundancy. This also
was done by our churches in the sixteenth century, as the pre-
face 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 that time. Vague and general charges of
this kind would be equally inconsistent with Christian charity,
and with the truth.
<" " Some are put away because the great excess and multitude of them
hath so increased in these latter days, that the burden of them was intoler-
able ; whereof St. Augustine in his time complained, that they were grown
to such a number, that the estate of Christian people was in worse case
concerning that matter than the Jews. And he counselled that such yoke
and burden should be taken away, as time would serve quietly to do it."
VOL. II. — 35
CHAPTER XVI.
ON THE EXERCISE AND SANCTIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL
DISCIPLINE.
In examining the general principles of practical discipline in
the church, or the mode in which transgressions against faith
and morality are to be treated, I shall first consider the tri-
bunals in particular churches for the judgment of offences ;
secondly, the censures which they are empowered to inflict ;
thirdly, restoration by penitence and absolution ; and fourthly,
the censure of churches by other churches.
SECTION I.
ON ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS.
The offences of Christians a2;ainst the divine laws of bro-
therly 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 follow-
ing texts. " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and
tell him his fault, &c. And if he shall neglect to hear thee,
tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."^
" Do not ye judge them that are within ? But them that are
without God judgeth. Therefore, put away from among your-
selves that wicked person."^' " Brethren, if a man be over-
taken in a fault, ye that are spiritual restore such a one in the
spirit of meekness."' " Of some have compassion, making a
difference : and others save with fear, pulling them out of the
s Matt, xviii. 15—17. '■ 1 Cor. v. 12, 13. ' Gal. vi. 1.
SECT. I.] ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS. 275
fire ; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."i^ 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 consists in their
vesting the whole authority in the laity, and in insisting on the
necessity of their judging personally in every case. The scrip-
ture 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 brethren.""^ Thus churches were empowered to
delegate their power of judging to individuals : and on whom
could this power more properly and reasonably devolve, 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.
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 fur-
ther than this : and that they were invested with the inherent
right of judging and censuring, independently of the people,
when they 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
k Jude 22, 23.
1 See Du Pin, De Antiqua Eccl. Discipl. Dissert, iii. c. 1.
" 1 Cor. vi. 4, 5.
276 EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE. [p. IV. CH. XVI.
heaven :""■ but he said to the apostles only, and through them
to their successors in the sacred ministry, " whosesoever sins
ye remit they arc remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they
are retained."" Hence, St. Paul alone " delivered Hymenasus
and Alexander to Satan, that they might learn not to blas-
pheme :"P and to Timothy he said, " A man that is a heretic,
after the first and second admonition, reject.''^ It was proba-
bly by observing these circumstances, that Christians were
induced universally to devolve the judgment of all causes on
their chief pastors, the bishops of the catholic church, who,
however, usually judged with the advice of their clergy,'' and
at length deputed a portion of their power to their vicars, chan-
cellors, and archdeacons.
The cognizance of the causes of the clergy was specially
reserved to the ministers of Jesus Christ, by St. Paul, who
writes to Timothy : " Against a presbyter receive not an ac-
cusation, but before two or three witnesses,"^ thus constituting
him the judge of the presbyters at Ephesus. It would not
have been decorous indeed, that the sheep should 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 provin-
cial synods,* and in later times from the bishop to the metro-
politan.
For many ages the judgments of the church were conducted
n Matt, xviii. 18. o John xx. 23.
p 1 Tim. i. 20. •> Tit. iii. 10.
■^ Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Dissert, iii. p. 249. s 1 Tim. v. 19.
t Du Pin, ut supra, p. 248. See also vol. i. p. 80.
SECT. II.] ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS. 277
according to fixed rules indeed, but without the formahty of
juridical proceedings. It was not until the twelfth century,
that ecclesiastical jurisdiction in courts proceeding according
to the forms of the Roman law, was introduced into the
church. 'I
SECTION. II.
ON ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURES.
The ecclesiastical censures mentioned in scripture arc pub-
lic 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, re-
ject."^ " Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the
faith."''' " Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also
may fear.""^ These passages authorize not only verbal admo-
nitions, but formal episcopal censures of books, propositions,
and persons.
The second censure is mentioned in the following texts : " If
he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as a hea-
then man, and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatso-
ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ."^
" Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and
whosesoever sins ye retain are retained."^ " I verily, as ab-
sent in body but present in spirit, have judged already . . . con-
cerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my
spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such
an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
u Van Espen, Tract, de Censuris, cap. ii.
V Tit. iii. 10. - Tit. i. 13. » 1 Tim. v. 20.
" Matt. xvii. 17, 18. ' John xx. 23.
278 EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE. [p. IV. CH. XVI.
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . Purge out
therefore the old leaven . . . put away frovi among yourselves
that wicked person.""^ " A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition, rejectT^ "We command you,
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with-
draw yourselves from every brother that walkelh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received from us."*^ " I
would they were even cut off that trouble you."'' " Some con-
cerning faith have made shipwreck, of whom is Hymenaeus 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 him to be as a heathen man and a publican,
is ratified by God himself: and that he who is rightly excom.mu-
nicated, clave non errante, is cut ofi'from the way of salvation :
so that unless he receive the grace of repentance, he will cer-
tainly perish. The awful nature of this censure obviously ren-
ders it necessary, not only that the most conscientious diligence
be employed in investigating any case to which it may be ap-
plied, but that its use be sparing, and only in extreme cases.^
The external efi'ects of anathema are, an exclusion from the
sacraments, from all Christian privileges, from all religious in-
tercourse 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 children, &c.
Since the church is empowered to inflict these penalties
collectively, on great and obstinate ofienders 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 excommunica-
» 1 Cor. V. 3, &c. b Tit. iii. 10. c 2 Thess. iii. 0, 7.
0 Gal. V. 12. e 1 Tim. i. 19, 20.
^ See August, lib. iv. c. 1. Contr. Epistolani Parmeniani ; Fleury, Instit.
au Droit Eccl. p. iii. c. 20.
SECT. II.] EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE. 279
tion, interdict, 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 bring the offender to repen-
tance. It is the opinion of some persons, that excommunica-
tions latcB sententicB, or to be incurred ipso facto, (introduced,
in the middle ages,^) are always to be understood of the lesser
excommunication.'^ Interdict was a censure introduced in the
middle ages, prohibiting the celebration of public service.'
Suspension is an interdiction to a clergyman to exercise minis-
terial functions for a limited time, and does not seem to have
existed very early in the church.'' Irregularity 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 per-
petual deprivation of all right to exercise ministerial functions,
or to possess any privileges or emoluments attached to them.™
These are, as I have observed, partial exclusions from Christian
privileges ; and the church, which is given the power of the
greater excommunication in cases of obstinate sin, is reasonably
believed to be invested with the power of inflicting milder cen-
sures where there is a probable hope of amendment. Accord-
ingly, the church universal has exercised the discipline of the
g Van Espen, Tract, de Censuris, c. i. s. 4.
^ Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium, book iii. c. 4. Rule ix. p. 618.
' See Van Espen, Jus. Eccl. Universam, pars iii. tit. xi. c. ix ; Tracta-
tus de Censuris, c. ix. ; Fleury, Institut. au Droit Eccles. pars iii. c. 21.
k Van Espen, Jus. Eccl. Univers. pars ii. tit. x; Tract. Censuris, c. x. ;
Fleury, c. 19.
' Irregularity is rather an incapacity than a censure, but it is a conse-
quence of ecclesiastical censures. See Fleury, part i. c. 4. the modern
canonists reckon only three sorts of censure, suspension, excommunication
and interdict.
"> See Gibson, Codex Tit. xlvi. According to Fleury. c. 19, the solemn
degradation of ecclesiastics, which required the assistance of several bishops,
has long been disused in France.
280 EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE. [P. IV. CH. XVI.
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 " edification and
not destruction,"" the recovery, not the mere punishment of sin-
ners, 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 comfirm your love toward him. . . . To whom
ye forgive any thing, I forgive also."°
The. siticerity of the offender's repentance was the only condi-
tion 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
introduced. 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 penitent, who
had fallen into sin after baptism, was the heresy of Novatian,
which the catholic church condemns. The power of absolution
is proved by the words of St. Paul above cited, and by the fol-
lowing : " Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which
are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness. "p
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, " Whose-
soever sins ye remit they arc remitted, and whosesoever sins ye
n 2 Cor. xiii. 10. ° 2 Cor. ii. 7, 8. 10. p Gal. vi. i.
SECT. IV.] ABSOLUTION FROM CENSURES, 281
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 anathe-
matized rightly as far as we can judge, from the state of a
heathen man and a publican, into the visible kingdom of God.
SECTION ly.
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 brotherly love, it is certain that
no church can, on pretence 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 ana-
thema. But when the offence is not so great, churches have
been content to rebuke and admonish other churches, by with-
drawing one or more of the signs of fraternal communion, with-
out denouncing the extreme sentence of the greater excommu-
nication.
The signs of external communion between churches, from
the earliest period, were chiefly the transmission of letters of
communion, the fraternal reception of brethren who came
with commendatory letters, i the assembling together in councils,
and in later times, mention in the diptychs of the principal
bishops to whom many churches were subject. When churches
have had serious contentions, not actually concerning the Chris-
tian faith, they have sometimes imitated, in some degree, the
example of Paul and Barnabas, when " the contention was so
sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the
other ;"'^ and have withdrawn several of the signs of external
Du Pin, De Antiq. Eecl. Discipl. Diss. iii. p. 253. ' Acts xv. 39.
VOL. II. — 36
282 EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE. [p, IV. CH. XIV.
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 i'"^ therefore, it
is unlawful for the church to expel offenders from her com-
munion.
Ansiver. 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 excommunicate such : but when the offence
is manifestly proved, the scripture empowers her to excom-
municate,
II. Our Lord did not excommunicate Judas Iscariot.
Answer. He was not a manifest, but a secret offender : and
the church was not fully established till after the death of our
Lord.
III. 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.
Answer. There is no proof that all churches had this power
at first ; and the church may be sufficiently assured of the truth
of any alleged fact by good testimony.
IV. Ecclesiastical excommunications are injurious to the
authority of the civil magistrate. They may interfere with the
laws of the land.
Answer. Excommunication, as such, does not affect temporal
rights, properties, privileges, &c. but merely spiritual or Chris-
tian privileges, which are not at the disposal of temporal
magistrates.
« See above. Part I. c. iv. s. 2, 3. ' Matt. xiii. 30.
OBJECT.] CENSURES OF CHURCHES. ' 283
V, " Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise do-
minion over them, and they that are great exercise authority
upon them. But it shall not be so among you,"*! &c. There-
fore, all authority in the church is unlawful.
Answer. The assumption of authority in the sense of domi-
nation 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 excommunications for
insufficient causes, or in order to support their own authority in
matters essentially temporal.'^
Answer. 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.
« Matt. XXV. 26.
V The council of Trent prohibited all ecclesiastical judges from employ-
ing excommunications to enforce their ordinances, whenever they can be
enforced by temporal constraints. See Fleury, lust, au Droit Eccl. part
iii. c 20.
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE POWERS OF UNIVERSITIES IN THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS.
The right of universities, which possess a faculty of theo-
logy, to determine theological questions, and censure theological
propositions, arises from the very fact 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 refusing
degrees to those who will not undertake to maintain the doc-
trines 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,
sanctioned, and recommended such proceedings : and uni-
versities did not pretend by their censures to determine con-
troversies with the authority of the church, or to expel offenders
from Christian communion ; but to declare their own judg-
ments, 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, condemning various errors
in faith. ^ Du Boulay mentions other censures of the univer-
sity of Paris, in the thirteenth century, made either conjointly
» Bulaei Hist. Univers. Parisiensis, t. iii. p. 397. 433.
CHAP. XVJI.] POWERS OF UNIVERSITIES. ' 285
with the bishop of Paris or separately.'' In the succeeding
centuries these censures were very numerous, and were held
of so much authority in the church, that they almost supplied
the place of the judgments of provincial synods. The cen-
sures of the miiversity of Paris are found in the writings of
Du Boulay and Du Pin,° and have been published in several
volumes. According to Launoy, this university exercised in-
variably 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 opposite truths. 'i
They also obliged those admitted to degrees to subscribe pre-
viously 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 Lou-
vain, Cologne, and others, in the sixteenth century.
Universities were also frequently consulted by princes and
others in difficult questions of doctrine or morality. Philip the
Fair, king of France, consulted the university of Paris, previ-
ously to the suppression of the order of knights-templars. The
duke of Orleans consulted them in 1410, concerning certain
theses published against his deceased father.^ In the same
manner king Henry VIII. consulted the universities of Oxford,
Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, &c. on the question whether mar-
riage with a deceased brother's wife was contrary to the divine
law. He also consulted the universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge, whether the bishop of Rome has, by divine right, any
jurisdiction in England, and they determined in the negative.
The universities were invested with such great prerogatives by
'' Ibid. p. 24. 548, &c. Thomassin says that the doctrinal judgments
of the university without the bishops, became common in the fourteenth
century. Vet. et Nov. Ecclesiae Disciplina, pars ii. lib. i. c. 101.
" Du Pin, Biblioth. des Aut. Eccl. Cent. xiv. xv. &c.
'' Launoius, De Scholis Celebrioribus, cap. lix. — Ixi.
« Ibid. c. Ixi. art. 7.
*■ Bulaei Hist. Univ. Paris, t. iii. p. 570. . >
286 POWERS OF UNIVERSITIES. [PART IV.
the western churches, that their authority, in all religious ques-
tions, could not fail to be very considerable. They sent repre-
sentatives to general synods of the west ;^ and the universities
of Oxford^' and Cambridge, were empowered to license preach-
ers throughout England.
The university of Oxford has exercised her undoubted privi-
lege of censuring errors in doctrine, at least from the fourteenth
century. In 1314, eight articles of false doctrine were cen-
sured by the university.' In 1368, several articles were con-
demned by the order of the archbishop of Canterbury.^ The
doctrines of Wickliffe were censured by the chancellor and
doctors in 1371, and forbidden to be taught under pain of in-
carceration and suspension from university acts.i In 1411,
delegates were appointed to examine the books of the Wick-
Hffites and select propositions from them, which were condemn-
ed."^ In 1425, the university censured the doctrine of Russel
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. p In
1609, Edmond Campian, having taught that subjects might
lawfully take up arms against their sovereign for the cause of
religion, was compelled to retract.^ In 1609, a person was
g Launoius, ut supra.
h The university of Oxford received from the pope the privilege of
licensing preachers in 1490. — See Wopd, Hist. Univ. Oxon. p. 235. Ful-
ler's history of the University of Cambridge, is too brief to enter into
such particulars.
' Ant. Wood, Hist. Univ. Oxon. p. 152.
k Ibid. p. 183. > Ibid. p. 189. "• Ibid. p. 206.
n Ibid. p. 211. ° Ibid. p. 232.
P Burnet, Hist. Reformation.
1 Wood, Hist. Univ. Oxon. p. 315. • ,
CHAP. XVII.] POWERS OF tTNIVERSITIES. 287
forced to recant some Popish errors.'' In 1622, many errone-
ous propositions were condemned.^ In 1647, the solemn
league and covenant was censured. 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 privi-
leges in consequence of the theological errors advanced in his
writings.*
Thus there cannot be any doubt that universities which pos-
sess a theological faculty, have a just and prescriptive right of
censuring the writings, propositions, and persons of their mem-
bers, and if needful, of enforcing their judgments, by demand-
ing subscription to articles and declarations, or by exacting re-
cantations, under the penally of suspension, degradation, or
expulsion.
' Ibid. p. 317. s Ibid. p. 327.
' The decree in this case was as follows : " Quum ab Universitate com-
missum fuerit S. Theologiae professori regio, ut unus sit ex eorum numero
a quibus designantur selecti concionatores, secundum Tit. xvi. § 8 ; necnon
ut ejus consilium adhibeatur, si quis concionator coram Vice-Cancellario in
qusestionem vocetur, secundum Tit. xvi. ^ 11 : quum vero qui nunc pro-
fessor est, scriptis quibusdam suis publici juris factis ita res theologicas
tractaverit, ut in hac parte nullam ejus fiduciam habeat Universitas ; statu-
tum est, quod munerum praedictorum expers sit S. Theologiae professor
regius, donee aliter Universitati placuerit."
A
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART V.
ON THE RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE.
VOL. II. — 37
A TREATISE
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 rela-
tions 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 Augustinus Trium-
phans, Alvarus Pelagius, Hostiensis, Panormitanus, Sylvester,
Hugo S. Victor, Durandus, Turrecrcmata, Pighius, Stapleton,
Bellarmine, and the modern Ultramontane party, that the pre-
tended 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 Bossuet,'* and by
all the great writers of the Galilean church, and is so little
likely to come into controversy, that we may lay it aside.
" In his great work, the Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani.
292 IIEL.VTIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE. [PART V,
There is more danger in the present day from the principles
of Hobbes, Tindal, and other enemies of Christianity, who pre-
tend, 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 employed
in endeavouring to subvert Christianity, by first merging its
authority in that of the state. Hobbes, in the seventeenth cen-
tury, made this the foundation of his grand attack upon the
Christian religion ; which he endeavoured to subvert, by incul-
cating that all religion depended on the civil power, and had
no other claim to respect and obedience than as being sanction-
ed by the will of the magistrate. The deists of the last cen-
tury almost all argue upon the same principle, though not so
openly avowed. The French revolutionists effected their dia-
bolical purpose by similar means : and to this day, scarcely
any attack is made upon revealed religion, which does not pro-
ceed upon the implied principle that religion is purely a crea-
ture 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 reli-
gion : that he cannot, without interfering with the office of
Christ himself, either support the church by law, or protect its
doctrine and discipline : that he ought to treat all religions
with a just andimpartial indifference, and permit the propaga-
tion of heresy even within the churcii.
The doctrine of Warburton and Paley, that the civil magis-
trate is bound to establish the largest sect, without reference
to the truth of its faith, is also a very dangerous and erroneous
position, which is derived from the principles of Locke and
Hoadly, that the civil magistrate has nothing to do with religion,
•' Van Mildert, Boyle Lectures, vol. i. p. 504. 3d ed.
INTROD.] RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE. 293
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 coun-
tenanced by some of the non-jurors, divests the civil magis-
trate of his reasonable privileges in the church, renders him the
mere executor of its decrees, and is inconsistent with the prin-
ciples of the Reformation, the existing constitution, and there-
fore the general interests of the catholic and apostolic churches
established in these realms.
Such are the different opinions between which we must
endeavour to trace the path of truth : a task peculiarly 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 geiieral rules indeed may be assigned, by
which they may be separated, but many things happen to be
specifically laid before us, which may deceive the most skilful
judges."*^
" Taylor, Ductor Dubitant. p. 545, ed. 1676, mentions their principal
writers.
^ De Marca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, Praefatio.
CHAPTER L
ON THE ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH AND STATE.
I. That the sovereign power in every state is established
by the divine ordinance, and that it is in all civil and temporal
matters to be obeyed by every worshipper of the true God, is
a doctrine most continually inculcated by holy scripture, as in
the following passages. " By me kings reign and princes de-
cree justice."'* " 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, power, and strength, and glory. And where-
soever 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 tes-
tified as well by his precept and example, 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 declaring that " his kingdom is not of this world, ""^ refus-
ing 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 enjoin-
ing us to " render unto Cresar the things that be Caesar's, and
to God the things that be God's. "^ And the doctrine of the
apostles was exactly the same. " Submit yourselves to every
a Prov. viii. 15. •> Dan. ii. 21.
■^ Dan. ii. 37, 38. a John xviii. 36.
« Luke xii. 14. f Mark x. 42, 43.
« Matt. xxvi. 52. ' i' Matt. xii. 21.
CHAP. I.] INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE. 295
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ; whether it be to the
king as supreme ; or vmto 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. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance 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, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in autho-
rity : that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all god-
liness and honesty.'"^
It is needless to add to these passages the accordant testi-
mony of catholic tradition, in proof of the universal duty of
obedience to the temporal rulers in all civil and temporal mat-
ters. 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 to, or dependent on, any ecclesiastical power,
whether in their own dominions or elsewhere. And this is
confirmed by the fact, that the state with its proper government
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 independent
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
beheved, the duties to be performed, the system and mode of
association, its ministry, and rites, were all dictated by God
>■ 1 Pet. ii. 13. i Rom. xiii. 1—5. ^ 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.
296 INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH, [PART V.
himself, by whose will and commandment this divine religion
was to be propagated amongst all nations, as the way by which
men should attain liis 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 blessings on humanity.
It is certain, however, that the church, even while in a stale
of persecution, possessed every essential characteristic of the
true church. Its divine doctrine and discipline were sustained,
heretics and schismatics were expelled, councils were held,
offences against the divine law judged, the succession of its
legitimate pastors preserved, and the promise of Christ, " Lo,
I am with you always,^'' verified. It may be added, that in
every subsequent age, the church in some part of the world
has been unprotected by the temporal power, nay, even perse-
cuted ; and therefore, though it is admitted that the protection
and assistance of the civil government is of very great advan-
tage to the cause of religion, it is evident that the church does
not derive its origin, its religion, its powers of spiritual juris-
diction, 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 facts recorded in holy scripture, and
the promises of our Lord himself ; and therefore no Christian
,can admit such a position.
CHAPTER II.
THE RIGJIT AND DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT THE TRUE
RELIGION.
The end of civil government is not only the preservation of
life and property, but the general loelfare of the conwiunity
entrusted to its care. This is proved by the universal sense of
mankind, and by the practice of governments, which have never
held themselves limited to the mere duty of punishing offences
or remedying 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 which promote virtue and religion, on which alone the
fabric of society is securely based, and which tend beyond all
others, to the happiness 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 mo-
tives and sanctions which it conveys, arc peculiar to itself, and
calculated to have a powerful effect on the conscience. Its
constitution, 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 uni-
versally believe, that the aid of divine grace is given to assist
their feeble efforts after godliness.
Christianity, therefore, being, in its essential constitution, as
VOL, II.— 3b
298 DUTY OF MAGISTRATES [pART V.
a religious society, eminently qualified to sustain and encourage
virtue and religion, and inculcating, as it does, a most faithful
obedience to the law of the civil magistrate, it was evidently
for the interest of the state, it was within the duties of the tem-
poral government, to protect and encourage the Christian so-
ciety by all just and equitable means : and under this view,
even an unbelieving prince might undertake the care of religion.
This reasoning, however, would atford 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 the history of many
ages, 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 calculated to draw
down the Divine vengeance on those who permitted and sanc-
tioned 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 individual, 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 ca-
pacities, in the one case by personal efforts, in the other, by
public and legal encouragement. It is the especial duty of na-
tions to act thus in their collective capacity, and to endeavour
that irreligion may be suppressed in the state, because according
to the rule of God's moral government, the virtuous are some-
times involved m the temporal punishments of the wicked, and
CHAP. II.] TO RELIGION. 299
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 religion are made
known, will find these truths delivered by the unerring autho-
rity 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 considereth all
their works. There is no king saved by the multitude of a
host: a mighty man is not delivered 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 mankind. Be-
hold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up ; also, he
sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth. With him is
strength and wisdom, the deceived and the deceiver are his.
He leadcth counsellors away spoiled. . . . He leadeth princes
away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty. . . . He increaseth
nations, and deslroyeth them : he enlargeth the nations, and
straiteneth them again."^ " He turneth rivers into a wilder-
ness, 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 con-
cerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down, and to de-
stroy 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.""^
" Psalm xxxiii. 13—19. t Job xii. 10—25.
' Psalm cvii. 33, 34. ^ Jerem. xviii. 7 — 10.
300 DUTY OF MAGISTRATES [PART V.
Religion, and obedience to God's commandments, are there-
fore 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 by, " all nations i"*^ and as those
who reject it are subject to the wrath of God, for " he that
believeth not shall be damned,"^ it is the most bounden duty of
the Christian magistrate, as well from a sense of submission
to the w^ill 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 pro-
tect, to uphold, and, as far as sound policy permits, to propa-
gate 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 instructed, ye judges of the
earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling,"
on which St. Augustine observes, " How do kings serve the
Lord in fear, but by forbidding, and, by a religious severity,
punishing those things which are done against the Lord's com-
mandments ? For he serves Him in different respects as a
man, and as a king. As a man, he serves Him by living faith-
fully : as a king, he serves Him by establishing laws command-
mg righteousness, and forbidding the contrary. So did Hcze-
kiah serve God, by destroying the groves and the idol temples,
and those high places which were built against the commands
of God. Li the like manner, king Josiah served God,"*^ &c.
The example of tlie 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 admonition presumptuous, which arises
from piety, and by which we endeavour to correct errors, to
remove superfluities, and to establish what is right ; l^it rather
let him receive it with benevolence and charity. For we read
e Matt, xxviii. 19. <' Mark xvi. 16.
e August. Epist. 50 ad Bonifac.
CHAP. II.] TO RELIGION. 301
in the Book of Kings, how ihc holy Josiah endeavoured to re-
store 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 Scripture :' and, in short, this appears to have been the gene-
ral 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 Christianity,
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 hea-
then, infidel, and heretical 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 Christianity. It
is not to be admitted as possil)lc by any Christian. But in so
far as it is possible that any person can be excused for not be-
lieving 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 War1:)urton and Paley, that the civil
magistrate is bound to support and establish the largest sect, is
to be rejected : because it can never tend to the welfare of the
community to establish a false religion, a heresy, or a schism,
which being no portion of the Christian church, and inheriting
no promises 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.
■" Harduin. Cone. t. iv. p. 825.
' Bellarminus de Membris Eccl. Militantis, lib. iii. c. IS.
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 afford-
ed to Christianity by the Christian magistrate, we must remem-
ber the object with which this protection is given. It is because
the church of Christ is best quaUfied 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 afforded by
the state rests on the fundamental condition of maintaining all
that is essential to tJie chwch, and not depriving it of any one
of those characteristics which Christ willed never to be sepa-
rated 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 re-
linquish any of her essential rites or discipline. 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 religion, and thus disqualify her from bringing the divine
blessing on the nation.
The Christian magistrate originally, in becoming the protec-
tor of the true church, could only lawfully have undertaken this
office, with the intention of preserving the definite system of re-
ligion which God had revealed and which the catholic church
had received. And from the oflSce of protection, thus limited,
may be deduced the supremacy and all the powers of the Chris-
tian magistrate 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
CHAP. III.] NATURE OF MAGISTRATES' PROTECTION. 303
to the public welfare, and to which it is desirous of giving effec-
tual support and encouragement. The first and most obvious
act of protection is, to give security to the persons and property
of its individual members, so that the fact of their membership
shall not induce legal penalties or any other danger. Further
encouragement 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 ex-
ternal condition of the society ; but it may also be extended to
its internal condition. In this respect it infers the legal estab-
lishment of all the essential principles and features of the society,
and therefore the suppression of any attempts to introduce inno-
vations 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 not be
disturbed, or its salutary action impeded by internal disorgani-
zation. 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 relation to the
Christian society, gives rise, at once, to that state of things,
which is commonly called the " establishment," and " the su-
premacy" of the civil magistrate. The Christian magistrate
relieves the church from legal persecution ; gives security to
the persons and property of its individual members ; affords
legal protection to the property devoted by pious individuals to
the maintenance of the Christian ministry ; guards the churches
from violation ; affords the necessary pecuniary assistance for
the spread of religion ; and in some countries confers temporal
304 ORIGIN OF ROYAL SUPREMACY. [PART V.
power and dignity on its chief pastors. ^^ Thus the church
becomes " cstabhshed."
The ecclesiastical supremacy of the Christian magistate con-
sists 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 there-
fore to repress all attempts to introduce heresies 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
suppression of controversies. He is to sec that the ministers
of the church fulfil the office of their vocation, that ecclesias-
tical tribunals do not themselves transgress the laws of the
church ; that abuses and imperfections injurious to the effi-
ciency 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 deh-
!> [In the United States there is no " establishment ;" nevertheless, of
the good offices enumerated in the text, all hut the last tivo are rendered
by the civil government to any religious comn:;unity not professing prin-
ciples alien to the interests of the commonwealth, and to all such commu-
nities equally. An experiment of half a century, and the vigorous growth
and rapidly developed energy of the church in the United States as com-
pared with the present condition of the older established churches, war-
rant the belief that " pecuniary assistance " from the state, and " temporal
power and dignity for its chief pastors," are not only not necessary to the
well-being of the church, but hindrances of its efficiency.]
b [It will not be denied that these are duties of the conscientious Chris-
tian magistrate, if he have the right to undertake them : but in order to
establish that, it wOl be necessary to prove that the church is hound to
permit such interference — an interference, it must not be forgotten, that
materially modifies its right of self-government, and its responsibility in
the exercise of that right. Has the author shown that there is any such
obligation? Can he?] ^
CHAP. III.] ORIGIN OF ROYAL SUPREMACY. 305
berate on the affairs of the church, and to judge questions of
doctrine. He has the right of making injunctions or ecclesias-
tical 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 obedience when her
essential constitution is infringed. These are the points which
are now to be considered more in detail.
c All our writers deny the power of excommunication to the prince.
The Institution of a Christian Man, approved by the bishops of England,
1538, says, " 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 administration of bishops and priests." Formularies of Faith, p. 121.
Oxford, 1825. The Necessary Doctrine, p. 278, also ascribes the right of
excommunication to the sacerdotal office. Dean Nowell says, that in all
sermons and writings, we make a distinction between the functions of kings
and priests, not giving the former the power of administering the sacra-
ments, preaching, excommunicating, absolving, and such like. Reproof of
Mr. Dorman's book, 1565. fol. 123.
VOL. 11. — 39
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE TEMPORAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH.
The temporal establishment of the church by Christian
magistrates, consists very much in the protection of its property,
and in conferring on it certain temporal 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 min-
isters 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 per-
manent 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,^ forbidding the
faithful to provide permanently for the maintenance of religion,
by donations of their lands or other property ; (and " where 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
« [Yet it appears from the decree of Constantine and Licinius at Milan,
that before the Diocletian persecution, i e. before the close of the third cen-
tury, the Christian communities had held real estates beside their churches.]
b See Part III. ch. iv. for the lawfulness of rites and discipline not for-
bidden in Scripture.
CHAP. IV.] TEMPORAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 307
moment in which it received the protection of the civil magis-
trate, 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 ob-
vious, that the acquisition of temporal property by the church
is perfectly lawful, as the Christian church has always believed
it to be. The contrary error was long ago advanced by Wick-
liffc, and was most justly condemned by the western churches.
From the right of the church to possess endowments 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 communion, 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 pa-
tiently the spoiling of their goods, by those texts, " I say unto
you that ye resist not evil," "charity suffercth long . . . seeketh
not her own . . . endure th all 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 was
not the intention of our blessed Lord, that those who pretended
to be His disciples, should use violence to the brethren, and
then hypocritically exhort them on the duties of Christian
charity. Our Lord Himself prescribes a mode of obtaining
redress in such cases,*^ and St. Paul again mentions it ; intimat-
" See Part I. chap. i. sect. iii. << Matt, xviii. 15, &c.
808 TEMPORAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. [PART V.
ing, at the same time, that the reason for which Christians were
not to go to law before the civil tribunals, 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
maintenance of that property which is set apart for the support
of public worship, and of the ministers of religion.
n. 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
every Christian, which is universally denied. If it be alleged
that " no man that warreth entanglelh himself with the affairs
of this life," and therefore that the 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 pre-
vent 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 apostohc church.^
III. The state is therefore perfectly justified in permitting the
endowment of the church with permanent property, in protect-
ing that property, and in case of necessity, in contributing by
'■ 1 Cor. V. 1, &c.
f [It is natural that they should be so regarded by one in the author's situ-
ation. The American student of the history of the Church in England,
and on the continent of Europe, may derive from it a very different im-
pression.]
CHAP, IV.] TEMPORAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 309
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 ecclesias-
tical tribunals to be established courts of law ; in attributing to
their cognizance 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.
It may be added, that as all temporal jurisdiction emanates
from the state ; as all courts of judicial proceedings 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, ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction, even the powers of order in the minis-
ters 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." Chris-
tian 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 discipline 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 oecumenical synods. The first oecu-
menical synod was convened by the emperor Constantine, who
was himself present during its proceedings, and who, at the
close of them, addressed 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 infamous, 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 havina; informed him of their decrees in faith and disci-
" Flcury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xi. s. 24.
b [It may tend to illustrate the whole subject to ask, concerning each of
these instances of state protection, what was the effect ? Did Constan-
tine, e. g., who so readily interfered to persecute the Arians, put down or
build up Arianism ?]
CHAP, v.] PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CIIURCII. 311
pline said, " We therefore entreat your piety to ratify the de-
cision of the synod, that as you have honoured the church by
letters of convocation, so also you would seal the definition
agreed on j"*^ and accordingly the emperor made laws com-
manding all the churches to be delivered to those bishops who
confessed the doctrine of the Trinity, and were in communion
with Nectarius bishop of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexan-
dria, 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 here-
tics should be permitted, and that they should not build churches
any where under pain of confiscation of their goods. '^ The
third oecumenical synod of Ephesus, of 200 bishops, in their
synodical epistle to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian,
applauded those princes for commanding the metropolitans and
bishops to assemble in synod; and 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 entreat your majesty to command all his (Nestorius)
doctrine to be banished from the 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, con-
firmed by your piety, and we all shall offer earnest prayers for
your majesty,"^ &c. Accordingly, the emperor Theodosius,
having confirmed the council, passed a law commanding the
Nestorians to be termed Simonians, ordering their books to be
suppressed and burnt publicly, and forbidding them to assemble
<= Harduin. Concil. t. i. p. 808.
** Fleury, liv. xviii. s. 9.
' Harduin. Concilia, t, i. p. 1444.
312 PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH. [PART V.
under penalty of confiscation 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 cecumenical synod of Chalcedon
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 consort, attended by all the
great officers of state, were present.' Marcian having made
an allocution to the council, declaring his intention in assem-
bling it to have been the confirmation of the catholic faith against
all heresies ; the archdeacon of Constantinople, by order of the
emperor, read aloud the decree of the synod, with the subscrip-
tions of 470 bishops. The emperor then demanded whether
the council unanimously approved of that definition ; and hav-
ing heard the acclamations of all the bishops to that effect, he
decreed, in the presence of the synod itself, that since the true
faith had been made known by that holy cecumenical synod, it
was right and expedient to remove all further contention : and
therefore that any person who should collect assemblies to dis-
pute concerning faith, should be banished 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
t Fleury, liv. xxvi. s. 34,
g Ibid. liv. xxvii. s. 28—33.
t" [Nothing is more easy than to trace in the efforts to suppress the
Donatist schism and Arian heresy, the rise and development of those no-
tions concerning the relations of the civil power and the church, of which
the text affords the historical illustration : but it would require an essay,
rather than a marginal note. It is the less necessary, inasmuch as, by the
Divine providence, the position of the church during the first three centu-
ries has placed an effectual bar in the way of ever advancing the claim of
primitive tradition and universal consent for the notions on this subject that
gained currency in the fourth and fifth.]
' Harduin. Cone, t, ii. p. 4G3.
CHAP, v.] PRINCES DEFENDEPvS OF THE CHURCH. 313
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 examination
through the acts of other councils, which were confirmed and
enforced by the laws of Christian emperors. The codex of
Justinian comprises laws confirmatory 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. "^ The Norman
kings made ecclesiastical laws." Every Christian state from
those days to the present, has supported the faith and discipline
of the church by temporal enactments. The Reformation uni-
versally recognized this right in the civil magistrate. The Lu-
therans and the Calvinists alike invoked the assistance of the
temporal power to enforce the religion of the Gospel and re-
press dissentients. Even the sects which arose at that time
adopted the same principle. The Brownists declared that it
was the duty of the magistrate to establish their religion and to
expel that of the catholic church. p The Presbyterians would
not tolerate the worship of those catholic churches which
they had overthrown in the great rebellion. The Anabaptists,
in their city of Munster, forbad all exercise of a religion differ-
^ Ibid. p. 4R7.
' The first Book of the Codex is we)J worthy of a perusal by those who
wish to know the powers exercised by the Christian emperors in the pri-
mitive church. See also the Nomo-canon of Photius, patriarch of Con-
stantinople, where the imperial laws on ecclesiastical affairs are connected
with the canons.
■" See their capitulars in the collections of the councils.
n Bramhall mentions the ecclesiastical laws of Ercombert, Ina, Withred,
Alfred, Edward, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar, Athelred, Canute, and Ed-
ward the Confessor.— Works, p. 73. See Wilkins, Concilia Mag. Brit. t. i.
o Bramhall, ut supra. '^ See Vol. I. p. 371.
VOL. II.— 40
814 PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH. [PART V.
ent 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 temporal 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 ser-
vant than the protector of the church. The papists of the ultra-
montane party allow that kings are bound to do so. Thus
Champney says : " No one denies that kings in their own or-
der 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 tlieir chief office,
for which they are 'given the power of the sword by God."i
Stapleton says, that a prince has the power " of making laws
for the peace of the church ; of proclaiming, defending, and
vindicating cloctrines 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.^ The same doctrine was main-
tained by the puritans. Cartwright said, that the civil magis-
trate hath to see that the laws of God touching his worship, and
touching all matters and orders of the church, be executed and
duly observed ; and to sec that every ecclesiastical person do
that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those
which fail in their office accordingly.* Fenner, another puri-
q Champnaeus de Vocat. Ministr. c. 16.
r Stapleton, Princip. Doctrin. lib. v. c. 17.
■ Bellarminus dc M(;ml)ris Eccl. Milit. lib. iii. c. 19. See also Riche-
rius de Eecl. et Polit. Pot. \). 76. cd. 1683 ; De Marca, De Concord. Sac.
et Imp. 1. iv. 0. iv.
' T. C. lib. i. p. 193. cited in Hooker's Works, vol. iii. p. 443. cd. Keble.
CHAP, v.] PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH. 315
tan, acknowledged that " the magistrate may lawfully uphold
all truth by his sword,"'' &c. The non-jurors, though little
favourable to the regal supremacy, did not deny this power to
the magistrate. Leslie says it was not his meaning that " tem-
poral 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 the office of a Chris-
tian magistrate to fortify and assist the godly proceedings of
the church ; to assist and maintain the discipline of it,""^ &c.
In fine, the doctrine and practice of these catholic and apos-
tolic churches, and of our Christian sovereigns from the ear-
liest ages, have always been conformable to that universall)' re-
ceived. The Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings, as I have said,
made laws in defence of religion 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 six-
teenth 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 suftered 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 " In-
stitution of a Christian Man," approved by the bishops of Eng-
land 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 doc-
" Fenner's Defence of the godly Ministers. Ibid.
T Leslie, Supplement to the Regale and Pontificate, p. 4. 2d ed.
" Hickes, Christian Priesthood, p. 256. ed. 1707.
" So it was also in other Christian countries. The relations of church
and state in France before the Revolution are thus described by Hooke,
doctor of the Sorbonne : " Existere in Gallia ecclesia; christians cathohcae
et imperii unionem ac confcEderationem raanifestum ; est et confessum ;
tamque esse intimam unionem hanc, ut evangelium sit lex regni, etreHgio
catholica sit religio Gallorum nationalis."— Relig. Nat. et Rev. Prineip.
t. iii. p. 593,
316 PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH. [PART V,
trine of Christ . . . and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and
idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers,
and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be occa-
sioners of the same ; and, finally, to oversee and cause that the
said 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 apos-
tles : 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 excommuni-
cate, and such other things belonging to the office and adminis-
tration of bishops and priests,"^ &c. The very same expres-
sions 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 cliurdi " 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 m.embers 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
Bhe 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 true church existing in their do-
minions, by obliging its professing members to acquiesce in
• y Formularies of Faith, p. 121. Oxford ed.
» Ibid. p. 287. « Canon ii.
CHAP, v.] PRINCES DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH. 317
the one and to submit to the other, by means of temporal
power.
It is no objection to tliis conckision, that several persons of
note in modern times have held a contrary opinion. Those
who do so are obliged to admit that it was never heard of till
the seventeenth century after Christ : nor should we regard the
authority of Locke and Warburton in this matter ; for it is
plain that they omitted in the theory of government on which
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 according to His
good pleasure.'' These writers overlooked a truth, which even
the heathens themselves remembered ; and framed their theo-
ries as to tlie duty of civil government towards religion, not on
an examination of the word of God, or of the universal senti-
ment and practice of men in all ages, but on merely abstract
philosophical reasonings from the laws of nature, of policy, or
of expediency.
b See Locke's Letter on Toleration, and Warburton's Alliance of Church
and State.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY OF THE CHRISTIAN
SOVEREIGN.
It has been shown above that Christian princes have a right
to protect the calhohc faith and disciphne. Let us now con-
sider more particularly the means and ends of this protection,
which will at once develope the doctrine of the regal supre-
macy in ecclesiastical affairs.^
It is necessary to premise, that since the duty of the Chris-
tian magistrate is to protect and not to subvert the church ; to
enforce, not to derange the discipline established in it by Jesus
Christ; it follows that he is not entitled to intrude on the du-
ties of the Christian ministry. He has no right to make de-
finitions in faith or morals, to administer the sacraments, to ex-
communicate or absolve, or to perform any act whatever reserv-
ed to the Christian ministry by scripture or by the universal
»' The regal supremacy and the relations of church and state are treated
of by Nowell, Reproof of Mr. Dorman's book, 1565, fol. 123 ; Hooker,
book viii. ; Whitgift, Defence of Answer to Admonition, tract, xx. ; Ban-
croft, Survey of pretended holy discipline ; Bilson, True Difference between
Christian subjection, &c., 1585: Andrewes Tortura Torti, p. 162, &c. ;
Mason, De Minister. Anglic. ; Field, Of the Church, b. v. c. 53 ; Bramhall,
Schism guarded, &c. ; Stillingfleet, Of Eccl. Jurisdiction, Works, vol, iii. ;
Wake, Appeal on the King's Eccl. Supremacy, 1698. See also De Mar-
ca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et imperii ; Edmund. Richerii Tract. De Ec-
cles. et Polit. Potest. Colon. 1683 ; Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. Eccl.
Austriaci ; Van Espen, Tractatus do Recursu ad Principem, Tract. De
Promulgatione Leg. Eccl. ; Hookc, Religionis Nat. et Revel, t. iii. ; De
Hontheim, Febronius de Stat, praesenti Ecclesiae. Taylor, in his Ductor
Dubitantium, furnishes considerable information ; but his views of the royal
prerogative in church and state apparently exceed the truth.
CHAP. VI.] ON REGAL SUPREMACY. 319
and immemorial ecclesiastical discipline, because this would be
in violation of the very principle of protecting 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. And in con-
sequence he is entitled to convene synods for the determination
of controversies, to confrm 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 always ex-
ercised the right of convening national synods. The genuine
oecumenical 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 acknowledge the right of the king to call national
synods.'^
Christian kings have also confirmed synods. The general
synods were confirmed by the emperors. The Spanish s3a'iods
were confirmed by the Gothic kings of Spain. The decree of
the Galilean synod of 16S2 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 171 1 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 injurious to the
catholic discipline, to the privileges of the church, or to the laws
b See Part IV. Chapter ix.
<= E. g. the synod of Frankfort convened by Charlemagne. See Part
IV. Chapter x. section iv. Also those of Tours, Cabilon, and others, as-,
sembled by that prince. See Bramhall, Works, p. 318, 319.
" Synod 1603-4, Canon 139 ; Synod of Dublin, 1634, Canon 100,
320 ON THE REGAL SUPREMACY. [PART V.
of the State. ^ Accordingly, the kings of France, Spain, Ger-
many, &c. refused to permit the pubhcation of the decrees even
oi general sijnods in their realms, except with such qualifica-
tions as were necessary to secure the liberties of the church and
state.
The right of making ecclesiastical laws I shall presently no-
lice further. The power of repressing innovations was exer-
cised by the great queen Elizabeth, when some of the clergy,
sanctioned by some of the prelates, established irregular nneet-
ings, called " prophecyings ;" and when certain persons attempt-
ed 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 controversies to cease, a power which was abused
by the emperors Heraclius and Constans in issuing the Ecthesis
and Typus ; and which the emperor Charles V. exercised at one
time during the Reformation, as Joseph II. did in the eighteenth
century,^ and king James the first in the early part of the seven-
teenth century, in that royal proclamation 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 sup-
press superfluous controversies, and to give them any temporal
assistance requisite for the purpose. The guardianship 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 al-
leged that the laws of the church have not been adhered to, and
that the ecclesiastical judge has abused his power. This right
has been acknowledged from the time of Constantino the great,
who received the appeal of the Donalists, ordered their cause
c This privilege, which is exercised by all the princes of the Roman
Obedience is called the royal Placet. See Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl.
Austr. § 271 ; Van Espen, De Promulg. Legum Eccl. See also Hooke,
Relig. Nat. et Rev. t. iii. p. 596. 598 ; Febronius, cap. v. s. ii.
<■ See Vol. I. p. 437.
CHAP. VI.J ON THE REGAL SUPREMACY. 321
to be reheard by a different tribunal, and at last condemned
them himself.^ In almost every state of Europe under the Ro-
man dominion, the temporal courts or the state take cognizance
of appeals " ah abusii," and compel the ecclesiastical judges to
correct their proceedings by means of temporal penalties.'' The
parliaments of France fined and imprisoned those who refused
to administer the rights of the church to the appellants from the
bull Unigenitus.' Thus, also, the sovereign of England re-
ceives appeals from the highest ecclesiastical courts, and dele-
gates 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 disci-
pline less perfect, or which are in any 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 correct these evils, as the emperors Charlemagne and
his successors did in France and Germany, when discipline was
so far collapsed : a proceeding which they justified by the ex-
ample of Josiah and the other pious kings of Judah. It also in
fers the right of sovereigns to make ecclesiastical injunctions,'^
as Justinian,' Charlemagne, Charles the Bald,'" Sigismund,*^
s [Again, it may be not amiss to ask the question. With what result?
There can be, at least, no favourable presumption in behalf of measures so
signally inefficient. The Donatists throve until they were let alone, ancj
then they died.]
*■ Van Espen, Tract, de Recursu ad Principem. Fleury, Droit Eccl,
i Vol. I. p. 304.
^ Rechberger, chancellor of Lintz, says that Christian princes have not
only frequently confirmed the canons of the church, " but have also of theij:
own accord enacted laws on disciplinary matters in any way connected with
the welfare of the state," &c. — Enchr. Jur. Eccl. Austr. ^ -38, p. 28. See
also Febronius, c. v. s. 2 ; c. ix. s. 6.
1 Justinian's Novellas were received with great approbation by the church.
—See De Marca, 1. ii. c. 11.
"" See their Capitulars in the Collections of the Councils.
n Sec his Reformation, containing 37 chapters respecting the pope, car-
VOL. II. — 41
322 ON THE REGAL SUPREMACY. [PART V.
Charles V.° the kings of France, St, Louis,P Philip IV.^ Charles
VI./ 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 even reformed
abuses and made regulations in public worship." On the same
principle, the sovereign may, if necessary, urge the bishops and
clergy to residence, and to a more zealous discharge of their sa-
cred 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 bishojji'ics, and call on the
dinals, and bishops, suffragans, abbots, monks, friars, nuns, &c. made in 1436.
— Goldast. Const. Imp. part i. p. 170.
o The Interim, published in 1548.
p His Pragmatic Sanction, 1268, related to elections, promotions, colla-
tions of benefices, &c. — See the Table Chronologique des Loix Eccles. at
the end of Fleury, Droit Eccl. cd. 1767.
q On the union of benefices in his gift (1330). lb.
' That ecclesiastics shall not take cognizance of the crime of adultery
(1388). lb.
« That no strangers can possess benefices in France (1431). The Prag-
matic Sanction, made in the parliament at Bourges in 1438, established va-
rious points of disci]»line of the synod of Basil. lb.
t The ordonnance made by this king and the assembly or parliament as-
sembled at Orleans, 1560, contains 29 articles relating to ecclesiastical dis-
cipline. In one of them the payment of Annates is prohibited. — See Fleu-
ry, Hist. Eccl. liv. civ. s. 12. Other ecclesiastical regulations were made
in the parliament at Moulins, 1566.
u Thus Justinian, in his 137th Novella, commanded that the canon of the
Liturgy should be repeated aloud by the officiating minister. Charles V., in
the Interim, reserves to himself the right of making such regulations as he
may judge fit, where abuse has crept into the* administration of the sacra-
ments. The emperor Charlemagne and the kings of Spain introduced the
Roman liturgy into their dominions. The emperor Joseph 11. made several
regulations concerning jmblic worship. — See vol. i. p. 306 — 308. Rech-
bcrger says, by the Austrian law the emperor may limit religious rites, such
as feast days, processions, pilgrimages, vigils, and also a])poirit public pray-
ers in calamitous times. — Sect. 279. p. 219.
CHAP. VI.] ON THE REGAL SUPREMACY. 323
church to consecrate pastors for them, and to assign them a
suitable jurisdiction. The right of erecting sees was exercised
by the emperors Cliarlemagne^ and Louis,'" by the Greek em-
perors, (who were even held by the oriental canonists to have
the sole power of erecting new sees,'') by the English kings
Henry I.,^ Henry VHL, 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 sel-
dom be necessary to su-p-press sees, because it is not often that
the number of the faithful is so reduced in any church as to ren-
der 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
with 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 parliament of queen Eliz-
abeth, 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 high-
^ See Bramhall, Works, p. 236.
'^ He erected the archbishopric of Hamburg. — See Adam. Bremens. Hist.
Eccl. c. 17.
^ Thomassinus do vet. ct nov. Eccl. Discipl. P. i. 1. i. c. 56.
y " Rex Ilenricus abbatiam Eliensem in episcopalem sedem commuta-
vit."— M. Paris, 1119.
^ See his charter founding- the see of Edinburgh, in Keith's Scottish
bishops.
» Rechberger, Jur. Eccl. Austr. ^ 274. p. 214.
b Ibid. Joseph H. exercised this power. — See Vol. I. p. 308.
<= The suppression of bishoprics in Ireland some years ago, being obvi-
ously intended not for the welfare but the injury of the church, was an act
to which this rule could not apply. Nothing but the apprehension of still
greater evils, and especially those which might have arisen from the want
of unanimity in the church herself on that occasion, could have imposed on
that church any obligation of yielding to so unjust an act.
324 ON THE REGAL SUPREMACY. [PART V.
tiess's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or eccle-
siastical things or causes as temporal.'"^ Now, it is certain that
the Christian kings of England have, hke 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 and 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 govern-
ment of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical
or civil, in all causes ;" and the right to " rule all estates and
degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be
ecclesiastical or temporal ; and restrain with the civil sivord
the stubborn and evil doers." This is the whole doctrine of
the church of England, as to the authority of the Christian ma
gistrate in religion ; in which she does not teach us that the
prince may impose on his people false doctrines 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 exer-
cising an external government by temporal means, which can-
not fail to be of great use in repressing the disorders of those
who would otherwise neglect or depise 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 established amongst us, and to use the
civil sword to oblige all its members to unity and obedience.
■^ Canon xxxvi.
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 theologians hold, he is only to use
the "civil sword" in protecting and supporting the church as
above. It has been disputed whether, under any circumstances,
he may expel bishops from their sees. This question was argued
with much Avarmth in the reign of king William, when several
bishops were expelled from their sees by the temporal power, in
consequence of their refusal to take the oaths to the new govern-
ment, enjoined 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 judg-
ment, there are particular cases in which the temporal poAver is
justified, even without any previous sentence by the ordinary ec-
clesiastical tribunal, in expelling a bishop from his see. First,
the right will not be denied^ in a case wh§re 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 manifesthj heretical, when lie manifeslly and obstinately
* [I. e. on the supposition that the state is bound to interfere. But
either the church is competent of herself to correct the evil, or not. If
not, she is imperfect, incapable of accomplishing her mission, and essen-
tially dependent on the state. If she be competent, the state is an intruder,
and the case of Uzzah is an applicable warning.
The right on the part of the state may grow out of endowments ; be-
cause, if the church has accepted them, undoubtedly the state is bound to
see that she rightly uses them. But this, in connexion with the foregoing
remark, rather affords an argument against the acceptance of endowments
from the civil power, than for the interference of the state in the adminis-
tration of church discipline.]
326 EXPULSION OF BISHOPS [p. V. CH. VI.
opposes the judgment of the catholic church, when he is mani-
festly 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 assem-
bling a synod ; then a Christian prince may justly expel 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 a usurpation of the spiritual
office of degradation, which can only be performed by bishops,
according to the immemorial custom of the catholic church. In-
deed, the New Testament 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 Abiathar
from being priest unto t*he Lord,"^ in consequence of his treason-
able practices : " and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room
of Abiathar."° Whatever explanation be ofi'ered of this, the fact
remains, 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 ecclesiastical laws of the emperor Jus-
tinian and his predecessors, repeatedly threaten expulsion or depri-
vation of their offices, to those bishops and clergy who should
transgress the canons."^ The emperor Marcian declared, in the
presence of the council of Chalcedon, that any clergy who dis-
puted further after the decision of that synod, should lose their
offices." The emperor Theodosius, at the request of John, patri-
arch of Antioch, gave orders to expel by temporal force from their
sees, those schismatical bishops who refused to communicate with
that patriarch. f In subsequent ages, the Eastern emperors exer-
cised this power continually, and sometimes most scandalously
abused it.? The archbishops and bishops of England, in the
b 1 Kings, ii. 27. « Verse 35.
^ Justinian. Novella 123. See also De Marca, Dc Concordia Sacerdot.
et Imperii, lib. iv. c. i. art. vi. c. 18.
• Harduin. Concilia, t. ii. p. 487.
f Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 28 — 33.
s See Hody's " Case of sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical depri-
APPEND. I.] BY THE PRINCE. 327
"Necessary Doctrine," published a.d. 1548, held this doctrine-
admitting that Christian kings have the right to see that bishops
and priests execute their pastoral oflice truly and faithfully, &;c.
" and if they obstinately withstand their prince's kind monition,
and will not amend their faults, then and in such case to put other
in their rooms and places."^
These facts seem to me to fvu-nish very probable reasons for
thinking, that in the case of manifest offences which merit degrada-
tion, and where there is a great necessity, 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 obligation 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 remonstrate, and, finally, in
case of extreme danger to religion, or extreme injustice, to disobey
the will of the temporal 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 ncAv bishops for the
sees thus vacated, nor communicate with any who might be in-
truded 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.'
vation," 1693, the tract by Nicepherous Callistus, published by Hody,
1691, and that of Methodius, in the thhd volume of the Ancient Remains
by Angelo Maio, p. 247, &c.
^ Formularies of Faith, p. 287.
' [The acquiescence of the church in the act seems to be more naturally
accounted for by the fact, that such expulsions are results of the acceptance
of endowment, by which the church has surrendered her self-control, and
bound herself to suffer the interference of the civil power.]
328 EXPULSION OF BISHOPS BY THE PRINCE. [P. V. CH. VI.
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 the catholic church of his country
Avould judge to be subversive of, or dangerous to, the Christian
faith or discipline : but if such a case should occur, the church
would 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 need-
less interference in spiritual afiairs, which could not fail to diminish
the influence of religion, and to excite dissension and dissatisfac-
tion in the community.
If it be objected that by claiming for the church the right to
disobey the command of the temporal ruler, in any case, an ' im-
perium in im-perio'' is established, I reply, that even by the Eng-
lish law no one of those bodies in whom the power of the state is
vested, ought to attempt to annihilate the essential powers and
privilege of any other. The king is bound to preserve the powers
of his parliament: the commons cannot rightfully invade the privi-
leges 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 be 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 entrusted 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 means
bound to insist on every occasion on the full exercise even of her
undoubted rights and privileges : 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 irre-
"■ularly in various ages, which the church has tolerated, and even
approved afterwards : and the truth is, that she has not unfre-
qucntly 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 nomi-
nation 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 pastors : 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 affected. However, the church has certainly
very frequently consented ^ that the prince should nominate
bishops ]^ reserving of course her own right to decline accepting
any persons of unsound faith or morals, or in any respect disqua-
lified by the law of God." Nor, perhaps, would it be easy to find
a more convenient system under existing circumstances, though it
could never be just or righteous to force bishops by the penalties
of premunire to consecrate persons against whose faith or char-
acter just exceptions might be taken. " A bishop must be hlame-
a [Why ? on the ground of right acquired by endowment, in the first
instance, always. The claim of control over the jurisdiction of the bishop
by the civil power was an afterthought, growing out of dispute concerning
the exercise of the other right.]
^ The kings of England have for many ages nominated to bishoprics.
The Saxon and early Norman kings certainly did so. — See vol. i. p. 428.
The Statute of provisors, 25 Edward III. enacted that the king should
appoint to aU archbishoprics and other dignities. — See Bramhall, Works,
p. .75. Therefore, the Statute in the reign of Henry VIII. was only decla-
ratory of the ancient law of England.
c [As a question of fact, can the church in any existing establishment —
dare she— use that right ? If not — what security has the church so situ-
ated for the preservation of her purity 1 what means of discharging her
trust from God as a keeper of the precious deposit of faith and grace ?]
VOL. II. — 42
330 ENGLISH SYNODS. [P. V. CH. VI.
less,'^ 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, whether the
supremacy of the temporal power infers not merely the right of
assembling synods, but the exclusive 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
pontiir or by the temporal sovereign. The canons required pro-
vincial 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 some-
times 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 arch-
bishop by any royal writ to assemble such a council." « To these
provincial synods the bishops alone were of necessity summoned,^
and they only had a decisive voice. Their office was to take cog-
nizance of appeals from particidar dioceses, to judge bishops and
metropolitans, and to enact canons for the province. This latter
power, which had 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 harmonious co-operation of church
and state, and which is in fact enforced by every sovereign in Eu-
rope, 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 metropolitan, and proceed, with-
<i [In theory, this may be well enough : but " practically " does expe-
rience prove the state likely to be a fit judge ? The author's caveat, of
itself, is sufficiently expressive.]
e Wake, Stale of the Church and Clergy, p. 27. Sec also Kcnnett,
Ecclcs. Synods, p. 201, 202.
f Ibid. p. 107,108.111, &c.
APrENDIX II.] ENaLISII SYNODS. 331
out making new canons, to act on the old canons. It is true that
Coke s 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 constitutional 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 assem-
bled by the king's writ, and promised in verbo 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 convocalions only, not to provin-
cial synods, because it is as notorious that the former have always
been summoned by the king's writ, as it is that the latter were not
so. The whole clergy and the whole parliament of England could
scarcely have been so devoid of information or of veracity as to
affirm, that provincial synods had always been assembled by the
king's writ ; it would seem, therefore, that they must in this sub-
mission and act have only meant to refer to convocations properly
so called.^ In Ireland the clergy made no such submission, and
provincial synods have continued to be held by the metropolitans
without the king's writ even to the present day.'^
g Coke, 4 Inst. 322, 323. ^ Act 2-5 Hen. VIII. c. 19.
i Atterbury limits it to parliaincnLary meetings of the clergy. — On con-
vocation, p. 82. ed. 1700. If the term " convocations " were taken to
mean any meeting of the clergy, it would be illegal even for a bishop to
hold his visitation.
^ I learned from the late eminent metropolitan, archbishop Magee, that
the provincial synod of Dublin has usually been assembled at intervals of
30 or 40 years, to exercise the right ; and that he had himself held such a
, synod, which in his opinion even possessed the power of making canons.
Bishop Bedel made canons in the diocesan synod of Kilmore, a. d. 1638,
332 ENGLISH SYNODS. [p. V. CH. VI.
The church never flourished more, nor was the authority 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 improvements
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 ecclesiasti-
cal laws made with the advice of bishops, and accepted by 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 ac-
cept and act on the decrees and regulations of synods in which they
have not been actually represented : as the authority of the oecu-
menical synods themselves rests finally on their acceptance by the
church dispersed ; it follows that regulations of discipline in them-
selves 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 in-
vested 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 together 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 following
manner. After the Norman conquest the national councils, styled
variously conrenlus, placitum, concilium, synodus, colloquium,
and in the thirteenth century parlamentum, consisted of bishops,
for which see Wilkins's Concilia,, t. iv. p. 537. The lord deputy of Ire-
land, it seems, was unable legally to prevent this or to trouble the bishop.
— See Burnet's Life of Bedel. •
* See this subject discussed by Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl.
P.ii. 1. iii. c.45— 57.
APPEND. II.] ENGLISH CONVOCATIONS. 333
abbots, earls, and barons ; the commons and inferior clergy beino-
not yet summoned by the king's writ.
It was in the thirteenth century when the Roman pontifis began
to demand taxes on ecclesiastical benefices, that the convocation,
comprizing 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, the archdea-
cons 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 125(5, on occasion of another exaction,
they were ordered by the archbishop to bring procuratorial letters
from the clergy." It was not till about the end of the reign of Hen-
ry III., that the inferior clergy were called to parliament. In 1282,
king Edward the first, having summoned to the parliament of
Northampton, bishops, abbots, and the proctors of deans and chap-
ters, they refused to grant aid unless a fuller assembly of the clergy
was called " mo7'e debito ; " and in the meeting so called were
deans, archdeacons, proctors of chapters and of the clergy. p In
1295, they were again summoned to parliament, and for the first
time by the clause " pr(Bmu7iientes" 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 congrega-
tion 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 inferior clergy were desir-
ed 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
" White Kennett, Eccles. Synods, p. 124.
n Hody, Hist. English Councils, p. 328.
o Kennett, p. 125 ; Hody, part ii. p. 108.
P Hody, p. 378. 381 ; part ii. p. 138, 139.
■^ Hody, p. 385—392.
334 ENGLISH CONVOCATIONS. [p. V. CH. VI.
bishops and others/ It became their custom to withdraw at the
beginning of convocation into a lower house, being the chapel un-
der the church of St. Paul's, to elect their prolocutor, and consider
of their grievances ; 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 permanently apart from the great-
er prelates till late in the fifteenth century.
Though convocations were summoned for temporal objects, still
when assembled they were virtually provincial 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 dis-
qualified from taking cognizance of spiritual 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 the case of
heresy.^ Bishop Kennet says, that no canons were made by con-
vocations till the reign of Henry VII.*^ However, the submission
of the clergy and the act of parliament both suppose that convoca-
tions may make canons with the royal permission ; and in fact, the
various reformations 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, " provin-
cial" or " national synods.''"! ^\yQ game thing has also occurred
in France.
The power of the crown with regard to convocation is very
great. It is its undisputed prerogative, not only to assemble con-
vocation, but to prevent its deliberations, 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, pre-
r Ibid, part ii. p. 256. » Hody, part ii. p. 247. i Kennet, p. 57.
" The Gallican assemblies of clergy or convocations made regulations in
discipline and doctrine in 1561 (See Fleury, liv. 157. s, 35, 36,) and in 1682.
APPEND. II.] ENGLISH CONVOCATIONS. 335
scribed 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 ne-
cessary 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 learning, the orthodoxy,
and the high principle of that admirable body of men so amply
entitle them to be.
In concluding these observations on the royal supremacy, I must
again protest, that the doctrine of the church of England on this
point is not to be determined by preambles of acts of parliament,
by the assertions of lawyers, or by the sentiments and actions of
princes in modern times. We are not bound to admit the sound-
ness 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. What-
ever we may have to complain of in such matters, is not peculiar
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
authority.'"^ Bossuet wrote to cardinal d'Estrees, " I have pro-
posed two things to myself ; first, in speaking of the liberties of
V SeeVol. I. p. 428.
w Bouvier, De Vera Ecclcsia p. 3SG, See proofs 6f this, Vol. I.
p. 30 1.
336 THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE. [PART V.
the Gallican church, to do so without diminishing the real gran-
deur of the holy see ; secondly, to explain them as they are under-
stood by the hishops, and not as they are understood by the magiS'
trates."^ Fenelon 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^ahus,^^y &c. Fleury says,
" But the great servitude of the Gallican 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 Galli-
can church, as they have done on its liberties, and he would not be
in want of pi-oofs."^ 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 condition of other churches sup-
ported 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 meanwhile to hope that the Divine Head and Governor
of the church will, in due time, cause better and happier days to
arise.
^ Histoire de Bossuet, t. ii. p. 125^ cited by Bouvier, 387.
y Cited by Bouvier from the Life of Fenelon by De Bausset ; Pieces
justific. du livre vii. no. 8.
^ Nouveaux Opuscules de Fleury, p. 89. 97. Ibid.
CHAPTER VII.
CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES SOLVED.
In the preceding chapters I have only been contemplating
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 vi^ith 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 hea-
then or heretical people, his duty should lead him to encourage
the spread of true religion without violence or compulsion,
because it was not the commandment of Jesus Christ that his
religion should be propagated 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 Scotland), 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, pre-
clude himself from benefitting and promoting the cause of the
true church.
If the Christian church in any country, having been neglect-
ed or persecuted by an unbelieving prince, should receive from
that prince an offer of relief and support, 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 adoption 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 re-
VOL, II. — 43
338 A CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND INFIDEL PRINCE. [PART V.
ject the proposal ; because her first duty is to maintain the
ordinances of God.
If a Christian church which had formerly been protected 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 gov-
ernment consenting, or a wicked government labouring to with-
draw those safeguards with which ancient piety and wisdom
had surrounded her : what should be her duty except to offer
respectful and Christian remonstrance while she is allowed 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 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 unbelievers 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,
Christians are bound to " do good to all men," and, as fiir as
possible, to live at peace with them. But while this is most
fully admitted, it seems not unnecessary to consider briefly the
question of toleration, and the principles on which it is some-
times, indeed too frequently, advocated ; because it affects not
only the character of the Christian church and Christian sove-
reigns from the age of Constantino, 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 churcli. 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 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 offence, he forfeits four hundred marks ;
on a third offence forfeits his goods and chattels, and suffers
imprisonment for life. A person absent from the service of
340 ON TOLERATION. [PART V
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 appointment, 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 hun-
dred 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 minister of the
church teaching doctrines contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles,
is deprived of his preferments. These are a few of the prin-
cipal 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 main-
tain 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 neither establish a different worship, nor
teach different doctrines from hers. It has a right to prevent
persons from separating from her communion, and from troub-
ling the faithful," sowing dissension in the community, and mis-
leading the ignorant and weak-minded brethren. It is not that
the prince has a right to dictate Ids own opinions to the people,
nor that he is specially bound by his office 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 re-
vealed a religion and established a church in which- He wills
that men should seek Him ;='' because it is certain that God
» [The next question in order is, whether God wills that the state should
Iring men to that church, or keep them in it. It would be difficult to show
that scripture or catholic consent {I. e. from the beginning) furnish an
affirmative answer. Without it, the chain of argument is broken.]
CHAP. VIIT.] ON TOLERATION. ^2 341
has not left His church witiiout 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 wcll'are of
the nation,'' by protecting the church from " the gathering to-
gether 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 mea-
sures of compulsion : Christian charity and submission 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 opera-
tion of laws wliich could 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 no-
thing 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
b [Will that welfare be promoted by "protection" consisting in the
application of " temporal penalties " to " prevent rebellion ?" History
affords a clear and full negative reply. The advocate of temporal coercion
in religious matters may be safely challenged to produce a single instance
of favourable result from its employment.]
342 ON TOLERATION. [P. V. CH. VIII.
of the church, is the salvation of those who are disobedient to
them. From these principles Locke deduces conclusions sub-
versive of the regal supremacy, and condemnatory of the exist-
ing 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.
Ansioer. Separation from the church of Christ is inexcus-
able,'^ 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.
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.
Ansvjer. 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 property : It docs 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 religion, and thus
•= See Part I. chapter iv. sect. 2.
*" [It must be shown that " the civil sword" was given for use in church
matters, before this can be admitted as an answer to the objection.]
OBJECT.] ON TOLERATION. 343
seeking the blessing of God on the nation.*' I adnait that his
office is not to take care of souls : this is entrusted to the minis-
ters of Jesus Christ.
V. The magistrate cannot have the care of souls, because
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 7?iust be stopped ;^ who subvert whole
houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's
sake."g' If the Christian magistrate silences such brawlers, is
he to be blamed ? •
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 the necessity to embrace the religion of their rulers,
whatever it may be. Salvation in this case would depend on
the place of nativity.
Ansiver. 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 propa-
gation 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
* [Again the questions must be put, whether " virtue and religion " will
be promoted by the interference of the civil magistrate in spiritual affairs ?
and whether God has authorized His " blessing on the nation " to be
" sought " in that way ?]
f [But hoiu ? The circumstances in which St. Paul wrote, furnish the
most decisive proof that civil coercion could not have been in the mind of
the sacred writer. — By this mode of argument the civil magistrate may be
shown to be " not to be blamed " for using any branch of authority com-^
mitted to the church, to any extent.]
e Tit. i. 11.
344 ON TOLERATION. [p. V.CH.VIII.
judges most acceptable to God, and if he finds any thing wrong
in it, he ought to be at hberty to leave it.
Ansiver. 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 e:^empted from the au-
thority 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 has authority over the
heretical ; because each asserts itself to be orthodox, and there
is no earthly judge to decide on their claims.
Answer. The church never claims dominion over those " that
are without," but she has authorit)'' over her own children when
they rebel.' God has himself distinguished his true religion
and church sufficiently from all heresies. To assert the con-
trary 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.
b [Admitted : and for that God will judge liim : but where has He con-
stituted the civil power His minister for that purpose ?]
' [Will those ends be answered ? witness tlie rise and growth of schism
in England, to go no further.]
^ [So far as those objects either (1.) derive from the protection or aid of
the state ; or (2.) bear on the civil interests of the community. Just so far
may the church be protected and regulated.]
1 [To wit, spiritually, to limit or withdraw their privileges, or totally to
cut them off, if pertinacious. »Xhe objection relates to temporal authority :
this answer can have reference only to spiritual. If otherwise, it asserts
the very principle of the Inquisition, in its full extent — the right of the
church to command the aid of the civil sword in the subjugation of her
children-]
OBJECT.] ON TOLERATION. 345
X. The points in discussion between the church and those
who separate, are frequently matters of small importance, con-
cerning rites, habits, &c. Why should men be blamed for
omitting such trifling matters ?
A^iswer. 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 bondage.'^
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.
Ansiver. The church only adopts such rites and ceremonies
as she judges pleasing to God, or lawful : the civil magistrate
enforces them, in order to confirm her resolutions and to sup-
port 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.
Ansioer. It may be very useful to the church that evil men
shall not be permitted to teach errors, especially within her
m [But to cut tliem off from church communion. What has that to do
with the civil power ? No temporal coercion is needed. Surely, it will not
be pretended that any thing of the kind was contemplated by St. Paul.]
" [This he may do with regard to her members, so long as they continue
her members : and if he have endowed her, he would seem to have a perfect
right to do it by the penalty of a loss of right to share in such endowiiient.
But the objection contemplates comjndsory memhership ; and the answer
does not meet it.]
VOL. II. — 44
346 ON TOLERATION. [P. V. CH. VIII,
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 conamunity.
NOTE.
[It can hardly have escaped observation that in .this whole part the author
has departed from the point of view [taken in the remainder of the work.
His subject is the church. Elsewhere he considers the relations, responsi-
bilities, and privileges of the church, as such. But here he has discussed
the relations of the state to the church, and his subject is, properly, no
longer the latter, but the former. What the state may do, and ought to do,
and why, are the topics of consideration. One or two heads of the first
and fourth chapters, and the historical view, in the fifth, of what the church
has held concerning the duty of the state towards her, scarcely form an ex-
ception, as in each instance there is a return to the contemplation of the
position of the state as the main object of attention.
This remarkable change of method the editor is disposed to attribute to
the author's sense of the difficulty of defending the connexion of church and
state on other grounds. Had he chosen to examine that connexion in its
bearing on the commission, duties, and responsibilities of the church rather .
than of the state, the result would have been different, because there would
have been a different standard of appeal. The reader will have perceived
that the author argues out his conclusions from very general notions, on
equally general statements of the Scriptures, relative to the ends of civil
government and consequent duties of the civil power. From such generali-
ties it is comparatively easy to deduce a specious theory, into which so
much of the constitution and practice of the church shall be admitted, and
so much only, as tends to give consistency and plausibility. I do not say
that the author intended so to do, rather than enter on an honest and frank
inquiry whether the Divine Founder of the Church so constituted her as to
evince His design that she should be married to the State, and has so dealt
with her during her connexion as to testify His approbation. No doubt Mr.
Palmer's mode of treating his subject was chosen in the conscientious con-
viction that it was the best. The Editor can only lament that it was pre-
ferred to the direct appeal to Scripture as interpreted by universal consent ;
on a point which he believes that authority alone competent to decide.]
A
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART VI.
ON THE SACRED MINISTRY.
■t-
A TREATISE
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART VI.
ON THE SACRED MINISTRY
CHAPTER I.
ON THE EPISCOPATE.
I HAVE elsewhere proved'' that the office of the sacred minis-
try is essential to the Christian church, and have briefly noticed
some of its characteristics : but I am now to examine more par-
ticularly 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 conside-
rations to existing circumstances.
The British churches, together witfi the infinite majority of
professing Christians throughout the world, acknowledge three
ranks or degrees of the sacred ministry as of apostolical antiqui-
ty. 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
^ See Part I. chap. viii.
350 • NUMBER OF SACKED ORDERS. [pART VI,
with imposition of hands and prayer is there appointed for
those presbyters who " are called to the work and ministry of a
bishop."
In this chapter I propose to prove, that episcopacy, or the su-
periority of one pastor in each church, vested with peculiar pow-
ers, 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, re-
sembles that between the second and third ; or that there are
three orders of the ministry 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 accord-
ing 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 ministry of the same nature.''
*■ [It is to be regretted that the learned author has consented to involve
himself and his reader in scholastic subtleties on this subject, for the sake
of appearing (for it is only in appearance that he is successful) to reconcile
variant theological opinions that have found currency in the church at divers
times, without detriment to the faith, or material derogation from its dis-
cipline.
In one point of view, it is certaiidy true that the difference between the
episcopate and the presbyterate is of another kind from that between the
presbjrterate and the diaconate. The great ends of the ministry, in the ad-
ministration of the word and sacraments, are subserved as effectually by the
presbyter in his sphere as by the bishop in his ; they are not, and cannot
be by the deacon in any sphere, because he has received no commission to
administer the eucharist, absolution, or benediction. With respect to these
offices^ it is true, that the difference between the presbyter and deacon is of
order ; that between the presbyter and bishop, not of order, but of jurisdic-
tion. But then this last is true, with regard to the not less im})ortant offices
of preaching and baptizing, of the presbyter and deacon ; and by parity of
reason, if the presbyterate and cpiscoj)atc arc one order, because wherever
CHAP. I.] NUMBER OF SACRED ORDERS. 351
Both are ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of
God : both are invested with the care of souls and the govern-
ment 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 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 Eng-
the presbyter has a right to administer the eucharist, absolve, and Ijless,
his administration is as valid as the bishop"'s ; then the presbyteratc and
diaconate are one order, because wherever the deacon has a right given him
to baptize and preach, his administration of those ordinances is as valid as
the priest's. Nay, of both priest and deacon it is true, and equally true,
that their administrations, even where they have not the right (i. e. h^ve not
jurisdiction), are still valid, though irregular, — the latter's to the extent of
baptizing and preaching — the former's to that of administering the eucha-
rist, absolution and benediction. But is it true of either, that their adminis-
tration of the ordaining power, or the government of the church, as chief
ruler and visiter, would be even valid 1 The Catholic Church has never
admitted that it would : and here is a distinction as broad between the pres-
byteratc and episcopate, as that between the presbyteratc and diaconate.
Why it should not be called a distinction of order as well as that, others
must show reason, if they can.]
" Presbyters administer confirmation ordinarily in the eastern churches
with chrism hallowed by the bishop. Habert. Pontificale Gra3C. p. 709. In
the west they have no such power, and it is even disputed by many theolo-
gians whether the church could commission them to exercise it.
i [Below, No. VII. p. 364, the author says more correctly, that the epis-
copate had " a superior power especially in the point of ordination ; " and
No. VIII. p. 366, he states that "the whole history of the church represents"
it as having " jurisdiction and authority beyond " that of the presbyterate
. in se.]
352 NUMBER OF SACRED ORDERS. [PART VI'.
land in particular, limited to duties of a temporal, or at least a
very inferior character. They are only permitted to baptize
and preach : the churc'h has before now given the same per-
mission 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 wcxe adviseable to enter on this question at any extent,
it might be easily shown, that there is very considerable authori-
ty 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 bish-
ops or presbyters of the first class are distinguished from those
of the second, jure divino.'' We find that Clement of Rome,
Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Firmil-
ian, 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.^ Be-
« [Surely this is a pitiful distinction ! There are, jure divino, two classes
of officers in the church. But these two classes are interchangeably desig-
nated by one title. Therefore they constitute one order ! But their " identity
in order " still leaves them in two degrees ; and those degi-ees are distin-
guished, jure divino ! What matters it whether the presbyterate and epis-
copate are known as two orders or two degrees ? And if they are jure divi-
no distinct, what matters it whether they were at fii-st known by only one
title or by tivo ?
A " peculiar power " constitutes the presbyterate into an order, as dis-
tinct from the diaconate. Another "peculiar power" distinguishes the
cpisco})ate from the presliyterate, by the author's own concession, below,
Answer to Obj. II. p. 370.]
•" [The adduction of the WTiters cited, in ])roof of the identity of the pres-
byterate and e])iscopate, has been too often triumphantly refuted and exposed,
to leave any need of swelling this volume with notes to that effect. Mr.
Palmer, for reasons best known to himself, has chosen to adopt what even
Burnet not unaptly calls " the dregs of popery," in the scholastic notion of
identity of order ; but is too good a scholar not to know the worthlessness
of the appeals to antiquity in its favour ; and, accordingly, speaks of " vciy
considerable authority from Ivndition," for an opinion of which he does not
renture to affirm the trutli.l
CHAP. I.] NUMBER OF SACRED ORDERS. 353
sides 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 men-
tioned, Jerome, Hilary the deacon, Chrysostom, Augustine,
Theodoret, Sedulius, Primasius, Isidore Hispalensis, Bede,
Alcuin, the synod of Aix in 819, Amalarius, and others, quoted
by Morinus.^ To these may be added the great body of the
schoolmen, Hugo S. Victor, Peter Lombard, Alexander Alensis,
Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus,
Abulensis, Turrecremata, Cajetan, &c. Many teach that
the episcopate is only an extension of the sacerdotal order,
such as Durandus, Paludanus, Dominic Soto, &c.^ In fine, the
synod of Trent seems rather to favour this view^, since it does
not reckon the episcopate as a distinct order from the priest-
hood,' though it denounces anathema against those who deny
that there is a hierarchy, divinely instituted, consisting of bish-
ops, presbyters, and ministers.'' Such, too, seems to have been
the sentiment of the bishops of England in " the Institution of a
Christian Man," 1536,i and " the Necessary Doctrine," 1 543,"^
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 theologians of our churches in that and the follow-
ing 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 preroga-
g Morinus de Sacris Ordiu. par. iii. exerc. iii. c 2. Vasquez, in iii.part.
Disput. 240, c. 2.
" Morinus, par. iii. exerc. iii. c. 1. states all the various opinions of the
scholastic doctors and Roman tlieologians on this matter. See also Hallier,
De Ordin. p. 372, &c. 413.
i Synod. Trident. Sess. xxiii. cap. 2. " Ibid. Can. 6, 7.
i Formularies of Faith, p. 105, Oxford ed. " Ibid. p. 281.
VOL. II. — 45 * <■;
354 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [PART VI.
tives than other presbyters jwre divino. On the contrary, they
held that bishops were estabhshed in all churches by the Apos-
tles, with a superiority of jurisdiction to the other presbyters ;
and that the 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 w' ere 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.''
T. 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 centuries. 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,
i> Morinus de Ordin. pars iv. exerc. iii. c 3.
o Amongst the writers on this subject may be mentioned, Hooker, Eccl.
Polity, book vii. ; Bilson, Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, ch.
xii. and xiii. ; Field, Of the Church, b. v. ; Hall on Episcopacy ; Taylor on
Episcopacy ; Chillingworth, Apost. Institut. of Episcopacy ; Leslie, on
the Qualifications requisite to administer the Sacraments ; Potter on Church
Government ; Bingham, Orig. Eccl. b. ii. ; [Brokesby on the Government
of the Primitive Church .;] Skinner on Episcopacy ; Rose on the Commis-
sion and consequent duties of the Clergy ; the writings of Bowden, Cooke,
and Ondcrdonk, in " Works on Episcopacy," published at the Episcopal
press, New-York, 1831 ; [Hobart's Apology for Apostolic Order and its
Advocates] ; Sinclair's Dissertations on the Church of England (on Epis-
copacy). See also Tournely, Tract, de Ordin. ; Thomassinu?, Vet. et
Nov. Eccl. Discipl. P. I. lib. i. c. 51—53 ; Petavius de Hierarch. Eccl. ;
Habcrtus, Pontificale Graec. ; Morinus de Ordin. ; Hallier, De Sacr.
Elect, et Ordin. ; Vasquez, Comment, in iii. part. S. Thoma?.
CHAP. 1.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 355
episcopacy was as universally received as the sacraments of
Christianity. Every church seems to have been subject to one
chief pastor, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
About A.D. 196, Victor was "president of the Roman church, "p
Irenaeus reminded him of " the presbyters who had presided
over that church "i before him, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Te-
lesphorus, 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 forty-
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 Alexan-
dria. . . . Scrapie, the eighth bishop of the church of Antioch
from the apostles, was still known. . . . Theophilus presided
over the church of Caesarea. . , . Narcissus in like manner . . .
had the ministry of the church in Jerusalem. BachyUus, 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 de-
ceased.^ / • . •
. Before this time, about 177, " Ire-'is3us undertakes the epis-
copate- of the church of Lyons, which Pothinus had governed ;"
the latter having died in prison at the age of ninety.^ Irenasus
furnishes a catalogue of the bishops of Rome, in which he
says, that "the apostles delioered the ministry of the episcopate
to Linus Anencletu^ succeeds him ; and after him, in the
P 'O fAev Tiif 'VcefjiOLim t^osttJ^c BtKrctp. — Euseb. V. 24.
q Ku.1 o« TTfo larnpag ;rj>i!rfiijTipot ol Trpoa-TavrH tmc 6kka»3'/scc «c vvv a(fuy-^. — Ibid.
r Euseb. vi. 43. « Ibid. v. 22, ' Ibid. 23, 24.
" Ibid. 25. V Ibid. 24. ' Euseb. v. 5.
356 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [pART VI.
third place from the apostles, Clemens obtains the episcopate.
.... Evarestus succeeds this Clemens, and is followed by
Alexander,"^ &c. He also says that Polycarp, with whom he
was acquainted, was made bishop of Smyrna by the apostlesJ
About the year 168, when the heresy of Montanus appeared,
we read that it was opposed by Zoticus, bishop of Comana,
Juhan of Apama^a,^ Serapion of Antioch, Apollinarius of Hi-
erapolis, and "many other bishops."'' Before this, Melito was
" bishop of Sardis, and ApoUinarius of Hierapolis,"'^ Theophi-
lus of Antioch, and Philip of Gortyna.'= Still earlier, Diony-
sius was " entrusted with the episcopal throne of the church
of Corinth. . . . He mentions Quadratus, who, after the mar-
tyrdom of Publius, was appointed bishop of the Athenians.
. . . He relates also how Dionysius the Areopagite . . . first
undertook the bishopric 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 Pon-
tus . . . mentioning their bishop Palmas by name, he admon-
ishes 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."'^
About 158, Hfcjesippus 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 Sviith 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.l 93, certain relatives of our
Lord, according to the flesh, having been interrogated by the
X Ibid. 6.
y 'AKXax,a.) utto' ATrtxTTOKeiiy x.3.raL(rra.Sw <h Tiv'Atr/av n ty tv 1/u6pvyi (KKXnirin tma--
MTTii;. — Euseb. lib. iv. c. 14.
» Euseb. lib. v. c. 16. " Ibid. 19. ^ Lib. iv. c. 26.
c Ibid. 24, 25. " Ibid. 23. « Euseb. 1. iv. c. 22.
CHAP. !•] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 357
emperor and dismissed, afterwards " ruled churches, as being
at once martyrs and relatives of the Lord."^ He states tiiat
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. e^ About the same
time as Dionysius [lege Hegesippus], 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 Ire-
naeus informs us.^* Justin Martyr, about a.d. 148, describing
the public worship of the Christians, observes, that the com-
mentaries of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are
read as long as the time permits ; that when the reader has
ceased, " the president in a discourse 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 contemporary, 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 Polycarp, " prelate of
Smyrna.""^ This was very soon after the death of St. John,
who lived at Ephesus till the end of the first century.
f Lib. iii. c. 20. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacrse, t. i. p. 198.
g Lib. iv. 22. t Lib. iv. 14. v. 24.
i 'O Trpoio-TCo; iS'ia Koyou Ti5v vovSio-iciv ku) Trpox.kna'tv tJc tZv kukZv tovtw fji.if/.»aiun
Tnturctt ... 0 TTjioarT^; iu^a; o/uoiai; nx) iu^ttfua-'riu.; orn J'uvctf/.i; cti/T^, dvat.7ri/ji7r(i. —
Just. Mart. Apol. 1. p. 97, 98. ed. Thirlby.
^ Euseb. lib. iii. c. 36. Irenaeus adv. Haeres. v. 33.
1 Euseb. ut supra. Origen. in Luc. Horn. vi. Chrysost. Orat. xlii. The-
odoret. Dial. 1. Const. Apost, vii. 46. Burton's Lectures on Eccl. Hist, i,
357. Pearsoni Annot. in Ignat. Ed. Smith, p. 1, &c.
" Ibid.
358 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [pART VI.
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 com-
menced her catalogue with James the Lord's brother : Alexan-
dria traced her origin to Mark the Evangelist, who 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 merely in some parts of the world. The very smallest
and most insignificant churches were governed by bishops, and
every country where Christianity then pj^evailed, furnishes exam-
ples of episcopacy. From Osroene in the east to Gaul in the
west, from Pontus in the north to Egypt in the south, all church-
es whose constitution 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 episcopacy. The his-
tory of Christianity, in short, is the history 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 produce a single instance
of a church subject to a presbytery 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.
CHAP. I.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 359
The Christian ministry was only gradually developed by the
apostles as the church required it. We read first of the apos-
tles instituting deacons at Jerusalem, in consequence of a dis-
pute between the Greeks and Jews. The original institution
of Presbyters 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 recorded : though there are proofs enough
that it existed in the time of the apostles.
It is probable that the apostles at first appointed several pres-
byters of equal authority in each church, reserving 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 deputing this power to others, and constituting
them in their own place to preside over the churches. This is
exemplified in the case of Titus, whom the apostle Paul left in
Crete to " set things in order, and ordain presbyters 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 presby-
ters. These cases, I say, furnish a strong evidence of the pro-
vision 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 Revelation its "Angel."
Connecting this with the testimony of ecclesiastical history
already adduced, to the fact that bishops were positively insti-
tuted by the apostles ; there can be no reasonable doubt that
episcopacy 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 instituted by the apostles ? We
know the disturbances which arose in the church on the time of
360 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [PART VI.
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 opponents
of episcopacy to acknowledgments fatal to their cause. Ac-
cording to Blondel, the senior presbyter had a precedence over
the other presbyters even in the apostles' time, " the apostles
the77iselves, if not openly favouring, at least not opposing it ;"°
he admits in fact that this precedence existed "fro7n the begin-
ning^"^ He says that from these presbyters, as " heads of the
ivhole clergy, the churches were reckoned, and the successions
were deduced, ""^ and that such a theory alone enables us to avoid
being " overwhelmed with unexpected difficulties," in contem-
plating 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 probable, not only that the " angels of the
churches " in the Apocalypse were presbyters, who had a sort
of presidency over the rest, after the example of the Jewish
sanhedrim ; but even that this distinction had prevailed y'ro?;i the
beginning, though too inconsiderable to be noticed in history.^
Accordingly, the puritans, who professed to do nothing without
the authority of scripture, acknowledged that there might be a
° Blondellus, Apol. pro Sent. Hieron. p. 5.
P Ibid. p. 38. 1 Ibid. p. 6. ' Ibid. p. 7.
» Walo Messalinns, p. 7. ' Ibid. p. 181.
" Campbell's Lectures on Eccl. Hist. lect. vi.
' Ibid. lect. V. The dissenters in their Eccl. Library (Essay on Episco-
pacy, 196. 198.) adopt these views of Campbell's.
CHAP. I.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 361
president or moderator in the presbytery, though they objected
to investing 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 poioer 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 luhose plea-
sure it is that ye sliould do so.'^^ Clement of Alexandria :
" There are other precepts (in scripture) without 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 pres-
byter 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 ecclesias-
tical act be regulated by the same governors. Since this there-
fore is provided in the divine laiv, I marvel that some have
written to me with audacious, temerity, in such a manner,"
&c.^ Athanasius : " If the government of the churches do
w Hooker's Works, by Keble, vol. iii. p. 181 ; Field, Of the Church, b.
V. c. 27.
» Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. c. iii.
y M!/g(a< J'i iiTdu CTrodoiitKAi, tl; Trt^ia-aiTra iKXMTaJ'icL'nivoua-ett, '(■)■) pa.<^a.rat toli; /ii0Koic
Tciii ayisiir aj /uh Trpiir/iuTipoi;- at Si fTrta-KCTrotr cii h Si^kovoi:- — Clem. Alex. Pae-
dagog. 1. iii. c. 12. t. i. Oper. p. 309. ed. Potter.
z " Si Jesus Filius Dei subjicitur Joseph et Mariae, ego non subjiciar
episcopo, qui mihi a Deo ordinatus est Pater 1 Non subjiciar presbytero,
qui mihi Domini dignatione prsepositus est ?" — Orig. Horn. xx. in Luc.
Op. iii. 956.
■» " Inde per temporum et successionum vices, episcoporum ordinatio et
ficclesiae ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omuis
VOL, II. — 46
362 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [PAKT VI-
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 bescech you, surmise not any such
things as these, nor entertain any who advise such things, for
that were not worthy of Dracontius : for what things the Lord
didjnstUute hy his apostles, those things remain both honour-
able 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
bishop ; for that he was [ a bishop appears by Paul's writing
thus unto him; ' Lay hands suddenly on no man,' "^
V. It was also the general doctrine of the church, that
bishops were successors of the apostles, and therefore supreme
in the church. Irenreus 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,
actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque divina
lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam audaci temeritate sic mihi scribere
voluisse," &c.— Cypr. Epist. 27. al. 33.
Tovpy>if/.a, /Aia-Sov i;i(eiv, axxa KttTeiipfioviiv rod tauto. SiATA^AfAivm a-ceTiifioc TriTroinKUt
a-ttuTov . . a. ya.j> o Ki/^/of Sta tZv dTToa-TOXaiv TtrruTrmx-i, tauto. KHXa )ca< /iifinia. /uivu. —
Athan. Epist. ad Dracont. t. i. p. 264.
*= ' Episcopus personam habet Christi. Quasi ergo ante judicem, sic
ante episcopum, quia Vicarius Domini est propter reatus originem subjecta
debet videri."— Hilar, in 1 Cor. xi. 10. inter Ambrosii Opera.
* ' Et quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos cpiscopos singulis
ecclesiis prasesse decrevit."— Comment, in 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis lerosolymorum episcopus
ordinatus."— Hier. Script. Eccl. Catalogus Oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 102.
Ala TOUTO yfiapm Kit T/^oSI« 'ikiyr t)iv S'iakoviuv a-ou wAJi/Jo^opio-dv, iTna-KiTrtfi ovti'
'iriyafi iTria-jtjTro! h, f^wi Trfot mtov, %ilpets ru^iwi (Atii'm «^mfl«.— Chrysost. Hom.
i. in Phil. Oper. t. xi. p. 195.
CHAP. I.] BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 363
neither have they known what is idly talked of by these (here-
tics.) 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 especially, to whom they com-
mitted even the churches themselves. For they wished those
to be very perfect and irreprehensible in all things, ivhom they
left as their successors, delivering to them their own place of
governmeiitr ^ He then mentions the succession of bishops
in the Roman church as an illustration of his meaning. Ter-
tullian, speaking of heresies, says, " Let them declare 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 apos-
tolic men who remained united with the apostles, as his ordainer
and predecessor."^^ 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 suc-
cession." ^ Cyprian, in writing to Cornelius of Rome, remarks,
that the bishops are successors of the apostles.'' Clarus, bishop
of Muscula, in the synod of Carthage : " The will of our Lord
Jesus Christ is manifest, in sending his apostles, and trans-
mitting to them alone the power given to himself by the Father:
to tuhom we have succeeded, governing the church of God with
the same power." ^ Jerome : " The power of wealth, or the
g " Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant
esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii
tradentes." — Iren. cont. Haeres. lib. iii. c. 3.
h Tertull. de Praescript. c. 32. See Vol. I. p. 172.
i " Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendonim apostolis data est, et ecclesiis
quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione vi-
caria successerunt." — Cypr. Epist. 75. Routh, Opuscula, t. i. p. 233.
t " Laborare debemus ut unitatem a Domino et per apostolos nobis suc-
cessoribus traditam, quantum possumus, obtinere curemus." — Cypr. Epist.
42. al. 45.
1 "INIanifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi apostolos suos
mittentis, et ipsis solis potestatera a Patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus
364 BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. [PART VI.
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 will be proved elsewhere," that according to the uni-
versal doctrine and practice of the church, ordinations by pres-
byters witliout 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 episco-
pacy and its permanent obligation. Since then, it is morally
certain, that from the end of the second century up to the time
of the apostles, one chief presbyter 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 institution in scripture itself ; since the very opponents of
episcopacy are compelled by the force of truth, to acknowledge
its early universality and its apostolical origin ; 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 superior
power, especially in the point of ordination ; we may reason-
nos successimus eadem potestate ecclesiam Domini gubernantes." — Concil.
Carthag. apud Cypr. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, t. iii. p. 105.
™ " Potentia divitiarum, at paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel
inferiorem episcopum non facit. Castcrum omnes apostolorum successores
sunt." — Hier. Epist. ad Evang. Oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 802.
° " Episcopi apostoli nominantur, sicut de Epaplirodito Paulus edisserit :
Fratrem et commilitonem, inquit, meum ; vestruni autem apostolum. Si
ergo lavacri et chrismatis potestas, majorum et longe charismatum, ad
episcopos inde descendit ; et ligandi quoque jus adfuit atque solvendi.
Quod etsi nos, ob nostra peccata, temerarie vindicamus : Deus tamen illud
ut Sanctis et apostolorum cathedras tenentibus non negabit, qui episcopis
etiam unici sui nomen indulsit." — Pacian. Epist. 1 ad Sympronian. Bibl.
Pair. t. iv.
" Chapter IV,
CHAP. I.] EPISCOPACY OBLIGATORY. 365
ably 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 dis-
cipline which appears to have been universally taught or estab-
lished by the inspired apostles of Jesus Christ, without any in-
timation that it was merely temporary or non-essential, cannot,
without extreme rashness, be rejected. If episcopacy, though
universally established by the apostles, were not obligatory,
presbyters and deacons might be dispensed with ; communion
in both kinds would not be obligatory : preaching and reading
of scripture in the church might bo relinquished. In fact, it
would be hard to say to what extent such a principle might
carry us. The permanent obligation of episcopacy was not
only testified by the catholic church, which in all ages con-
tinued the succession of bishops ; but even the ancient sects
and heresies followed her example. The Gnostics, Novatians,
Donatists, Meletians, Arians, Eunomians, Apollinarians, Ma-
cedonians, Nestoriaus, Eutychians, Monothelites, Albigenses,
and many other heretics, all recognized 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 ap-
proved 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 general council, and looked forward
to reunion with the bishops of Germany. Calvin himself
acted as a bishop at Geneva ; and both he and some of his
principal disciples approved of episcopacy. p
VIII. It is alleged by the opponents of episcopacy that, even
p Calvin. Inst. lib. iv. c. 5. approves the whole ancient hierarchy. For
further proofs of the sentiments of reformers see Bancroft's Survey of the
pretended Holy Disciplme ; Durel on the Reformed Churches j Sinclair's
Dissertations (on episcopacy.) , ,
366 PRESBYTSRIAN THEORIES REFUTED, [p. VI. CH. I.
conceding that there was some distinction among the presbyters
of the church, from very early times, still this did not amount to
episcopacy, since it was a merely temporary pre-eminence,
like that of the moderators in presbyterian synods. I reply
that the ierrvporary nature of the office is a matter of "pure
conjecture : it is not founded on any historical evidence what-
ever. We oppose to it the undoubted fact, that permanent
episcopacy, 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 diffisrent 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 jurisdiction or authority beyond other presbyters,
but 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. Indeed offices chiefly honorary,
would have been inconsistent 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 introduced into the universal church, was a
corruption and an abomination, which was to be rooted out. I
reply, that if bishops were gradually entrusted with more ex-
clusive power by the church than they possessed 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 besides this, the universal church having ap-
proved and continued this discipline from the fourth century at
latest, till the Reformation, it cannot be sinful or contrary to the
word of God ; but these prelates must always have been min-
isters of Jesus Christ, 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.
OBJECT.] PRESBYTERIAN THEORIES REFUTED. 367
IX. Therefore, whatever we may ihhik of abstract opinions,
concerning the best form of church government, there can be
no doubt that those who separated themselves from the com-
munion of the Christian church, under pretence that the pres-
byterian polity was of divine right, and that prelacy or epis-
copacy was unlawful or anti-cliristian,i 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, inso-
lentissimae insanise est."
OBJECTIONS.
I. The terms bishop and presbyter are applied indifferently
to the same persons in holy scripture. The " elders (presby-
teri) 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
elder's in every city . . . for a bishop must be blameless,"' &c.
St. Paul only directs Timothy to ordain " bishops " and " dea-
cons."^ Paul and Barnabas " ordained elders in every
church."'' In these passages the titles of bishop and presby-
1 See Bancroft's Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, p 123.
where the language of the puritans is quoted to this effect. See also
Stillingfleet on the Unreasonableness of Separation. The presbyteriana
during the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth century, gene-
rally claimed a divine right for their form of government.
^ Acts XX. 17. 28. ' Phil. i. 1. ' Tit. i. 5. 7.
" 1 Tim. ii. ' Acts xiv. 23.
368 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [p. VI. CH. I.
ter are given to the same persons ; or two orders only are
mentioned in the church.
Answer. There may have been one amongst the bishops or
presbyters of Phihppi"^ and Ephesus superior to the rest. Titus
may have made the same distinction among the presbyters in
Crete, or was probably himself the chief pastor of those
churches. St. Paul does not discriminate the chief presbyters
from the others in his epistle to Timothy, because their quali-
fications were the same. The elders ordained by Paul and
Barnabas may have been of different degrees ; but it is also
probable 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 themselves.^
^ [Epaphroditus is expressly designated by St. Paul, as " the apostle of
the Philippians" and his own " fellow-workman and soldier ;" Phil. iii. 25.
He was absent from Philippi, on a visit to St. Paul, when the epistle was
written; iii. 28. iv. 18: there could, therefore, only be members of the two
inferior orders at Philippi, to be addressed.]
X [The answers to this objection are by no means satisfactory. The
fallacy lies in the assumption that the indifferent application of the terms
*■ bishop" and "presbyter" proves the mention of two orders only.
Suppose that the presbyters of Philippi and Ephesus are called bishops ;
if, at the same time, there were under them deacons, and over them, in each
church, an apostle, does it follow, that mention is made only of tw'o
orders ? Now, of the Philippians, we have seen, that St. Paul while he
addresses their " bishops and deacons," makes mention of their " apostle "
as then absent, on a visit to himself: of the Ephesians was not Paul the
apostle when he delivered the charge recorded in Acts xx. 1 was there not
at that time a superior in the ministry, exercising oversight previ-
ously correspondent with that subsequently called " episcopal," over the
"bishops" of that church'? and did not that superior, with the deacons,
make up the three orders in that church 7
In the cases of Titus and Timotliy, too, there is no real difficulty. That
they were, respectively, the overseers of the churches in Crete and Ephe-
sus, is matter not of probability, but established fact. How, then, could
OBJECT.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL- 369
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 en-
trusted with the dignified ministry, the deacons with the subor-
dinate."^ Tertullian : " In our religious assemblies, certain
there be more than two orders under them ? That they were " apostles,"
and have that office ascribed to them in Scripture, is susceptible of clear
proof. Here, then, again, three, not two, orders are mentioned ; the apos-
tles, the bishops or presbyters, and the deacons.
Paul and Barnabas, when they " ordained elders," (Acts xiv.) were per-
forming jointly an apostolical, now called " episcopal," visitation, of a dis-
trict to which they had been " sent out," (Acts xiii. 2. 4.) and of which
they were the " apostles " (Acts xiv. 14.) for the time being — in modern
phrase, of their " missionary diocese." The conjunction of two of the
highest order in a joint charge, is the only circumstance different from
subsequent practice. It was, doubtless, founded on our Saviour's precedent
(Mark vi. 7. Luke x. 1.) ; was constantly practised in the earliest days of
the church (Acts viii. 14 ; xi. 30 ; xv. 2. 22. 39, 40 ; xix. 22 ; 2 Cor. viii.
18. 23.) ; and seems to have prevailed only in the case of temporary or
itinerant supervision — such as we now call " missionary episcopacy "—
since in the case of Paul at the beginning of his ministry (Acts ix. 30), in
that of Epaphroditus (Phil, ii.), and in those of Titus and Timothy, a sin-
gle individual appears to have been sent to exercise stationary (or what
we call "diocesan") episcopal functions. In all these instances, the dis-
tinction between "order" and "jurisdiction" is very clear; the latter,
only, being in question.]
y [Are not "apostles," and " bishops," and " deacons," three orders?
And did not the first of the three, in ordaining the other two, discharge
precisely the function now ascribed to the first or highest of the three
orders ? Clement (Ep. ad Cor. c. 44) expressly recognizes the succession
of others to the office of ordaining after the apostles.^
» [The solution is, that the church was vacant of a bishop when addressed
by Polycarp : and no other supposition so satisfactorily accounts for the
admonitory tone of the letter of so distant a bishop.]
a [It is obvious that Clement is here speaking of the administration of
each church under its bishops. His recognition of the three orders, as
VOL, II. — 47
370 THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [P. VI. CH. I.
approved elders preside."^ Firmilian : " All povirer and grace
are placed in the church, where presbyters preside." Some
writers also apply the terms of bishop and presbyters to the
same persons : Irenasus says ; *' Obey those presbyters in the
church who have succession 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.
Answer. It is not denied that there are, in a certain sense,
two orders in the church : but the order of presbyters or bishops
distinct degrees of the ministry, is very explicit elsewhere. 'At >ixtx tuv
iKKAna-tAV TrpoKOTTAt, iVKTitOTCiiv, vpir^UTifuiV ^i'fJ.KMaiv^ y.ifj^>ty.ATa, lifji.a.1, ttyytKiKHi J'o^nc,
nux-iivm Tuc oiKcvofAlst; Tuy^sLvovo'tv, «v st^vufAiVUV (^oicrlv at ypsi^aii tov; ko.t' ip(yo; rcer
a.7ro(rT0Km ly TiKucn^u J'licxwiruviii icu.tu. to iuciyyi\tov /2i}iicuii^rnt' iv nt^iKmi; Turnc
a.pB'nyrat.^ yp±<^il o aT<JO"TOXoc, S'lax.ovno'iiv /aiv t^ Trpcerci, iTrnTU. iyK^tTo.Ta.yyi'ia.i tu vpur-
/iuTipto) K»T* ■TTpox.oTrnv J'o^n;, (J'o^u. yxp <fo^«c Stx^ipu.) a^K a.v it; tsae/ov «,vJ))a at/^x-
a-eea-tv. Strom. Hb. vi. c. xiii. fin. Whatever may be thought of the com-
parison, nothing can be more clear than that Clement regarded the ministry
as made up of three successive stages of advancement. The context imme-
diately preceding this passage proves, moreover, as Potter has pointed out
in his note (Note 1. p. 793, ed Venet.), that Clement identified the highest
of these orders w^ith the apostleship, borne by the twelve.]
b [There is a double ambiguity in this declaration. 1. TertuUian is
speaking of congregations convened for worship ; in each of which, in
every diocese having (as most had, even from the first) several beside that
of the mother church, a ' presbyter ' in the modern sense, — a member of
the second order — did ' preside,' i. e. officiate, assisted by the deacon or
deacons. 2. The term ' elder,' confessedly applied ever to the twelve, (e.
g. Peter — 1 . Pet. v. i.) was loose enough, even in Tertullian's time, to allow
him to make the statement generally, without excepting the mother (now
called cathedral) churches, in which the overseer (bishop or apostle) of each
diocese himself officiated. He was certainly ' an approved elder ' in a sense
sufficiently accurate for the information of the heathen, to whom Tertullian
was giving an account, not of the church-government, but of the worship
of the Christians.
The ambiguity of the term ' presbyter' sufficiently explains the expres-
sion of Firmilian and Irenaeus, who notoriously acknowledged the episco-
pate (in the modern sense) as a distinct order of Divine right.]
OBJECT.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 371
consists of two degrees,'' the higher of which is invested with
pecuhar power, as all the above writers held ; for they all ac-
' [See note « on page 352.
c [It is to be regretted that the learned author has consented to involve him-
self and his reader in scholastic subtleties on this subject, for the sake of
appearing (for it is only in appearance that he is successful) to reconcile
variant theological opinions that have found currency in the church at divers
times, without detriment to the faith, or material derogation from discipline.
" Discrimen fortassis inter ordincm,''^ says the learned Dean Pierce, " magis
in imvnidt. nostree mentis (ut in hoc negotio sumitur) quara in re ipsa consistit.
(So Bishop Davenant calls it ' subtilis-verborum velitatio.) Vocabula artis
non debent ingredi articulum aliquem religionis ; ncdum litigia et lites se-
rere." (Orthodox. Theol. Corpusc. p. 265.)
In one point of vievt^ it is certainly true that the difference between the
episcopate and the presbyterate is of another kind from that between the
presbyterate and the diaconate. The great ends of the ministry, to admin-
ister the word and sacraments, are subserved as effectually by the presbyter
in his sphere, as by the bishop in his ; they are not, and cannot be, by the
deacon in any sphere, because he has received no commission to administer
the eucharist, absolution or benediction. With respect to these offices, it is
true, that the difference between the presbyter and deacon is of order; that
between the presbyter and bishop, not of order, but of jurisdiction. But,
then, this last is true, with regard to the not less important offices of preach-
ing and baptizing, of the presbyter and deacon ; and by parity of reason, if
the presbyterate and episcopate are one order, because wherever the pres-
byter has a right to administer the eucharist, absolve, and bless, his admin-
istration is as valid as the bishop's ; then the presbyterate and the diaconate
are one order, because wherever the deacon has a right given him to baptize
and preach, his administration of those ordinances is as valid as the priest's.
Nay, both of priest and deacon it is true, and equally true, that their admin-
istrations, even where they have not the right (i. e. have not jurisdiction)
are still valid, though irregular ; those of the latter to the extent of bap-
tizing and preaching ; those of the former to that of administering the
eucharist, absolution and benediction. But is it true of either, that their
administration of the ordaining power, or of the government of the church
as chief ruler and visiter, would be ever valid ? The catholic church has
never admitted that it would : and here is a distinction between the presby-
terate and episcopate, as broad as that between the presbyterate and diaco-
nateu Why it should not be called a distinction ('/* order, as well as that,
others must say, if they can.]
372 THE EnSCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. [p. Vl.CII.I.
knowledge elsewhere 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 parties 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 bap-
tized 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 presbyters, more by
custom than by the truth of the Lord's institution."*^
Ansiver. 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 universully till after the schism at Corinth ; which
is very probable. In fact, the superiority of bishops to presby-
ters, when he wrote, arose more from custom than divine insti-
tution. That is to say, the bishops had probably obtained
greater jurisdiction at that time than they possessed at first ;
and the full amount of that jurisdiction was not essential to the
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,
^ Hieronymus, comment, in Epist. ad Titum, c. i.
« [The author may choose to make such admission, for the sake of truth,
or argument. The editor, with the most careful study he has been able to
give to the matter, has never succeeded in finding any reason for the ad-
mission.]
f Hieron. De Script. Eccl. t. iv. In his commentary on Titus, t. iv. p,
123, lie says, " Quod fcoerunt ct apostoli, per singulas provincias, presby-
teros et episcopos ordinantes."'
OBJECT.] THE EPISCOPATE APOSTOLICAL. 373
confirming, celebrating the eucharist. Thus the superiority of
bishops was more from the custom of the cathohc 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 Timo-
thy, says, " After the bishop he subjoins the ordination of a
deacon. x\.nd 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 intro-
duced afterwards by a council.
Ansioer. These are peculiar opinions inconsistent with the
general sentiment of the fathers, and the practice of the catholic
church. This writer's judgment 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 apos-
tles, 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 tradition is
infinitely more probable. -
8 [See below ; where the author shows that in a certain sense (probably
Jerome's) this is true also of presbyters. Page 375, No. 3.]
^ Hilarius, Comment, in 1 Tim. Vide Ambrosii Opera.
CHAPTER 11.
ON THE PRESBYTERATE.
In treating of the presbyterate, I shall consider first, its insti-
tution and its powers during the earliest ages of the church ;
secondly, the introduction of the parochial system ; and thirdly,
the changes in general discipline and the offices of the priest-
hood which thence arose.
1. The sacred order of presbyters or elders (sometimes
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 institution of the holy eucharist, " Do this in re-
membrance of me f^ and before his ascension : " Whosesoever
sins ye remit,"'' &c. ; and therefore the apostles were also pres-
byters, as St. Peter styles himself : " The presbyters which are
among you I exhort, ^ho am also a presbyter ;'^" and also St.
John : " the presbyter unto the elect lady,''" " the presbyter
unto the well-beloved Gains. "^
2. We know not the exact period at which the apostles first
ordained presbyters. 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
a [On the existence of the three orders during the personal ministry of
our Lord, see the conclusive reasoning of Bp. H. U. Onderdonk, Episco-
pacy Examined, p. 240. 245.]
b Luke xxii. 19. " John xx. 23. " 1 Pet. v. 1.
e. 2 John 1. *" 3 John L e Acts xi. 30.
1. Acts XV. 2. 4. 6. 22, 23. xvi. 4.
CHAP. II.] THE PRESBYTERATE. * 375
presbyters in every church" they re-visited.' About a. d. 56,
Paul sent for " the presbyters of the church " of Ephcsus ;''
and we afterwards read of bishops or presbyters at Philhppi :^
and the directions to Timothy and Titus for their ordination in
every city ;'" the exhortation of St. Peter to " the presbyters ;"'*
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
apostlesfor the ordinary government of the church, were insti-
tuted under the direction of the Holy Ghost ; and that presby-
ters (and afterwards bishops) as well as deacons, were intend-
ed for the ordinary ministry of the church, we reasonably infer
from their institution in eveiy church, and their continuance at
all times in the catholic church. Accordingly, we find St. Paul
saying to the presbyters of Ephesus, " take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost
hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God."P
4. There were several presbyters in each church from the
beginning ; at least in all churches where there were a conside-
rable number of the faithful. The presbyters of Jerusalem,
Ephesus, Philippi, are spoken of in the plural number in scrip-
ture. This was continued after the institution of the episcopal
office. S. Ignatius often speaks of a plurality of presbyters
in particular churches. i S. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, ad-
dresses the Philippians, " Polycarp and the presbyters that arc
with him, to the church of God at Philippi.''^ In the middle of
' Acts xiv. 22. i' Acts xx. 17.28.
> Phn. i. 1. ■» 1 Tim. iii. ; Tit. i. 5.
° 1 Pet. V. 1. o James v. 14.
p Acts. XX. 28.
f Ignatii Epist. ad Ephes. Magnes. Trail. Philadelph. Smyr. Polycarp.
" Polycarp. Epist. ad Phil. Routh, Opuscula Script. Eccl. t.-i. p. 9.
376 THE PRESEYTERATE. [PART VI.
the third century there were at Rome, under Cornehus, forty-
four presbyters,^ and at the same time there were many pres-
byters at Carthage under Cyprian.
5. The office of presbyters, hke that of bishops, consisted
in " feeding the church of God," and overseeing it ;' exhorting
and convincing the gainsayers by sound doctrine." Being in-
vested with the power of teaching, they also possessed autho-
rity in controversies. The church of Antioch sent to Jerusa-
lem to consult the apostles and " presbyters " on the question
of circumcision : and we find afterwards that heretics were
sometimes 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 spi-
ritual censures.'^ They must, even at the beginning have had
the power of baptizing and celebrating the eucharist, of perform-
ing other rites, and of offering up public prayers in the ab-
sence 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 particu-
lar from St. James, that presbyters had authority to visit the
sick and offer prayers, anointing them with oil for the recovery
for their health.
« Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 43.
• Acts XX. 28. 1 Pet. v. 1. ° Tit. i. 9.
" Thomassinus mentions instances of excommunications by presbyters
about the end of the fourth century, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. Part I. lib.
ii. c. 23, s. 10. 13 ; also in the time of Charlemagne, Ibid, c.24, s. 5 ; and
up to the thirteenth century, c. 26, s. 6, 7. Jo. de Athon in his Comment,
(al)out 1290,) on the Legatine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon, says, a
" Rector curatus " may excommunicato. (Const. Otho, Quanto Scriptura-
rum ver. etiam a pra>]atis ; Const. Othob. Ad tutelam ver. excommunica-
tione ligatus.) Lyndwood in the fifteenth century, says, " Simplices tamen
curati hoc non possunt hodie, quia praescriptum est contra eos." (Provin-
ciale Angliae, De Consue. c. statutum, ver. ccnsura ccclcsiastica.) How-
ever, the pres])yters our churches have still the power of the minor excom-
munication provisionally, until the bishop decide in the case. See Rubric
before the Communion Olficc.
CHAP. II.] THE PRESBYTERATE. 377
From the time of the apostles, the office of pubhc teaching
in the church, and of administering the sacraments, was always
performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity.''''
The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each church, of regulat-
ing its affairs generally, and especially its discipline, was shar-
ed 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 ronfirmation.^
Thus the presbyterate was always esteemed a most high dig-
nity 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 intro-
duced the parochial system now generally prevalent in the
church, y
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 originally
w Bingham, Antiquities, book ii. c. 3.
X For the powers of Presbyters generally in the primitive church, see
Bingham, b. ii. c. 19.
y See Thomassinus, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. Part I. lib. ii. c. 21 —
28 ; Bingham, Antiquities, book ix. c. 8 ; Dansey, Horee Decan. Rurales,
^ [Yet Clement of Rome (who should have known) says Expressly <^t
SK iTnyK-jTTovi Ku.t J'iux.ovovg TCiiv fAiKKavTccv Tria-Tiuitv. ad Cor. C. 42. The last
words, especially, indicate that it was not their custom to waif until exi-
gencies required a perfect ministry, but. to anticipate the needs of the
people.]
VOL. II. — 48
378 THE PRESBYTERATE. [PARTVI.
placed churches under the superintendence of presbyters, over
whom they themselves exercised jurisdiction.; so the bishop of
each city ordained presbyters for the rural districts, over whom
he exercised superintendence. Such rural presbyters are men-
tioned by Epiphanius as existing in Mesopotamia in the mid-
dle 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 Neocassarea (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 presbyters
were commonly instituted ; and they were placed under the
immediate inspection of chorepiscopi or rural bishops, and visi-
tors, who were commissioned by the bishop of the whole dio-
cese or TTctpoiyJu. The country clergy in the diocese of Cassa-
rea in the time of S. Basil, were under the superintendence of
no less than fifty rural bishops. Thus arose the lesser rural
parishes : and the oblations, tithes, &c., of these districts were
in after ages assigned to their particular clergy, instead of going
tot he genei-al 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 cen-
tury 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 particu-
lar presbyters, but were served in common by the presbyters of
the principal church.^ The opinion of Thomassin is very pro-
bable, 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 ;
'' Bingham, Antiquities, book ix. c. 8. s. 5.
CHAP, ll.j THE PRESBYTERATE. 379
though a different custom gradually prevailed. '^ At the begin-
ning of the fifth century, as we learn from the epistle of Inno-
centius to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium, the presbyters of
all the Roman tituh or lesser churches, received on every Lord's
day the sacrament consecrated by the bishop, and did not them-
selves consecrate ; that power being exercised apparently only
by the presbyters of the churches of the martyrs, which were
in the- country .*= The presbyters of the ciiy, constituting the
original presbytery of the church, were of more authority and
dignity than the rural presbyters, who were forbidden by the
council of Neocffisarea to officiate in the city unless in the ab-
sence of the bishop and presbyters, (can. 13.) They had the
whole cure of souls under the bishop, either cojijointly or sepa-
rately, and preserved their privileges generally. But 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
archdeacon, &c., were regarded generally the bishop's council
in all the affairs of the church. *! These alterations were intro-
duced graduall)'- and by the internal regulations of each parti-
cular church.
III. We are to consider, thirdly, the changes in general dis-
cipline and in the offices of the priesthood which resulted from
these institutions.
^ Thomassin. pars i. lib. ii. c. 21. . c Ibid.
i For the origin and history of Chapters, see Thomassin. "Vet. et Nov.
Eccl. Discipl. pars i. lib. iii. c. 7 — 10. See also Van Espen, Jus Univers.
Eccl. pars, i.tit. 8. [The- American reader, familiar with the organization
of the churches in this country, will perceive in the Clerical Standing Com-
mittees of Connecticut and Maryland, the preservation of this relict of the
primitive ' corona presbyterum.']
380 THE PRESBYTERATE. [PART VI.
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 im-
possible to consult them ordinarily on 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
respective parishes, and were placed generally under the bish-
op's superintendence and visitation. On the other hand, they
necessarily obtained the right of performing ordinarily and pub-
licly in their churches, almost all those offices which were chief-
ly 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 re-
turn transferred to them by a tacit consent, much of their ordi-
nary 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 hmit in opposing himself to these errors.
The bishops of the fourth council of Carthage decreed, with
laudable piety and humility : " ut episcopus quolibet loco se-
dens, stare presbyterum non patiatur ; "•= and " ut episcopus in
ecclesia, et in consessu presbyterorum sublimior sedeat ; intra
domum vero collegam se presbyterorum esse cognoscat."^
The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle
ages, may have induced some of the ignorant to suppose that
presbyters were exceedingl}^ inferior to bishops ; but the catho-
lic church, which sees with the eye of Faith, as she acknow-
ledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in every bishop,
whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether invested
with princely dignity 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 apostles ; and the
church has never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever
been held in truer reverence, than under the guidance of those
" Carthag. iv. c. 34. Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 981. ^ Can. xxxv.
CHAP. II.] THE PRESBYTERATE. 381
apostolical prelates who, like S. Cyprian, resolved to do no-
thing without the consent of the church, and who have most
sedulously avoided even the appearance of " being lords over
God's heritage." The spirit of genuine Christianity will lead
the presbyters to reverence and obey the bishops as their fa-
thers ; and will induce bishops to esteem the presbyters as
fellow-workers together with them, and brethren in Jesus
Christ.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE DIACONATE,
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 murmuring of the Greeks that
they were neglected in the daily ministrations. We do not hear
of them afterwards till St. Paul addressed his epistle to the
Philippian church, whose " deacons" he mentions ;'' and in his
first epistle to Timothy, directions are given for the choice of
deacons,'' which infer that they were then as commonly estab-
lished in the church as presbyters. S. Clement of Rome says
that the apostles, having preached everywhere, " ordained their
first fruits bishops and deacons." Ignatius and Polycarp also
mention the deacons of the churches they wrote to. Deacons
are also mentioned by Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus,
TertuUian, Cyprian, &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 brethren : but scrip-
a [That this was ' the first appointment ' to that office is bare assump-
tion. Bp. H. U. Onderdonk has shown that existed ' in re ' at least, before
our Lord's ascension. The probability is, that there were many in the
diaconate before the ordination providing for a special emergency, recorded
in Acts vi. Episcopacy Examined, 234. ss. The very plausible hypothe-
sis of Dr. Mosheim, (Comm. de Rebus Christ, p. 118. ss.) though perfectly
consistent with Bishop Onderdonk's line of proof, is wholly independent
of it.]
b Phil. i. 1. c 1 Tim. iii. 8, &c.
"^ For ample information with regard to deacons in the church, see Bing-
ham, Antiquities, book ii. c. 20. Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl.
pars i. lib. ii. c. 29 — 33.
CHAP. III.] THE DIACONATE. • 383
ture does not limit them to this duty : and in fact we find Ste-
phen preacAm^ the gospel, ° and Philip the deacon both preach-
ing and baptizing^ These instances are sufficient to justify
the church in permitting the deacons, in case of necessity, both
to preach and to baptize. According to Bingham their ordi-
nary 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 bene-
factors, 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
representatives 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 misde-
meanours, in some churches acting as catechists.s^ 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 ministerial 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. Thomassin says that it was not only
an order and office, but a benefice in the church for twelve
centuries.'^ It was so at Rome certainly, where, as we learn
from S. Jerome, the seven deacons had larger revenues than
the presbyters. Pope Caelestinus 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 church at Populonia.
Paschal II. in giving directions to the bishop of Compostclla
for the regulation of his church, after a.d. 1000, desires him to
e Acts vi. 10. f Acts. viii. 5. 38. g Bingham, ut supra,
h Thomassin. pars i. lib. i. c. 51. n. 1; lib. ii. c. 33. n. 8.
' Ibid, pars i. lib. ii. c. 33. n. 9.
384 THE DIACONATE A BENEFICE. [PART VI.
ordain cardinal presbyters and deacons. The council of Sau-
mur, 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, however, originally instituted for deacons, which
still remains generally in the western churches, is that of arch-
deacon ; but this can now be only held by presbyters, in con-
sequence 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 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 pre-
scribed it as a necessary qualification for the superior orders.
These deacons either exercised 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 ap-
. ^ Ibid. pars. i. lib. iii. c. 9, 10.
1 Lyndwood says, " Si tamem archidiaconus esset presbyter, quod esse
potest, tunc tam rationc ordinis quam jurisdictionis prajcelleret decanum."
Provincialc Angliae, p. 117. ed. 1679.
"> Wilkins's Concilia, t. i. p. 747. ' >
" Ibid. p. 213.
» Stillingfleet, Ecclesiastical Cases^ Works, vol. iii. p. 650.
CHAP. III.] THE DIACONATE.- 385
pears 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 Lyndwood, that the curates or rectors themselves
were sometimes only in deacon's orders, and that deacons thus
beneficed might pi'each.'^
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 except the ministry of
the altar. And even in this, the ministry of the deacons is often
(especially in cathedral and collegiate churches) supplied by
presbyters : so that at last it has come to this, that deacons are
not ordained to discharge the duties of deacons, but to ascend
by the diaconate as a step to the presbytcrate. Whence also no
one is ordained deacon in order that he may continue in tha
office, but in order that he may be ^promoted to the presbytc-
rate, when the canonical interval of time has elapsed. Whether
this be entirely conformable to the will and intention of the
church, let the bishops consider."'
The duties ascribed to deacons b}^ our churches, are first,
assisting the priest in divine service, especially in the commu-
nion, and distributing the eucharist; secondly, 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 ordi-
nation or by the ritual, that the church formally invests deacons
with the power of celebrating divine service without a presby-
ter ; or performing the rites of marriage, benediction of women
V Jo. de Athon. in Lyndwood's Provinciale, p. 24. ed. 1679.
1 Lyndwood's Provinciale, p. 288.
' Van Espen, Jus Canonicum, t. i. p. 5, 6.
» Ordination of Deacons.
VOL. II.— 49
386 THE MINOR ORDERS. [PART VI.
after childbirth, 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 dea-
cons, except in cases of absolute necessity ; because they are
not qualified to administer the sacrament of the holy eucharist,
and other high oifices of the ministry.
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 or-
ders, 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 presbyter, 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
, Field, Of the Church, book v. c. 25 ; Bingham, Antiquities, book iii. ;
Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. pars i. lib. ii. c. 30, &c.
APPEND.] THE MINOR ORDERS. 387
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 lay-
men continue generally to fulfil the offices of the ancient orders
in the Roman churches to the present day."^ In England the
same custom has prevailed, and the minor orders having be-
come 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 during the eucharist used the alb and tunicle.
" Thomassin. ut supra.
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE MINISTER OP ORDINATION.
The question concerning the proper minister of ordination
has been much debated betweeil the church and different sects :
the Independents maintaining that popular election is the only
essential ; or that it supersedes the necessity of any other ordi-
nation : the Presbyterians asserting that presbyters of the se-
cond 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. Morinus ^
refers to many of the schoolmen and others in 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 Field. "^ The
latter argues in favour of it, and adduces the sentiments of the
schoolmen, Armachanus, Alexander de Hales, Durandus," &;c.
" Vasqucz, in iii. par. S. Thomee, q. 243. art. 3, 4.
b Morinus de Ordin. par. iii. exerc. iv. c. 3, 4.
c Hooker, Works, vol. iii. p. 286. ed. Keble. I am not certain that
Hooker regarded such ordinations as more than juslifablc. He certainly
considers them as only conferring an " extraordinary vocation," and hence it
might be supposed that he judged it only permissible for a time, and under
urgent necessities.
^ Field, Of the Church, book iii. c. 39. v. 56.
« Ibid.
CHAP. IV.] THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. 389
The validity of ordinations given by presbyters in case of ne-
cessity, has occasionally been supported by writers in the church
of England since, and without censure. Nor does it seem that
this opinion, if rightly understood, and discreetly advanced,
involves any consequences injurious to religion, since were it
even admitted 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 or-
dination, 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 ordi-
nations are more secure ; and that for this reason, (as well as
for the sake of a charitable accordance with the general prac-
tice 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 re-ordain heretical
ministers who embrace her communion ; such persons, I say,
do not, or ought not, to allow that there are ministers of Christ,
or real bishops and presbyters among those who are ordained
in separation from the catholic church ; because there is no
reason to believe that the divine commission is ever given ex-
cept 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 sec-
taries. And further, if it be supposed that presbyterian ordina-
tions 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 Refor-
mation, was probably invalid ; and yet, considering their diffi-
culties ; the fact of their appeal to a general council ; their
expecting to be reunited to the church ; and therefore the impos-
sibility of establishing a rival hierarchy ; I think we are not
bound to condemn their appointments of ministers, as many
390 THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. [PART VI.
learned and orthodox writers have done, who, however, seem
not to have observed the pecuHarities of their position, and to
have supposed that they were at once definitively separated
from the Roman churches/
That ordinations by mere presbyters are, (however excusable
and justifiable under certain circumstances), in fact, unauthor-
ized and invalid, is the more usual sentiment of theologians,
and is most accordant with scripture, and with the practice of
the catholic church in general, and of our churches in particu-
lar, 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 tlie Gentiles, certain prophets
and teachers at Antioch, while they ministered to the Lord and
fasted, received a command from the Holy Ghost, " Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them. And when 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
f [Again let it be observed, that the question to be argued is not the guilt
or blamelessness of the separatists ; but the fact, whether they had a di-
vine commission to perpetuate ? No a posteriori proof of necessity can
evince the affirmative. What they had not, they could not give, be the
need never so urgent.]
e Acts xiii. 1 — 3.
'' [Why not at once state the fact, that it is no ordination at all 1 It is
the mere appointment of Paul and Barnabas to a certain field of duty. In
Acts xiv. 26, we read that the apostles, having returned, gave an account
of the fulfilment of " the work " to which they had been appointed. Paul
himself assures us, that his apostleship was not conferred on him by any
human instrumentality ; Gal. i. 1 ; and the whole tenor of his statement
in the first two chapters of the epistle to the Galatians, is utterly incon-
sistent with the supposition of his ordination to the ministry, ih any form
or grade, by the hand of man. We have also, in Acts ix. 30, an account
of his previous mission to Tarsus and .Cilicia (comp. Gal. i. 21), where, as
Professor Burton has shown, (Lect. on Hist, of Church in the first cent.
p. 135. 147. 158), he founded the churches which he afterwards (Acts xv.
CHAP. IV.] THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. 391
these prophets and teachers were presbyters. 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 understood by the Greek fathers
to mean bishops, and by the Latin fathers to mean the presby-
terate, 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 performed 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 ordain-
ed presbyters in every church."^ Timothy and Titus were left
&t Ephesus and in Crete, to set things in order and to ordain pres-
byters in every church."^ The seven deacons were elected by
the people, but ordained by the apostles. ° Hence it would seem,
that the power of ordination is vested in the apostles, their de-
puties, and successors.
41) revisited, in company with Barnabas. — The transaction in Acts xiii.
1 — 4 may be compared with a farewell missionary meeting, in which per-
sons previously ordained presbyters or bishops, receive jurisdiction in the
mission to which they have been appointed.]
' 1 Tim. iv. 14.
k [Not so, most certainly : he was ordained by the apostle Paul, (2 Tim.
i. 6 : S'la. T«c iTTi^iTioii; Tfflv '^i^cev (Woy), with laying on of hands of the presby-
tery {(jLiTx iTTid-is-iO}; Tm ^it^cev TOii TrgtyQuTigtov — 1 Tim. iv. 14). Nothing can
be more explicit : even to the use of the article, every thing points out
the different shares of the ordaining apostle, and the consenting presbyters,
in the transaction.]
1 2 Tim. i. 6. "• -Acts xiv. 22.
° 1 Tim. iii ; Tit. i. 5. ° Acts vi.
392 THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. [PART VI.
The power of ordination was given to the apostles and their
successors, by these vi^ords : " As my Father hath sent me even
so send I you,"p which authorized them to send others to preach
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 pecu-
liarly this title. 1 To them, therefore, principally is the com-
mission of Christ directed, and consequently there cannot be
authority to ordain without them.
II. The vmiform practice and doctrine of the church, as far
back as we can trace it, is opposed to the validity of ordinations
performed by presbyters only.
We find several instances in which such ordinations were de-
clared null, but not a single case has been adduced in which
they were really allowed. In 324, the council of all the Egyp-
tian bishops assembled at Alexandria under Hosius, declared
null and void the ordinations performed by Colluthus, a pres-
byter of Alexandria, who had separated from his bishop and
pretended 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 Ischy-
ras a presbyter ? Who was his ordainer ? Colluthus ? For this
only remains. But it is known to all and doubted by no one,
that Colluthus died a presbyter ; that his hands were without
authority ; and that all who were ordained by him in time of the
schism, were reduced to the state of laymen, and as such at-
tend the church's assemblies."^ In the first council of Seville,
the ordinations performed by the bishop of Agabra were declar-
ed null, because an assisting presbyter was accustomed to read
p John XX. 21. 1 See above, Chapter I. art. v.
r Presbyteri et Diaconi Mareotae. — Athanas. Oper. t. i. p. 193.
" TloSev ouv Trgta-^uTijiOQ ^la-^ufn;; TzVac *a'r*5'T«VatVT0f ; q^a, Kohkou&ov', touto ya^
XoiTTov &h\' QTt KoMouSo? Trfito-fiu'Ti^oc Iv iTiKiv'DKri, )t,*i VMa. ^it^ ctuToZ yiyoviv axygsf,
euvdyovTAi, J'tihov, n«,) oi/Jtv) i,Mp//So^ov,— Athaii. Oper. t. i. p. 134.
CHAP. IV.] THE MINISTER OP ORDINATION. ;393
the prayer of ordination, on account of the bishop's bhndncss,
who, however, laid his hands on those who were to be ordained.*
This manifests strongly the judgment of the church on the sub-
ject of ordinations by presbyters. Epiphanius refutes the doc-
trine 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 ?"" Jerome asks,
"What, except ordination, does a bishop, which a presbyter
docs not also ?"^ Chrysostom also, who esteems the presby-
terate very little inferior to the episcopate, holds that the power
of ordination is entirely vested in the latter. ^^
III. 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 the synod of Antioch.^ Cornelius
of Rome, about a. d. 250, was ordained by sixteen bishops.y
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 ordained at Capsas in Nu
midia, by six bishops."^ Long before his lime, flourished Nar
cissus, bishop of Jerusalem, who according to Eusebius was
contemporary with Clement of Alexandria. His successor,
about a. D. 200, was ordained by bishops. '^ Even the schismatic
t Concil. Hispal. ii. can. 19. — Harduin. Concil. t. iii. p. .561.
u 'H /mh ya^ io-ri TrsLrigm yimiTix-ri rd^t;' 7ra.Ti^±c ya^ ytvy^ ttj Xicxxntriu: n cTi tta-
TSgac utt i'uvi.y.ivn j^vfjiv, (T/ci rJi? tou xowTgou 7rd.Kiyyivi<Tittz a-exv* yin^ t« 'uatxtia-iit^ ou
fxriv ^aregstc, « oiScta-KoiMuz' )t*j TrZt otov ri »» tov ^gS3-/2uT«go» xaS/crx^y, ^j) iypvTH
^ii^'jQiTUv roZ )(itgoToviiy. — Epiph. Haeres. 75. Oper. t. i. p. 908. ed. 1683.
» Hieronymus, Epist. ad Evangelura, t. iv. pars ii. p. 802.
" Chrysost.in Epist. ad Phil. 1. Oper. t. xi. p. 195.
^ Euseb. lib. vii. c. 30.
y Cypr. Epist. 52, - Ibid. 55. » Ibid. 68. ed. Pamel.
" Ibid. c Ibid. 53.
d Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 12; lib. vi. c. 10.
VOL, II. — 50
394 THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. [PART VI.
Novatian, in the time of Cyprian, procured ordination from
three bishops ; " and Fortunatus, who set himself up as bishop
of Carthage against Cyprian, was ordained by five bishops.*
The apostohcal canons which represent the disciphne of the
East, probably in the preceding 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 dispensed 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 universal rule.
While it is evident that ordinations were never performed 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 adopt-
ed by the Roman and other western churches, was never re-
ceived in the East. In all the eastern churches from the time
of the apostles to the present day, the bishop alone lays hands
on the presbyters. This custom was known and sanctioned by
the western churches, and therefore they must have held that
ordination by the bishop alone was the essential and apostolical
rite of initiation.
IV. I arffue thus in conclusion. That mode of ordination
• Euscb. lib. V. c. 43.
f Cypr. Epist. 55. ed. Pamel.
g Apost, can. 1, 2. — Beveregii. Pandect, t. i. p. 1.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. lib. xxx. s. 7.
' Even in Africa and in Spain bishops might ordain without presb3rters.
— See Bilson, Perpet. Gov. p. 255, 256. This in fact vi'as the more general
custom of the church. — Ibid. p. 257.
OBJECT.] THE MINISTER 07 ORDINATION. 395
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 ordina-
tion has so prevailed, and presbyterian has not : therefore the
former alone confers the divine commission.
OBJECTIONS.
I. St. Jerome testifies in his espistle 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, 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, ex-
cept ordination, which a presbyter does not also."'^ Therefore
it appears that the bishop of Alexandria was elected from among
the presbyters without any ordination.
Ansiver. If he was so, presbyterian ordinations, at least,
derive no support from this passage, for presbyterians 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
'' " Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cseteris praeponeretur, in schis-
matis remedium factum est ; ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi eccle-
siam rumperet. Nam et Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Hera-
clam et Dionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in
excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant : quomodo si exercitus
imperatorem facial ; aut diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint et
archidiaconum vocent. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus,
quod presbyter non faciat ?" — Hier. Epist. ci. ad Evangelum, Oper. t. iv.
pars ii. p. 802. ed. Benedict.
396 THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. [p. VI. CH. lA'.
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 presbyter
he might very well believe to have by divine right 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 episcopate, 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 con-
cerning presbyterian ordinations performed by Collulhus in
Egypt, even in Alexandria, only about sixty years after the
time of Dionysius, there should be no allusion to a custom so
extraordinary and so directly bearing on the point in contro-
versy ? How is it, that within forty years after the time of
Dionysius, we find all the bishops of the Meletians ordained,
not by presbyters, but by Meletius himself ? And how is it,
' The custom of the church of Alexandria, even in the sixth century,
was for the bishop elect to assume jurisdiction and sit as bisliop, apparently
before consecration. Liberatus, a. d. 553, says, " consuetudo quidem est
Alexandriae, ilium qui defuncto succedit, excubias super defuncti corpus
agere, manumque dexteram ejus capiti suo imponere, et sepulto manibus
suis, accipere collo suo B. Marci pallium, et tunc legitime sedere." — Bre-
viar. c. 20. Here nothing is said of consecration, yet we know from his-
tory, that these bishops had for a long time before, always been consecrated
like other bishops.
m [A. strange supposition ! very like the physical theory of the develop-
ment of organization from the monad !]
OBJECT.] THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION, 397
that no one but Jerome should notice so remarkable a custom,
one certainly unparalleled 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 episco-
pacy ; and if his argument seems to require, for its validity,
that no consecration should afterwards have taken place, it is
easier to suppose that St. Jerome's argument was inconclusive,"
than that so extraordinary a custom could have existed in the
church.
II. Eutychius of Alexandria, in his chronicle, says that the
bishops of Alexandria were actually ordained by the presby-
ters, till the time of Alexander, who attended the synod of Nice.
Answer. Eutychius lived in the tenth century, too late to
have any weight in such a question. His statement 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 Cyrian says, that in the church
"preside presbyters {majores natu,) who have the power of
baptizing, laying on hands, and ordaining." p
Answer. The bishops were often called presbyters. Ter-
tuUian says, " Prohati prcesident seniores.''^
IV. Hilary the deacon, on Ephes. iv. 2, says, " in Egypt,
even to this day, the presbyters ordain {consignant) 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 pres-
byter, not every presbyter a bishop ; for he is bishop who is
first among the presbyters."
Ansioer. 1. The word "consignant" does not mean " or-
n [Especially when the known carelessness (not to term it rashness) of
Jerome in argument, is considered.]
o See Pearson, Yindiciag Ignat. c. 10.
p Cyprian. Epist. 75. al. 43.
398 THE MINISTER OF ORDINATION. [P. YI. CII. IV.
dain," but " confirm." This custom still remains in the east,
and confirmation is usually called a-cpp^yU or iTrto-cppxytirf^oi.'^
2. I have already observed that the opinion of this author as to
ordinations is to be rejected.'^
V. The general synod of Nice permitted the clergy appoint-
ed by Meletius the privilege of ordaining, and of naming those
who were worthy of being ordained.^
Ansiver. The meaning of the word w^e;k^e</)('(^£6-^«< is " elect-
ing" not ordaining. Besides, the synod is speaking of bishops,
as well as of presbyters ordained by Meletius, 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 after-
wards a presbyter.' Novatus, a presbyter, made Felicissimus
a deacon, according to Cyprian."
Answer. The meaning is, that Cassianus [lege Paphnutius]
and Novatus caused them to be ordained by some bishop.
VII. The chorepiscopi, 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 episcopal
consecration. These seem to be the principal instances ad-
duced to'favour presbyterian ordinations.
^ See Smith on the Greek Church, p. 116, 117.
' See above, p. 371.
• Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 9.
t Cassian. Collat. iv. c. 1.
" Cyprian. Ep. xlix.
» Bingham, Antiquities book ii. c. 14. [Brett on Church Government,
chap. xii. Brokesby's Primitive Church, chap, xiii.]
CHAPTER V.
ON THE NUMBER OF BISHOPS REQUISITE TO ORDAIN.
An important question has been raised, as to the number of
bishops requisite to confer a vahd episcopal ordination. Seve
ral theologians have been of opinion, that in case of necessity-
one bishop was sufficient for thi^ purpose. Amongst the sup-
porters of this opinion may be named Beveridge, Mason, Hal-
lier, 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 princi-
pal theologians of the Gallican church in the last century, for-
mally maintains the following conclusion : " In consecratione
episcopi plures comministros episcopos adhibendos, esse, docet
apostolica traditio ac constans praxis ecclesiae ; atque alitor
quam a tribus vel duobus saltom factam ordinationem, non illi-
citam modo, sed etiam irritam ac nullam esse, probabilius vide-
tur."^ Tournely wrote when the question had been amply
discussed, and his decision is the result of a careful investiga-
tion of all that had been said. He had been preceded in the
same opinion by Pamelius, bishop of St. Omer,'' and Habert,
bishop of Vabres, who regards such ordinations as most dubi-
ous.^ Halher says, that in his time the common and most re-
a [The opinion of Van Espen and other eminent canonists was formally
given, to that effect, when consulted by the Jansenists in Holland who pro-
ceeded to act on it, in the consecration of an archbishop of Utrecht, Ra-
cine, Hist. Eccl. xiii. 596.]
•* Tournely, Tractat. de Ordine, p. 453.
*= Pamelius in Cypr. Epist. 68. " Accedere debebat consecratio . . . per
episcopos qui convenerunt, quos, ut minimum, duos esse oportebat."
d " Circa hoc vero negotium, ancipitem profecto controversiam movere
scholastici doctores . . . Utrum videlicet ordinatio et consecratio ab uno
400 CONSECRATIONS BY ONE BISHOP. [PART VI.
ceived 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 consecration /wre divinoS
Bellarmine,^ Kellison,^ and others regard this number as essen-
tial : but are of opinion, as well as Vasquez, that a papal commis-
sion 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 commission
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 episcopal consecration, are
" both probable ; therefore in practice, the first," (which main-
tains their necessity,) "is to be altogether followed ... for
since it is very probable . . . that the episcopate is a true sacra-
ment, distinct from the presbyterate, we are certainly bound in
the ordination of a bishop to take the safer jJcirt, to avoid a gene-
ral injury ; for otherwise priests ordained by this bishop would
remain doubtfully ordained."''
The law and practice of the catholic church from the remot-
tantum episcopo facta, quoad characterem ac ordinem ipsum qui de jure di-
vino est, sit rata et valida." — Habertus, Liber Pontificalis, p. SO. ed. Paris,
1643. See also p. 83.
e " Incertum est et intra auctores catholicos controversum an consecra-
tio episcopi omnino nulla, irrita, et invalida sit . . . quee a paucioribus tri-
bus episcopis peracta fuerit." — Hallier, De Sacris elect, et Ordin. p. 582.
' Prior (sententia) communis est ethocee tempore magisrecepta." p. 589.
*■ Vasquez, in iii. part. Thomae, t. iii. disc. 243. cap. 6.
g Bellarminus, de Not. Eccl. c. 8.
h Kellison, Coram, in iii. par. Thomae, t. ii. p. 428.
i Vasquez, ut supra, disp. 243, c. 4.
k " Utraque sententia est probabilis ; unde in praxi omnino prima sequen*
da est. . . . Et ratio est, quia cum'.valde sit probabilis sententia (ut dixi-
mus, n. 738,) episcopatum esse vcrum sacramentum distinctum a presbyte-
ratu, tenemur utique in ejus ordinatione tutiorem partem sequi ad vitandum
damnum commune ; nam alias sacerdotes ab hoc episcopo ordinati mane-
rent dubie ordinati." — Ligorio, Theol. Mor. lib. iv. c 2. art. 755.
CHAP, v.] CONSECRATIONS BY ONE BISHOP. 401
est period are opposed to ordinations by one bishop only. It
was decreed by the synods of Aries, Nice, Antioch, Laodicca,
Carthage, Orange,^ &c., that at least three bishops should con-
secrate. The oecumenical synod of Nice only allowed this
number to be sufficient in a case of urgent necessity, but de-
sired 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 Narcissus of Jerusalem at the end
of the preceding century. 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 se-
cond century, require the ordination of a bishop to be perform-
ed by two or three bishops, " so as that he cannot be ordained
by one.""" Clement of Alexandria says, that James was ap-
pointed bishop of Jerusalem by three of the apostles, Peter,
James the elder, and John.» Hence we find Michael Oxita,
* patriarch of Constantinople, rejecting the 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 appointments to
the highest oflSces of the sacred ministry were made by a plu-
rality of persons. As our Lord had said, "if two of you shall
agree on earth as touching any thing 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
' Arelatens. i. c. 1. Arelat. ii. c. 5. Nicen. can. 1. Antioch. can. 19.
Laodicen. can. 12. Codex African, can. 13, 14; Arausic. i. c. 21. See
Beveridge, Annot. in Can. Apost. p. 11. Pandect, t. ii.
■" Apost. can. i. Bev. Pand. t. i.
0 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 1.
" Joh. Cinnamus, Hist. lib. ii. Bev. Pand- 1. ii. Annot. p. 10,
VOL. II. — 51
402 CONSECRATIONS BY ONE BISHOP. [p. VI. CH. V.
the midst of them ;"p it might be fairly concluded, that in so im-
portant an act as that of sending forth a pastor into the king-
dom of Jesus Christ, the pastors ought to be united. Accord-
ingly, all the apostles were assembled and acted together in ap-
pointing Matthias" to the bishopric of the traitor. 'i Paul and
Barnabas \vere sent forth on their mission by the inspired
" prophets and teachers " of Anlioch.^ Timothy was ordained
by St. Paul and the presbytery : ^ and connecting these cir-
cumstances 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 western church
acknowledged the latter as bishop,* and Pope Innocentius even
required Alexander of Antioch to receive in their honour and
degrees, the clergy ordained by Evagrius."
Ansiver. It is probable that Theodoret was misinformed, 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
P Matt, xviii. 19, 20. '' Acts i.
T Acts xiii. 1 — 3. [This, however, was no ordination. See note (''),
p. 391.]
B 1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6. [What warrant is there for regarding the
ordination here mentioned, as that to the highest office in the ministry ? —
See ' Episcopacy Examined,' p. 190 — 196. 252.]
' Tlieodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 23.
" Innocent. 1, Epist. xiv. ad Bonifacium. Hard. Cone. t. i. p. 1010.
OBJECT.] CONSECRATIONS BY ONE BISHOP. 403
which induced the eastern church not to acknowledge him or
his clergy, did not arise from doubt as to the validity of his or-
dination, 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 metro-
politan church.'*'
Ansiuer. I reply, that either S. Athanasius afterwards com-
pleted 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 perform epis-
copal Consecrations without the aid of other bishops, the latter
■' replied " Quidem in Anglorum ecclesia in qua adhuc solus tu
episcopus inveniris, ordinare episcopum non aliter nisi sine
episopis potes.""^ Therefore, in case of necessity, ordination
by one bishop is sufficient.
Ansioer. Habertus affirms that the reading in ancient manu-
scripts is this, "Et quidem in Anglorum ecclesia, &c. ordi-
nare episcopum non aliter nisi cum episcopis potes. Nam
quando de Galha episcopi veniant, illi in ordinationen episcopi
testes tibi assistent." This reading 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
V Synesius, Epist. Ixvii. p. 210. ed. Petav.
w Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 28.
" Habertus, Pontificale Graec. p. 83.
404 CONSECRATIONS BY ONE BISHOP. [pART. VI.
text. But even conceding that the passage as quoted is cor-
rect, Gregory may have proceeded on uncertain principles in
aflfoiding this permission, as we beUeve he did mistake, in af-
firming that the apostles consecrated the cucharist w^ith 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 Melli-
tus were ordained by Augustine alone," because though Bede
mentions no other consecrators, it is customary with him only
to mention the name of the metropolitan ordaining. ^ It is more
probable that Augustine may have obtained the assistance of
some of the French bishops. We find that afterwards they
were so careful in England to observe the rule re'quiring rnore
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 scarce-
ly have done if S. Augustine alone had consecrated several
bishops. It appears probable also that Theodore of Tarsus re-
ordained Ceadda,^ thus affording an additional proof of the doc-
trine and practice of the church.
V, The apostles ordained bishops alone. E. g. St. Peter
ordained Linus at Rome, St. Mark ordained Anianus at Alex-
andria.
Answer. We are not certain that these apostles and evange-
lists 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.
y Hallier, De Ordin. p. 588. ^ Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 28.
" " Ordinationem ejus denuo catholica ratione consummavit." — Beda,
Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 2.
CHAPTER VI.
ON REORDINATIONS
I. It is unlawful to reiterate ordinations once validly perform-
<ed in the catholic church, because such reordinations would
throw doubt on the sufficiency of the former ordinations, every
minister of Christ lawfully ordained being capable of adminis-
tering sacerdotal offices in all churches where he is lawfully
called to do so, though limited ordinarily to one by apostolical in-
stitution. Thus W6 read that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, cele-
brated the eucharist in the church of Rome, when he travelled
there to confer with Soter; [Anicetas;] and the canons of the
catholic church approve of this practice, and sanction the trans-
lation of bishops (in cases of urgent necessity and benefit to the
church) always without any reordination. The sixty-eighth
apostolical canon exhibiting the early discipline of the East,
forbids reordinations under pain of deposition both to the ordained
and the ordainer, unless the former ordinations have been conferred
by heretics.^ The council of Carthage (canon 52) forbids rebap-
tizations or reordinations 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 re-
fer to ordinations formerly conferred by the orthodox.'^ Pope
i^U TrlV ^ilftOTOVOXV. TOUC yaP ■^^^O, tZv TOIDUTO!]/ /i-XTTTlO-liiVTA; )) p^llfll>TOV>ldiVTSt.;, OUTS
5wcrT0[/c 0UT6 tckupmoi;; tivd.1 i'uvttTov. — Beveregii Pandect, t. i.
■> Beveregii Pandect, t. i. p. 574. The question of reordinations is treated
by Morinus. — Comment, de Sacr. Eccl. Ordin. pars iii. exercit. v. p. 74,
&c.
* Beverege, ut supra, p. 514 — 6.
406 ON REORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
Gregory I. says, ''that he who has been once ordained ought
not again to be ordained to the same degree."*^ Provincial syn-
ods at Rome, and Ravenna also, under Pope John IX. forbad
reordinations.^ These are suflEicient 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 gene-
rally, that it does not seem that there is any severe penalty in
the western churches provided for this 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 reiterated, the
ordainer does not incur irregularity ; because it is not expressed
in the canon law."*"
II. This general rule against reordinationfe does not apply in
cases where ordinations have previously taken place in sects se--
parated from the church. The catholic church is not bound to
know anything of their ordinations, or to examine into the intri-
cate questions which may surround them. She repudiates them
in general as conferring no divine commission to minister in sa-
cred things. " Them that 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
* Gregor. Mag. Epist. lib. ii. ep. 46. ad Jo. Episc. Ravennat. t. ii. p. 608.
Oper. ed. Ben.
* Morinus, p. 87.
' " Si quis tamen illicite iteraret, non fit irregularis . . quia non est in
jure expressum." — Henriquez, Summa, lib. x. de Ord. Sacramento, c. 14.
CHAP. VI.] ON REORDINATIONS. 407
minister of ordination appear to have been continued in sects,
and thus the external part of ordination has been regularly ob-
served, the churcli has the power of animating this dead form
with the inward grace of die divine commission ; or of remov-
ing the impediments which had prevented that grace from de-
scending : 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 or-
dination 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, "•' 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
Marlyrius, patriarch of Antioch, a. d. 460, stating that the prac-
tice 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, con-
vened a synod, to which the king of France, at his request, sent
g " Placuit sanctae et venerabili synodo, ut presbyteri qui ex hseresi Ari-
ana ad sanctam catholicam ecclesiam conversi sunt, qui sanctam ct puram
fidem, atque castissimam tenuerint vitam, acceptam denuo benedictionein
presbyterii sancte et pure ministrarc debeant," &c. — Cone. Caesar August,
ii. c. 1. Morinus de Ordin. p. 97.
>■ Morinus, p. 98.
408 ON REORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
twelve learned bishops ; and it v^^as determined, that all the
bishops, priests, and deacons ordained by Constantine should
be reordained by pope Stephen, if again elected by their respec-
tive churches." Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, reordained all
those who had been ordained by Ebbo a former archbishop after
he had been synodically deposed, and reduced to lay corhmu-
nion. This was approved by a great council of Gallican bishops,
but was rejected by pope Adrian 11. on appeal.'' Formosus
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. reordained the clergy he had ordained. ^
The council of Constantinople against Photius, decreed, that
having been schismatically ordained he was not a bishop."^ On
the other hand, Photius reordained those whom Ignatius his ri-
val had ordained after his deposal." Leo IX., according to Pe-
ter Damianus, reordained many who had been simoniacally or-
dained." 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. p The nullity
of such orders was also decreed in the synod of Placentia, un-
der Urban II., who reordained a deacon ordained by Nezilo, a
simoniacally consecrated bishop. ^ 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 episcopal office.^ He
also denies the validity of heretical orders in his commentary
on the apostolic canons, as do also Zonaras and Aristagnus.'
It is evident that all these instances concur to establish one
' Morinus, p. 91. '^ Ibid. p. 88. ' Ibid. p. 85. ■" Ibid. p. 93.
° Courayer, Dissertation sur la Validite des Ord. Angl. t. ii. p. 109.
" Morinus, ut supra, p. 81. f Ibid. i Ibid. p. 79 — 81.
' Ibid. p. 76. • Ibid. p. 98.
I In Canon Apost. Ixviii. — BeveregU Pandect, t. i.
CHAP. VI.] ON REORDINATIONS. - 40S|
leading principle, that the church is not bound to recognize
orders conferred in open heresy or schism ; and that reordina-
tions in such cases are not forbidden.'^ In several of the above
instances indeed, the principle was stretched beyond its legiti-
mate limits ; but this does not affect the general tendency of
the whole, and it is impossible to explain away these nume-
rous reordinations, into mere rehabilitations or licenses for ex-
ercising orders.^
III. The rule against reordinations 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. "'^ The synod of
Cabilon says, " There are in certain places Scoti who say that
» [This may be assented to, on the principle maintained in the next sec-
tion— that a repetition of the form may take place, in a case of doubt,
without implying the repetition of the thing. If the divine commission has
been given and received, it can sustain no let or diminution by the re-ad-
ministration of the form ; and where such re-administration is performed
in serious doubt whether the commission have been previously imparted,
and in no presumptuous impeachment of the commission itself, there can
be no criminality nor danger. The question whether " orders," i. e. the
divine commissions exist or not, does not depend upon the decision of the
church : that decision can only go to the probability of the fact. Whether
the church will, or will not " recognize orders " under certain circum-
stances, is another question, to be settled (1) by the previous decision as
to the probability of their existence ; (2) by the determination of the fitness
of provision against the probability, greater or less, that they do not exist.
Where there is such probability in the smallest degree, the decision to re-
ordain is within the province of the church.]
V [If the form is meant, the assertion is granted : something more was
done than merely rehabilitate a lapsed commission, or license to jurisdiction
on the presumption of existing orders. But if the effect is in question,
the author answers himself in the next section, where he adopts the max-
im, " non est iteratum," &c. and the wise dictum of Leo.]
" Hallier, De Sacr. Elect, et Ordin. p. 828.
VOL. a.— 52
410 ON REORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
they are bishops, and who ordain many neghgent persons
without permission of their lords or masters, whose ordination,
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 anulled."'^ 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 continued
for nearly twelve hundred j^ears, 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 bap-
tized or ordained ; or related only to a circumstance of the
sacrament already administered. For the axiom was most
commonly adopted, ' Non est iteratum, quod certis indiciis
antea non ostenditur peractum.' For sacraments are of such
great 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 con-
ferred again without scruple, lest through our hesitation any
soul which Christ redeemed should perish. . . . The crime
of reordination is in no degree to be dreaded in this case, since,
as St. Leo says, ' the temerity of presumption does not inter-
vene where the carefulness of piety exists.' The same custom
continues even now, but that repetition which was formerly
absolute, is now usually performed conditionally.''''^ Of this
we have examples in the case of the bishops of Secz and
Avellino, mentioned by Le Quien. Du Moulinet, bishop of
Seez, was for nearly thirty-six years in the habit of giving the
gospel, chalice, paten, bread and wine, to the priests and dea-
cons whom he ordained, by the hands of his assistant priests,
and not with his own. These ceremonies did not affect the
» Ibid. p. 829.
y Morinus de Ordin. p. 109.
CHAP. VI.J ON RKORDINATIONS. 41 1
essence of ordination ; nevertheless, doubts and questions
having arisen after his death as to the vahdity 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 Monsignor Scanagata, bishop of Avellino, who
presented the instruments by means of his master of ceremo-
nies.^ " 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 patri est celui d'ordonner de nouveau sous con-
dition."''
IV. The customs of the church of England prevent reordi-
nations, where the previous ordination has been performed in
the church ; and her law, contained in the Preface to the Ordi-
nation Service, excepts from the necessity of ordination accord-
ing 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
different rite : and we may reasonably suppose that it was de-
signed to include those who might receive episcopal ordination
in other catholic churches. By this, however, was not meant
any episcopal ordination, (such as that conferred by the bish-
ops of Denmark, or of the Methodists, or Moravians,'' who
have probably no valid orders whatever), but a valid episcopal
ordination, conferred with a sufficient imposition of hands and
I Le Quien, Nullite des ord. Angl. t. ii. p. 388, &c.
a Ibid. p. 393, &c. " Ibid. p. 394.
■= [With regard to the Moravians, it is but fair to state that there is
difference of opinion. Their title to the succession is involved in great
difficulties, and, at best, can hardly be called safe : yet the efforts of some
very learned antagonists have as yet afforded no positive disproof; and
the presumption is, of course, in its favour until proved a forgery.]
412 ON REORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
prayer ; and by a bishop whose own ordination is in no degree
doubtful. It has even been the custom not to reordain 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 case not having then arisen. However,
as I have said, the church was authorized to confirm these ordi-
nations, though not bound to do so.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE SUBJECTS OF ORDINATION.
Of impediments to ordination on the part of the recipient,
some only render it irregular, others perhaps render it null.
I. Those who are manifestly devoid of the qualifications re-
quired by the apostles and the church in the ministers of religion,
are styled irregular; and this incapacity applies to the following
cases. (1) Those persons who have been guilty of some crime
or offence injuring their fame, voluntary homicides, simoniacs,
incendiaries 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 ;" hold-
ing the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.^ (3) Neo-
phytes ordained immediately after baptism, or before the canoni-
cal 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 lunatics, demoniacs, con-
firmed epileptics, those mutilated by their own will, or of mon-
strous form, or devoid of bodily organs essential to the ministry.
(6) Those under the command of others, and unable to give
themselves 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 bishop who has resigned
or been deprived. (8) Those whose wives are of an evil charac-
ter.® There are other cases of irregularity which do not apply
to our present discipline ; but these are the principal impedi-
« 1 Tim. iii. 2. 7. 10. , " Ibid. 2. 9. « Ibid. v. 22.
^ Ibid. iii. 16. <= 1 Tim. iu. 11.
414 ORDINATIONS WITHOUT BAPTISM. [PART VI.
merits which prevent those who labour under them from being
ordained 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 baptized. It is equally obvious,
that none except believers were qualified to be his ministers,
and as St. Paul forbad even those newly baptized to be ordained,
how much more would 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 dis-
covered by himself and others not to have been baptized, is his
ordination to be accounted null and void ? It is generally ad-
mitted, that in a case of necessity, a sincere wish to receive the
sacraments, together with the true faith, is sufficient to produce
the effect of those sacraments.*" And on the same principle it
might seem, that one unbaptized, though ignorant 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 regeneration. Dionysius of Alex-
andria was afraid to baptize a man who had only heretical bap-
tism, but who had often partaken of the eucharist,^ It seems
'' [That is, it is hoped that the effect is produced ; it is charitably trusted
that in the sight of Gon the want of the external means will not be held
essential. Can any thing more be affirmed ? Is there any divine warranty
entitling us to pronounce in such a case of necessity.]
e Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 9.
CHAP. VII.] IMPEDIMENTS TO ORDINATION. 415
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 conditionally.
2. Are ordinations conferred "per saltum^'' passing over the
intermediate 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 saltum} The principle on which
this is justified is, that the episcopate comprises virtually all
h [The question discussed lies deeper than the autlior has seen fit to go.
Granting that none but believers can be ministers, and granting that the
Saviour's will is clear that believers shall be baptized, and that St. Paul
would certainly have prohibited the admission of an unbaptized believer to
the ministry ; does it follow that such a person (suppose him by any chance
once in orders) choosing to remain in the ministry, in known contrariety to
the Saviour's will, is therefore not a minister, notwithstanding a regular
and valid ordination? It must be the disobedience that would vitiate the
orders, in that case. Is not that supposition the error condemned in the
26th article 1 Is not even the (post facto) requisition of belief, a branch of
the same error ? How can man be sure that any ordained man is a believer ?
Is it not too probable that some in holy orders have been wnbelievers ? Were
their orders thereby vitiated 1 At bottom, the question is, Is the validity
of the ministerial commission (once duly conveyed) affected by the per-
sonal character and condition of the bearer ? so that his acts, so long as
he is permitted to retain the commission, are thereby made invalid ?
Whether a man having no interest in the covenant of redemption through
Christ ought to he made a minister to extend its benefits to others, or to be
allowed to continue the exercise of such ministry, are entirely distinct
points of inquiry. They equally affect the case of the unbelieving and un-
godly minister with that of the unbaptized. Of all, it is confessed that they
ought not knowingly to be ordained, nor to be suffered to continue in the
discharge of the ministry. But of the two first, their want of personal in-
terest in the covenant of salvation is held to be no bar to their instrumen-
tality in the transmission of its benefits to others. Why should that of the
third be more so ?]
' See Courayer, Defense de la Dissertation, liv. iv. c. x.
416 ORDINATIONS WITHOUT BAPTISM. [pART VI.
Other orders in itself. Even on the supposition that the epis-
copate is an extension of the presbyterate, or rather a jurisdic-
tion 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 many theolo-
gians have held that the episcopate conferred per saltum is in-
valid. This was generally the doctrine of the schoolmen : it
was maintained afterwards by Mason'' and Field, ^ and by Bel-
larmine,"" Vasquez," Gamache,° Kellison,p Hallier,i &;c. These
writers speak as if there was no doubt on the subject, and as if
all theologians admitted their doctrine. No one, however, dis-
putes that according to the canons, sacred orders should be con-
ferred only gradually, and with the usual intervals.
k Mason, De Min. Angl. Dedicatio ad Ep. Paris.
' Field, Of the Church, book i. c. 39.
" Bellarmin. De Sacr. Ordinis, lib. i. c. 5.
n Vasquez, in iii. part. S. Thomae, p. 738. 771. ed. 1614. He says^of
this doctrine, "hoc indubitatum esse video apud omnes."
" Gamachaeus, Summa Theologica, t. ii. p. 683.
p Kellison, Comment, in iii. part. S. Thomae, t. ii. p. 398.
1 Hallier,^,De Ordin. p. 392, ed. 1636.
CHAPTER VIII. _ . ,
ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION.
We are first to consider what is the essential 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 scriptures, 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 reasona-
bly concluded that these alone are essential. This is confirmed
by the ancient ordinals of the church ; for Morinus 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.
XL The rite of ordination is not " a sacrament of the gos-
pel,"'' nor is it one of those " generally necessary to salvation ;"*^
but since " the common description 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 anything whereby a holy thing is signified ;" ^ since God
" of His divine providence hath appointed divers orders in His
" Part I. chapter viii.
I' Morinus de Ordin. pars iii. exerc. ii. c. 1. observes that the ancient rite
of laying the Gospel on the head of the bishop, was not practised at Alex-
andria, nor in some churches of Gaul and Germany, and probably not in
the Koman church originally.
>^ Article XXV. a Catechism.
* Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments.
VOL. II. — 53
418 ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION. [PART Vi
church ;" <" since those who are ordained bishops and presby-
ters, are " by the Holy Ghost made overseers to feed the church
of God :"^ since God himself gives to us such " pastors and
teachers ;" ^ since it is evident that the divine grace promotes
those who are duly ordained to the office 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 sacrament, even while establishing a
distinction between it and the two great sacraments of the
gospel. " Though the ordering of ministers hath this visible
sign or promise, 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 sacra-
ments as baptism and the communion are."' Jerome, Augus-
tine, Leo, Gregory, &c. style it a sacrament,'' Calvin also
regards it as a sacrament.' The apology of the confession of
Augsburg says that if " order be understood of the ministry
of the word, we should without scruple have called it a sacra
ment. For the ministry of the word hath the commandment
of God, and possesses glorious promises. If order be thus un-
derstood, we should not object to call the imposition of hands
a sacrament.""" The learned archdeacon Mason regarded order
as in a certain sense a sacrament.
" f Collect for Ember days.
g Acts XX. 28. '' Ephes. iv. 11.
i Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, part i.
'' Hieron. lib. cont. Vigilant, p. 281 ; Augustin. lib. ii. cont. Parmen. c.
xiii. t. ix. p. 45; Leo, Epist. xi. al. Ixxxi. ad Dioscorum, c. i. t. i. p. 436;
Gregor. Mag. lib. iv. in Libr. Regum, c. v. t. iii. p. 228.
I " Superest impositio manuum, quam ut in veris legitimisque ordinatio-
nibus sacramentum esse concede, ila nego locum habere in hac fabula." —
Inst. lib. iv. c. xix. art. 31.
m Apologia Confess. VII. De numero et usu sacrament.
B " Si Sacramenti vocabulum ad quodvis externum signum a Deo ineti-
CHAP. VIII.] ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION. 419
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 scripture, which the eccle-
siastical use calls sacraments (by a word of art,) two only are
generally necessary to salvation." ° Archbishop Seeker says,
"as the word sacrament is not a scripture one, and hath at
different times been differently understood ; our catechism doth
not require it to be said absolutely, that the sacraments are
two 07ily ; but two only necessary to salvation : leaving per-
sons 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." p And accordingly, we
find the homilies speaking of the sacrament of matrimony,"'!
and acknowledging several other sacraments besides those of
baptism and the eucharist."^ Cranmer, in his catechism, con-
siders absolution a sacrament.^ The confession of Augsburg
and its Apology, hold the same view,* and the latter adds ma-
trimony.'^ In short, it is plain that the reformation, in avoiding
the error of arbitrarily defining the doctrine of seven sacra-
ments, did not fall into the mistake of limiting the use of this
term to t^vo 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 sacra-
ment as applied to ordination, and therefore that we ought not
to employ it, I reply with Cyprian, " Quid ergo? quiaet hono-
tutum, cui divinae gratiae promissio annectitur, extendamus, sacrum ordinem
dici posse una cum Sancto Augustino et aliis agnoscimus." — Mason, De
Min. Angl. p. 48. ed. 1638.
0 Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 240. ed. Cardwell.
P Seeker's Lectures, xxxv. Of Baptism.
1 Sermon on Swearing, part i.
' On Common Prayer and Sacraments, part i. See above, Vol. I.
p. 510.
" Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 131.
t Confess. August. Art. 11, 12. 22. Apol. Confess, cap. de num. et usu
Sacr. ad art. 13. " Ibid.
420 ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION. [PART VI.
rem cathedrae sacerdotalis Novatianus usurpat, num idcirco
nos cathedrae renunciare debemus ? Aut quia Novatianus altare
collocare, et sacrificia offerre contra jus nititur ; ab altari et
sacrificiis cessare nos oportet, ne paria et simiUa cum illo cele-
brate videamur ?"^
T Cypr. Epist. ad Jubaian. de Hasret. rebapt.
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
This subject involves two questions : first, the authority 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 institu-
tion.^ The western churches, actuated by a pure and laudable
desire that the ministers of Jesus Christ should " give them-
selves 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 always permitted priests
and deacons to continue in the married state even to the pre-
sent day, though they prohibit marriage after ordination, and
enjoined celibacy on bishops in the council in TruUo, a. d. 692<*
R Field, Of the Church, b. v. c. 57. " Communis theologorum, quos
longo ordine appellat Vasquez in tertiam partem disput. 248. c. 3. opinio,
existimat lege dumtaxat ecclesiastica injunctam esse majoribus clericis
perpetuam continentiam." Tournely, De Sacr. Ordinis, p. 676. " Quae-
fitur I. An haec obligatio ccelibatus sit de jure divino, ita ut Papa nequeat
in ea dispensare. . . . Dicendum cum communi doctorum (praeciso veto),
non esse de jure divino, sed tantum ecclesiastico, quod ministri ordinati in
sacris obligentur ad castitatem." — A. M. De Ligorio, Theologia Morah's,
lib. vi. tract, v. art. 807.
•> Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. t. i. lib. ii. c. 61. Tournely,
De Ordin. p. 656, &c.
« Ibid. c. 60. 63. Smith on the Greek Church, p. 91. The Greek
custom of allowing married clergy has never formed any obstacle to their
union %vith the Roman church. — Tournely, De Ordin. p. 649.
= Ibid. 61. n. 2. Tournely, De Ordin. p. 665.
422 ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. [PART VI.
From these facts it is plain, that the ceUbacy of the clergy-
was not imposed by any law of the universal church, and
therefore that it may be lawfully dispensed with by particular
churches.
II. The western clturches did not exceed their power in
requiring their ministers to observe celibacy ; for in case of
marriage they only deprived them of the ministry, but did not
declare their marriage invalid, or resort to any means of dis-
solving 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 admo-
nition of holy scripture, A/« }\ r«5 TropviUg 'iyccto-roi Tjj'v iocvTou
yvfxly.ct i^£Ti»,'^ and x-psla-Fov yap l<rri y a^icj} e-«.' ^ v) -xvpovTOxi^^ might
Still be followed.
But in later ages, when the discipline of the western churches
relaxed, and married clergy were found in numbers in Ger-
many, England, Sweden, &c. ; Gregory the seventh, and the
following bishops of Rome, enforced again the celibacy of the
clergy by regulations of an unjustifiable severity ; for under
their direction, the councils of Rheims and Lateran in 1148
arid 1176,*^ decreed that married clergy should be separated
by force from their wives, and that such marriages should be
held null and void.^ In addition to this, severe penalties were
imposed by law on those who transgressed this regulation.
These proceedings were founded on the mistaken opinion held
by many in those ages, that the celibacy of the clergy was en-
joined by God, and that their marriage was consequently a sin.
If, under these circumstances, men, through a mistaken con-
fidence in their own gifts, or of the aid of divine grace, under-
took the office of the ministry, and discovered afterwards their
d 1 Cor. vii. 2. « Verse 9.
r [2 Cone. Lateran. can. 7. anno 1139. sub Innocentio II. — Cone.
Rhemens. can. 7. anno 1148. sub Eugenio III.]
8 Thomassin. t. i. lib. ii. c. 64, 65.
CHAP. IX.] ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 423
error, they could not be bound in conscience by these laws in-
troduced 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 tole-
rate marriages, which in such cases were sanctioned by scrip-
ture itself, those clergy who adopted so justifiable a proceeding,
were most fuljy entitled not to publish circumstances which
might deprive them of their Christian liberty and privilege.
Had the penalties 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 sepa-
ration, under pain of excommunication and even death,^ the
case was totally different. I admit that no good man ought to
have undertaken the ministry under such circumstances, unless
persuaded of his fitness through divine grace, to fulfil its con-
ditions ; but if he found himself mistaken, he could not be
bound to risk his salvation in the attempt.
III. It may be alleged that, at all events, the marriage of
clergy after oi'dination, is generally prohibited by the ancient
canons, and therefore that it can never be lawful.
I reply, that this prohibition was merely founded on pruden-
tial motives ; and that the universal church did not really
beheve that marriage after ordination was more to be condemn-
ed than continuance 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 intention of so doing.^ The western church forbad the
married state equally, and with the same penalties, whether
contracted before or after ordination.'' Their objection was
h The Confession of Augsburg complains: "nunc capitalibus pcenis
excruciantur et quidem sacerdotes contra canonum voluntatem, nuUam
aliam ob causam, nisi propter conjugium." — Pars. ii. art. 2.
' Concil. Anc3nr. can. x.
* " In occidente non magni pendebant, ante vel post ordinationem ini-
424 ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. [PART VI.
not to the time at which it was contracted, but to the state
itself. Therefore since the eastern church held that there was
nothing unlawful in continuing in the state of matrimony after
ordination, while the western held' that there was no greater
fault in contracting marriage after ordination, we may- fairly
draw the conclusion, 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 baptism, could not be or-
dained •} but this arose from the opinion very common in those
ages, that second marriages were inconsistent with Christian
perfection. By the canons, those of the laity who married twice
were subjected to penance ; and the clergy were forbidden to
attend at their wedding 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 uni-
versal 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 mar-
riage, would justify a second.
OBJECTIONS.
I. The purity and sanctity of the Christian sacraments require
holy ministers. The greatness of the ministerial office requires
the whole man, as the apostle says, " No man that warreth en-
tum fuisset conjugium ; perinde uxoribus aJjstinere majores clerici cogeban-
tur." Thomass. t. i. lib. ii. c. 61. n. 2. See also c. 62. n. 2.
' Canon iv. Apostol. iv. Carthag. c. 69, On this subject see Field, Of
the Church, b.v. c. 58.
m Neocsesarea, c. 7. Laodicen. 1. Ancyr
" Hieronymus, lib. i. adv. Jovinian.
OBJECT.] ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 425
tanglelh h mself with the things of this hfe."° The faithful
married may remain apart " with consent for a time, to give
themselves to prayer and fasting." p 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 min-
istering at the sacred altar. Since Christ was born of a vir-
gin mother, and was himself unmarried, it is fit that those by
whom his body is handled in -the eucharist should be perpetu-
ally abstinent.
Answer. One reply is sufficient for all these arguments.
The presbyters of the eastern churches, who are equally min-
isters of the sacraments, and no less honoured with the sacer-
dotal office than the Latins, have always, from the beginning,
with the approbation of the whole catholic church, lived in the
state of matrimony.
IL God will not fail to bestow His gifts on those who call
on Him aright. " He will with the temptation also make a
way to escape, that they may be able to bear it."i
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 subjected themselves to this diffi-
culty, have no resource except in prayer to God, and fasting,'
&c., is to afford them no sufficient remedy.
o 2 Tim. ii. 4. p 1 Cor. vii. 5. <J 1 Cor. x. 13.
' The remedies recommended by Eusebius Amort, are prayer, mortifi-
cation, caution, &c. Amongst mortifications, he includes, " ciliciorum ali-
quoties per hebdomadam usus ; flagellationes in tempore fortioris tentationia
aut lapsus ; cubatio in sacco stramineo, vel assere ; somni ad sex aut scp-
tem horas limitatio ; extensis brachiis oratio ; recreationum alias acccpta-
rum V. g. lusus, epulationis, confabulationis, &c. devitatio ; cera; liqucfactas
in partem aliquam corporis affusio gustata ; candela; ardentis approximatio
dolorifica ; in hyeme, palmarum ad gelida corpora, v. g. murum, ferrum,
marmora, nives, aquas frigidas, diuturna applicatio, prsesertim in actuali
VOL. II. — 54
426 ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. [pART VI.
III. A VOW- of celibacy was taken by every person who re-
ceived sacred orders in the Latin church ; therefore, those who
married after ordination were perjured.
Answer. In England, at least, there was no such promise of
celibacy as there may have been elsewhere :^ but it is disputed
even now among Roman theologians whether there is any obli-
gation to celibacy from any vow. Ligorio says, " An haec
obligatio sit immediate ex proecepto ecclesise, vel mediate per
votum ordinatorum ? Utraque est probabilis ex eodem cap. 9,
Trident. Prima sententia, quam tenent Mastrius, Bosco, He-
rinx, &c. apud Holzmann, p. 268, n. 103, ac Scotus, Palaus,
Valent. et Aversa, apud Salmant. cap. 6, n, 28, (qui cum San-
chez merito probabilem putant) dicit, quod non ex voto, sed ex
sola ecclesiae lege ordinati in sacris teneantur ad castitatem."*
efFervescentia carnis ; pedibus itineratio molesta ; frigoris vel sstus molesta
perpessio ; per labores fatigatio, v. g. per scriptionem, instructionem, opera
manualia, &c."' — Theologia Eclect. Mor. et Schol. t. xviii. p. 177. It is
not every one that could maintain this sort of mortification continually.
" Burnet, Reformation, t. ii. p. 170. ed. 1816.
s Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, lib. vi. tract, v. art. 808.
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 vahdity of the Enghsh ordi-
nations. 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 countrymen of the Protestant profession, to
show them' this great defect in their church, the want of bish-
ops, thereby to invite them into ours, which (even by the con-
fession 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
cannot administer the sacraments, &c. ; and that whenever
they attempt to do so, they and their people are involved in
sacrilege. Dr. Humphrey Prideaux says, that in the time of
James H. the Romish emissaries made use of scarcely any
other arguments :^ and Pere Le Quien discloses the annoyance
■^ Prideaux, Validity of the Orders of the Church of England, 1688.
Preface. Amongst the principal works on the validity of the English or-
dinations; are Mason, De Ministerio Angl., the works of Bramhall and
42S ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
which was felt at Courayer's writing in defence of our orders,
interjjosing " 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 direction and autho-
rity of the pastors of the catholic church.'"^ According to him,
M. Le Courayer " ought himself to have feared this inconve-
nience, 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 zeal of
our missionaries. There are in Paris a good number of catho-
lics of the English nation, able and judicious men, who would
have better advised him,"'^ &c.
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 de-
duced from supposed schism and breach of the canons.
The objections against the validity of the English ordina-
tions 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 expedi-
ent to establish their new community, j)<^'>' fo^ ^^ nefas, on the
ruins of the church of Christ. The churches of the Roman
communion were in part deceived by the artifices and false-
hoods of these men ; but notwithstanding the errors and preju-
Burnet on English ordinations, and especially M. Courayer's Dissertation
sur la Validite des Ordin. Angl. ; his Defense de la Dissertation, and
Supplement ; Bishop Elrington's Validity of English Ordinations.
^ Le Quien, Nullite des Ord. Angl. pref. p. Ixiii.
" Ibid. p. Ixv.
CHAP. X.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 429
dice which they created, many theologians of that communion
were fully persuaded that our ordinations were valid.
The judgment of one man, whom, notwithstanding some
faults, and some injustice to the church of England, 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 terms: "As to the affair of England, besides the
difficulty of the first bishops, authors of the schism, there is
another considerable difficulty concerning the time of Crom-
well, 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. Ribe-
roUes, abbot of St. Genevieve, has given his solemn attestation,
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 Crom-
well, and not interrupted, (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 dea-
cons would not have need of reordination ; adding, in address-
ing 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
Cromwell."'^ We have further the attestation of M. Cakla-
guez, 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
'' Couraj^er, Dissert, sur la Valid, des Ord. Angl. — Preuves Justif. art. i.
8 Courayer, Defense de la Dissert. Preuves Justif. § 1 .
430 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
need nothing except to be reconciled to the church and reha-
bihtated ; and he added, that he had expressed himself in this
manner before the king."^ It is therefore in vain that Pere Le
Quien^ adduces his answer to M. Le Grand, who ask^d his
opinion, whether, in writing against Burnet, he should style
him bishop of Salisbury. " We know not that bishopric," said ,
Bossuet : not denying the validity of the English orders, but
not acknowledging the bishop of Sahsbury as of the Roman
communion.
The testimony of Petrus Valesius, or Walsh, a learned Fran-
ciscan, is also of value from the strength of its tone, and its al-
lusion 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 with them who doubt not the ordination of bishops, priests,
and deacons in the Protestant church ef England to be (at least)
valid. And yet I have read whatever 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 rea-
son 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, (besides what Ricardus Armachanus long
since writ,) and with the annals of our own Roman church, un-
less peradventure 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."^
Besides this, we have the testimonies of many other Roman-
1- Ibid. § 2.
e Le Quien, Null, des Ord. Angl. t. ii. p. 319.
'■ History of Irish Remonstrancej p. xlii.
CHAP. X.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 431
ists, such as Cudsemius/ Davenport a S. Clara, a learned Bene-
dictine ; even of many of the doctors of the Sorbonne in the
case of Dr. Gough, of M. Arnaud, M. Snellaerts, professor at
LouVaine, the learned abbe de Longuerue, Le Courayer him-
self,'' &c.
And even those who reordain clergy who have received or-
ders 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 or-
ders given in schism or heresy (such as they imagine our church-
es 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
disputed among Romanists themselves ; and reordinations un-
der 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 ordinations in
every way, at length intimates plainly that after all the ques-
tion of their invalidity is not decided yet. "When God by his mer-
■ cy shall will that England 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 pre-
sumptiveness, and we shall require such evidence for our per-
fect security, that all difficulties may be removed by demon-
stration."^
It has been observed, that the objections to the validity of
English Ordinations have emanated entirely from the English
and Irish Romanists. It is highly instructive to observe the se-
ries of these objections and their variations ; because nothing
' See Mason de Minister, p. 14.
k Courayer, Dissert, sur la Val. Preuves Justif. Defense, Preuves Justific.
I Le Quien, Nullite des Ord. Angl. t. ii. p. 396.
432 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [pART VI.
can prove more evidently, 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 arguing for
the cause of the church, every expedient consistent with Chris-
tian morality may be justly employed ; but the Jesuits and Semi-
nary-priests who 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 ordina-
tions of the English bishops, Harding maintained that they were
null, as not having been performed according to the Roman
ritual.'' Stapleton took another course. He argued, that the
* Protestant' bishops being devoid of all legitimate authority by
their ' separation 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 confirmed by them null and
void.p These arguments were fell to be insufficient, and so an-
other hue of attack was adopted.
Osorious, Weston, Bristow, Stapleton, Harding, Sanders,
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 as-
sertion, they kept in reserve the Jesuitical evasion, that they only
meant a legitimate and canonical imposition of hands or other
ceremony. 1 Such was the system pursued during the reign of
Elizabeth ; in that of James a new system was devised.
* ID See Courayer, Def. de la Dissert, t. i. p. 77, &c.
" Harding, ap. Champnaeum, p. 461. — Courayer, p. 79.
0 Stapleton, Opera, t. ii. p. 771. — Ibid.
p Fitzsimon, Britanomachia, p. 322. — Ibid.
1 Stapleton, ii. p. 779. Weston, de tripl. Horn. off", p. 224. Bristow,
Mot. Antihaeret. t. ii. p. 226. Sanders, do Schism. Angl. ed. 1010. p. 340.
See Courayer, Dissert, t. i. p. 83, &c.
CHAP. X.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 433
In 1604 the Jesuit Holy wood, or Sacro-bosco, devised the
story of the ordination of the bishops at the Nag's-IIead/ This
fable, now heard of for ihe 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,
immediately repeated it. Kellison, who knew nothing of it
when he had composed a former work, inserted it in his reply
to Sutcliffe. 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, embelhshed 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 recoris of Lambeth, and of England
generally, were adduced to prove the utter absurdity and false-
hood of these tales. It was asserted that these records were
forged ! Something was still wanting, however, to the perfec-
tion of the popish argument, and Champney imagined he had
discovered it. He was the first to deny, in 1616, the conse-
cration of Barlow, the principal consecrator of archbishop Par-
ker."* About eightij years had elapsed, since Barlow was or-
dained ; and during that interval no one had ever called the fact
into question. It was useful, hovi^ever, 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 contemporaries who
were undoubtedly consecrated ; ") his ordination was pertina-
ciously denied.
' Courayer, p. 86. « Ibid. p. 87.
' Courayer, Def. de la Dissert, t. i. part i. p. 85. «■ Ibid. p. 87.
^ See Mason, De Minister. Angl. lib. iii. c. 10 ; Elrington, On English
Ordinations, p. 112. &c. ; Courayer, Validite des Ord. Angl. part i. c. 3, &c.
It would be difficult to overrate the value of Courayer's three works on the
VOL, II. — 55
434 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [p. VI. CH. X.
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 w^as indefinite ; that there was an essen-
tial deficiency in this respect ; and therefore that our orders were
null and void. The labours of others, as Le Quien, &c. con-
sisted in endeavouring to show, that at least there was great
doubt as to their validity.
The whole history leads us irresistibly to the conclusion, that
the objections against the validity of the English ordinations
were all invented for missionary 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 ordinations di-
vide themselves into two branches ; one concerning /aci^ ; and
the other concerning right. Ifce former includes the asser-
tion, that the bishops at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign
were made merely by act of parliament or by the royal patent,
without any imposition 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 de-
nial 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 informa-
tion 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 ac-
tual 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.
question of English ordinations. They ought to be in the possession of
every clergyman who can procure them. It were indeed much to be desired,
that these very useful writings should be reprinted, either in the original or
in a translation.
OBJECT.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 435
ORJECTIONS.
I. The form of ordination of bishops in the ritual of Edward
VI. and EHzabeth was invalid ; for the essential form of ordina-
tion consists in some Jit words, that is to say, words signifying
the order given ; for otherwise the same right which ordains a
deacon would ordain a priest and a bishop. The imposition of
hands is common to all the three orders, and to confirmation,
&c. There must therefore be some words joined with it, to
d'etermine 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 immediately 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 : " Re-
ceive the Holy Ghost ; " and the prayer which follows, does
not directly mention the episcopal office.
H. 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 there-
fore null.^
' Lewgar, Erastus Senior. Le Quien, Nullite des Ord. Angl. t. ii.
p. 80—86.
"^ Lewgar, p. 21; Le Quien, t. ii.
436 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. fp. VI. CH. X.
That the power of sacrificing must be expressly mentioned
in the form of ordination, is Bxgued first from the necessity of
mentioning the principal end of the holy ministry, which, it is
contended, is the offering of sacrifice. ^ This is founded on the
decree of the council of Trent, affirming the doctrine of a sacri-
fice in the Eucharist.^
I reply, that the council of Trent in affirming a sacrifice in
the eucharist, never affirmed that the offering of this sacrifice
was the chief end of the Christian ministry, which is the exact
point requiring proof; and further, I deny the other position al-
together ; 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, pastors 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."^ 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 eucha-
ristic sacrifice as the end of the ministry.
Seco?idly, it is argued, that the power of sacrificing must be
expressly conveyed in the form of ordination, from the univer-
sal 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 patriarch of Alexandria, and of the Coptic priests ; in
the forms of episcopal and sacerdotal ordination in the aposto-
lical constitutions ; in those of the Maronites, and in the Ro-
man.'=
7 Le Quien, t. ii. p. 13. 108. * Ibid. t. ii. c. 1. • Ephes. iv. 11. &c.
'' Acts XX. 28. " Le Quien, t. ii. p. 112, &c.
OBJECT.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 437
I reply, that all the ancient forms of ordination do not ex-
pressly convey this power. In the Ethiopic ordinations pub-
lished 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
manuscripts 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 conse-
cration of the eucharist in the ordination of priests. Even the
Greek euchologion 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 unavailing on this ground.
It is further objected, that at all events the church of Eng-
land evidently did not mean to confer any power of celebrating
the sacrifice ; because she substituted these forms in place of
others which expressly mentioned it ; and because her articles
and all her theologians 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 re-
moved. Therefore, the omission need not have arisen from any
disinclination to the eucharistic sacrifice, understood in an or-
thodox sense ; and.
Secondly, the church of England has always acknowledged
such a sacrifice. The thirty-first article is directed against the
vulgar and heretical doctrine of the reiteration of Christ's sacri-
fice in the eucharist. It was only those " missarum sacrificia
quibus vulgo dicehatur, sacerdotem offerre Christum in remis-
sionem poenae aut culpae pro vivis et defunctis," which are pro-
d Courayer, Defense de la Dissertation, t. ii. part i. p. 21 — 27. [See
the forms of ordination in question, in the Appendix to Perceval on the
Apostolical Succession. 12mo. N. York, 1840.]
43S ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [p. VI. CH. X,
nounced, " blasphema figmenta et pernicioss impostarae ;" 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, Har-
dinge,^ &c. who, by rejecting the doctrine of a sacrifice by
way of commemoration and consecration, and not hterally
identical with that on the cross, and by their crude and objec-
tionable 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 sacrifice. The
article was not directed against the doctrme of the eucharistic
sacrifice as explained by Bossuet, Veron, and others, with which
we have no material fault to find. Cranmer himself acknow-
ledged 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 oblation, accord-
ing to scripture and apostolical tradition ; and the articles of
the church of England recognize the clergy in their various
orders as sacerdotes, '^pin, ministers of sacrifice.^
III. The form of consecration ought not to contain direct
heresy, and to implore God to sanction what is in itself hereti-
cal and contrary to His will ; such a form must be regarded as
0 Ibid, p, 223, &c.
f See Vol. I. p. 483.
g " Quoties eucharistiam celebramus, toties Christum in mysterio offeri-
mus, eundemque per modum commemorationis seu repraesentationis immo-
lamus." — Mason, de Minister. Anglic, lib. v. c. i. p. 544.
'■ Article XXXII. " De conjugio sacerdotum." Some persons are
never tired of asserting that the clergy are not "priests ;" and that there
is no " priest " under the new covenant but Jesus Christ our Saviour.
They would do well to remember that this title cannot be refused to the
clergy, because it is given to all Christians by scripture ; for they offer spi-
ritual sacrifices ; and those who chiefly and especially offer the sacrifice of
praise in the congregation, are in a peculiar sense "priests."
OBJECT.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 439
an offence to God, and must therefore be of no effect. Now
the Enghsh form of ordaining bishops contains heresies. (1.)
In the oath of supremacy, the king's supremacy is acknow-
ledged, and the authority of the pope and of general councils
is rejected. (2.) The question and answer concerning voca-
tion, " according to the order of this realm," implies the recog-
nition of laws removing the papal authority, and a promise to
maintain all the heresies contained in the English articles.
(3.) The question concerning the sufficiency of scripture, re-
jects 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 ordi-
nation, be sufficient to obtain the aid of divine grace to the
bishop elect ?"^
Answer. 1. These questions and this prayer are merely pre-
liminary 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 legitimate,
and consistent with the sacred canons, as is proved elsewhere.^
I elsewhere also show that the regal supremacy was to be ap-
proved.^ 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 dis-
cipline of the catholic church ; and as for the heresies of the
i Tournely, Tract, de Ordin. p. 60 — 66.
k See Part II. chap. ii. Part VII.
' Part II. chap. iii. iv, v. Part V.
440 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. [p. VI. CH. X.
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 interpre-
tation is a mistake ; since the church of England does not ad-
mit of private judgment as opposed to church authority, as I
have proved elsewhere.'^ To the fifth I say, that the promise
to banish erroneous doctrine is general, and relates to no par-
ticular society or doctrine ; and if Romanists insist on apply-
ing it to themselves, they must prove that the errors there con-
templated are truly articles of faith, and taught by the catholic
church ; because otherwise it can be no heresy to promise to
drive them away. But this they cannot do.
IV. The power of ordination in the church of England is
derived not from Christ, but from the king. This is proved in
the following manner : Henry VIII. assumed the title, and ex-
ercised the prerogative of " supreme head of the church of
England." The parliament acknowledged it, and gave him
power to correct heresies, &c. He gave licenses to bishops to
exercise their episcopal functions of ordination, &c. Edward
VI. exercised the same power, and caused the forms of ordina-
tion to be compiled by his supreme authority in ecclesiastical
affairs. The oath of supremacy expressed his royal power of
appointing all things concerning faith, discipline, and rites.
Permission to preach was granted by royal license, bishops
were appointed durante heneplacito : the commission to con-
secrate them emanated from the crown. Excommunications
were made by the same authority. Royal injunctions regula-
ted not only worship, but faith and doctrine ; and parliament
reserved to itself the right of judging in religious controversy.
Queen Elizabeth by the clause siipplentes in the commission to
Barlow and others, for the consecration of archbishop Parker,
assumed this power."
m Part II. chap. vi. Part. III. " Ibid, and Part I. chap. x.
" Tournely, Tract, de Ordin. p. 50 — 57.
OBJECT.] ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 441
Ansiver. (1.) All these assertions do not in the remotest de-
gree affect the validity of the English ordinations, because, let
them imply what they will, they did not affect the validity of
the ordinations conferred in the reign of Henry VIII. and Ed-
ward VI. according to the former rite. Those ordinations were
all valid by the confession of Romanists themselves. There-
fore, ^e claims or exercise of the kiiig's supremacy cannot
affect tlie 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. 1
These are the chief theological objections which I have
observed, to the validity of the English ordinations. Objec-
tions in points of /orm are easily invented, 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
needless 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 Maro-
nites,^ the Nestorians,*^ the Jacobites or Monophysites,'^ the
canons of the synod of Carthage ' (adopted as the rubric of all
P See Vol. I. p. 242. 428. 435. Vol. II. p. 823, 324.
q Part II.
' Morinus de Ordin. p. 65. 74, 75. 89, 90. 95, 96. 102, 103. 125.
« Ibid. p. 429. t Ibid. p. 467, 468.
° Ibid. p. 487. " Syn. Carthag. iv. c. 1.
VOL. II. — 56
442 ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. fp, VI. CH. X.
the ancient Roman and western pontificals ;"') that all these
rituals, I say, require the imposition of hands to be given by
the consecrating bishops luliile the prayer 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 union of the imposition
of hands and form of words is necessary, in order to determine
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 confirmation 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 scripture and the
fathers.
" See Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit. t. ii. p. 340. 367. 376. 404. 458.
469. 486. 508.
CHAPTER XL
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 con-
tinent, 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 facilitate 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 his church :
and if she does not always think it necessary to repeat the
outward form by which they were constituted, it is not that
she supposes any divine commission 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 observed 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 con-
siderable difficulties as to the validity of their ordinations.
It has been shown above, ^ that there are serious doubts
even amongst the most eminent Roman theologians, whether
the ordination of a bishop by one bishop only, is a valid
ordination.
» Chapter V.
444 ROMISH ORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
Now, it is a fact which has hithertoescaped our observation,
that during the greater part, if not the whole of last century,
popish bishops were consecrated in England and Ireland by-
one hishop assisted hy two priests, instead of bishops, as re-
quired by the canons. This fact did not attract attention, in
consequence of the httle publicity given to their ecclesiasti-
cal 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 partihus,'''' and
coadjutor of Peter Crew, titular of Waterford, with right of
succession. This bull was 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
license, that you may receive the gift of consecration 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 lieu of bishops, two secular
priests, although not invested 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 set-
ting 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 assembhng
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
b Plowden's Historical Letter to Dr. Charles O'Conor. Append, p. 122.
c Burke, Hibernia Dominicanaj p. 503. 509.
i Ibid. p. 509. 462.
CHAP. Xl] ROMISH ORDINATIONS. 445
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 pa7'tihus 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 in partibus : and I presume by Leyburn only, as the
consecration 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 hfe of Dr. Challoner it is stated, that he was " conse-
crated 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 biographer, coupled with
his particular mention of an assisting bishop on a subsequent
occasion, when the same Dr. Challoner is said, with the assist-
ance 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. Sharrock's con-
secration to the see of Telmessus, on the 12th August, 1780.
The ceremony was performed at Wardour with solemnity unpre-
cedented since the Revolution. 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 conse-
' Dod. Church History, vol. iii. p. 466, &c.
' Barnard's Life of Challoner, p. 74.
s Ibid. p. 105.
" Catholic Spectator, 1825. p. 26-3.
446 ROMISH ORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
crated 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 their orders,'' was consecrated by
the same Dr. Walmsley at Lullworth, August 15lh, 1790.^ We
have, indeed, no reason to think that Dr. Walmsley himself was
consecrated by more than one bishop. It seems as if the Roman
pontiffs had no difficulty in giving permission for such ordina-
tions in foreign missions. Joseph a S. Maria, ' bishop of Hier-
apolis,' and 'vicar apostolic' in India, a. d. 1659, 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 bishop of Tabraca." It
would be easy to point out many other instances in which the
schismatical ordinations in England, Scotland, Ireland, America,
&c. are spoken of in such a way as leads us to the inference,
that consecrations 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, because 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.
' Catholic Miscellany, vol. i. 1822. p. 387.
k [It is believed that same of the present bishops of the Romish schism
in the United States, have received consecration in Europe.]
» Catholic Spectator, 1824. p. 119. Rom. Cath. Mag. 1817. " II devoit
se faire sacrer. II se presenta pour cet effet a M. Charles Walmesley,
eveque de Rama, in partibus injidelium, et le plus ancien des quatres vi-
caires apostoliques anglois. II etoit lie depuis long-temps avec cet estima-
ble et savant prelat, qui lui donna la consecration episcopale, le 15 Aoiit
1790, dans lachapelle du chateau de Lullworth, au milieu d'uUjConcours de
pretres et de fideles accourus pour etre temoins de cette ceremonie."—
Memoirespour serv. a I'Hist. Eccl. xviii. siecle,t. iii. p. 145.
" La Croze, Christianisme des Indes, t. ii. p. 202, 203.
» Cath. Misoellany, 1825. p. 207.
CHAP. XI.] ROMISH ORDINATIONS. 447
I admit, certainly, that of late years their episcopal conse-
crations have been attended by several bishops, apparently very
much for the sake of pomp and ostentation ; but if there be any
reason to doubt whether their bishops were validly 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 invalidly ordained, could not confer a more
valid ordination than one similarly circumstanced.
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 dispen-
sations 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 canoni-
cally 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 oecumenical synods, still in full force in the uni-
versal church. " Ad ea quae in tuce. commoditatis augmentum
cedere possujit, favorabiliter intendentes," is no sufficient rea-
son. It does not contemplate any necessity, danger, or diffi-
culty 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 ad-
mitting 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 practice
with regard to them, it need not be supposed that she acknow-
ledges them free from doubt, but that from a desire to promote
the return of the lost sheep to catholic unity, she would some-
448 ROMTSH ORDINATIONS. [PART VI.
times tolerate even dubious ordinations, and supply their defi-
ciencies by her own supreme power."
This, however, I would remark in conclusion, that according
to the doctrine of the best Roman divines at least, the ordina-
tions of papists 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
probable, 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 suffi-
ciently appointed to the episcopal degree and power ; nor has
he true episcopal vocation : for true and valid episcopal vocation
is not merely probable, but certain and undoubted ... for other-
wise, whatever the pastors and bishops of the church should
perform, as bishops, would be so uncertain as to be probably
null and invalid." p
o [See Note " on page 409.]
p Champnaeus, de Vocat. Ministr. p. 424, 425.
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
PART VII.
ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
VOL. II. — 57
A TREATISE
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST..
PART VII.
ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PRE-EMINENCE 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 inherited 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 traditions of those churches
are invested with the authority of the whole Christian world.
The arcrument on which Roman theolocfians endeavour to estab-
lish the primacy of the Roman pontiff as jure divino, is as fol-
lows. (1.) St. Peter was given by our Saviour a primacy or
supremacy 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 Roman
pontiff alone has a just claim to this primacy, manifested by the
continued possession and exercise of its rights from the earliest
452 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [pART VII.
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 prompted him, seem
to have exceeded those of the other apostles. This would suf-
ficiently account for his being generally placed first by the sa-
cred writers, when his name occurs with those of other apos-
tles ; and it would also account for our Lord's distinguishing him
above the rest, by addressing him peculiarly on several occa-
sions, 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, be-
ing the eldest of the apostles. This doctrine is taught by Je-
rome, Chrysostom, and Cassianus.^ Others, as Epiphanius,
Cyprian, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the great, and Chrysostom in
another place, suppose that Peter was first of the apostles, be-
cause he -wdisjirst called ° Others, as Gregory of Nazianzen,
Basil, Epiphanius, Optatus, Ambrose, suppose that he was given
the pre-eminence in consequence of his public confessioii of
Christ.'^ It appears from this, that catholic tradition does not
enable us to determine with certainty the reasons for which St.
Peter had a personal pre-eminence of honour among the apostles.
But I now proceed to show that this apostle had no official su-
premacy or jurisdiction over the other apostles.
I. According to scripture, the apostles were all equal and su-
preme in authority. Our Lord said to all the apostles collec-
tively and individually, " Whosoever shall not receive you nor
hear your words; .... it shall be more tolerable for the land
" Du Pin, De Antiqua Ecclesiac Disciplina, p. 312. ed. Paris. 1686.
^ Du Pin, ibid. Tournely, De Eccl. t. ii. p. 11. Barrow, Treatise of
the Pope's Supremacy, Works, vol. i. p. 560. ed. 1722.
•^ Du Pin, ibid. Tournely, ibid. Barrow, ibid.
<5 Tournely, ut supra, p. 12. Barrow, ibid.
CHAP. I.j PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. 453
of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for lliat
city."® " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, 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 sailh 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 in
earth. Go yc, 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, I am 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 apostolical authority. And the authority thus given was
SUPREME. Every apostle was to be heard under the 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 authorized 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 exceeded 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
. Matt. X. 14, 15. f John xiv. 6. e John xvi. 13.
" John XX. 21—23. ' Matt, xxviii. 18—20.
454 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [PAUT VII.
prophets,"'' &c. Therefore, the twelve apostles were first in
the church : not the apostle Peter alone.
II. The same conclusion is supported by tradition. Tertul-
lian says : " We have the apostles of Christ for our authors."^
Cyprian : " Certainly the other apostles were what Peter was,
endowed with a7i equal ])lenitude 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 I am V immediately remembering his place,
he takes the precedence : the precedence indeed in confession, noi
in honour : the precedence in faith, not 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, obtain more than the rest : and
yet their dignity was not diminished ; because they were equal
to the rest of the apostles."P 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 pre-
" 1 Cor. xii. 28.
' " ApoEtolos Domini habemus autores." — Tertull. De Praescript. adv.
Haeres.
■" " Quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potesta-
tem tribuat et. dicat : ' Sicut misit me Paler et ego mitto vos : Accipite
Spiritum sanctum : si cui remiseritis peccata remittentur illi : si cui tenue-
ritis tenebuntur :' tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem
ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et CEcteri
apostoli (juod fuit Pctrus, pari consortio prtediti et bonoris et potestatis ; sed
exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclcsia una monstretur." — Cypr. De
Unit. Ecc].
» "Hie (Petrus) ubi audivit, 'Vos autem quid me dicitis ? ' stalim loci
non immemor sui, primatum egit ; primatum coiifessionis utique, nou bonoris;
primatum fided, non ordinis." — Lib. de Incarn. c. iv. t. ii. p. 710.
o " Denique audi dicentem : ' Tibi dabo claves,' &c. . . . Quod Petro
dicitur, caeteris apostolis dicitur." — Ambros. in Ps. xixviii. t. i. p. 858.
p " Joannes ct Jacobus quia plus caeteris petierunt, non impetraverunt ;
ct tamen non est dignitas eorum immiuuta, quia reliquis apostolis aequales
fuerunt." — Ilieron. adv. Jovin. lib. i.
CHAP. I.] PRE-EMINENCE OF BT. PETER. 455
eminence in spirituals ? Let us hear Paul enumerating the au-
thorities, and setting that of the apostles in the highest place.
What does he say then ? * God placed some in the c\mrch,Ji.rst
apostles, secondly prophets, 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,'<i &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 apostles 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 Nesto-
rius, 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 felloio ship of honour and poiner,
brought multitudes of people."^ Isidore Hispalensis : ^' The
other apostles received an equal fellowship of power and honour
with Peter, and, dispersed throughout the world, preached the
gospel.""^ The fifth oecumenical synod declares, that " the
q Kott ^ofisii Tovro S'uhov' on tt^o TravTccv o a.7ro<rroK9; TouTm so-t/' ku) K-x^aTTig^ o 'vTa.Tic
fV T!xl( ala-QnTttii ip^ai!, ouTai? o dTraa-roKoc iv t-oIc 7rvivfAU.rwj7c t«v TrfatS'^iin.v iXJ'i;
etuToS Tou TlMKm amovcree/xiv a^tS/utoZvro; Tat; dp^aj, ku.) tv t^ ^/^|.«^OT^(>a) %a>flott Titv
daroTT(3\ww Jtafij^iVTOC. Tl ouv ouTo; cp>i(riv ; ou; (aiv sSsto o ©s»c k. t. A. EiS'i; KOpv<^yiv
ap^wV ; iiS'i; v-^nKov Kct.6>i/uivo» tov aTro^ToXov, KAi ouS'ivct TrpQ imivov ovto, outi dVwTSgOV ;
•TTfiZrov ya^ dvoaroxou! <jineri. — Chrys. Horn, de Util. Lect. Script, t. iii. Oper. p.
75. ed. Ben.
f OiiK, dg^ii ue f/.o)ibv is'T/v « dvotrroKri tZv aAXav d^xZv, aM« ha) uTro^tfti Bai fi^a.,—
Ibid.
» navT«c HOivn T«v olKOUfji.ivnv i/nTrtyTSuBivri;. — Ibid. p. 77.
' Kfira; itr^:^icafA.iv ouov/AiviKoui, Toi/J ayiouc fiuQuTac — Cjrril. Glaph. in Gen. t.
i. p. 229.
" Ka/ yoZv Tlireii; ti x*i 'Jaxxvvn; l^OTluot /^ih dw^wxo/c, k^Ao ku.) a7ro<TTo\ot )tai ayim
/naLSurai. — Cyril. Epist. ii. ad Nestor. Hard. Cone. t. i. p. 1288.
^ " Ad quam (ecclesiam) omnes beatissimi apostoli, pari honoris et potes-
tatis consortio praediti, populorum agmina, convertentes . . perduxernnt."
— Victor. Carthag. Epist. adTheodor. Pap. Harduin. Cone. t. iii. p. 754.
7 " Caeteri apostoli cum Petro par consortium honoris et potestatis acce-
456 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [pART VII.
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 no more power than the other
apostles ; for nothing was said to Peter which was not also said
to the others. Therefore, we say rightly that all the apostles
were equal in power with Peter." ^^
III. Let us now briefly notice what is alleged by our oppo-
nents from scripture, in proof of St. Peter's official primacy of
honour and power 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
words : " 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
kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
permit, qui etiam in totoorbedispersi, evangeliumprajdicaverunt." — Isidor.
Hispal. De OfRciis, lib. ii. c. 5.
s " Licit enim sancti Spiritus gratia et circa singulos apostolos abundaret,
ut non indigerent alieno consilio ad ea quae agenda erant." — Collat. viii.
Harduin. Concil. t. iii. p. 188.
y " Scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis a Christo recepit aliis apos-
tolis. Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum, quod aliis etiam dictum non sit . .
. . Ideo recte dicimus, omnes apostolos esse aequalcs cum Petro in potea-
Aate." — Nicol. Cusanus, De Cone. Cath. lib. ii. c. 13.
^ [Coelestin, bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Council of Ephesus, ex-
plicitly asserts the equality of all the apostles, and of their successors, as
keepers of the faith. Axonio-S-a) tuvto. Tra^ct Tra-vtcev it! TO KOtvov, Kvptot aJ'iK^of a
TX? TrctpATi^iiiriii SiS'cta-KU.KiAc yi cpgovr/c Tra^tTrifA-^i ^m^tm; x.\n^ovo/ui.txv ti; ^fAU;, ev TauTi)
TM csgovT/J'i (r(^tyyo/ui^a ot va-vrct^ou, Xj itvit Ttduj-itv t«v omov/xivtiv, tj) Muvaev S'l^it'^v to
ovoua. KUPiou KnfivrTovri;, ic ticmois 7r^c<rTirttKra.r vogiv^tyin; fAtt^iiTiua-ttTi Trtmtt ra.
£&v«. 7rp(Tixiiv » t/|M£T€/!a- aJeA<f>OT))C ofuKu. on TragiSi^ctro yivMnv ivroKm' ku.i it /j.eti ttuTcut
•s-nvTct; TCUTO TrgnrTiiv n^ixnaiv, ot Tt; Trdurit ix-iivn; -me^i t«c Ko;vxf inruku.'To 7ri<Tiia>iy
iwi htnouQt-M. Cone. Ed. Rom. torn. i. p. 403. c. d.]
CHAP. I.] PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. 457
earth, shall be loosed in heaven."*^ From this, it is argued by
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 go-
vernor of the whole church, including 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 interpretation is uncertain,
and cannot sufiice to support an article of faith ; and secondly,
that a different interpretation is probably correct.
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,
Theodoret, Bede, Paulinus, Rabanus, Anselm, Lombard, In-
nocent III., &c. understand it to mean our Lord himself t'^ and
that the majority interpret it of the true faith. This, accord-
ing to Natalis Alexander,® is the doctrine of Hilary, Gregory
Nyssene, Ambrose, Hilary the deacon, Chrysostom, Augustine,
Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenalis, Leo, Petrus Chrysologus,
Theodoret, Eucherius, Felix III., Gregory the great, Bede,
John Damascenus, Hadrian L, Druthmar, Jonas Aurelianensis,
Hincmar, Nicholas I., John VIIL, Theophanes, Theodorus
Abucara, Stephen VI., Odo Cluniacensis, Rupert Tuitensis,
Innocent II., Hadrian IV., Urban III., Thomas Aquinas, Ste-
» Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
<= Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 306. ed. 1686. Natalis Alexan--
der, Hist. Eccl. t. viii. dissert, iv.
*> Natalis Alexander, ibid. Du Pin, p. 305.
« Ibid. Ibid. p. 304, 305.
VOL. II. — 58
458 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [PART VII.
phen, bishop of Paris, Alphonsus Tostatus, Clictovaeus, Eckius,
Renatus Benedictus.
It is most true also, that many of the fathers understand St.
Peter himself as the " rock." Natahs Alexander mentions
among these, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Basil, Am-
brose, Epiphanius Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria,
Leo, Maximus, Theophylact, Euthymius.^
These circumstances prove incontestably, that the church
has not received any certain apostohcal tradition as to the
meaning of this part of the text : it is 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 inter-
pretation of this term is de fide, or can suffice to support an
article of faith.
We now come to the "keys," and powder of "binding 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, we may conclude, from the fact stated by the
learned Roman-catholic Du Pin, that the ancient fathers "with
a unanimous consent, teach that the keys were given to the
whole church in the person of Peter." This is the doctrine
of Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Optatus, Gaudentius, Ambrose,
Augustine, Fulgentius, Theophylact, Eucherius, Beda, Raba-
nus Maurus, L)7ranus, Hincmar, Odo, Petrus Blcsensis, and
others innumerable.^ Hence, Du Pin concludes that " the
f Ibid. Ibid.
g " In hoc iibro dixi in quodam loco de apostolo Petro, quod in illo tan-
quam in petra fundata sit ecclesia . . . sed scio me postea sajpissime sic
exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est, ' Tu es Petrus, et super banc petram
sedificabo ecclesiam meam,' ut super hunc intelligeretur quern confessus est
Petrus, dicens, ' Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi.' . . . Harum autem duarum
sententiarum, quae sit probabilior eligat lector." — ^August, lietract. lib. i.
C.21.
h Da Pin, De Antiq. Ecclesiee Discipl. p. 309 ; Barrow, Treatise on
Pope's Supremacy, p. 587.
CHAP. I.] PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. 459
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 any thing which was not
given to the other apostles."'
From the preceding observations, it appears, that the inter-
pretation 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 com-
mences 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
believers. 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 na-
tions :"'' 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 introduced 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
i Ibid.
^ " Petra enim dicitur, eo quod primus in nationibus fidei fundamenta
posuerit." — Ambros. Sermo ii. de Sanctis, ed. Rom. 1585.
' " Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso ecclesia extructa est, id est, per
ipsum. Ipse clavem imbuit ; vide quam ; Viri Irsaelitae, auribus mandate
quae dico, Jesum Nazarenum, virum a Deo vobis destinatum, et reliqua.
Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo, reseravit aditura cojlestis regni,
quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et alligantur quae non fuerint soluta,
secundum veram salutem." — Tertull. de Pudicitia, c.21. p. 574. ed. Rigalt.
460 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [PART VII.
to the Jews, and converted in one 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 exercised the power of the " keys," in baptizing three
thousand Jews, and (having been "made choice" of by God to
preach first to the Gentiles),"* in opening the gates of the king-
dom of heaven to them, by commanding 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 edification 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 was 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 I love thee," added these words, " Feed my lambs — feed
my sheep."p It is here argued, that the word "feed" means
in scripture, '* rule or govern:" that "sheep" and "lambs"
mean all Christians, whether pastors or people : and therefore
that St. Peter was by these words given jurisdiction over the
whole church including the apostles themselves.
I reply, that the very terms of this passage show that our
Lord was not here conferring a power on St. Peter, but giving
an admonition. " Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Feed
my sheep." If thou lovest me more than these, let it be prov-
ed by diligently tending my flock. This is the interpretation
>" Acts ix. 32. " Acts xv. 7.
" Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Diss. iv. p. 307,
^ John xxi. 15—17.
CHAP. I.] PRE-EMINENCE OP ST. PETER. 461
given by Chrysostom, who explains 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. "i The same father, in many other
places, regards it as an injunction to Peter to manifest his love
for Christ by his pastoral zeal."" St. Augustine appears to
have understood it in the same manner.^ The Roman clergy
in the time of C3'prian, in speaking of the pastoral care, ad
duced these words of our Lord as intended to point 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, Chry-
sostom, Basil, &c. in proof that not only Peter, but all the
apostles and their successors were commanded to feed the
flock. Barrow adds the testimony of Cyprian, Cyril of Alex-
andria,^ &c. to the same effect. Du Pin observes, that if some
of the fathers, as Leo, Theophylact, and Chrysostom, say
X^Mx-yuao, KAt »<!>' M iiyx\xtda-cv, vdv oil^ov. — Chrysost. Hom. 88. in Joh. t. viii.
p. 525.
r See many places cited by Launoius, Epistolae, p. 91. ed. Cantabr.
' August, tract, xlvii. super Joh. Evangel. Oper. t. iii. p. 607.
* " Denique et ipse Dorainus implens quaj erant scripta in lege et pro-
phetis, docet dicens, ' Ego sum pastor bonus, qui pono animam meam,'
&c. Sed et Simoni sic dicit, ' Diligis me V respondit, ' Diligo :' ait ei,
* Pasce oves meas.' Hoc verbum factum ex acta ipso quo cessit cognosci-
mus, et casteri discipuli similiter fecerunt." — Cler. Rom. Cypr. Epist. iii,
cd. Pamel.
u Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 9, 10.
V Du Pin, ut supra, p. 310.
" Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. viii. Dissert, iv. Launoius, Epistol?e,
pars ii. ep. i. p. 90, &c. See also p. 637.
I Barrow, Treatise on Pope's Supremacy, Works, vol. ii. p. 587. ed.
1722.
462 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [PART VII.
that the sheep throughout the whole world were committed to
Peter ; and if it be argued from this that St. Peter was supe-
rior 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. Theo-
phylact understands them to mean perfect and imperfect
Christians. ==
Du Pin concludes that " the primacy of Peter cannot be
collected from these places adduced by Bellarmine, in the man-
ner he deduces it :"^ but he thinks that from Peter's repre-
senting the church, and being addressed 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 Alexandria 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 themselves.
(3.) As to the various instances in which St. Peter was dis-
tinguished above the other apostles, such as his 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 coun-
cil 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
y Du Pin ut supra.
* Theophylact, in Joh. xxi. Comment, in Evangel, p. 845. ed Paris,
1631.
« Du Pin, p. 311.
'' Cyril. Alexandr. in c. xxi. Joh. Evang.
CHAP. 1.] PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. 463
Christ. They are in vain alleged to prove any official superi-
ority of jurisdiction.
IV. We are now to consider the various proofs from tradi-
tion, 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 pontiff of
the Christians :"^ " the most powerful and great of the apos-
tles."^ 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 king-
dom of heaven were entrusted."'^ Chrysostom calls him the
"mouth," the "prince," the "summit," of the apostles.' Epipha-
nius : " He chose Peter to be the leader of the disciples."'' Cyril
of Jerusalem, Cyril Alexandrianus, Optatus, term Peter the
" head and prince "^ of the church. Ambrose : " Andrew did
not 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 apos-
tles."" Jerome speaks in the same manner.^ The council
c Tertull. lib. de Praescrip. Cypr. Epist. 55. Lib. de Unitate.
^ Origen, Horn. ii. De diversis.
e Origen, in c. 6. epist. ad Romanos.
f Euseb. Chronic, an. 44. s Euseb, Hist. lib. ii. c. 14.
^ Basil. Procem. de Judicio Dei.
• Chrysost. Horn. 87 in Joan. Horn. iii. in Act. Apost. Orat. viii.
adv. Jud.
■' Epiphanius, Haeteg.^51.
' Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. ii. & ix. ; Cyril Alexandr. lib. xii. in Joan-
nem ; Optatus, lib. ii. contr. Parnnien.
™ Ambros. in cap. 12. epist. ii. ad Cor.
•^ August, lib. ii. do Baptismo.
o August. Sermo. 13, al. 76. de verbis Domini.
1' Hieron. Epist. ad Damasum.
464 PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. [PART VII.
of Chalcedon terms Peter " the rock of the catholic churcli,
and the foundation of the right faith. "^
I answer, that these passages merely assert the personal pre-
eminence of St. Peter among the apostles, which we admit.
In this sense he may be most justly called the first of the apos-
tles ; or in rhetorical language, 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 pas-
sages mus*. be interpreted accordingly.
It is further objected, that St. Leo of Rome, says : " From
the whole world, Peter alone is selected to be placed 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 with propriety 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 ampliiications can only be viewed as the private opinions
of those bishops, not as representing the sentiments of catholic
tradition.
V. Since, therefore, it has been proved from scripture, 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 prove Peter's offi-
cial primacy, are not certain or dc fide, but are doubted even
in their own communion ; and since, in fine, the more probable
interpretation of those texts, and the passages alleged by Ro-
manists from the fathers, only establish the personal pre-emi-
nence of St. Peter : we may conclude that the official primacy
q Concil. Chalced. Act. III.
■•' Leo, Scrmo iii. de Assumptione sua ad Pontificatum.
OBJECT.] PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER. 465
or supremacy of St. Peter cannot possibly be a matter of faith,
and that it is altogether unfounded.
It is very true that Bellarminc says, that the denial of St.
Peter's primacy, according to his view of it, is " a most per-
nicious heresy." It is also true that Bailly, Bouvier, Dcla-
hogue, 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 apostoli-
cal authority, as to the power of teaching everywhere, minister-
ing the sacraments, ordaining pastors, &c. : but that they were
not equal in the extrinsic 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 aposdes ; 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 intrinsic difference
between his authority and theirs. But this is denied. Er-
go, &c.
See Part IV. chap. vi.
VOL. II. — 59
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 admitted, it is clear that St. Peter's pe-
culiar 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 hea-
ven to Jews and Gentiles, could never be employed in the
same manner by any one else. As to his personal pre-emi-
nence founded on his love of Christ, and more zealous dis-
charge of the apostolical office ; this is not claimed by any one.
We may therefore justly say with Tertullian : " Qualis es,
evertens atquc commutans manifestam Domini intentionemper-
sonaliter hoc Petro conferentem ?"^
Let us consider the principal arguments adduced by Bellar-
mine,^ and the other Roman theologians, to prove the perma-
nence 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 io preserve unity ; and this being a permanent object, the
office which was instituted for it must have been so likewise.
Answer. No scriptural proof has ever been adduced in sup-
port of this theory of the reason of instituting St. Peter's pre-
" Tertullian. dc Pudicitia, c. 21.
i> Bellarminus de Romano Pontifice, lib. ii. c. 12 ; Bailly, De Ecclesia,
t. ii. p. 174 J Ilooko, Relig. Nat. ct Rev. t. iii. p. 205.
criAP. II.] ST. Peter's pre-eminence. 467
eminence. I repeat it, there is no evidence from scripture
that the preservation of unity was the reason : and this being
the case, it follows from the principles of Veron, Bossuet, and
the best Roman theologians,'' 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-emi-
nence has not been revealed : it can only be conjectured : and
though St. Jerome, and perhaps one or two others, support the
view of the Romanists ; this cannot make their opinion a mat-
ter of certainty.
II. A chief pontiff cannot be less necessary to the church
now than at the beginning : there is even greater necessity, be-
cause 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. .
Answer. I have already shown that the apostles were 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 might
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 portion 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 Testament,
is a type of what was to occur in the Christian church.
*= See page 21 — 23, of this volume.
468 DURATION OF ST. PETER's PRE-EMINENCE. [PART VII.
Ansiver. The fathers teach that the high-priests were types
of Jesus Christ, and after him of the bishops of the cathohc
church, who were all termed " Simimi Sacerdotes"'^
V. The church is termed in scripture a sheepfold, a king-
dom, a body. But a sheepfold infers a shepherd ; a kingdom,
a king ; a body, a head ; and admitting that Christ is the in-
visible pastor, king, and head of the church, still the visible
church must have a visible head.
Ansiuer. The church is not literally, but figuratively, a
sheepfold, &c. These expressions only imply that it is an
orderly society : 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 would
be highly conducive to its unity and order. This has been
admitted even by eminent protestants, such as Melancthon,
Grolius, &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 tra-
dition. 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 alway, even unto the end of the world,' the bishops
were not, like the apostles, to enjoy the promise of unfailing
failh ?" «
In conclusion, then, it may be affirmed, that there is no evi-
dence that St. Peter's pre-eminence was instituted for any per-
manent object, or was to be transmitted to others. These
^ [There is no suchvLmiy in the church catholic, as in the Jewish church.
That unity is kept up in each individual diocese — a church by itself. The
unity of all the dioceses in one whole is (1) byinvisible communion with the
Head in heaven, (2) by the common root (the stirps una) from which all
derive.)
£■ Bossuet, Defens. Declar. Cler. Call. lib. x. c. 3G.
CHAP, II.] DURATION OF ST, PETEr's PRE-EMINENCE.
4G9
cannot by any moans be proved matters of faith' : and there-
fore, even if we were to concede that St. Peter w^as invested
with such a primacy over the apostles as is pretended, the
divine right of the Roman primacy would not be established ;
because St. Peter's primacy might have been instituted not for
the unity of the church, or for any other permanent object, but
as a reward of his own faith, love, and zeal for Christ.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE PRE-EMINENCE OF THE ROMAN
CHURCH.
We have now considered sufficiently the 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 Argu-
ment, 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, without 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, that, " by the providence
of God, it had a rich and plentiful number of clergy, with a
most great and innumerable 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,
0 A/i T?f TOiJ ©toy sr/iovo/itc, Trhova-iot <« ksli TrwQuaiv dfidfAO! fAtTa f/sy'tTTcv
dv^iBfxikau KMu — Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 43.
CHAP. III.] ORIGIN OF ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE. 471
bishop of Rome, speaks of " the most flourishing^'clergy presid-
ing with him, and the most holy and numerous people." ^ Ire-
nreus speaks of the Roman church as "maa?mcB" very great.''
(2.) Its wealth and charity. The opulence of the Roman
see was so great, that it is especially noted by Ammianus Mar-
ccllinus, 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
cust(^ary 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 condemned to the mines, by
the gifts which they had sent even fro?n the beginning ; that
they preserved as Romans, the custom of the Romans deliver-
ed to them by their fathers ; and that their blessed bishop
Soter had not only observed this custom, but had increased it
by supplying abundantly the provision allotted to the saints,
and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came
to him, even as a loving father acts towards his children." ®
The same mercy and charity of the Roman church is men-
tioned by Dionysius Alexandrinus, in the following century, in
an, epistle to Stephen, where he states that all Syria and Arabia
had received supplies from Rome.*" It is not wonderful that
this wealth so well applied, should conciliate universal respect
towards the Roman church. .
•> " Et quanquam sciam frater pro mutua delectione quam debemus et
exhibemus invicein nobis, florentissimo illic clero tecum praesidenti, et
sanctissimae atque amplissimae plebi legere te semper literas nostras," &c.
Cyprian. Epist. 55. ad Cornel.
'^ Irenseus, adv. Haeres. lib. iii. c. 3.
d Amiiiian-us Marcellinus, lil). 27.
■^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 23. ^ Ibid. lib. vii. c. -I.
472 ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. [PART VIl,
(3.) Its apostolical origin. The universal tradition of the
church ascribes the foundation or first government of the Roman
church to the apostles Peter and Paul, who were the greatest
of the apostles. Thus Irenseus speaks of the Roman church
as " the very great, ancient, and universally known church,
founded by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul."s The
synod of Antioch acknowledged that, in writings " all did will-
ingly honour the Roman church, as having been from the begin-
ning the school of the apostles, and the metropohs of religion."^
The Roman chtirch was particularly honoured, as having been
presided over by Peter, the first of the apostles, and was, there-
fore, by many of the fathers, called the see of Peter.
(4.) The purity of its faith. Irena3us 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 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 privi-
leges 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 centerini^ in Rome
s Irenaeus, adv. Heeres. lib. iii. c. 3.
^ Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 8. '
' IrenEeus, ibid.
k Concil. Chalced. can. xxviii. See Routh, Opuscula.
1 Theodoret. Epist. 113. ad Leon.
'" " Quoiiiam pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma praeccdere."
— Cypr. Epist. 49.
CHAP. III.] ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. 473
alone of all churches, gave that church from the beginning a
pre-eminence." The bishop of Rome in the third century pos-
sessed jurisdiction over a great part of Italy, which was con-
firmed by the council of Nice." The council of Sardica con-
ferred 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 pre-eminence 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, belonged 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 of the fathers.
They were bishops of the particular church which St. Peter had
assisted in founding, and over which he had presided : and they
were also, as bishops of the principal church, the inost eminent
among the successors of the apostles ; even as St. Peter had
possessed the pre-eminence among the apostles themselves.
II. The circumstances above mentioned sufficiently account
for the early pre-eminence of the Roman church : but I now
proceed to show, that this pre-eminence did not arise from its
being believed, that the pre-eminence of St. Peter had descended
to the bishop of Rome by divine right. It may be proved to
a moral certainty, that catholic tradition does not acknowledge
n [To this may be added, that the situation of Rome, as the only church
in the Western Empire of indubitable apostolical foundation and succession,
gave it in that part of Christendom (where alone it has ever been able to
substantiate its pretensions) a quite peculiarposition, highly favourable to the
operation of the other enumerated causes of pre-eminence. The passages
cited by Romanists from Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian, all have reference
to this exclusive apostolicity of Rome among the western churches.]
0 See the Chapter on the Roman Patriarchate.
VOL. II. — 60
474 ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. [PART VII.
the Roman pontiff in any peculiar sense beyond other bishops, p
the successor of Peter by divine right : because the passages
collected from the fathers, &c. by the Roman controversialists
to establish this position, are generally silent on the point.
These passages maybe divided into five classes. Those which
simply assert the pre-eminence of the Roman church : those
which assert the pre-eminence of the chair of Peter and of the
Roman 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. Irenagus says that " all churches
must resort to the Roman on account of its powerful primacy ."i
Augustine says, " the 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 pastoral honour
in the world."^ The synod of Constantinople gave to the bishop
of that imperial city the privilege of honour after the bishop of
Rome.'^ Fulgentius speaks of it as " the summit of the world."^
The synod of Aquileia terms it the '* head of the whole Roman
world.""'
p [Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, envoys, together with the presbyter
Philip, from the West to the Council of Ephesus, were recognized by Cyril,
the president, as tov tottoi) aLvaLTrxxpouvTH t«c ATroa-ToKucn; xaS-sJ/iac, x«< aTTdLO-n; eTs
T«c KXTct T«v S'v(Tivayi±c iruvii'ou Tarn S-icxpfMa-'raLTcev K9.t aytafrctraiV iTrKJ-KHTrxV- ConC.
Eph. Part II. Act. iii. Cone. ed. Rom. I. 411. B.]
q Iren. lib. iii. c. 3. ' August. Epist. 43. al. 162.
^ Vincent. Lirin. Common, c. 6. ' Prosper, Carmen de Tngratis, c. ij.
" Synod. Const, can. 2. v Fulgentius, de Incarn. et Grat. c. 11.
" Synod. Aquil. Epist. ad Imperat. Thcodos.
CHAP. III.] ROMAN. PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. 475
'2. Amongst those passages which simply assert the pre-
eminence of the chair of Peter and of the Roman bishop, with-
out allusion to any divine institution, are the following. Ignatius
addresses his epistle to *' the church which presides in the
country of the Romansy^ 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 Rome."^ Optatus speaks of " one chair,"
in which " Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus . . to Da-
masus, Siricius, who is now our associate ; together with whom
the whole world communicates with us."^ The synod of Sar-
dica spoke of the Roman see as " the head ; the see of Peter.'"^
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 says, " If you are near to
Italy, you have Rome, whose authority 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 " apostohc prelate,"'^ &c. Cyprian
exhorts those sailing to Rome, to acknowledge in Cornelius,
"the root" of "the catholic church;" and speaks of his com-
munion as " the unity of the cathohc church,"^ meaning that
Cornelius was the legitimate bishop of the catholic church at
Rome, where 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 judg-
ment."f Theodoret wrote to Renatus that the Roman see " had
the leadership over all churches ;"^ and to St. Leo that he
" waited the sentence of his apostolical see."'' Cyril Alexan-
' Ignat. Epist. ad Rom. r Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Concil.
■ * Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 4. » Optat. de Schism. Donat. lib. ii.
•> Syn. Sardic. Ep. ad Jul. Rom. ' TertulI..Pr8escript. c. 32. 36.
* Tertull. de Monogam. ^ Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel,
f Basil. Epist. 52. e Theodoret. Epist. 116. ad Renat.
■' Theodoret. Epist. ad S. Leonem.
47G ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. [PART VII.
drinus calls Caelesline of Rome " archbishop of the whole
world."' Jerome, writing 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 Cslestinus to depose
him.^ The council of Chalcedon wrote to pope Leo, that '* the
guardianship of the vineyard was committed to him by the Sa-
viour,"" {i. e. by his providence in permitting that 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 condemning heresy). The same synod, after
hearing the epistle of Leo, said, *' Peter hath spoken by Leo""
{i. 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 hves and presides in
his own see, affords the true faith to all who inquire of him."P
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."i This is an interpolation which was detected
in the council of Chalcedon. Athanasius writes to pope Felix
that " Christ had placed him and his predecessors on the sum-
mit 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
> Cyril, Alex. Encom. in S. Mar. Virg.
k Hieron. Ep. xiv. ad Damasum. i Concil. Ephes. Act. i.
" Concil. Chalced. Epist. ad Leon.
" Ibid. o Act. ii. p Chrysol. Epist .ad Eutych. Haeret.
1 Concil. Niccn. can. vi. Vide Beveregii Pandect. Justelli Biblioth. Jur.
Canon.
r Athanas. Epist. ad Felicem. Rejected by the Benedictine edition of
St. Athanasius' works.
' Cyril. Alex, in Libre Thesauri.
CHAP. III.] ROMAN PRE-EMINENCE NOT DE JURE DIVINO. 477
rather unfortunate for Romanists that these passages, (which are
perpetuallt/ 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 par-
donable desire to honour their particular church ; but which
represent merely their private and peculiar doctrines. In the
synod of Ephesus, Philip, legate of the Roman see, said, that
" Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith,
and foundation 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 exercises judg-
ment."' In the council of Chalcedon, the Roman legate Pas-
chasinus said, that the Roman was " the head of all churches."'^
St. Leo affirmed that " the Lord willed the see of Rome to pre-
side 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, Bouvier, Milner,
Berington, &c. in proof that the Roman primacy is of divine
institution, and derived from the privileges given to St. Peter
by our Lord Jesus Christ.
They concur, indeed, to prove the pre-eminence 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 fro?n St. Peter by divine
institution : and on this point catholic tradition is profoundly
silent. Therefore, since it cannot be proved from tradition, as
it confessedly cannot from scripture, it is no article of faith, not-
withstanding the rash assertion of some modern theologians to
the contrary.
t Concil. Ephes. Act. iii. " Concil. Chalced. Act. i.
V Leo, Epist. 93. al. 62.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ROMAN PONTIFF HAS NOT, JURE DIVINO, ANY ORDINARY
JURISDICTION OVER THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.
Jurisdiction, properly so called, consists not merely in a
persuasive influence and authority without coercion, but in a
coercive power, to which obedience is due, and which can en-
force 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 th& 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 jurisdiction also, I do
not mean to deny, that in extraordinary 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 arguments
of Bailly, a Roman theologian of the highest credit in his own
communion. He says, " Jure communi ac Christi instituto, S.
Pontifex immediatam jurisdictioncm in alienis diocccsibus non
habet, neque in illis episcoporum munia ordinarie cxercere po-
test."^ This is proved from constant tradition and the consent
■ Bailly, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. ii. p. 310, &c.
SECT. I.] ROME HAS NOT THE UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 479
of the pontiffs themselves. Thus St. Leo (Epist. 84. Epist. ad
Jul. Cocns. Epist. 77.) acknowledges that each bishop has juris-
diction over his ov^n people. The council of Carthage, in 525,
after the example of preceding African synods, forbad any appeals
to the apostolic see. St. Gregory the gre'at (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 ecclesiasticus
custodiri debuit ordo confundatur ?" The councils of Salinge-
stadt, A. D. 1022, cap. 18, Limoges, a. d. 1031, Aquileia, in the
tw^elfth ccRtury, 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 IL to the monastery of Clugny, to the prejudice of the
diocesan ; though the Roman pontiff himself was present.
John XVin. 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 1682, to
prove that these principles have been always adhered to by the
Galilean church. The Facuhy of Theology frequently declared,
that the Roman pontiff had no ordinary or immediate jurisdic-
tion in all dioceses ; especially in its censure of Vernanlius,
A.D. 1666. Of the same sentiment were Hincmar(t. ii.ed.Sirm.
p. 608. 436, 437.), the celebrated archbishop of Grenada, in
the council of Trent (Palavit. Hist. C. T. lib. xv. c. 16.) Peta-
vius, Thomassinus, (t. ii. discipl. 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 prase). Bailly concludes, that " the pontiff is pastor
480 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, [p. VII. CH. lY.
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 v^rith confessors or preachers."
This Vie 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 " uni-
versal bishop," a title which Gregory the great condemned as
blasphemous. Such a principle would be entirely opposed to
the whole discipline 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 jurisdiction over the clergy and
people of other bishops, but that this doctrine is altogether free
from censure in the Roman church.
SECTION II.
THE ROMAN BISHOP HAS NOT, JURE DIVINO, ANY ORDINARY
JURISDICTION OVER OTHER BISHOPS.
The jurisdiction claimed as of divine right for the Roman
pontiff over other bishops, may be distributed into three parts,
viz. legislative, judicial, and administrative or executive : un-
der these divisions I shall proceed to examine it.
I. The Roman pontiff has not, by divine right, any coercive
LEGISLATIVE powcr ovcr Other bishops.
1. He cannot make any decrees of faith, morals, and dis-
cipline, which are absolutely binding on other bishops. This
principle is maintained as relates to questions oi 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
particular ; but that his judgment is not irreformable, unless
the consent of the church be added." This article is most con-
vincingly defended by Bossuet, as founded on catholic tradi-
SECT. II.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. • 481
tion.^ In fact, as Bailly observes, it has always been the
doctrine of the Galhcan church, that " it is the right of bishops
to judge in matters of faith." ° Delahogue proves that " bishops
ak^ne are, jure divino, necessary judges of controversies of
faith." *i Consequently, the judgn:ient of controversies of faith
cannot be amongst the " ?najores cuuscb" alleged to be re-
served to the Roman pontiff _;Mre divino ; nor can bish'ops be
under any obligation to refer such causes in the first instance
to him ; nor can they be bound to believe whatever the Roman
pontiff may choose to decree in faith and morals ; more espe-
cially 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 ex cathedra, has the gift of in-
fallibility." ° 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 dis-
cipline. The second Galilean article of 1682, maintains the
doctrine of the council 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 Gallican 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-
b Bossuet, Defensio Declar. Cler. Gallicani.
c Bailly, ut supra, t. ii. p. 30S.
^ Delahogue, Tract, de Eccl. Christi, p. 386. ' Ibid.
VOL. II. — 61
482 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. [P. Til. CH. IVi
trary to the laws of general councils, or to the canons and cus-
toms of particular churches, is defended by Bossuet, Tournely,
&c. ; and Bailly says, that among the liberties of the Galli-
can church, it is reckoned that, " It belongs to bishops to
make decrees in matters pertaining to discipline ;" that the
Roman pontiff " canhot at pleasure dispense with the canons,
but only for just causes ;" and that " he cannot derogate from
the laws or customs of provinces, nor even from the legitimate
privileges of particular churches." ^ Bailly observes, that " the
intention even of universal synods, in making laws of disci-
pline, 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 ijjso
jure, and by the will of the fathers themselves present in
synod," ? In fact, we know that many rules of discipline,
made by the pontiffs, have not been universally received by
their churches. Several points in the canon law are not re-
ceived in France and elsewhere. The bull in Ccena Domini is
not generally acknowledged ; and even the discipline of Trent,
approved by the popes, is but imperfectly admitted in the Ro-
man 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 bishops.
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 authorized 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
f Bailly, De Eccl. Christi, t. ii. p. 309. e Ibid. p. 307.
SECT. II.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 483
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 coer-
cive JUDICIAL power over other bishops. One of the 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 '' contend that appeals of bishops are only de jure
ecclesiastico"^ Du Pin, a Roman catholic author of high
eminence, has treated this subject very fully. He proves af
considerable length, that from the earliest 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 judg-
ment of bishops is given to the provincial synods, without any
further appeal ;'' that this was confirmed by the second oecu-
menical synod ;^ that the African bishops understood it to be
so in the time of Pope Caslestinus,™ as did Pope Innocentius T. ;
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, de-
posed 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 ;i and that
h Delahogue, p. 382.
' Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 141-
-150.
^ Du Pin, p. 96.
' Ibid. p. 98.
■ Ibid. p. 99.
» Ibid.
'^ Ibid. p. 100.
p Ibid. p. 101.
Ibid. p. 102.
484 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. [P. VII. CII. IV.
according to St. Ambrose, all the causes of the east and west
should be terminated in their own synods respectively.''
The synod of Sardica, he 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 ex-
amined in the province, to send it back for a re-hearing, with
the assistance of some bishops from the next province.^ Ac-
cording to this rule, the cause was not decided at Rome, or by
the Roman pontiff. Du Pin shows that this discipline of Sar-
dica 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 re-
verse 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 coer-
cive EXECUTIVE power over other bishops. Under this head
may be classed his powers in reference to general synods, the
appointment of bishops, erection of sees, enforcing the canons,
&c.
Among the principal powers of the bishop of Rome, claimed
as of divine right, are the assembling, presiding in, and con-
firming of oecumenical synods. It has been proved by Launoy,
Bossuet, Du Pin, &c. that the eight first synods, acknowledged
as oecumenical by Rome, were assembled, not by the pope,
' Ibid. p. 103. ' Ibid. p. lOG. t Ibid. p. 113.
■ Du Pin's doctrine on this subject is also firmly supported by Fleury,
Quatrieme Discours sur I'Hist .Ecclesiastiquc.
SECT. II.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 485
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 Alexandria presided i^
at the fifth, no one was present on the part of the bishop of
Rome. As to the papal confirmation of oecumenical synods,
Bailly says, after Bossuet, that the synods of Nice, Constan-
tinople, Ephesus, &c., vs-erc universally received at once ; that
no confirmation of the Roman see was solicited ; that confir-
mation 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 without any papal confirmation, or even
though the bishop of Rome be opposed to its decrees.^ There-
fore, the Roman pontiffs have no divine right to summon, pre-
side in, or confirm oecumenical synods : for, if they had pos-
sessed 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.'' Thomassin proves, that for thirteen cen-
turies the bishops in the greater part of the West, were con-
Jirmed by their metropolitans ; and that the metropolitans
themselves were confirmed by provincial synods.'' The same
writer and Fleury show, that translations of bishops were gene-
rally made by the authority of provincial synods." Of the judg-
* See Part IV. w See Part IV. chap. ix. sect. 1.
» Ibid. sect. 2. y Bailly, De Eccl. t. ii. p. 263, 264.
'■ See above, p. 146.
" Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. t. ii. lib. ii. ; De Marca, De
Concord. Sacercl. et Imp. lib. iv. c. 4.
** Thomassin. ibid.
' Thomassin. t. ii. lib. ii. c. 02 ; Fleury, Disc. iv. sur I'llist. Eccl,
486 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, [p. VII. CH. IV.
merits 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 coadju-
tors 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 metropolitans."
Therefore, none of these " causcB majores " of bishops belong
to the Roman pontiff de jure 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 CECumenical 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 union or extinc-
tion of hislioprics 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 cannot have any right in the way of
jurisdiction or coercive power, ta force them to obey the
canons : but he may fraternally admonish them, and in case of
their continuing incorrigible, may separate them from the com-
munion of his church. The same right also belongs to all
bishops of the catholic church, and does not infer any assump-
tion oi jurisdiction over other bishops, but merely the common
interest which every Christian pastor has in the welfare of the
whole Christian community.
d Ibid. c. 57, 58. ° Ibid. t. ii. lib. i. c 50. 52.
I Ibid. t. i. lib. i. c. 54. &o. Fleury, ibid.
6 Floury, Disc. iv. snr I'llist. Eccl.
SECT. II.] ROME HAS NOT TINIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 487
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 pro-
vincial synods were competent to take cognizance, not only of
all causes relating to bishops, but even of controversies of
faith and morals : and that it was the principle of the Gallican
church, that bishops are, jv,re divino, judges in controversies
of faith. Therefore, synods may act in the most important
causes, as they have done in innumerable instances, without
previously 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 proceedings 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 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,
preside 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 consulted on every measure of importance
in the church. And hence, it follows inevitably, that the Ro-
man bishop has not, by divine right, any ordinary jurisdiction,
properly so called, over the universal church ; and that this
488 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, [p. VII. ClI. IV.
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 exercised 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 extraordinary circumstances, such as the prevalence
of heresy ; but these do not affect our argument, which is,
that according to the most learned Roman theologians, the
Roman pontiff did not generally or ordinarily exercise any
jurisdiction over all other bishops. This being the case, he
could not have possessed any such jurisdiction jure divino ;
for if he had, God would 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 Ullramontanes 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 provincial 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 juris-
diction which is now claimed for the Roman see, for many
centuries after the church was relieved from persecution, and
protected by Christian princes.
Though, as I have observed, the argument of this chapter
is not affected by the production of any instances of the exer-
cise of jurisdiction in other churches by the Roman bishop,
yet I shall briefly notice the principal examples adduced by
OBJECT.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 489
Delahogue, Milner, Tournely, De La Luzerne, Bailly, Bering-
ton, and others.
OBJECTIONS.
Several of the Roman pontiffs at various times have exer-
cised various acts of jurisdiction over other churches.
(1) Victor excommunicated, or threatened to excommunicate
the Asiatic churches, in consequence of their adherence to their
custom of celebrating Easter. I reply, that the Asiatic churches
did not obey the pontiff's command, but retained their custom)
until the council of Nice ; and were acknowledged always as
a portion of the catholic church. S. Irensus and others blamed
Victor for insisting on their adopting another custom. (2)
Stephen of Rome excommunicated Cyprian and the African
bishops for their practice in rebaptizing heretics. I answer^
that the Africans retained 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
pope 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 bishops, to appoint another
bishop in his stead ; and that this does not infer any peculiar
prerogative in the Roman bishop, but only a charitable solici-
tude for the welfare of the church. (4) Basihdes and Martia-
lis having been deposed in Spain, appealed to pope Stephen to
be restored to their sees.
Answer. The clergy and people of Spain paid no regard to
the judgment of the Roman see in their favour ; and were ap-
proved and encouraged by St. Cyprian in so doing.''
^ Du Pin, Dc Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 146, &c. See Barrow, Pope's
Supremacy, p. 714.
i* Du Pin, p. 151. Barrow, p. 720.
VOL. II. — 62
490 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. [P. VII. CH. IV.
(5) When certain persons represented to Dion)^sius 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 Alexandria.
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 appli-
cations 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.
Ansioer. Athanasius had been compelled to escape from
Alexandria to Rome in consequence of the persecution of the
Arians, and had been irregularly condemned. Julius of Rome
and a sijnod assembled at Rome, having heard his defence,
acknowledged him as the legitimate bishop of Alexandria.
There is no evidence that Julius restored him to his see : and
it may be added, that this act of the Roman synod was not uni-
versally 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 observed also, that these
circumstances occurred in times of imminent danger to the
church from the Arian heresy ; and when the ordinary rules
might be dispensed 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 Libcrius, obtained from him letters of
restoration to his see.
Answer. He was not restored to his see by Liberius, but
■= Ibid. p. 152.
•^ Ibid. p. 158, 159. Barrow, p.
721.
OBJECT.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 491
received letters testif3ang the soundness of his faith, on which
the synod of Tyana restored him to his see.*'
(8) St. John Chrysostom, having been unjustly deposed from
the patriarchate of Constantinople was, on appeal, restored to
his see by authority of pope Innocent.
Ansioer. Chrysostom wrote, not only to the bishop of Rome,
but to those of Milan and Aquileia, requesting 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 re-heard in a synod composed of eastern
and western bishops ; and that in the mean time, Chrysostom
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 decrees, and St. Augustine
then said, " The cause is now finished, w^ould 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 Innocen-
tius concerning this growing error. Caelestius 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.
(10) Pope Crelestinus commissioned Cyril of Alexandria to
depose Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople ; thus exercising
Ibid. p. 163. f Ibid. p. 167—170. Barrow, p. 727.
Tournely, De Ecclesia Christi, t. ii. p. 246,
492 ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. [P. VII. CH. IV.
an undoubted act of jurisdiction over the patriarchal see of
Constantinople, a see only inferior in dignity to Rome itself.
Ansiver. The doctrine of Nestorius had been judged hereti-
cal by the synod of Rome,^ and Cyril of Alexandria had writ-
ten to Caelestinus, that the eastern churches all condemned
Nestorius, but did not excommunicate him, as they desired the
concurrence of the Roman bishop.' Caelestinus, in reply,
authorized Cyril to act for him ; not in any way pretending to
exclusive authority in such matters ; but merely exercising the
right which was vested in every catholic bishop of expelhng
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 in-
formation, and the latter, in reply, exhorted the pope to decree
that the condemnation had been regular, and expressed his
hopes that by this means heresy would be suppressed. There-
fore, both parties paid homage to the superior authority of the
Roman pontiff.
Answer. Eutyches appealed to the synods of the bishops of
Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica : not to the
bishop of Rome. Seeing that his appeal was not attended to,
he wrote a letter of complaint to Leo of Rome, who, in conse-
quence, did require from Flavianus information on this affair,
that he might judge it. " Hence," says Du Pin, " it is plain
that Leo endeavoured to bring this cause before himself; but
it is altogether false, that Flavianus suspended the effect of the
«> Fleury, Hist. Eccl. lib. xxv. s. 14.
i Ibid. s. 12. See Barrow, Pope's Supremacy, p. 71f5.
k [The language of Philip, Cselestinus' own representative in the synod,
concerning the deposition of Nestorius, is : a/T<pu.\i; ta-Ti roiyaoouv to e^ivi^d-ir
Itir' (MtVW, KU-TO. TOV TVTTOV TTOiCraiV Tm (3tKK>l<Tta>V, iTTuS^il (rVliTTHKXat)) it TOUTUi TOO
iip^triKO) auKMycf), S'm ti tm irctpovrmv, J'lst. ts toiv TrgiJ-Ciureey, Tm olvo t»? etvaroxiKitc
T8, x«/ S'u'TiKyic, ixxXDO-w? 01 Trapovrf; K^uc ' htt tat touto — i irdLepv(rct ayiit trvvoJ'oc Igia-f
K. T. \. Cone. Eph. Pars II. act. iii. Cone. ed. Rom. I. 409. E. Compare
the language of Cyril, quoted in note '', page 474.]
OBJECT.] ROME HAS NOT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. 493
judgment against Eutyches on that account."^ In fact, his let-
ter to Leo supposes that the judgment of the synod was con-
chisive, and that the Roman pontiff ought not to examine the
cause again, but to add his authority 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 Pdlestine :
Martin 11. instituted the bishop of Philadelphia his vicar in
the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem.
Ansiver. 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 Saracens 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.
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 tem-
poral jurisdiction over the whole world ; that his power in
ecclesiastical affi^irs is absolute ; that he is the fountain of all
ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; that his judgments in matters of
faith are infallible ; and that he is the centre of catholic unity, so
that whoever is not of the Roman communion, cannot 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 com-
monly upheld by all members of the Roman obedience. It
would needlessly occupy space to enter on the question of the
temporal supremacy of the Roman pontiff, which has been so
well refuted by Bossuct,'' Tournely,^ and a number of other wri-
ters of their communion : nor is it necessary to refute the notion
of the absolute power of the Roman pontiff in ecclesiastical
affairs, which is 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 authority ; 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.
n Bossuet, Defensio Dcclarat. Cleri Gallicani.
'' Tourncly, Dc Ecclesia, t. ii.
<= Bossuet, ut supra, \\h, viii. c. 11.
SECT. I.] PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 495
SECTION I.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
This doctrine is no longer the principal subject of debate be-
tween the Roman theologians and their opponents, 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 pontiff,
even speaking ex cathedra, has the gift of infallibility."'^ Bou-
vier, bishop of Mans, concludes on the same principle : " The
controversy as to the infallibility of the Roman pontiff therefore
leads to nothing, practically : therefore the most learned theo-
logians have rightly been of opinion, that it ought to be abstain-
ed from, c. g. the celebrated brothers Adrian and Peter Walem-
bourgh, in their controversies against the Protestants, Peter
Veron, &c.*' The best refutation of this doctrine is to be
found in Bossuet's " Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani."
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 did not
succeed to St. Peter's pre-eminence by any divine 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 support 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, I 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 ns ;"
" Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea-
ven," &c.
3. Catholic tradition and practice prove that the Roman pon-
d Delahogue, Dc Plccl. Christ, p. 38G.
* Bouvicr, Tract, de Vera Ecclesia, p. 360.
496 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. [p. VII. CH. V.
tiffs decrees in faith were never estcenacd 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 controversy concerning heretical baptism. Cajlestinus
having condemned the doctrine of Nestorius, and directed his de-
cree 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 Ccelestine 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 approved.
Thus the synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon judged the Ro-
man pontiff's writings, and did not regard them as infallible.
Vigilius of Rome pubhshed a constitution approving the
epistle of Ibas : the fifth oecumenical synod immediately after-
wards anathematized that epistle as impious and heretical.
Martin the first, in the Roman synod of Lateran, condemned
the error of the Monothehtes : but the decree was subjected to
examination by the sixth oecumenical synod, and only approv-
ed when it was found orthodox. Honorius, though speaking
ex cathedra, in the cause of the Monothehtes, erred, and was
condemned as a heretic by the sixth oecumenical synod. Adri-
an 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 believed the Roman pontiff infallible.^
OBJECTIONS.
I. 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
"■ In proof of these and similar facts, see Du Pin, Dc Antiq. Eccl. Dis-
cipl. Dissertatio v. ; Launoii Epistolae ; IJossuct, Dcfensio Doclar. Clcr.
Gallicani, lib. x. ; Dc Barral, Defense des Liberies de TEglioC Gallicane.
OBJECT.] PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 497
thy brethren."^ Here, according to Bellarmine (De Rom.
Pont. lib. iv. c. 3.) are two privileges given to St. Peter : first,
the perpetuity of his own personal faith : secondly, that he, as
pontiff, 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.
Answer. Tournely says that Launoy (Epistolarum Pars v.
Ep. ad Bevillaquam,) reduces to four classes the fathers and
ecclesiastical writers who have interpreted this text. 1 . Some
say that our Lord prayed that Peter should never lose the faith ;
2. others that 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 sufficient to impugn Bel-
larmine's opinion by this general argument, viz. From that sen
tence of scripture which the fathers and other ecclesiastical
writers expound in different senses, the true faith being pre-
served on all sides, no firm and sure argument can be educed
for one sense to the exclusion, much less to the condemnation
of others ; but freedom is to be left to every opinion."^ Bailly
says, it is much more probable that our Lord in this place re-
ferred only to Peter personally, since there is a manifest refer-
ence to his fall and conversion : " when thou art converted ;"
and this relates only to what was peculiar to Peter, and per-
sonal.'
IL Many passages from the fathers have been quoted in
support of the papal infallibility, which have been all refuted by
Barrow, Bossuct, Tournely, Launoy, &c.
g Luke xxii. 32. '' Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 200, &c.
' Bailly, Tract, de Eccl. Christi, t. ii. p. 246.
VOL. II.— 63
498 ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY. [P. VII, CH. V.
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 circumstances, 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 Ro-
man theologians, and by all members of the Roman obedience.
Communion with the Roman see is to them the test of catholic
unity ; whoever does not possess that communion, is necessa-
rily in their opinion a heretic or a schismatic. This doctrine
of the centre of unity is even taught as de fide by their theo-
logians ; 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 doc-
trine 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, super-
fluous 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 Ro-
man communion.
I, But while we allow full credit to the Roman theologians
for their clear-sightedness to the importance of this doctrine,
we cannot equally applaud their consistency with reference to
it. If communion with the Roman see be, as they say, abso-
lutely and simply necessary, so that he who is separated from
SECT. II.] ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY. 499
it, is cut off from the catholic church of Christ, the Roman
pontiff must be infallible in defining controversies of faith ;
because it is not to be behoved that God w^ould impose the
absolute necessity of communicating with him otherwise. It
follows equally, that he must have absolute power in ecclesi-
astical affairs ; for if he enforces any thing under the penalty
of excommunication, it must be obeyed. It also follows that
he cannot fall into heresy, even when not defining ex cathedra ;
because no one can be entitled to forsake his communion. It
follows equally, that he can do no wrong to churches or indi-
viduals : that no churches can have a right to dispute any man-
date whatever, if enforced under the penalty of excommunica-
tion ; even that kings and nations must obey whatever he may
please to dictate in temporal matters. In short, the pontifl'
must be invested with supreme and absolute power over the
whole church and the whole world, as the Ultramontanes con-
tend, if his communion be always and absolutely the test of
catholic unity. It was this principle in fact, which enabled the
Roman pontiffs to become not merely patriarchs, but metropo-
litans, and even bishops of the whole west. It was this prin-
ciple 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 emperors 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 in-
consistency than that of the Gallican church, of Bossuet, Lau-
noy, 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 inconsis-
tency limited to these writers : for the ultramontanes tolerate
their opinions ; and thus admit, that the infallibility and abso-
lute power of the pope is not de Jide, that it may be disputed
500 ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY, [p. VII. CH. V.
in the catholic church ; and yet have the confidence to assert
that the communion of the Roman pontiff is absolutely neces-
sary to every part of the catholic church. How is it possible
that, if the pontiif may fall into error in faith, his communion
must always be necessary ? How can it be always and abso-
lutely, necessary, if he may make regulations in spirituals and
temporals under penalty of excommunication, which churches
are not bound to obey ? If churches are justified in refusing
unreasonable 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 pontiff: 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.
H. I have already shown that there is no sufKcient 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 supposition.
HI. The catholic church has never judged communion with
the Roman pontiff always 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 catho-
lics, though pope Stephen excommunicated them ; and St. Fir-
milian declared to that prelate, that so unjust an excommuni-
cation only separated its author from catholic unity. Meletius,
bishop of Antioch, was not in communion with Damasus, and
yet he was acknowledged by all the eastern church ; and was
afterwards accounted a saint by the church generally. Atlicus
of Constantinople, and St. Hilary of Aries, were respectively
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
SECt. II.] ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY. 501
and the rest were schismatics, and the Arians in the church,
because Liberius admitted the latter to his communion, and
rejected the former ?"k Therefore, the Roman pontiff is not
the centre of unity in such a sense, that whoever is separated
from his communion is cut off from the caihohc church. This
in fact must be admitted after all by Romanists. Delahoguo
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
communion ;. for during forty years of the great western schism,
various competitors for the pontificate had their respective obe-
diences ; and each of them excommunicated those which did
not adhere to them. But we have proved that none of these
obediences were schismatical."^ Hence it is plain, that Ro-
manists cannot affix the charge of schism on any church
merely from the fact of its not being in the Roman com-
munion. 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 en-
forced under penalty of excommunication ? We know per
fectly well that they would not : and therefore they cannot
condemn any church from the mere fact of its being separated
from the papal communion.
OBJECTIONS.
I. Irenaeus says, " To this (Roman) church, on account 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
k SeeJVol. I. p. 214. ' Delahogue,De Eccl. Christi, p. 393.
^ Irenajus, adv. Hseres. lib. iii. c. 3.
502 ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY. [p. VII. CH. V.
Roman church, arose from "the principahty" or pre-emi-
nence of that church : but he does not say that this pre-emi-
nence is of divine institution ; therefore, he does not teach
that the necessity of resorting to that church is of divine insti-
tution.
II. Cyprian, in writing to Cornehus of Rome, says, that
" the unity of the cathohc church " is to be found in his com-
munion."^
Ansiuer. It was so : for Cornehus was the bishop of the
cathohc church at Rome, while Novatian was bishop of the
schismatics. Therefore, the communion of Cornehus was that
of the cathohc 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 cathohc bishops,
that is, with the Ro7nan church .<"' °
Answer. The Roman church was, at tliat time, the principal
orthodox church : Satyrus mentioned it, not as the centre of
unity by divine institution : but in order to designate more par-
ticularly the faith which he approved.
IV. Jerome wrote to pope Damasus : " I am of the com-
munion of your holiness, that is, of the chair of Peter : on that
rock I know the church is built. Whoever eateth the lamb
beyond that house is profane. I know not Vitalis, Meletius I
reject, Paulinus is unknown 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 per-
plexity, Jerome wrote from Syria to Damasus, with whom
the whole catholic church communicated at that time, to inquire
which of these bishops was acknowledged by him ; as this
would determine which was in communion with the catholic
" Cyprian. Epist. 45. 52.
" Ambros. Liber de Excessu Fratris, n. 47.
■* Ilieronymus, Epist. xiv. ad Damas.
OBJECT.] ROME NOT THE CENTRE OF UNITY. 503
church, and therefore which ought to be acknowledged. i This
is the real meaning of Jerome's comphmentary expressions 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 themselves ; 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 whooj
all the world is united with us in the same communion, keep
ing correspondence by circular letters." ^
Ansicer. It is not denied, that S. Optatus in arguing 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 sepa-
rated 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.
1 See Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xvii. sect. 29.
' Optatus, Lib. ii. De Schism. Donatist.
CHAPTER VL
ON THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN SEE,
Though it has been shown that the bishop of Rome lias
not, by divine or human right, any proper juj'isdiction 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 can-
not 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 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
authority 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 obhgation
of exhorting his brethren to the observance of the sacred
canons, and of resisting the progress of heresy by formal con-
demnations.
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 a})prove 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 un-
derstood that it was in the way of counsel or admonition, not
in that of precept or command.
CHAP. VI.] LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OF ROME. 505
The authority of the Roman see rendered it fitting that in
matters of controversy concerning the doctrine or unity of the
whole church, the sec of St. Peter should not be neglect-
ed ; 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 follow the expediency of obtaining that dispensa-
tion in some cases, where bishops desired some authority in
addition to their own.
Whenever the bishop of Rome was actually in communion
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 apostolical 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.
VOL. II. — 64
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE PATRIARCHATE OF ROME.
Trevern and other writers have pretended, that the British
churches formed part of the Roman patriarchate ; and, there-
fore, that the reformation of these churches being effected with-
out the consent of their patriarch, was irregular and schismatical.
Let us, therefore, consider briefly the real extent of the patriar-
chate of Rome.
I maintain that this patriarchate extends legitimately to the
regions included in the ancient Roman suburbicarian provinces
of Tuscia, Umbria, Valeria, Picenum, Latium, Samnium,
Apulia, Calabria,- Lucania, Brutia, with the islands of Sicily,
Sardinia, Corsica, 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 Ruflinus, which is as follows :
" That in Alexandria, and the city of Rome, the ancient custom
be preserved, so that the one take the care of the Egyptian,
the other of the suhurhicarian churches."'^ The ancient Latin
version, published by Sirmond andJustel also explain the power
of the Roman see, confirmed by this canon, to relate to the
suburbicarian provinces.''
Benedict XIV. in his treatise " De Synodo Dioecesana,"
» " Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur,
ut vel ille iEgypti, velhic Suburbicariarumecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat."
— Ruffin. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 6.
'' See Bingham, Antiquities, book ix. c. 1.
CHAP. Vir.] PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. 507
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
tvest, which 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 particular mean-
ing. To suppose that the term "suburbicarian" means "a/Z
the ivest,^^ is an absurdity. We might just as reasonably say
that it signifies " the whole worid." The etymology of the term
suggests evidently the notion of vicinity to Rome, By Gotho-
fred, Salmasius, and Cave, it is understood to be here applied
to the churches within the civil jurisdiction of the " Prcefectus
JJrhis,'''' that is. within a hundred miles round the city, Sir-
mond, Bingham, and others, with more reason suppose the term
to signify the churches within the district of the " Vicarius
TJrhicus,^'' extending over the ten provinces of Italy and the
islands enumerated above. '^
It appears from the Notitia, and from other sources consulted
by Bingham, that the sees of these provinces were very numer-
ous, 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 respects, 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
■= Benedict XIV,, De Synodo Dicecesana, lib, ii. c, 2,
^ Bingham, Antiquities, ut supra.
508 PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. [pART VII.
which for this reason they termed suhurhicarian : that is to say,
those of the southern part of Italy, where he was the only arch-
bishop ; 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 dependent on Milan and
Aquileia, nor in Spain or Gaul.'"^ Thomassin also understands
the word " suburbicarian " to relate only to Italy and the adja-
cent islands.^ Dr, O' Conor says, that "as patriarch, 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 his-
tory."^ 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 arguments adduced to the
contrary 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, presbyter of the Oratory, the privi-
leges 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 pres-
byters 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 contrary, it is plain
that the bishops of Carthage were ordained by the synod of Af-
rica. De Marca, archbishop of Paris, has proved that it was
e Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. viii. s. 41.
•■ Thomassin. Vet. et. Nov. Eccl. D'iscipl. t. i. lib. i. c. 8. s. 14.
g O'Conor, Letter iii. of Columbanus.
>" Du Pin, Do Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Dissert, i. ^ 11. 14.
' Thomassin. t. i. lib. i. c. 9. s. 12 — 14.
CHAP, VII.] PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. 509
the ancient right of the Gallican and Spanish churches to or-
dain their own metropohtans, without reference to any foreign
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.
3. That the patriarch of Rome had no right to receive appeals
from Africa, appears by the case of Apiarius, whom Zosimus
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 whoever should appeal from
the African synod to Rome, should be excommunicated. Balu-
zius proves that for eight hundred years the Gallican 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 ex-
ample of their summoning all the bishops of the west to a pa-
triarchal synod. Their synods consisted always of the bish-
ops of Italy ; and were never attended by those of Africa, Gaul,
Spain, Germany, lUyricum, Britain ; unless by chance one or
two happened to be present in the city.
Gregory the Great, himself, was sensible that it might be al-
leged that Spain was not within the Roman patriarchate ; for in
an epistle to the Spanish bishops, having quoted an imperial
law commanding certain causes to be referred to the metropoli-
tan or the patriarch of the diocese, he continues : " Jf 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
apostolical see, the head of all churches.""
i' De Marca, de Concord. Sacerdot. et Imperii, lib, iv. c. 4.
' De Marca, lib. vi. c. 4. n. 7, 8.
"> Baluzii Prasfat. ad Anton. August, lib. de emendatione Gratiani.
" " Contra Usee si dictum fuerit, quia nee metropolitam habuit nee patri-
510 PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. [p. VII. CII. VII,
III. We may conclude, then, that the patriarchate of Rome
does not extend beyond the hmits of Italy and 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 Ultramontanes do, that the Roman see did
not exercise 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 pontiff 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.
I. Schelstrate,P in reply to Stillingfleet, adduces the letter of
the synod of Aries to pope Sylvester, in a. d. 314, which con-
sisted of bishops from Africa, Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Britain,
in which it is said : " Placuit etiam antcquam a te qui majores
dicEceses tones, per te potissimum omnibus insinuari," or, as
corrected by Du Perron, " Placuit etiam, ha^c juxta antiquam
consuetudinem, a te, qui majores dioeceses tones, per te potis-
simum omnibus insinuari," implying an acknowledgment that
the bishop of Rome held the " greater dioceses." These great-
archam ; dicendum est quia a sede apostolica, quaa omnium ecclesiarum
caput est ; causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuorat." — Gregorius Magnus,
Epist. lib. ii. ep. 56.
« Stillingfl. Orig. Brit. See Vol. I. p. 445.
p Schclstrate, Dissertatio de Auctoritate Patriarchali et Metropolitica,
Romse, 1687.
OBJECT.] PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. 511
er dioceses Sclielstrate says must mean the civil dioceses of the
Roman empire. These dioceses were thirteen, viz. Macedo-
nia, 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 dio-
ceses referred to by the synod, must mean the western dioceses
of Italy, Africa, Gaul, Britain, &c.
Ansiver. There is no proof that the word ' dioeceses ' was,
so early as 314, applied to the civil dioceses, or that Constan-
tino had yet formed those dioceses. Schelstrate himself pro-
duces no evidence of their existence until about the time of the
council of Nice in 325,i when Constantino, having lately sub-
dued Licinius, and obtained possession of the whole empire,
may probably have instituted this arrangement.
We find, indeed, the term ' dioecesis ' generally applied be-
fore the synod of Aries to the ordinary provinces of the Roman
empire. Schelstrate himself quotes Onuphrius Panvinus, say-
ing that in the time of the emperor Hadrian, " there were seven-
teen provinces or dioceses in Italy and its islands."'^ He might
have added that Strabo, in tlic lime 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,
or some smaller division ; so that we may most probably under-
stand the expression " majorcs diosceses,^^ to refer to those Ita-
lian provinces subject to the Roman patriarchate, the term ma-
" Schelstrate, p. 62. •• Ibid. p. 63. » Strabo, lib. xiii. p. 432.
' Cicero, lil). xiii. ad famil. Epist. Ixvii. " Ex provincia mea Cilicicnci,
cui scis tres cT/owwVe/c Asiaticas attributasfuisse."
" Id. lib. iii. epist. ix. " Quid enim erant, &c. . . . ut me omnium ilia-
rum dioecesium, quaj cis Taurum sunt, omniumquc carum magistratus lega-
tionesque convenirent."
512 PATRIARCHATE OF ROME [p. VII. CII. VII.
jores being taken positively for " magnas," and doubtless those
provinces might well be called great, since they were the rich-
est and most populous in the vv^hole world, and comprised about
240 bishoprics.
II. The British bishops, at all events, with the rest of the
synod of Sardica, acknowledged the papal power of receiving
appeals from all parts of the world.''
Answer. 1. This can have no relation to the patriarchal
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 con-
ferred on the bishop of Rome ; a privilege, however, which
was never acknowledged 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 lawfully 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 received decretal epistles
froBi them. Therefore they must have been within the Roman
patriarchate.
Answer. Polycarp of Smyrna, Dionysius of Alexandria, and
many other bishops of the east, either resorted 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
» Schelstrate, p. 94.
" Du Pin, De Antiqua Ecd. Discipl. Dissert, ii.
* Schelstrate, p. 95.
OBJECT.] PATRIARCHATE OF ROME. 513
patriarchate. Such appHcations merely imphed respect for the
Roman see, and confidence in the wisdom of its judgments.
V. Pope Siricius and his successors made the bishops of
Thessalonica their vicars in Illyricum : Zosimus and his suc-
cessors appointed the bishops of Aries vicars in France. Leo
made Potentius vicar in Africa. Simplicius and his succes-
sors made the bishops of Seville vicars in Spain. Gregory
made Augustine vicar in Britain. Therefore, these provinces
were all within the Roman patriarchate.
Answer. Pope Theodore sent a vicar into Palestine : Mar-
tin commissioned another for the east. Gregory VII. gave the
pahium to the Latin patriarchs of the east : yet no one will
pretend that these churches were within the patriarchate of
Rome. Therefore, the appointment of vicars in various coun-
tries of the west is no proof that the bishop of Rome was patri-
arch of those countries ; but without doubt the pontiffs 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 patria7'ch ; their claim
being usually founded on their ■primacy in the church.
VOL. li.- 65
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE PROGRESS OF THE POWER OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
I HAVE already spoken of the various causes which from the
beginning conferred on the church of Rome the chief place
amongst Christian churches. The number 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, con-
spired 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, acknowledge the bishop of Rome
as their patriarch ; and his patriarchal privileges were confirm-
ed by the oecumenical synod of Nice. The same causes which
induced so many churches to subject themselves to the jurisdic-
tion of Rome, led the remainder of the church throughout the
world to regard the Roman see with great reverence, 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 gra-
dually, while men were ignorant of the results which would
follow, and made no sufficient efforts to prevent them, by estab-
lishing definite principles and limits of ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion. The immense fabric of the papal domination was estab-
lished by three powers, which were slowly developed. First,
the judicial power ; secondly, the legislative power ; and third-
ly, the executive power. It was confirmed by the temporal
power of the popes, and by the monastic orders. These points
I shall now examine.^
a The principal authorities on which this review is founded are Barrow,
Treatise on Pope's Supremacy ; Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Disci-
plina ; Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. ; and Biblioth. des Auteurs j
Fleury, Discours sur I'Histoire Ecclesiastique ; De Hontheim ; Febroni-
us ; Koch, Tableau des Revolut. de I'Europc, t. i. ; Van Espen^ Jus Ca-
nonicuni, &c.
CIIAP.VIII.j PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 515
I. By the judicial power of the Roman sec, 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 per-
suading 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 contri-
buting to the restoration 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 provin-
cial synod, should appeal to the bishop of Rome, no successor
should be ordained at once, but that the bishop of Rome should
have power to revise the cause, and, if he judged it reasona-
ble, 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 certain power of taking cogni-
zance of episcopal causes ; and though the canon was not re-
ceived 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 Valentinian,
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, as-
sembled at Rome about a.d. 379, returned their thanks to the
516 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. [PART VII.
emperors Gratian and Valenlinian for this decree, little fore-
seeing the chains wliich they were forging for their own necks.
We find the Roman pontiffs thenceforward urging their
claims at one lime on the canon of Sardica, at another on the
principle of the law of Valentinian, at another on the pre-
cedents in the case of Athanasius and the Eastern bishops.
Yet, in many instances, churches refused to acknowledge these
claims. Thus the African churches rejected the right of hear-
ing appeals, claimed by pope Zosimus. The judgment of the
pontiff was rejected by the Gallican bishops in the case of
Chelidonius, and of Salonius and Sagittarius, bishops who had
appealed from the decrees of Gallican synods. It was- re-
jected 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 perseverance, the pontifical power
extended itself and acquired partizans ; and, in the ninth cen-
tury, pope Nicholas I. 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 uni-
versal 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 Rheims, 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 imme-
diate 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 de-
cided by local synods or not. Nicholas I. in the ninth century,
assumed the power of reversing the judgments of sijnods in
such cases : his successors, and particularly Gregory VII.
CHAP.VIII.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 517
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 asserted 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 ecclesiastical causes of Europe. The pontiff was acknow-
ledged in the thirteenth century, as the immediate and supreme
judge of every Christian.
II. The legislative power of the Roman s'ee arose from the
consultations of bishops in difficult cases, and from the practice
of fraternal admonition.
In the dispute concerning the time of keeping Easter, Poly-
carp came to Rome to confer with Anicetus on the affair, as
presiding over the greatest see. In the same manner, Diony-
sius 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 occasion-
ally, 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 supposed that the
apostolic doctrine and discipline was there preserved more pure
than elsewhere.
The pontiffs, with or without these applications, soon began
to assume the tone of command rather than that of admoni-
tion. The epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 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 because they
differed from the Roman custom in rebaptizing heretics. In
both these cases, however, the churches refused to yield obe-
dience or submit to the mandate of Rome. The practice of
consulting this apostolical see particularly prevailed in the
S18 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. [PART VII.
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 Illyricum, Spain, Gaul, Africa, and at length Bri-
tain ; or even without any such consultations. These epistles
generally are in a tone of authoyity ; but the bishops to whom
they were addressed, did not for a long time consider them-
selves bound to approve or act on them, unless they were con-
sistent 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, protested 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 exer-
cise 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 in-
duced the opinion that the pontiff had the right to legislate for
all churches, (the consultation of the churches being forgotten,)
and that disobedience was unjustifiable, except in extreme
cases. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the spurious decre-
tals attributed to the early popes, confirmed this impression ;
and the principles laid down in these decretals tended still more
to concentrate 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 timo 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 Gratian in the twelfth century, and which was im-
mediately adopted by all the schools and universities of Eu-
rope, established finally the authority of the spurious decretals,
CHAP. VIII.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 519
and with ihem the legislative pov^rer of the popes. Gratian
even maintained that the pontiffs were not bound to obey the
ancient canons, (w^hich they had, hovv^ever, always sworn to
observe at their ordinations,) and thus arose the opinion which
spread generally in the west, that the pontiff's power was with-
out limit.^ 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 dispensing with all regula-
tions. In the thirteenth century, 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 va-
cant during eight months of the year ; termed menses jjapcB.
Even the remainder were subject to provisions, expcctative
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 temporal sovereigns, and of some prelates ; but still they
prevailed to an astonishing extent. The pontiffs in the four-
teenth century imposed taxes at pleasure on the clergy, under
the name of supplies for the Crusades, annates, tenths, &c.
All these pretensions and privileges were founded on the legis-
lative power which the pontiffs had gradually acquired through
the circumstances already alluded to.
III. A most important branch of the pontifical authority was
* Le Decret de Gratien acheva d'affermir et d'etendre Tautorite des
fausses decretales que Ton y trouva semees partout : car pendant plus de
trois siecles on ne connoissoit point d'autres canons que ceux de ce recueil,
on n'en suivoit point d'autres dans les ecoles et dans les tribunaux. Gra-
tien avoit meme encheri sur ces decretales pour etendre I'autorite du
Pape, soutenant qu'il n'ttoit point soumis aux canons : ce qu'il dit de son
chef et sans en apporter aucune preuve d'autorite. Ainsi se forma dans
I'eglise Latine une idee confuse que la puissance du Pape etoit sans
bornes, &c. — Fleury, Disc. iv. sur rilist. Eccl.
520 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. [PART VII.
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 Ro-
man see reverenced, and so great was its influence and weight
in the church generally, that metropolitans, and others who
were desirous of maintaining or increasing their authority,
would gladly receive that of the Roman see in confirmation of
their own. Accordingly, we find that the bishops of Thessa-
lonica, 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 num-
ber of these vicars of the apostolic see. In this manner, the
pontiffs 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 encouraged them to make in-
roads 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 jurisdic-
tion.
To these vicars the Roman ponliflfs transmitted the pallium
or pall : an ornament which appears originally to have been
conferred by the emperors on the patriarchs about the end of the
fourth century. It was about a. d. 500, given by pope Symma-
chus to his vicar or legate Cffisarius, of Aries. The pallium was
afterwards 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, Canter-
bury, Mentz. It was sometimes refused until the consent of
CHAP. VIII.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 521
the eastern emperor had been obtained. The rareness of this
privilege rendered it extremely valuable and desirable in the
eyes of the w^estern bishops and metropolitans. It w^as conferred
on Siagrius, bishop of Autun, at the earnest request of queen
Brunachilda, by Gregory the Great, and on Arglibert, bishop of
Mans, in 685 ; but with these two exceptions, none of the west-
ern bishops, except the vicars of the apostolic see, received the
pallium till the time of pope Zacharias, about 743, when all the
metropolitans of Gaul obtained it through the new regulations
introduced by Boniface, archbishop of Mentz. They were, how-
ever, 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 obtain tliis 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 ordaining 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 succes-
sors made it a source of pecuniary profit. It is stated by Mat-
thew Paris, that in the time of Henry I. the archbishop of York
paid a sum equal to 10,0O0Z. for his pall. The metropolitans
of the west were, however, now completely subjects to the pon-
tiff, bound to obedience. It remained to acquire a similar power
over bishops ; and this was effected in the end of the fourteenth
and the beginning of the fifteenth century, when the pontiffs ob-
tained, by means of reservations, the power of appointing to all
bishoprics, or at least of confirming the appointments to all, and
imposed similar oaths of obedience 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 communi-
cation between the pontiff and the churches generally, greatly
VOL. II. — 66
522 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION, [PART VII.
established and consolidated the fabric of Roman power. From
the time of Gregory YII. 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 spiritual power for some ages, that
it merits our consideration. I do not here refer to their autho-
rity as temporal 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 emperors 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. So great was the power of that
church in the eleventh 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
VIL, 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 an-
ger caused the pontiff to be deposed by an assembly of bishops
at Worms, Gregory VI. 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, required 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 address-
ed letters to all the sovereigns of Europe, claiming their vassal-
age and obedience to the Roman see ; and several were actually
induced to acquiesce in this extraordinary demand. In the sue-
CHAP. VIII.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 523
ceeding ages we find several instances of kings and princes be-
coming tributaries and vassals to the Roman see. Arragon,
Portugal, Naples, Sicily, Provence, England, Scotland, and
many other countries, received the yoke. The pontiffs pre-
tended to confirm the election of emperors. Lothaire II. and
Otto sought their confirmation. Innocent II. and Innocent III.
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 1212, and Frederick the second in 1245.
The kingdoms of England, France, Portugal, Norway, were
visited by similar calamities. In fine, from the eleventh 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 ecclesiasti-
cal authorities ; to issue their commands to kings ; to annul
their acts ; to judge their differences ; to elevate some to the re-
gal dignity, and deprive others of it ; to take them under the
protection of the Roman see ; and to lay kingdoms under inter-
dict or excommunication in case of disobedience to their com-
mands. 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 reve-
rence for the apostolic see, were never more remarkably display-
ed, 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 infi-
dels, but against heretics and schimatics, or those who were
disobedient to the Roman see. Hence, those monarchs who
were disobedient to the pontiffs, were not only in danger of ex-
communication, and of their subjects being absolved from their
allegiance ; circumstances which in those ages were calculated
to create serious disturbances ; but they were also to contem-
plate the possibility of having a crusade proclaimed against
524 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. [PART VII.
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 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 es-
sential to salvation. This principle once acknowledged, the
pontiff might accomplish anything by threats of excommunica-
tion. The enormity of this system, however, and the extrava-
gant length to which it was carried, at length caused its down-
fall, 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, excommu-
nicating and deposing king Henry VHI. 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 cen-
tury all monasteries were under the jurisdiction of the bishops.
The pontiffs then began to exempt them from this jurisdiction,
and to render them directly dependant on themselves. In the
thirteenth century the four orders of Dominicans, Franciscans,
Augustinians, and Carmelites, were founded in the west; and
Boon 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 the pope,
it engaged them to magnify his power to the utmost degree.
The disputes between the secular clergy and the friars and
monks, or regular clergy, were continual, and have not yet
ceased in the Roman communion, though by a compromise the
CHAP, Vlir.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 525
bishops were allowed 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 effected by the council of Trent, and
the fall of the papal power, may well startle any one who com-
pares the power and privileges of the pontiif at this moment,
with that which he enjoyed during the early ages of the church.
In the early ages, each provincial synod confirmed and or-
dained its own metropolitan ; now the pontiff alone confirms all
metropolitans, and issues his bull for their ordination. Tlien
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
nominates directly to many bishoprics, and conjirms 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 necessary 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 pontiff had no im-
mediate jurisdiction, 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 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 which anciently belonged
to tlie 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 metropohtans. All these,
526 PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. [PART VII.
and many other powers formerly possessed by provincial synods
are now absorbed by the popes. In fine, every Romish bishop
now styles himself episcojms gratia ApostoliccB 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 pontiff is more than primate of his own Obedience.
He exercises more than patriarchal, 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 centuries : 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 blessings 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, through whose endurance even to death, the great work
of our emancipation was accomplished. Gratitude will prompt
us to excuse their infirmities, to make allowance for their diffi-
culties, to do justice to their real merits : while reason and reli-
gion will teach us carefully to avoid the danger of adopting the
sentiments 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 calami-
ties of the churches of Christ, especially under the Roman
obedience: nor should we ever exaggerate their errors, or ren-
der 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
CHAP. VIII.] PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL DOMINATION. 527
be removed. But, while we bitterly lament the state of Christen-
dom, let us remember that for these evils the catholic and apos-
tolic churches of this empire are in no degree responsible : and
believing 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 down pure,
and unshaken, the holy faith of Jesus Christ, let us dwell in
tranquillity, on these high and solemn considerations, and en-
deavour to fulfil our duties in the sphere which God has
appointed to us.
SUPPLEMENT
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH,
BY THE
REV, W. PALMER, M. A.
CONTAINING REPLIES TO VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AGAINST
THAT WORK.
VqL. II.— 6^
SUPPLEMENT.
SECTION I.
REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS,
I PROPOSE in this place to notice some arguments adduced by
anonymous writers^ against portions of this work, and to cor-
rect some misapprehensions of its doctrines. I might have
trusted to time and experience for my justification, but as the
discussion of objections will render this work itself more per-
fect on one or two points, it appears more advisable to take
notice at once of what might otherwise have been left to the
candid and intelligent Reader.
I shall in this section consider those general objections which
seem most worthy of attention, reserving for the next the argu-
ment from prophecy.
There are two mistakes into which persons of hasty judgment
may easily fall, with reference to the church of Christ.
The first is, to overlook the distinction between articles of
faith or morality clearly taught by God, and matters of opi-
nion, theological doctrine, and Christian prudence,*' and to con-
sider any deviation from sound doctrine in the one case as sinful
as it would be in the other. Hence arises much of that lament-
able intolerance with which all differences of opinion on reli-
gious subjects are treated by some well-meaning persons. The
slightest deviation from what they see to be true, is stigmatized
a Essays on the Church, by a Layman, 1838 ; British Critic, October,
1838 ; Frazer's Magazine, August, 1838.
^ See Vol. i. p. 113, &c. ; ii. 131, &c. 245—247.
532 REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. [sUPPL.
as an apostacy from Christianity itself. Every doctrine is with
them either a matter of faith or a heresy. The truth of any
position being once clearly proved, they view it as a necessary
point of faith, on which no difference of opinion can be per-
mitted.''
The tendency of this inconsiderate and indiscriminating sys-
tem, is to divide the church of Christ to an infinite degree, and
to substitute a sectarian partizanship for that holy union in a
common faith, and that charitable toleration of differences in
other respects, which holy scripture so continually and emphati-
cally enjoins. No Christian communion could ever have ex-
isted without such a practical admission that some differences
in doctrine may be tolerated 'in the church; and to overlook
this truth, is to prepare the way for incalculable evils. "^
Another mistake is, that system of optimism which refuses
to admit that superstition or error can over exist in the church
of Christ, and, therefore, views any society in which they
may be found as apostate.'^ It is on this mistaken principle.
<: [The theory, at least, of the strong-minded reformer of Geneva was
widely dilferent. " Poterit vel in doctrinae vel in sacramentorum adminis-
tratione vitii quidpiam obrepere, quod alienare nos ab ejus (ecclesiae alicujus
particularis, sc.) communione non debeat. Non enira unius sunt forraae
omnia verae doctrinae capita. Sunt qusdam ita necessaria cognitu ut fixa
esse et indubitata omnibus oporteat, ecu propria religionis placita. — Sunt
alia, quae inter ecclesias controversa, fidei tamen unitatem non divinant. —
Quoniam nemo est qui non aliqua ignorantiae nubecula obvolutus sit : aut
nullam relinquamus ecclesiam oportet, aut hallucinationem condonemus in iis
rebus, quee et inviolata religionis summa et citra salutis jacturam ignorari
possint." — Calvin. Institut. Lib. IV. cap. i. sect. 12.]
<• See some very sound and judicious remarks on this subject in Dr.
Hook's sermon, " A Call to Union," &c.
' [This class of errorists, also, stands condemned by the authority, for
which it professes so great reverence, just quoted. — " Fucrunt semper
qui falsa absolutae sanctimonise persuasione imbuti, tanquam aerii quidam
daemones jam facti essent, omnium hominum consortium aspernarentur, in
quibus humaimm adhuc aliquid subesse cerncrent. — Alii sunt qui inconsi-
(lerato magis justitiee zelo quam insana ilia superbia peccant. — Scd in hoc
SECT. 1.] REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 533
that some persons are led to reject the visible church of Christ
during the middle ages, as an antichrislian society, and to seek
for the fulfilment of God's promises to his church in the exist-
ence of some feeble remnant scarcely discernible amidst the
ruins and apostacy of universal Christianity. It leads others
to separate from every church in which any doctrine or practice
exists which they do not approve. On the very same principle,
a different party adhere to real errors and superstitions, believing
that what has existed for some time in the church, cannot be
erroneous. Thus, this principle leads on the one hand to dis-
sent from all existing churches ; and, on the other, to the re-
tention of every error and superstition which has once gained
admission into the Christian community.
In opposition to these opinions, I have endeavoured to prove
that the promises of Christ to his church do not infer its freedom
from faults and defects ; that its unity might be impaired con-
sistently with those promises -J that it was always to comprise
many evil men in its external communion ; that its actual sanc-
tity would never be perfect in this world ;§^ that erroneous opi-
nions, not directly contrary to the articles of the faith, might
prevail widely and for a long time,^ and even be held by many
in the church as articles of faith ;' that practices productive in
many cases, of superstition, and even idolatry, might exten-
sively prevail \^ that heresies might be held by some persons
within the church ;' and that a reformation of the church's
doctrine and discipline might at some time be necessary.™
vicissim peccant — quod ofFensioni suae modum statuere nesciunt. Nam
ubi Dominus clementiajn exigit, omissa ilia, totos se immoderatae severitati
tradunt. Quia enim non putant esse ecclesiam ubi non est solida vitae
puritas et integritas, sulerum odio a legitima ecclesia discedunt, dum a
factione .improborum declinare se putant." — Calvin. Instit. Lib, IV, cap i.
sect. 13.]
^ Vol. i. p. 85—99. g Ibid. p. 1.37—143. "
^ Vol. ii. p. 131, &c. i Ibid. p. 136.
k Ibid. 137. •' Vol. i, p. 114—116.
" Vol. ii. 137—141.
534 REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. [SUPPL.
At the same time, it has been shown, that the visible, apos-
tohcal, and universal church is so far the ordinary way of sal-
vation in all ages, that it is contrary to the will of God to sepa-
rate voluntarily from its communion on any pretence whatever;"^
that the reformation of error should always be attempted within
the bosom of the church itself ;° but that those who have been
expelled from the communion of a large part of it (as the Lu-
therans and Reformed were), by an abuse of authority, are not
to be regarded as schismatics, p or out of the way of salvation.i
Considering what human nature is generally, and how many
imperfections, errors, ignorances, and neghgences may be
observed in even the best and holiest men, it does seem very
probable in the abstract, that a church composed of such beings
should but too often manifest somewhat of the imperfections of
their nature. How widely different in sanctity and purity were
the various churches even in the apostolic age ; and how many
variations, even to the verge of spiritual death, have been ex-
perienced by individual souls which shall finally be saved.
And as the heirs of salvation sometimes go astray and need
repentance, so the church of Christ is sometimes far from its
original sanctity and purity, overrun with scandals and abuses ;
yet still having the root of faith, and never denying the doctrine
clearly taught by our Redeemer, it inherits the promises of
God, and brings, in all nations and all ages, countless multi-
tudes of believers (though often unlearned and superstitious)
to eternal life.
Such a view of Christianity appears to me, at once, more
charitable, and more conducive to the glory of God, than the
doctrine of those who would consign to damnation, or exclude
from the pale of Christianity, almost the whole visible church
during the middle ages, and the great majority of professing
» Vol. i. p. 66—79. ° Ibid. p. 78, 79. 298.
p [Not on account of their expulsion: whether their own procedures
have not since placed them in a schismatical position, is another question.]
q Vol. i. p. 80. 333—368.
SECT. 1.] REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 535
Christians in the east and west at the present day. Such a
doctrine seems greatly to diminish the blessings of the gos-
pel and advent of the Son of God. That advent had been
ordained from the beginning of the world, predicted by the
Spirit of God, seen in futurity with pious exultation by the
patriarchs and prophets. The promised Saviour of all nations
at length, in the fulness of time, appears on earth ; the whole
creation, visible and invisible, attests the greatness and glory
of his mission to the human race : all announce the commence-
ment of a new era, the diffusion of religion throughout the
whole world. Accordingly, Christianity in a short time be-
comes universal : that grain of mustard seed becomes a mighty
tree. But this triumph, we are informed, is merely transient —
Christianity was to be but a short-lived blessing. It was soon
to relapse, as a body, into the idolatry and wickedness of hea-
thenism. The universal church was to become apostate, and
to continue under the dominion of Satan for tiuelve hundred
and sixty years, during which period the Christian religion
was to be held by a mere remnant of believers. So that, ac-
cording to this view, the coming of Christ, so glorious and so
blessed in itself, had the result of consigning to damnation the
great mass of professing Christians in all future times, and the
kingdom of Satan triumphed over the church of Christ. How
different is such a view from the spirit of that prayer enjoined
by God himself, " Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine
heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them :
wherefore should they say among the people, where is their
God?"
While the Christian will never doubt, even in the midst of
the most perplexing difficulties, that the ways of God are
those of infinite wisdom and mercy, it seems to me that a pioua
mind should shrink from a system of interpretation which so
much diminishes the glory of the gospel, and the blessings it
has conferred on mankind.
I. The principles above alluded to, as advocated in this work,
will clear me from all inconsistency in admitting the Roman
536 REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS, [sTJPPL.
churches (though in several respects erroneous, superstitious,
or corrupt,) to be Christian churches, and yet not acknowledging
the Lutherans and reformed to constitute churches properly
speaking, though their doctrines are in some respects more
pure.' I admit the Roman churches to be as much, (or more,)
in need of reformation, as those of Corinth, Galatia, Laodicea,
Sardis, were in the apostolic age ; but 1 also hold that the Lu-
therans, &c. were separated from those churches by an abuse
of authority, and that, while they were not to be regarded as
really cut off from Christ, they were only in an extraordinary
and provisional state, deprived of several Christian privileges,
and not organized according to the apostolical rule.^ But I
have excused them for this, on the ground of necessity, and
have maintained that it was lawful to hold communion with
them.' I have not denied them to be churches on the ground
that they are overrun with Neologianism,^ and am not incon-
sistent, therefore, in acknowledging the Roman to be part of
the cathohc church, notwithstanding its present lamentable state
of error and division.
IL The allegation that it is absurd and novel to regard the
Roman and oriental churches as a portion of the catholic church
of Christ,'' is itself a novelty, and manifestly contrary, as well
to the sentiments of the reformation in general, as to the doc-
trine of all the most learned and respectable theologians of our
own churches.
In proof that the Roman churches have always been ac-
counted part of the catholic church, I have referred to Luther,
the confession of Augsburg, to various confessions and canons
of the church of England after the removal of the papal su-
premacy, to Hooker, Usher, Hall, Laud, Hammond, &c.^
r Frazer's Magazine ; Essays on the Church.
. Vol. i. p. 352, &c.
t Ibid. p. 359, &c. " Essays on the Church.
" Essays on the Church.
w Vol. i. p. 260—264. 266, 267.
SECT. I.] REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 537
The information of Mr. Faber on this point will hardly be con-
tested. In his work on prophecy he says, " It is observable,
that our reformers never thought of unchurching the church of
Rome ; though they freely declared it to have ' erred not only
in living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of
faith.' "'^ Accordingly, he has distinctly allowed (in a passage
which I subjoin in the margin) that the Roman or Latin church
is at this day a part of the catholic church of Christ J The
testimony of a theologian so distinguished for his opposition
to Roman errors, will perhaps clear me from the charge of any
indiscreet novelty of doctrine on this point. I will only add
the reply of Chillingworth with reference to the church at the
period of the reformation, " We acknowledge a church there
was, corrujjted indeed universally ; but yet such a one, as we
hope hy God's gracious acceptance was still a church. We
pretend not to name any one society that was this church, and
yet we see no reason that can enforce us to confess that yours
was the church, but only a part of it, and that, one of the
worst then extant in the xoorld.'''''- Such is the rational and
I Faber, Dissertation on the Prophecies, vol. ii. p. 155, ed. 1810.
y •' That the Latins are catholics in the same sense that the Greeks, and
the Armenians, and the Syrians, and the Abyssinians, and the English,
are catholics ; in other words, that the Latins constitute one of the many
branches of Christ's universal church, I am far from Virishing to deny ; but
when a generic name is applied specifically to a single particular branch,
this palpable inaccuracy of nomenclature can only produce a correspond-
ent erroneousness of conception. The name catholic belongs equally to
all the members of Christ's catholic church, wherever dispersed, or how-
ever distressed. Hence, a name, which belongs equally to all, whether
oriental or occidental, cannot be correctly employed as the special and ex-
clusive and descriptive appellation of a part only : because, when the terra
is thus used, the common character of Catholicism is by implication denied
to every Christian, who happens not to be a member of that provincial
western church which is in communion with the bishop of Rome," &c.
Difficulties of Romanism, preface, p. xviii. 1st ed.
» Chillingworth, Religion^of Protestants, c. v. s. 27.
VOL. II. — 68
538 REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. [sUPPL.
charitable view taken by our theologians, who recognize the
existence of the Christian church (amidst many defects and
corruptions) as a great society, a mighty company of believers
in all nations and all ages.
III. Another point on which objections have been raised
against this work, is with reference to the presbyterian com-
munity in Scotland,'^ I should regret to see that establish-
ment subverted by the infidel and sectarian party united against
it; and I have expressly maintained that it is lawful for the
sovereign of these realms to take an oath to defend that es-
tablishment, and his obligation to fulfil that oath.^ I am happy
to think that good and able men exist among presbyterians ;
and though we cannot regard them as a portion of the catholic
church, yet Christian charity will prevent us from regarding
them generally as guilty of the sin of schism, and will lead us
to hope for their acceptance by the free, though uncovenanted,
mercy of God. But these observations do not apply to the
originators of the preshyterian schism. They separated from
the established church of Scotland in the reign of Charles II.
and formed conventicles, on the principle that episcopacy, litur-
gies, &c. were antichristian. It is admitted now, even by the
presbyterians themselves, that such a principle cannot be sus-
tained ; and therefore the separation of their ancestors was
unjustifiable, and contrary to the divine commandments ; and
the mere act of the temporal legislature, which established this
sect at the revolution, could not render it a church of Christ.
Had they merely held the presbyterian form of church-govern-
ment preferable to the episcopal, they would not have separated
from the church. They did not act on this principle, but on
the exaggerated doctrine, that episcopacy was antichristian.
I am not guilty, therefore, of the alleged inconsistency'^ of
a Essays on the Church ; Frazer's Magazine.
b Vol. ii. p. 337.
t Essays on the Church, p. 345.
SECT. I.] REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 539
condemning them for acting on a principle admitted to be in
itself harmless.
IV. I have not anywhere maintained that the whole catho-
lic church " does even at this day preach everywhere one and
the same doctrine, and that the true doctrine, except in very
minor and secondarrj points, or except as popular errors inter-
fere with it."*^ A reference to what I have above stated (p. 533.)
will show that I am not, in principle, bound to sustain this
position ; nor do I practically admit it, because, in my opinion,
several of the errors and abuses of the Roman church are of a
very important nature, and very detrimental to Christian piety,
though they be not, strictly speaking, contrary to the articles
of faith.
• V. I know not what part of my work has led to the notion
that I hold " that the faith of the church admits of addition,"
and that " any doctrine which has once been generally receiv-
ed must be apostolic, or, in other words, that the majority can-
not be wrong."® I have expressly argued against the latter
position :^ as to the former, I have distinctly stated that the ar-
ticles of our faith were but once revealed, and admit of no ad-
dition.^ Perhaps it may be supposed that in admitting that
before the universal church has decided some question of con-
troversy different opinions may be held without heresy, while
I hold that after the judgment of the church there should be no
more diversity,^ I may seem to admit the articles of faith to be
capable of addition. This was not my intention. I only mean
that in the heat of controversy, when different opinions are sup-
ported by men of learning, it may for a time be doubtful what
the revealed truth is, and therefore persons may for a time not
receive that truth — may even hold what is contrary to it ; and
yet, until the authority of the univergal church has decided the
question and left them without e;xcuse, they may be free from
d British Critic, p. 364. • British Critic, p. 368, 369.
^ Vol. ii. p. 131, &c. e Vol. i. p. 99. '' Ibid, p. 114, &c., ii. p. 111.
540 OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
the guilt of formal heresy, I only speak here of controversies
which the church had not decided in former ages ; or in which
the testimony of tradition as well as scripture is disputed.
SECTION II.
OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES.
It has been alleged that the system of this treatise in admit-
ting the Latin and Greek churches of the middle ages to have
been churches of Christ, is in direct opposition to the prophe-
cies of the Old and New Testament, which represent the visi-
ble church as apostate, and subject to the dominion of Anti-
christ for 1260 years, during which period the true church of
faithful believers is reduced to the smallest possible limits.'
That such an interpretation of the prophecies has been held
by the majority of English commentators for the last century,
may be conceded, without allowing their views to be in any
degree obligatory on us. The minority may have been more
sound in their interpretations, as we know that the more preva-
lent opinion at some time, even in the universal church, may
be mistaken. And besides this, it appears, that if in the
eighteenth century the doctrines of Mede on this subject were
generally received, they had been as generally neglected or
rejected in the preceding century ; and it is very probable that
the present age may follow its example, and revive the ancient
system of interpretation.
In the interpretation and application of these prophecies, the
most perfect liberty is exercised by every writer. Thus Mr.
Faber denies the pope to be Antichrist, though the majority
of protestant interpreters hold a different view.'' Dr. Croly in
' Essays on the Church.
^ In this Mr. Greswell agrees with him. See his very interesting collec-
tion of the doctrines of the Fathers concerning Antichrist, &c. Exposi-
tion of tho Parables, vol. i, p. 368—^396.
SECT. II.] OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. 541
like manner explodes the system of interpreting the number 666
which has always hitherto been most prevalent. I beg to claim
the same liberty in examining the objections adduced to my
work from prophecy.
I. That the true church of Christ was, for 1260 years to be
a little flock, while the visible catholic church was to be given
up to Gentile abominations, is argued from the vision of " the
temple," and " the two witnesses," (Rev. xi.) in which the an-
gel measures " the temple of God, the altar, and them that
worship therein," while the " court without the temple," is not
measured, but " given unto the Gentiles," who tread down
" the holy city" for forty-two months ; and the two witnesses ^
prophecy in sackcloth for 1260 days.
The temple of God, the altar, and the two witnesses are
supposed to symbolize the small number of true believers ; the
outer court to mean the visible catholic church, and the forty-
two months, or 1260 days, to mean 1260 years, during which
the " holy city," or visible church, is given up to heathenism.
This view rests entirely on the assumption that the 1260
days of the prophecy are to be understood figuratively as years,
according to the doctrine of Mede, Jurieu, Newton, Faber,
Cunningham, Croly, &c. : but the weight of authority is alto-
gether opposed to this figurative interpretation. The days and
months of the Apocalypse were understood literally by all the
fathers and ecclesiastical writers to the fourteenth century ;
and in later times, by Scaliger, Forbes, Bullinger, Broughton,
Lightfoot, Langius, Venema, Leydekker, Bengelius, Roos,
Wetstein, Grotius, Hammond, Brown, Michaelis, Herder,
Storr, Bertholdt, Dathe,^ and many others.™ The able argu-
' See Maitland's Second Enquiry into the grounds on which the pro-
phetic period of Daniel and St. John has been supposed to consist of 1260
years, p. 37.
■" See Mr. Maitland's various Tracts, Dodsworth's Advent Lectures,
Iloblyn's Land of Subaeim, the works of Witherby and others referred to
by Maitland in the work cited above.
542 OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
ments of Mr. Maitland in particular, against the figurative in-
terpretation, have been as yet unanswered. Another doctrine,
supported by Parasus, Durham, &c., supposes these numbers
to be entirely mystical, and expressive of no particular time, as
the " seven spirits of God," (v. 6.) and the 144,000 sealed,
(vii.4.) the "tw^o hundred thousand thousand" horsemen (ix. 16.)
are believed to be."^ The ancient writers generally, and many
modern interpreters, suppose that this prophecy will only be
fulfilled in the times of Antichrist, immediately before the se-
cond advent of the Son of God.
Interpreters who adopt the figurative doctrine, are by no
means agreed in the application of this prophecy. Mede sup-
poses the temple, altar, &c. to signify the whole catholic church
in primitive times. Newton views in them the few real Christians
who, during the reign of the papacy, preserved the "true religion.
The '* holy city," trodden down by the Gentiles, is by some
writers held a type of the catholic church overwhelmed by idol-
atry and superstition : but others, amongst whom we may name
Hales, Wells, Whitaker, consider it to be literally Jerusalem ;
and the Gentiles here spoken of, are, according to Dr. Wells,
the Mahommedans, who have so long possessed that holy city."
As to " the two witnesses," -there is a still greater diversity.
While Mede, Newton, Hales, and some others, understand them
to symbolize those few individuals who should uphold the truth
in opposition to the idolatry and corruptions of the visible church,
others, as Frere, Irving, Croly, &c., believe them to signify the
scriptures. Mr. Galloway, following Colher, More, and Napier,
holds them to be the Old and New Testaments : Mr. Faber ori-
ginally believed them to be the church before and after Christ,
but now acknowledges them to be the Albigenses and Walden-
ses. Clayton holds them to be the prophecies of Daniel and
St. John ; Brightman, the scriptures and the congregation of the
faithful. P
" Pole, Synopsis. ° Wells, Paraphrase in loc
* The fathers believed the two witnesses would be Elijah and Enoch.
See Greswell on the Parables, vol. i. p. 368, 309.
SECT. II.] THE WOMAN — TEN-HORNED BEAST, ETC. 543
The conclusion we may draw is, that a prophecy, in the in-
terpretation of which commentators differ so widely, is most
probably as yet unfulfilled ; and that it has no reference to the
Christian church as existing up to the present time. If i^should
be supposed, however, to relate to the past condition of the
church, all we can learn from it seems to be, that the Christian
church should always be preserved, that a portion of it should
be subject to the temporal dominion of unbelievers, and that
they should be in possession of the city of Jerusalem for some
period of time.
II. The next argument, by which it is attempted to prove
that the true church was for 1260 years to be invisible, or at least
in a state of the deepest suffering and calamity, is deduced from
the symbol of the woman, persecuted by the dragon with seven
heads and ten horns, and obliged to flee "into the loilderness,
where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed
her a thousand two hundred and threescore days." (Rev. xii.)
In this prophecy the same question recurs as in the last,
whether these days are to be understood literally or figuratively.
If the former be adinitted, this prophecy affords no objection to
the doctrine of this work ; but if the latter theory be adopted, it
does now follow that the church of Christ is to be reduced to
insignificant limits. Dr. Wells understands the flight into the
■ wilderness as referring to that of the Israelites from the bondage
of Egypt into a place where they enjoyed the free exercise of
their religion, and had their tabernacle, &c., yet not in the same
glory as they afterwards had in the promised land. " So by the
flying of the woman into the wilderness may likewise here be
fitly denoted the state of the Christian church, from after the
time that it was delivered from the oppression of the heathen
emperors till the second coming of Christ, forasmuch as it has
since enjoyed the freedom of openly professing and worshipping
Christ, and of building noble and magnificent churches for that
purpose, though it has been unhappy on account of many sorts
of apostacy, as was likewise the church of Israel in the wilder-
ness." The wilderness signifies, according to him "a safe
544 OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
though not a flourishing and glorious condition." Irving regards
the woman's flight into the wilderness as symbolical of the pri-
mitive church betaking " herself to the fastness given her of
God, which is a true and well-grounded faiths The woman
sitting on the beast (chapter xvii.) is also seen in the wilderness,
and therefore this state, whatever it implies, does not seem pe-
culiar to the true worshippers of God. There is, therefore, no
proof from this passage that the true church was not to be visi-
ble and universal during the middle ages.
III. As to the application of the symbols of the ten-horned
and two-horned beasts (Rev. chap, xiii.) to the papacy and the
churches subject to it, I would only observe, that by such an
interpretation the whole of Christendom for many ages is vir-
tually consigned to damnation. Of the first beast it is said,
"All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him" (xiii. 8).
Of the second, that " he caused all, both small and great," &c.
to receive a mark (verse 16). In the following chapter (verses
9 — 11), it is declared, that " if any man worship the beast and
his image, and receive his mark," the same shall be " tormented
with fire and hrimstoiie, and the sinohe of their torment as-
cendeth up for ever and everP Therefore, all members of
the Roman communion at this day ; all our own forefathers ;
all the whole body of western Christendom for many hundreds
of years before the reformation, must be in a state of damna-
tion ; and as the oriental churches have been as blameable in
the use of images and the honouring of saints as their western
brethren, they must be included in the same condemnation.
So that this interpretation leaves almost the whole Christian
world for twelve or thirteen centuries in a state of perdition.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged : condemn not, that ye be not
condemned."
The ten-horned beast was, by the fathers, supposed to be the
same as Antichrist, who, according to them, was only to appear
immediately before the end of the world. Of modern inter-
preters, some believe it to be the papac)'', or the papal church :
by others, it is variously understood as the secular Roman
SECT. II.] BABYLON. 545
empire, the Turkish empire, the Greek empire, the pagan
Roman empire, the Devil. The ten-horned beast appears to
be the httle horn of Daniel, both having the same characteris-
tics of speaking great things, blaspheming against God, or
speaking great words against the Most High, (Rev. xiii. 5 — 7.
Dan. vii. 20 — 25), clearly alluding to a directly infidel j^ower ;
and of making war and obtaining power (Rev. xiii. 4. 7 ; Dan.
vii. 21. 24), pointing to an earthly conqueror. As to the two-
horned beast, all the modern commentators are so divided as to
its signification, that no argument can be founded on so obscure
a symbol.'^
IV. The symbol of the woman silting on many waters, (Rev.
xvii.) or of the mystical Babylon, (chap, xviii.) from which the
people of God are exhorted to " come out," is alleged as an in-
fallible proof that the visible catholic church during the middle
ages was apostate, and that it was and is the duty of Christians
to separate from her communion. It is argued that the symbol
of an adulterous woman necessarily points to an apostate church;
yet we find that both Nineveh and Babylon are spoken of in the
prophecies under the figure of women, (Nahum iii. 4 ; Isaiah
xlvii.) and whoredom is imputed to Babylon (Ezek. xxiii. 17),
to Nineveh (Nah. iii. 4,) and to Tyre (Is. xxiii. 17), though they
were certainly no part of the church of God. It seems that
this prophecy relates to the final destruction of that great city
of Rome which for so long a period exercised dominion over
the world. Like Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre, it is at last
to be destroyed, and to remain a wonderful example of God's
judgments. Whether amongst the fornications and sins which
shall finally bring down on it the divine vengeance, be included
the errors and sins of the papacy, it is hard to say. Heathen
Rome seems to have been in the apostle's contemplation when
h E. g. compare the opinions of Newton, Sharpe, Lowman, Made, Wood-
house, Hales, Forster, Croly, Kett, Galloway and Bicheno, which are all
at variance with each other.
VOL, II. — 69
546 ' OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
he wrote, as his predictions are almost all borrowed from those
of the ancient prophets concerning the destruction of heathen
Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre.
Many of the circumstances relied on to prove that the descrip-
tion refers to papal Rome, are applied by the prophets to hea-
then cities. Thus Nineveh is a " harlot, the mistress of witch-
crafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms," (Nah. iii.
4.) Babylon sitteth " upon many waters," (Jer. li. 13.) Tyre
commits fornication with "all the kingdoms of the world," (Is.
xxiii. 17.) Babylon is described as a " golden cup in the Lord's
hand that made all the earth drunken : the nations have drunk
of her wine ; therefore the nations are mad. Babylon is sud-
denly fallen and destroyed." (Jerem. h. 7, 8.) In the same man-
ner it is said by Jeremiah, " Flee out of the midst of Babylon,
and deliver every man his soul : be not cut off in her iniquity ;
for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance ; he will render un-
to her a recompense" (verse 6). Babylon also said, "I shall
be a lady for ever, I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I
know the loss of children" (Is. xlvii. 7, 8). The princes of the
sea, the merchants, mariners, pilots, &c. lament the fall of Tyre,
(Ezek. xxvi. xxvii.) and say " what city is like Tyrus, like the
destroyed in the midst of the sea .... thou didst enrich the
kings of the earth with the multitude of thy riches and of thy
merchandize" (Ezek. xxvii. 32, 33). Amongst her various mer-
chandize are mentioned " the persons of 7;zen" (verse 13). Who-
ever compares these and the other connected predictions con-
cerning Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre, with those of the xviith and
xviiith chapters of the Apocalypse, can (I think) scarcely avoid
the admission that the latter may refer only to heathqn Rome.
Supposing, however, that they refer also to papal Rome, still
it seems a most unreasonable and strained interpretation to ex-
tend the condemnation to all the churches subject to Rome, or
to apply the exhortation of the angel to "come ouV^ of that de-
voted city, (z. e. when the signs of its approaching destruction
appear,) to urge the necessity of forsaking the communion of
these churches. Such an interpretation is wholly gratuitous,
SECT. II.] THE MAN OF SIN. 547
perfectly uncalled for by the context, and contrary to all the
principles of unity laid down by the word of God.
V. That the Christian church generally was to become apos-
tate and be given over to false and idolatrous worship, is further
argued from St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin (2 Thess.
ii. 3, 4).
In this prophecy there is no note of time which can lead to
the belief that the apostacy here spoken of was to continue for
many centuries ; and the view which connects it with the Roman
churches has appeared unsatisfactory to many eminent critics
and commentators, such as Grotius, Hammond, Fell, Whitby,
Wells, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, Nisbett, &c. If in-
deed this view be upheld, it seems necessary to suppose that all
members of those churches, and even our own ancestors, were
in a state of damnation ; for the apostle says of the subjects of
the man of sin, " God shall send them strong delusion that
they should believe a lie ; that they all might be damned who
believed not the truth," &c. (verse 11, 12).
It appears to me that the man of sin is a directly infidel and
anti-christian 'power, like the little horn and the wilful king of
Daniel (seeDan. vii. 25 ; xi. 36). The expression, "who op-
poseth himself and exalteth Mim^eXi above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped," (verse 4.) seems to point to nothing
short of this. It is needless to say that the Roman pontiffs in
the very height of their arrogance, have only pretended to be
vicars of Jesus Christ, and only received worship or honour as
such. If one or two of the canonists have impiously styled the
bishop of Rome a God on earth, it is scarcely sufficient to prove
that he " exalteth himself aho\e all that is called God," or that
he " sheweth himself that he is God." It is argued that the
man of sin must already have come, because, according to the
fathers, "what letteth" or hindereth his revelation, was the Ro-
man empire, which has been extinct for many ages : but I reply
that that empire may still be considered to exist in the kingdoms
into which it was divided.
VI. As to the apostacy of the latter days, (1 Tim. iv. 1 .) which
548 OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
Mede, Newton, and others have apphed to the worship of saints,
tlie cehbacy of the clergy, and the rules of fasting in the east-
ern and western churches, it seems to me very plain, that the
apostle is referring to some errors which were then immediately
to be taught ; for he says, (verse 6.) " If thou put the brethren
in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister
of Jesus Christ ;" whence it seems that Christians were, even in
the time of Timothy, to be exposed to the danger of contamina-
tion by such heresies. And, accordingly, we know that the
Gnostics, who arose about that time, actually " forbad marriage,"
and enjoined " abstinence from meats." These doctrines were
maintained for many ages by the various sects of Gnostics,
Manichaeans, Paulicians, and Albigenses ; and it does appear to
me, that they much more accurately fulfilled this prophecy than
did the eastern or western churches, which only forbad that some
of their offices should be filled by married clergy. If, however,
this prophecy be supposed to refer ultimately to corruption
within the church, it only informs us that " some shall depart
from the faith," not the whole body of the church. Therefore,
there is no proof from this passage that the catholic church was
to be apostate for many centuries.
VII. The Homilies of the church of England are alleged in
proof of her applying the prophecies above referred to, to the
Roman church. Thus the sermon of Obedience, (part iii.)
affirms that the bishop of Rome " ought rather to be called
Antichrist" than the vicar of Christ. I reply, that the term is
is here used with reference to the false doctrines taught by the
popes ; and in the same sense, every false teacher may be
called Antichrist. In the sermon of Idolatry, (part iii.) the
idolatrous church, or the idolatrous part of the visible church,
is compared to the woman in the Apocalypse, c. xvii. and xviii. ;
but it is not affirmed that the Roman church is actually that
woman. In like manner, the sermon against wilful Rebellion,
(part vi.) styles the bishop of Rome in the time of king John,
" the Babylonical beast of Rome," probably intending to com-
pare him to that beast on account of his ambition, blasphemy.
SECT. 11,] REPLY TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 549
and other wickedness ; but not teaching or dciining that those
prophecies were really fulfilled by the papacy. Such merely
casual expre,ssions cannot determine the sense of the church
on this matter.
I doubt not that the observations which I have been obliged
to make on certain modern interpretations of prophecy, will be
unpalatable to several worthy and respectable persons. To
them its application to the church of Rome appears clear and
unquestionable ; and the opinion of those modern English
writers whom they have perused on this point, seems an au-
thority which it is perilous to resist. I should not voluntarily
have entered on the subject, but having been publicly charged
with holding a view of the church inconsistent with the pre-
dictions of holy scripture, and challenged to defend my posi-
tions against arguments deduced from them, I have had no
remedy, except that of examining the value of such arguments.
I would add, that if others can derive from the prophecies any
arguments against the papacy which do not interfere with the
clear and certain prophecies of the universality and perpetuity
of the Redeemer's kingdom, no one will more willingly receive
them than myself. The Papacy is a grievous evil to the
Christian church. The continuance of errors and corruptions,
the decay of wholesome discipline, the divided state of Chris-
tendom, are all, in a great measure, attributable to the usur-
pations and ambition of the Roman see. But God forbid, that
we should rest our arguments against the errors of Rome on
so sandy a foundation as these modern interpretations of the
prophecies. We have a much simpler and surer way, in
proving that those errors are unauthorized by the Word of
God, and inconsistent with it ; that they are mere human in-
ventions, and productive of consequences practically, which
are injurious to Christian faith and piety. When this has
been proved, the Roman church is at once convicted of doing
wrong in retaining and imposing as dogmas of the faith such
human inventions : the Reformation is shewn to have been
justifiable and essential : our obligation to promote its exten-
550 OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPHECIES. [sUPPL.
sion to the Roman churches is manifested ; while at the Same
time we do not consign to irretrievable damnation almost
the whole mass of Christendom for more than a thousand
years, nor permit the infidel and the scorner to ask in triumph,
" Where is that kingdom whose grandeur was predicted in
such glowing terms by the ancient prophets ; and where the
benefit to mankind of the incarnation of the eternal Son of
God ?" We appeal to facts : we see and prove the corrup-
tions of the Eastern and Western churches ; but we are not
compelled to exaggerate those errors, nor forced to attribute to
all alike, those superstitions which many unquestionably reject.
This is one of the great evils of the systems of interpretation
to which I allude. Their tendency is to produce an exagge-
rated view of errors, an indiscriminate censure unsupported by
fact, in. order to justify the awful sentence of damnation de-
nounced by scripture against those whom they identify with
the visible churches of Cluristendom.
INDEX
Absolution, a sacrament, according to
tlic church of England, i. 476 ; its
conditions, ii. 280.
Adoration of Christ in the cucharist, i.
293; wliefhcr idolatrous, 293, 294.
Agaptc, ii. 71, 72.
America, the church there, i. 285, 286.
Annates, rightly suppressed in Eng-
land, i. 402.
Appeals to Roman see, rightly forbid-
den in England, i. 40.^, 406 ; not cus-
tomary in early times, ii. 483, &-c.
Arianism, never overpowered the ortho-
dox faith, ii. 167, 168, 181-189.
Article VI., its meaning, ii. 11; its prin-
ciple defended, 11-28; its doctrine on
deductions from scripture defended,
48, &c.
XVIII., i. 41.
XIX., i. 55. 62. 296.
XX., i. 55.217.
XXIV., i. 56.
XXVI.. i. 56.
XXXIII., i. 56.
XXXIV., i. 56; explained, i.
452 ; its principle maintained, ii. 66-
71.
Articles, thirty-nine, ii. 242-269 ; not
drawn up on a latitudinarian princi-
ple, i. 479, 480 ; of the Galilean
church, ii. 255-202.
Authority of church, admitted by Dr.
Milner to be held by the church of
England, i. 219. See Church.
Athanasian Creed, approved by the re-
formation, i. 107, 108.
Baptis7n makes us members of tlie
church, i. 144, 145. 376 ; of heretics,
ii. 31, 32. 73 ; trine immersion not
necessary, 73.
Basire, his reception in the eastern
church, i. 180, 181.
Bedel, ii. 331.
Bishoprics, number of, in the primitive
church, i. 198.
Blood, eating of, ii. 32.
Bossuet, conference between him and
Claude, ii. 85.
British Churches, their antiquity, i.
207, 208 ; succession, 210 ; provide
for internal unity, 210, 211, 212 ; and
unity with the catholic cluirch, 213 ;
never separated from the catholic
church, 213, 214; never excommu-
nicated by it, 216 ; preserve unity of
faith, 217 ; revere imivcrsal tradition,
217. 454-164 ; differences of doctrine
between tlicm and other churches no
proof of heresy, 221-223 ; their doc-
trine as to sanctity, 224 ; their saints,
225 ; their catholicity, 227 ; the name
of catholic belongs to them, 227,
228 ; their ministry apostolical, 228;
slanderous tales of papists, 229 ; arc
the true church of Christ in these
realms, 230-232; contrast between
their reformation and the origin of
dissent, 382, 383 ; not responsible for
the character and conduct of Henry
VIII., &c., 397-400; free from all
schism in suppressing jurisdiction of
the bishop of Rome, 410, 411 ; never
separated from the catholic church,
41 1-419 ; not schismatical for refusmg
to send bishops to the s}niod of Trent,
415, 416; their principle opposed to
scliism, 417 ; schism retorted on their
adversaries, 419, &c.; their doctrine
on the cucharist, 484-490.
British Reformation, not schismatical,
i. 401, &c. ; its essential principle,
417, 418 ; not founded in Erastian
principles, 426-441 ; schismatieally
overthrown in the reign of i\Iarv,
443. 446 ; restored in the reign of
Elizabeth, 447, &c. ; its principles
w.th regard to tradition and church
552
INDEX.
authority, 454-464; its variations in
doctrine and discipline free from all
heresy, 465-491.
Bucer, i. 473, 474, 475,
Bulls, for ecclesiastisal promotions,
lawfully forbidden in England, i. 403.
Buonaparte, his concordate with Pius
VII., and proceedings in ecclesiasti-
cal affaire, i. 32G.329.
Burnet, his opinion of transubstantia-
tion, i. 205.
Cally, his doctrine on the eucharist, ii.
161.
Calvinists, not. properly churches of
Christ, i. 352, &c.
Canon Law, Roman, ii. 201.
Catholic, name of, belongs to English
churches, i. 227, 228 ; a sin to give
it to papists, 279.
Celibacy of the clergy, ii. 421-426.
Censures, ii. 277, &c.
Ceremonies, removed at the reforma-
tion, not all to be condemned, i. 476.
Cerularius, patriarch of Constantino-
ple, his conduct, i. 182.
Chapters, their origin, ii. 379.
Church, not a mere voluntary associa-
tion, i. 27, 28 ; perpetuity of, 30, &c.;
salvation in it, 36, &c.; doctrine of its
invisibility, when invented, 55 ; se-
paration from it inexcusable, 75 ; its
catholicity acknowledged by dissent-
ers, 73 ; its communion divided, 92 ;
its unity in faith not necessarily per-
fect, 118, 119 ; its sanctity, 137, &c.;
its univesality, 150, &c. ; it is derived
from the apostles, how, 160 ; its au-
thority revered by the reformation,
336. 338. 344-352; its authority in
matters of faith limited to its proper
objects, ii. 94 ; has a right to judge in
controversies of faith, 94-98 ; the
modes of her judgments, 100-103 ;
conditions of ecclesiastical judg-
ments, 104-106 ; authority of univer.
sal judgments of the church, 107-127;
church need not possess always an
organized tribunal for judging con-
troversies, 128-130 ; lier authority in
discipline and rites, 270-273 ; her dis-
cipline, 274-283 ; original indepen-
dence of the state, 295 ; her temporal
establishment, 306-309.
Churches, particular, do not divide the
catholic chiu-ch, i. 67 ; number of, in
the early ages, 198.
Circle, argument in a, ii. 84.
Civil Constitution of the French clcr-
gy, i. 324-326.
Claude, conference between him and
Bossuet, ii. 85.
Clerks, ii. 386.
Communion, in both kinds, i. 416 476.
50] ; ii. 70 ; doctrine of the synod of
Constance, 217, 218.
Concordate between Buonaparte and
Pius VII., founding the new Galilean
church, i. 326, &c.
Confession, not condemned by the Brit-
ish churches, i. 477, 478,
Confirmation, ii, 70,
Controversy, right of suppressing it, ii.
249-254, i-P o '
Convocations, submission of the clergy
with reference to them justified, i.
430, 431 ; their origin and nature, ii.
332.336,
Council, see Synod.
Courayer, ii. 161,
Cranmer, his veneration for tradition
and the catholic church, i, 456, 457 ;
his doctrine on the eucharist how ex-
cused, 471-472 ; his conduct justified
with respect to the oath, 492-496 ;
free from dissimulation, 496-501 ; ex-
cused for his opinions on ordination,
501, 502 ; other unjust imputations,
502-504,
Creed of Pius IV., why unlawful to be
subscribed, i. 297,
Deacons, ii. 382, &c.
Deaconesses, ii. 71,
Declaration of the Galilean church in
1682, ii, 256.262,
Decretals, spurious, ii, 133, 134. 516-
518,
Decretum, ii. 201. 518, 519.
Degradation, ii. 280.
Departed, the, prayer for them, i. 477 ;
ii. 71.
Des Cartes, his doctrine on the eucha-
rist, ii. 161.
Des Gahet.s, ii. 161.
Deprivation of bishops by the temporal
power, i. 440 ; ii. 325 ; in the reign
of Elizabeth justified, i. 447, A:c.
Discipline, what is lawful, ii. 66-71 ;
what is variable and what invaria-
ble, 71-76.
Dispensations from the Roman pontiff
lawfully forbidden in England, i. 407.
Dissent, what it is, i. 68 ; founded in
schism and heresy, and cut off from
the church of Christ, 368-372; adopts
and fosters schism on principle, 374 ;
has no protection against heresy, 375;
is mt^rely human, 374, 375 ; alters
the discipline of Jcsua Christ, 377,
INDEX.
553
378 ; causes hypocrisy or vanity, 379,
380 ; self.condemned, 380, 381 ; not
apostolical, 381, 382 ; contrast be-
tween the reformation of the British
churches, and the origin of dissent,
383, 384.
Dissenters, inconsistent in attacking
the church on tlic point of the regal
supremacy, i. 245, 246 ; and on sub-
scription to creeds and articles, 249 ;
and on defective discipline, 251 ; and
on the use of rites and discipline not
mentioned in scripture, ii. 70.
DonaLists, their heresy, i. 76 : schism,
81. _
Doyle, his sentiments of the church of
England i. 222.
Du Pin, his sentiments as to the ne-
cessity of communion with Rome, i.
214, 267.
Duraiid, his doctrine on the eucharist,
ii. 213.
Ecclesiastical courts, ii. 277-283.
Elevation of the eucharist, when intro-
duced, i. 291 ; its meaning, 292, 293.
Ems, synod of, its proposal for ecclesi-
astical reform, 1785, i. 309,
Episcopate, instituted by the apostles,
ii. 354-364 ; obligatory on all church-
es, 365.
Errors, not always heretical, i. 113, &c
Eucharist, see Real Presence. Idola-
try. Water.
F.ittychians, see Monophysites.
Excommunication, conditions requisite
to, i. 79, 80, 81. 112 ; various sorts
of it, 96 ; not given to the king,
431. ii. 304; the greater, 277; les-
ser, 278 ; ipso facto, ib.
Ei/bel, condemned by Pius VI., is pro-
tected by Joseph II., i. 310.
Faith, matters of, wliat, i. 112 ; rela-
tion of the church to it, ii. 77, &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
founded on examination, 88, 89.
Fasting, i. 237.
Fathers, arguments against them no-
ticed, ii. 51-65.
France, origin and progress of Jansen-
ism there, i. 301-305 ; civil consti-
tution of the clergy, 324-326,
Gallican Articles, ii. 257-262.
VOL. II. — 70
Henry VIII., our churches not respon-
sible for his views and conduct, i. 396,
&LQ.. ; nor for the dissolution of his
marriage with Catherine, 399 ; nor
for his suppression of monasteries,
400 ; defended by bishop Tunstall
against the charge of confounding
regal and sacerdotal powers, 413 ;
his acts in ecclesiastical affairs, 432—
440.
Heresiarchs, appear as angels, i. 111.
Heresy, what, i. 101 ; a damnable sin,
102, 103.
Heretics, their ordinations, ii. 406, &.c.
Heretics, who are reckoned such by the
second a3cumcnical synod, i. 84 ; ex-
cluded from the church, 106 ; may be
excommunicated, 110-112; some-
times tolerated by the Roman church,
234.
Holland, Jansenism in, i. 302.
Hontheim, De, his reforming principles,
i. 305.
Host, adoration of the, 291-294.
Humbert, cardinal, his arrogance, i.
183.
Idolatry, not to be imputed to the
whole church, i. 288 ; how far justly
imputed to veneration of the eucha-
rist, 291-294. 499 ; to invocation of
saints, 477.
Lunges, worship of forbidden in Eng-
land, i. 4G7 ; reasons for it, 468 ; re-
moved, 475, 476 ; their worship not
approved by the catholic church, ii.
189-202 ; lead to idolatry, i. 178 ; do
not render a church apostate, 204.
hmnaculate Conception, ii. 137. 159.
252.
Imposition of hands essential in ordina-
tion, i. 171.
Indifference in religion, its origin and
supporters, i. 252-258; not imputa-
ble to the church of England, 256-
258 ; its dreadful prevalence in the
Roman church, 321-323.
Indulgences, i. 467.
Ill fi deli ii/ in the Roman churches, i.
319-323.
Interdict, ii. 279.
Invocation of saints, i. 203. 294. 468.
477.
Ireland, church of, when subdued by
the Roman pontiff, i. 505 ; its refor-
mation, 505, &c. ; imperfect in the
reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward
VI., 506, 507; reformation in reign
of Elizabeth, 506-509 ; approved by
the church, 507, 508 ; schism of the
554
INDEX.
papists, see Papists; synods in Ire-
land lawful, ii. 331.
Irregularity, ii. 279. 413.
Jansenism, its condemnation as a here-
sy, i. 299; general view of its influ-
ence in the eighteenth century, 3U0,
301 ; its progress in France and
Flanders, 301. 302 ; the appeal
against the bull Unigenitus, 303,
&c. ; Soanen and other Gallican
bishops favourable to Jansenism, 304 ;
Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques, 304 ; vio-
lent proceedings of the French par-
liaments, 304, 305 ; Jansenism in
Germany, 305; De Hontheim and
the reforming theologians, 305, 306 ;
reforms of Joseph II., 306, 307 ; pro-
motes Jansenism, 307, 308 ; in Italy,
310; Naples, 311; Tuscany, 311;
312; Tortugal, 313; Holland, 314,
British empire, 315-317.
Jansenisis, their pretended miracles, i.
275.
Joseph II., emperor of Germany, his
reforms in ecclesiastical aft'airs, i.
306, 307.
Jurieu, his error, i. 85. 133, 134.
Kneeling at the eucharist, i. 472.
ZiU Mennais, his account of the irreli-
gious state of the Roman churches,
i. 321, 322.
Labre, the Venerable, a Jansenist, i.
275.
Latin patriarchs in the East instituted,
i. 190.
Lord's day, observation of, ii. 33. 72.
Luther, not a schismatic, i. 333-337.
Lutherans, not schismatics, i. 337-342 ;
were not properly churches of Christ,
352, &.C.
Matrimony, a sacrament according to
the church of England, i. 469,481.
Methodius, archbishop of Twer, com-
mended, i. 178. 180.
Middleton, his calumnies of the fathers,
ii. 54 ; his complaints of tlio respect
paid them by the church of England,
63.
Millenium, ii. 48, 49.
Mil'ner, his admission as to tlie reve-
rence of the Englisii church for the
authority of tlie church, i. 219.
Ministry, Christian, essential to the
church, and must always exist, i.
160, &c. ; necessity of divine voca-
tion, 164-167; internal vocation in-
sufficient, 167 ; popular election in-
sufficient, 168 ; apostolical succession
necessary. 169, »fc«.
Miracles not the proper attestations of
sanctity, i. 146-149 ; not performed
by the most famous saints, 147 ;
claimed by the eastern church, 202 ;
by various sects, 275.
Missi Dominici. what, i. 432.
Mixture of the cup in the eucharist
non-essential, ii. 73.
Monastic orders, their corruption, i.
277.
Monophysites, their origin, i. 388, 389;
form no part of the church of Christ,
389, 390.
Naples, Jansenism there, i. 311.
National synods, their authority in
matters of faith, i. 417.
" Necessary Doctrine," its authority in
the reigns of Henry VIII. and Ed-
ward VI., i. 468, 469 ; compared with
the Articles, 481, 482.
Nestorians, their origin, i. 385, 386 ; do
not form part of the Christian church,
387.
Notes of the church, what, i. 45 ; vari-
ous notes assigned by theologians, i;
46-48.
Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques, a Jansenist
journal, i. 304.
Novatians, schismatics, i. 81.
Oath of bishops to the Roman pontiff,
i. 492-495.
O'Conor, his opinion of differences
between the English and Roman
churches, i. 223.
CEcumenical Patriarch, title how an-
cient, i. 202.
Opinions, common, may be mistaken,
ii. 131-137.
Ordination, its necessity, i. 160, &c. ;
ii. 72 ; a sacrament, 417-419.
Ordinations of Lutherans and Calvin.
ists, i. 356 ; per saltum, ii. 415 ; En-
glish, their validity, 427-134.
Oriental churches, their extent, i. 176 ;
are Christian churches, 177, &c. ;
acknowledge seven oecumenical sy-
nods, 178; their great saints, 179;
their opinion of other churches, ISO ;
intercourse between them and the
British churches, 180, 181 ; schism
caused by Cerularius and cardinal
Humbert, 182, 183 ; communion con-
tinued afterwards, 183, &c. ; oriental
ciua-chcs persecuted l)y the Latins,
190 ; division after synod of Lyons
INDEX.
555
caused by the Roman pontiff, 1D4 ;
oriental churches free from heresy,
196, 197 ; equal in extent to the
western, 198, 199, 200.
Oxford, University of, her censure of
false doctrines, ii. 286, 287.
Palls, not necessary to metropolitans,
and lawfully forbidden to be received
from Rome, i. 405 ; when ffiven. ii.
521.
Papal infallibility^ the doctrine tends
to schism, i. 420.
Papists, of England and Ireland, in-
fected with Jansenism, i. 315-317 ;
infected with infidelity, 317, 318;
committed schism in separating from
the catholic church in England, 421-
423 ; are not churches of Christ,
424 ; commencement of their schism
in Ireland, 509 ; ignorance of the
Irish people, 509 ; arts of popish
emissaries, 509 ; sciiism founded by
Creagh, 510, 511; dangers of the
schismatics, 512 ; they break into re-
bellion, 512 ; treasons of popish mis-
sionaries, 512 ; the Roman pontiffs
excite insurrection, 513 ; shameful
mode of propagating the new sect,
514 ; treasons of the pseudo-bishops,
515, &c. ; their cruelty, 518 ; origin
of this sect, 518 ; have no succession
of bishops, 520 ; form no part of the
catholic church, 521, 522 ; their chi-
canery with regard to the English
ordinations, 229 ; li. 428-434 ; of
America no part of the church, i.
285 ; their orders probably null, ii.
443, &c.
Paris, University of, ii. 284, 285.
Parker, arclibishop, his ordination, i.
450.
Perpituite de la Foi, i. 180. 186.
Peter, St. his superiority to the other
apostles, ii. 452 ; not invested with
authority over them, 453-465 ; his
superiority strictly personal, 466-469.
Peter Martyr, i. 413, 474, 475.
Plato, archbishop of Moscow, his writ-
ings, i. 178. 180. 205.
Prayer for the departed, i. 476 ; ii. 73.
Presbyters, ii. 374, &c.
jPr«s//;/^erJans, their origin, i. 527; their
persecution of the church. 523 ; their
ordinations, ii. 389, &c.
Princes, Christian, their duty to defend
the Christian faith, ii. 298, &c. ; ori.
gin of their supremacy in ecclesias-
tical afiairs, 303 ; mode in which
they are to defend the church, 316-
319 ; branches of their ecclesiastical
supremacy, 318-324.
Private judgment, unlimited not tho
doctrine of the English Reformation,
i. 493, &-C ; nor of tlic Lutherans,
&.C., 34S-3.')2.
Procession of the Holy Ghost, i. 197,
Purgatory, wjien rejected by the Bri-
tish church, i. 406.
Rationalists, their mode of assailing
Christianity, ii. 51-55; their incon-
sistency, 55 ; tlieir misrepresenta-
tions, 58, 59 ; their hypocrisy, 60, 61.
Real presence, never doubted by tho
church of England, i. 468-475. 479-
491.
Reformation, its respect for catliolic
tradition, i. 345-348 ; its principles
and practice opposed to license of
private judgment, 343-302.
Ricci, sec Scipio de Ricci.
Rites, what are lawful, ii. 66-71 ; wliat
are variable, and what invariable,
7]-76.
Roman churches, remained Christian
till the Reformation, i. 259-264 ; Lu-
theran opinion of their Christianity,
260, 261 ; remahied Christian after
the Reformation, 205, &c. ; excused
from heresy, 266-268; are now Chris-
tian, 271, 272 ; do not exceed other
cluirclies in unity, 289, 290 ; or sane,
tity, 273, &,c. ; their miracles no
proof of superior sanctity, 274, 275 ;
their present extent no proof of
exclusive catholicity, 277 ; not pe-
culiarly apostolical, 279 ; their la-
mentable condition, 380, 381 ; Ro-
man churches of modern foundation,
283 ; how fiir they are guilty of idol-
atry in the eucharist, 290-294 ; in
the invocation or adoration of saints,
296, 297 ; whether lawful to'separate
from them, 316, 317 ; whether law-
ful to unite with them, 287 ; unity
wrongly claimed by their theologians,
398 ; prevalence of the Janscnistic
heresy amongst them, 300 ; and of
infidelity and indilforence, 319-322 ;
and of schism, 324-329.
Romanists, see Papists.
Rome, bishops of, their exaggerated
opinion of their own authority, i.
189 ; their power, 191, 192 ; endea-
vour to enslave the oriental churches
in vain, 192, tfcc. ; origin of their pre-
cedence in the universal church, ii.
470-473 ; not derived from St. Pete
556
INDEX.
jure divino, 473-477 ; proof that they
have no jurisdiction over the catholic
church, 478-489; that they are not
infalhble, ; 495 nor absolutely and
always the centre oi' unity, 498 ; their
legitimate privileges, 504 ; progress
of their spiritual and temporal power,
514; their jurisdiction rightly re-
moved in England, 407-4:20 ; its re-
moval no act of schism, 421, 422 ;
principles of papal authority lead to
schism, and are injurious to the au.
Ihority of the catholic church, 429,
430 ; authority of pope not trans-
ferred to king of England, 439 ; his
authority in controversies of faith, ii.
241 ; communion with, not essential,
i. 200. 214. 2G6 ; patriarchate of, ii.
50G.
Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical af-
fairs acknowledged only with a proviso
by the English clergy, i. 42G ; their
meaning, 427 ; powers attributed to
the state by Roman theologians, ib. ;
no intention to approve Erastian
doctrines, 428, 429 ; papal power not
transferred to the king, 429 ; appeals
to the king justifiable, 430 ; excom-
munication not given to the king,
431. ii. 305 ; royal injunctions not to
be condemned, i. 432, 433; royal con-
firmation of synods free from blame,
433 ; commissions to the bishops ca-
pable of an orthodox sense, and must
be so interpreted, 434-436; royal
visitations excusable, 43G ; power to
repress controversy, 437.
Russia, its church, i. 176.
Sabbath, observation of the, ii. 32. See
LorcVs day.
Sacraments, more than two acknow-
ledged by the church of England, i.
470. 481; ii. 417-420.
Sacrillce in the eucharist, i. 497, 498.
500; ii.437.
Salvation connected with belief of the
truth, i. 100.
Schism, what, i. 68 ; great schism of
the West, 93.
Scipio lie Ricci, bishop of Pistoia, his
reforms, i. 313, 314.
Scotland, the reformation there, i. 523,
&c. ; episcopacy continued, 524 ;
disturbed stale of the church, 525,
526 ; separation of the prcsbyterians,
527 ; their persecution of the church
528.
Scripture, its authority how maintained
against tradition by the reformers, i.
454 ; its perfection, ii. 12., &c. ; not
written casually, ii. 15 ; its perfection
defended by tradition, 17-25 ; inter-
pretations and deductions from it
not always merely human, 38, &c. ;
act of faith in it may be founded 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,
Socinians, a sect of deists, ii. 52 ; their
hypocrisy, ib. ; their treatment of
scripture, 54. 59, 60.
State, powers over the church claimed
by the, i. 327. See Royal supre-
macy.
Subscription to creeds and articles, its
meaning, ii. 265-269.
Successio7i from the apostles essential,
i. 160.171, &c.
Supremacy, Royal, in ecclesiastical af-
fairs, the church of England justified
for admitting it, i. 241-245 ; freely
exercised, and even abused in the
Roman churches, 242, &c. See
Royal supremacy.
Suspension, ii. 280.
Synods, of Nice, ii. 165 ; Constanti-
nople, 168 ; Ephesus, 171 ; Chalce-
don, 175 ; second of Constantinople,
176 ; third of Constantinople, 177 ;
Sardica, 180 ; Ariminum, 181 ; La-
trocinium of Ephesus, 189 ; Con-
stantinople, 289 ; Nicene, 290-202 ;
Constantinople, 203 ; Constantinople,
204 ; first Lateran, 205 ; second La-
teran,205 ; third Lateran, 206 ; fourth
Lateran, 207 ; first Lyons, 214 ;
second Lyons, 215; Vicnne, 216;
Pisa, 229 ; Constance, 229 ; Basle,
221 ; Florence, 222 ; Lateran, 223 ;
Trent, 224 ; London, 242 ; London,
243,244.
, oecumenical, their description, ii.
144, 145 ; authority on what ground,
ed, 145 ; infallibility of general sy-
nods not a matter of faith, 145-149 ;
is without foundation, 149-157 ; ge-
neral remarks on decrees of synods,
158-162 ; number of oicumonical sy-
nods, 163.
, particular, their authority, 235-
238; authority of ancient provincial
synods, 238-2 10.
, r(!gulatcd by temporal power in
France, Belgium, &c , i. 429.
INDEX.
557
Testimony, ita sufficiency to found
faith, ii. 81, 82,
Tilleinonfs observations on miracles of
saints, i. 147.
Toleration, Act of, i. 246 ; principles of
ii. 339-346.
Tradition, its authority acknowledged
by the Lutherans, &c., i. 345-348 ;
ii. 63 ; by tlie British Reformation,
i. 454-464 ; its necessity and utility
to the church, ii. 48-55 ; Romish
doctrine of, refuted, ii. 14, tfec; its
connexion with religion, 51-56.
Traditions of rites and discipline, when
lawful, ii. 66-71.
Transuhstantiation, how far admitted
by Eastern church, i. 204 ; should not
prevent the communion of churchos,
205, 257 ; Romish doctrine of, 482 ;
rejected by the British churches, 486 ;
Cranmer's and Luther's opinions of
it, 498, 499 ; perplexities of Roman
theologians with regard to it, 490 ;
not an article of faith, ii. 135. 160.
211-214.
Trent, synod of, not binding on us, i.
219, 220 ; the British churches not
bound to attend it, 415-416.
Truth, revealed by Christ, obligatory
on Christians, i. 99, 100.
Tunstall, his letter to cardinal Pole, i.
412.
Unction of the sick, ii. 72.
Unigenitus, Jansenist appeal against
the bull, i. 302.
Unitarianism, how proved to be heresy,
ii.46.
Unity of the church, in communion, i.
63, &c. ; in faith, 99, &,c ; provided
for by British churclies, 210, &c.
improperly claimed for the Roman
Obedience, 299, &.c.
Universities, their censures of theolo-
gical errors, ii. 284-293 .
Variations, do not always involve
heresy, i. 233. 465 ; those of tho
church of England altogether frco
from heresy, 465-491.
Voltaire, a communicant in the Roman
church, i. 319, 320.
Walchius, testifies the reverence of the
English church for antiquity, i. 217.
Walenbiirghs, their method of argu-
ment, ii. 44, 45.
Water, mixture of, in the eucharist, a
variable rite, ii. 74.
Wicked, belong only externally to the-
churcli, i. 28.
WirMiffe, censured at Constance, ii.
217.
Zuinglius, and his party did not design
separation from the church, i. 342-
344.
THE END.
>r^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11