Christian men, though oppressed by tyranny. Wherever were these truly sacred relics, the relics of holy men, there was and is the true, holy church of Christ, and therein remained the saints of Christ; for all these are ordinances and fruits of Christ, except the forcible removal of one species from Christians. In this church of Christ therefore the Spirit of Christ was certainly present, and preserved true knowledge and true faith in his elect. These relics indeed were but small, and the true church lay miserably injured and oppressed by the tyranny and infinite deceptions of the false church .... The miserable, afflicted, and oppressed church was to be pardoned by God, because one species of the sacrament was taken away from her, unwilling and captive, and denied to her. If even the elect and saints lived all their lives in infirmity and error, yet in death He liberated them as it were from the furnace of Babylon, such as St. Bernard, Gregory, Bonaventure."s

How charitable, and at the same time how rational are these sentiments. But such notions are not limited to Luther, they are those of the church of England, and of all her most eminent divines. The several formularies of doctrine published by authority in the reign of Henry VIII., acknowledged the churches of the Roman Obedience to be parts of the catholic church. The canons of 1603 speak of the othern Western unreformed churches in such terms, as evidently imply a recognition of them as still Christian, though in some respects fallen from their ancient integrity or perfection. "It was so far from the purpose of the church of England to forsake and

8 Lutherus, de Missa Privata, tom. vii. p. 236, 237.

"The Institution of a Christian Man," approved by twenty-one bishops in 1537, acknowledges the churches of Rome, France, Spain, &c. to be members of the catholic church. (Formularies of Faith, Oxford ed. p. 55.) The "Necessary Doctrine," approved by the bishops in 1543, includes in the catholic church the particular churches of England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Rome. (Ibid. p. 247.) See also Part II. Chap. II.

reject the churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any other such like churches, in all things which they held and practised; that, as the Apology of the church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which do neither endamage the church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical churches which were their first founders."i In strict accordance with these principles, it is maintained by our theologians, that the churches of the West continually remained a portion of Christ's catholic church, up to the period of the Reformation. Dr. Field says: "Touching the Latin church likewise, we are of the same opinion, that it continued still a part of the catholic church, notwithstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions which in time crept into it, and the dangerous and damnable false doctrine, that some taught and defended in the midst of it."k Bishop Hall teaches the same: "The Latin or Western church, subject to the Roman tyranny, was a true church, in which a saving profession of the truth of Christ was found." Archbishop Ussher, in reply to the question, "Where was your church before Luther?" says: "Our church was even there where now it is. In all places of the world where the ancient foundations were retained, and those common principles of faith, upon the profession whereof men have ever been wont to be admitted by baptism into the church of Christ; there we doubt not but our Lord had his subjects, and we our fellowservants. For we bring in no new faith, nor no new church." In reply to the question, "What we may judge of our forefathers who lived in the communion of the church of Rome ?" he says: "I answer that we have no reason to think otherwise, ' but that they lived and died under the mercy of God. For we must distinguish the papacy from the church wherein it is,

i Canon xxx.

Field, Of the Church, book iii. ch. 6.

! Hall, Of the Old Religion, p. 202.

as the apostle doth antichrist from the temple of God wherein. he sitteth."m He shows elsewhere, that the ordinary instruction appointed to be given in those ages to men on their deathbeds was, that they should "put their whole trust in the death of Christ :" "trust in no other thing, confide themselves entirely to his death, cover themselves with it;" "place the death of the Lord Jesus Christ between themselves and God's judgment;""offer the merit of his most worthy passion instead of the merit which they had not themselves." Among other theologians who maintained the Christianity of the Western churches before the Reformation, were Hooker, Bramhall, Laud, Chillingworth, Hammond, &c. Dr. Field cites Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, Beza, Philip Mornay, as all acknowledging, in a certain sense, that the Western churches before the Reformation were really churches of Christ, though oppressed by the papacy, and by several superstitions. Calvin, however, contradicts himself on this matter in his Institutions.P

m Sermon before the King, on Eph. iv. 13.

n Usser. de Christian. Eccl. Successione et Statu, c. 7. sect. 21, 22. . Of the Church, Appendix, part iii. p. 880.

P He says, (Lib. iv. c. 2. sect. 1, 2.) "Si vera Ecclesia columna est ac firmamentum veritatis, certum est non esse ecclesiam, ubi regnum occupavit mendacium et falsitas. In eum modum quum res habeat sub Papismo, intelligere licet quid ecclesiæ illic supersit," &c. Certainly nothing can be clearer. But at the end of the chapter he says: Antichistum in templo Dei sessurum prædixerunt Daniel et Paulus; illius scelerati et abominandi regni ducem et antesignanum apud nos facimus Romanum Pontificem. Quod sedes ejus in templo Dei collocatur, ita innuitur, tale fore ejus regnum quod nec Christi nec ecclesiæ nomen aboleat. Hinc igitur patet nos minime negare, quin sub ejus quoque tyrannide Ecclesiæ maneant." So manifest a variation proves, that Calvin had not thoroughly investigated this part of the subject. [This appears, too, from his very discrepant assertions concerning the corrupt Jewish church, in Lib. iv. c. 1. sect. 18, and in c. 2. sect. 10. His position concerning the Roman churches is"Quum ecclesiæ titulum non simpliciter volumus concedere Papistis, non ideo ecclesias apud eos esse inticiamur." (c. 2. sect. 12.)—and that they are not to be held "pro Ecclesii in quarum plena communione perstandum sit homini Christiano." (sect. 10.) Moderate enough, if it were only clear!]

SECTION II.

WHETHER THE CHURCHES OF THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE CONTINUED TO BE CHURCHES OF CHRIST AFTER THE REFORMATION.

There are different opinions as to the claim of the Roman to the title of a true church since the Reformation; and Jewel, Field, and others who deny it, are not without some probability on their side. We will suppose that in some one or more points of faith, the Roman church is actually in error. This is, at least, very possible; and to those theologians of whom I speak it appeared perfectly certain, from an actual examination of Scripture and catholic tradition. We will then suppose this to be the case, and if so, then there is a strong apparent probability that the Roman Obedience is in heresy, because it seems that those errors against faith were defended with the greatest pertinacity, after abundant discussion and information; and that Romanists proceeded so far as to excommunicate, and most cruelly persecute those who defended the truth. Under these circumstances it cannot be wondered at, that, in the opinion of many persons, the churches of the Roman obedience were heretical and apostate: nor can we blame those who judged from such circumstances. There was not even any intolerable inconvenience in the supposition, because the true church would still have subsisted in the East and West, though in some parts of it, in a shattered and disorganized state.

But to me it appears infinitely safer and more charitable, to prefer the opinion of the majority of theologians, who consider the Roman churches, though in several respects faulty and corrupted in doctrine and discipline, yet still to continue a portion of the catholic church of Christ. Hooker reckons among the errors of the Presbyterian or Puritan schismatics in his time, their "suffering indignation at the faults of the church of Rome, to blind and withhold their judgments from seeing that, which withal they should acknowledge, concerning so much nevertheVOL. I.-34

less still due to the same church, as to be held and reputed a part of the house of God, a limb of the visible church of Christ." And he elsewhere says, that "touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ;" and that: "As there are which make the church of Rome utterly no church at all, by reason of so many, so griev ous errors in her doctrines; so we have them amongst us, who under pretence of imagined corruptions in our discipline, do give even as hard a judgment of the church of England itself."r

Archbishop Laud, in his controversy with the Jesuit, says: "I granted the Roman church to be a true church; for so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me; and the truth cannot deny it." He refers for proofs to Hooker, Junius, Reynold, and even the Separatist Fr. Johnson. Dr. Hammond says: "As we exclude no Christian from our communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us, being ready to admit any to our assemblies, that acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his apostles; so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedom of external communion with all the members of all other Christian churches . . . and would most willingly, by the use of the ancient method of literæ communicatoria, maintain this communion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble, and particularly with those which live in obedience to the church. of Rome." Bramhall, Andrewes, Chillingworth, Tillotson, Burnet, &c. might also be cited in acknowledgment that the Roman is still a portion of the catholic church, though infected with several errors.

This appears infinitely the more probable opinion, and the objection, which was stated at the beginning, and which led to the contrary conclusion, may be answered without difficulty. That the Romanists were not obstinately pertinacious, and

4 Works, ii. 478. Edit. Keble.

B

Conference, s. 20. nu. 3.

I

Works, i. 438..

* Of Schism, ch. ix. s. 3.