cious impiety of neologism, an infidelity which cloaks itself under the name of Christianity in order to inflict a more grievous wound on faith, or sunk into the deadly slumber of Socinian and Arian apostacy, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, as religious systems, seem to have nearly perished in the countries where they arose.f

SECTION V.

WHETHER IT WAS LAWFUL TO HOLD ANY RELIGIOUS INTERCOURSE WITH THESE SOCIETIES.

If there were probable reasons for considering the Lutherans, &c. as not guilty of schism or heresy, then it was lawful on the principles of Christian charity, to hold intercourse and communion with them. (1.) Now, it has been shown that they did not voluntarily separate, in general, from the church, but were excommunicated by the Roman pontiff; and this excommunica tion was not that of the whole catholic church, for it was only received and acted on by some of the Western bishops, who were apparently under the influence of the pontiff and the emperor. It has also been shown, that they did not wish to remain separate from the church, that they acknowledged its authority, and were willing to communicate with and obey their bishops, if they had abstained from persecuting them in obedience to the papal commands. Hence, more especially when they testified a desire to communicate with the Gallican, the British, and other parts of the church, it seemed that they might be considered very probably as not formally schismatical. Doubtless the

f See the Abbé Gregoire's Histoire des Sectes, &c. Reports of the Continental Society; but above all, Mr. Rose's State of Protestantism in Germany.

8 Melancthon thus states the case of his party: "We are not deserters from the church, we are not separated from the body of Christ; for those who retain the true doctrine of the Gospel, and are obedient to it, remain

writings of some of them were too violent, and they were not free from the imputation of tumult and disorder, but the more wise and moderate among them discouraged all such proceedings, and their violence of language was rivalled by that of their opponents. (2.) It was also very probable that they were not heretics. For, whatever their doctrines might be, it did not seem that they generally defended them with obstinacy against the evident truth. They received all the creeds of the church, professed to be guided by Scripture and tradition, and to introduce no heresies or novelties. Their opinions were not condemned by any clear judgment of the universal church, for the Synod of Trent, as I shall prove in Part IV., was not of binding authority. They varied in their doctrines, and some things which had been incautiously said by Luther and Zuinglius, were modified and corrected by their adherents. The error of Zuinglius, colampadius, and Carlostadt on the Eucharist had been apparently given up by Calvin, who obtained a great influence in the Zuinglian and reformed communities. His language was strongly in favour of the real presence, though at the bot

members of Christ though the pontiffs should expel them from their communion. . . . This difference arose at the beginning from the reproof of a most scandalous sale of indulgences. Then the pontiff and his adherents met together, and the excommunication was fulminated. Are we said to be cut off from the church on account of those unjust decrees?"-See his Epistles, lib. i. ep. 67. which well merits a perusal. In another place he puts the argument very strongly from their Appeal to a General Council. "Those who ex animo, and not feignedly, appeal to the judgment of the church, are by no means enemies of the church, or seditious, or schismatics, or heretics: for it is written, If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen or a publican. Therefore, so long as he does not refuse to accept the judgment of the church, he cannot be called an enemy or a schismatic." -Melanc. Enarr. in Evang. Joh. tom. iii. Oper. p. 797. [It ought to be taken into account, also, that their excommunication was, in most instances, entirely irregular and uncanonical. The usurped power of the bishop of Rome, in part brought to bear upon them directly, in part operating on the authorities to whom alone they were truly amenable, prejudged their cause, and deprived them of all the advantages of regular trial and appeal.]

tom, his doctrine was inconsistent with it; and the differences between the Lutherans and Sacramentarians, on this point, were not for a long time discovered to be insurmountable. Many conferences had taken place between the Lutherans and the Roman party, and concessions had been made, which inferred that there was not any obstinate adherence to preconceived opinions; and the Lutheran divines had offered to retract if in error, and continually appealed to the judgment of a general council. All these circumstances combine to prove that there was great probability that the Lutherans and Calvinists were not heretics; and when particular persons or churches were convinced, from an examination of the several questions in debate, that the truth lay more with the Lutherans, &c. than with their opponents; or even, that it was equal on both sides; they were justified in not excluding the members of the reformed societies from their communion.

This will suffice to clear us from any charge of countenancing heresy or schism, on account of the intercourse which some members of our churches formerly held with the Lutherans and Calvinists. There was a great probability that they were not schismatics nor heretics; and as they did not exhibit an unfriendly feeling to our churches, there were good and sufficient reasons to view them with kindness and charity. The sufferings which we experienced, in common with them, from the persecution and ambition of the Roman pontiff, added sympathy to this general good-will; and the agreement on certain points of doctrine and discipline against Rome, may have perhaps induced us to give a better construction to some things than they deserved, and to overlook some faults which an unfriendly, or even a strict criticism would have condemned. It is possible that some of our writers, and particular members of our

Even in 1560 Jewell could say of the Zuinglians and Lutherans: “tantum de una, nec ea ita gravi aut magni quæstione, inter se dissentiunt. Nec desperamus, vel potius non dubitamus, brevi fore concordiam," &c.-Apol. p. 63, 64. ed. 1606.

VOL. I.-46

churches, may have been deceived in the question of fact, and esteemed the Lutherans and Calvinists more free from fault than they really were; but if so, it was a mistake as to fact only there was no wish to countenance heresy or schism, which the churches of Britain have always abhorred and condemned. Even churches are not free from the possibility of being deceived as to the real character of those with whom they communicate, and still less are individuals, however orthodox and pious they may be in themselves.

OBJECTIONS.'

I. Even if Luther and his adherents had been unjustly excommunicated by Leo X. still they were guilty of schism in establishing private conventicles, and altering the rites of religion. St. Augustine says, that "Divine Providence often permits even good men to be expelled from the Christian congregation, through the turbulent seditions of the carnal; which contumely or injury, if they endure patiently for the peace of the church, and attempt no novelties of schism or heresy, they will teach men with what true affection and what sincere love God should be served. . . . such are crowned in secret by the Father, who seeth in secret: they seem to be rare, yet examples have been found." Therefore the Lutherans ought to have remained patiently under the excommunication, even if it had been unjust, and not to have established conventicles.

Answer. There was no reason why an unjust excommunication, which deprived them of the external communion of the faithful, should induce them in addition to deprive themselves of the means of grace, and especially the blessed sacrament of the eucharist, which is "generally necessary to salvation." Many of them were clergy empowered duly by ordination to administer the means of grace. Surely it would be most un

i Augustinus de vera Religione, cap. vi. tom. i. p. 752.

reasonable to expect, that men who felt themselves not to have been condemned by a legitimate judgment of the church, should abstain at once from all the most sacred duties of religion. Good conscience would never have permitted such a proceeding. It must be remembered that they were appellants to a general council, and were authorized in not considering themselves as definitely separated from the church. St. Augustine, perhaps, only speaks of cases where there is no question of doctrine, and where those expelled have not to offer any testimony against prevalent errors; but at all events, he does not prohibit such persons from using the means of grace if they can obtain them.

With regard to the change of rites it may be replied, that, under the circumstances, they could not obtain permission from the ordinary authorities to do so, for those authorities had separated them from their communion. The question then arises, whether they were strictly bound to adhere to rites, which were manifest innovations, abuses, things not enjoined or required by the catholic church, and injurious to piety and sound religion. Under the extraordinary circumstances in which they were placed, it does not seem that there was any thing schismatical in abstaining from such rites provisionally, until the church should decide the questions in controversy, and receive them into communion again. And this was what the Lutherans did; for they were ready to make alterations in order to regain communion with the church; and the Zuinglians would doubtless have done the same, only that their doctrine on the eucharist excluded them from all accommodation.*

II. The Reformation was effected in most places by the authority of the civil magistrate, who had no right to interfere in

[It will be observed that the author's answer tends to the exculpation of the Lutherans, &c., for continuing to minister in orders already received, and for reforming the rites by which they ministered; but does not touch the very serious charge of schismatic usurpation in professing to convey authority to minister to others, as their successors.]