we have kept, and will keep by God's help unto the end.*

But now it is the common practice of Roman writers, to take for granted, that the present church of Rome, (in which I include the churches in communion with it,) is either expressly or by implication the whole catholic church, or the one holy catholic church, of which were · it as pure and sound as in St. Peter's time, it could only be a part, and in St. Clement's epistle above cited it is spoken of as such. But now it is so corrupt, that it is not so much as a part of the one holy catholic church but only a part of the church universal in the larger and most improper sense of the word.†

In the primitive church, if a bishop fell into manifest heresy or idolatry, not only the people were obliged in point of duty to separate, but the bishops of other churches were obliged to withdraw from his communion; See several instances of this in Barrow's works, 1, 746, and Bramhall's works, p. 57. The case is the same with the bishop of Rome; for if other bishops, who are reckoned successors of the apostles, and vicars of Christ within their precinct; if other patriarchs who sit in apostolic sees, and partake of a like extensive jurisdiction, by incurring heresy or schism, may be deprived of their authority, then may the bishop of Rome lose his; for truth and piety are not affixed to the chair of Rome, more than to any other; in this case, any other bishop was not only at liberty to dissent from him, but was obliged by virtue of his share in the common episcopacy, to separate from him, and if occa

See archbishop Usher's sermon on the universality of the church, p. 8.-Herein, p. 7. of all others do our Romanists most fearfully offend; as being the authors of the most cruel schism, that hath ever been seen in the church of God.

The church universal or catholic taken in a large extent comprehends all societies of professed christians whatsoever, heretics, schismatics, idolaters, &c. as they are distinguished from infidels; but the one catholic church contains those churches only, which profess the true faith, worship, and government, and to which this term catholic was early applied, to distinguish the catus fidelium from the congregations of heretics and schismatics, It was also called the visible church, and in this sense it is used in our 19th article, and throughout this treatise. See Hickes's letters, 1. 96. This distinction is maintained in Hawarden's Charity and Truth, p. 19, 1809.

sion required to pronounce anathema against him : as St. Hilary did against Liberius, upon his defection to the Arians, Hil. fragm. 134. In the time of Victor, the whole eastern church forbore communion with the bishop of Rome, who was guilty of a schismatical act ; Epiph. hær. 70. Firmilian, archbishop of Cesarea told Stephen of Rome, that by thinking to excommunicate others, he had excommunicated himself. The fathers of the Antiochian synod, threatened to excommunicate Julius of Rome; "they promised to him communion, if he admitted those whom he expelled; but if he resisted their decrees, they denounced the contrary;" Sozom. 8. 8. Acacius of C. P. renounced the communion of Felix. *The African bishops synodically excommunicated Vigilius, and so did the bishops of Illyricum.t-All this evidently proves, that they did not imagine any single person to be the centre of union to the whole church; or that all churches were obliged to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, whether he was a catholic or heretic; or that any church out of his metropolitical power, was bound in any respect to submit to his jurisdiction: but it manifestly proves the contrary, that there was no necessity of a visible head, as is now pretended in the church of Rome, to unite all the parts of the catholic church into one commu. nion; but that in matters of faith, every bishop was as

Africani antistites Vigilium Romanum Episcopum damna. torem capitulorum, synodaliter a catholica communione, reser vato ei pœnitentiæ loco, recludunt. Vict. Tun. chron. 10.

f The popish editor of the Bib. Pat. Lovan. 1661, grants, possunt subditi resistere papæ, (i. e. Romano episcopo), publice in hæresim lapso.' This note is on the words of Columbanus: "I beseech you, (says he, to Boniface of Rome) since many doubt of the purity of your faith, that you will remove this scandal; for otherwise your juniors will deservedly resist you; and they do resist you deservedly; and deservedly they do not join in communion with you." ." O'Conor's 2d. letter, 1810. p. v. According to Dr. O'Conor, the bishop of Rome has a divine right to call all churches to order, and declare them schismatical, whenever they are guilty of violating the faith, &c. yet in the next sentence he allows that his subjects may and ought to resist him when he falls into heresy. We may put the old popish questions here, who is to be judge in such cases the governors or the govern ed? and how can authority, be without infallibility? No won der that Sandini discovered the absurdity of this, on popish principles, p., vi.

H

much a guardian of the whole church as the bishop of Rome; and in matters of discipline, all churches were at liberty to hear and determine their own causes in a synod of bishops, without having recourse to any foreign juris

Hence appears the absurdity of asserting, "that we separated from the catholic church." For we know it never can be proved that the church of Rome is the catholic church; and whatever church or churches have cor rupted the faith and worship of Christ, we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such corruptions, and we have the whole gospel to justify us in it; for in such cases, we are under the same obligation to separate, that we are to profess the true faith, and practise the true worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the church of England and Ireland, is that they renounc ed the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and denied obedience to that see, which never had any divine right to claim it and that they reformed those errors in doctrine, and corruptions in worship, which they were formerly guilty of. This charge we readily own, but deny that this is schism, or separation from the catholic church.

For till they can prove, that the unity of the catho lic church consists in subjection to the bishop of Rome, it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking catholic unity, by denying that obedience which we do not owe, and when they can prove it essential to catholic unity, to submit to the bishops of Rome, as the visible head of the church, we will own ourselves to be schismatics. But then I must remind them what they are to prove, viz. that by divine institution, the bishop of Rome is the visi ble head of unity, to whom all churches must submit for nothing can be essential to the unity of the church, but what Christ himself has made so; and what is not absolutely essential, may be changed and altered, when there is absolute necessity for it, without a sinful breach of unity.

Accordingly this usurpation of the bishop of Rome, was renounced and disclaimed in the time of Henry the VIIIth. first by both universities, and most of the greatest monasteries in England; and it was determined by the (popish) bishops in convocation, A. D. 153. "that it was many hundred years, before the bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a primate over any other

bishops, which were not within his province of Italy; and that the bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made at their creation; for they solemnly vow, that they shall inviolably preserve all the ordinances made in the eight first general councils, among which it is especially provided, that all causes shall be determined within the province where they began, and that, by the bishops of the same province; which absolutely excludes all papal, i. e. foreign power out of these realms.

Beside the testimony of scripture, and the ancient church, we have also the consent of all the churches of the East,* which however different among themselves, to this day, look on the bishop of Rome's supremacy as an

in all these vast churches, the two creeds (Apostle's and Nicene, but not pope Pius's), are professed, true baptism administered, and an undoubted succession, of bishops from the apostles, and although they have some errors and corruptions, yet if they be not fundamental, and not enjoined as necessary to be approved in order to their communion, we may lawfully communicate with them. That they are neither Nestorians nor Eutychians is clearly proved by bishop Stillingfleet, vol. 6. p. 677, and 4. p. 1. The Syrian churches in Malayala were lately visited by Dr. Buchanan. He informs us, (Gent. Mag. 1807,) that there are fifty-five churches in Malayala, acknowledging the patriarch of Antioch; that they are not Nestorians, and their doctrines are not at variance, in essentials, with the doctrines of the church of England. Their bishop, after conferring with his clergy, delivered the following opinion:-"That an union with the English church, or at least, such a connexion as should appear to both churches practicable and expedient, would be a happy event, and favourable to the advancement of religion." A late Romanist (Haward. Char. and Truth. 274.) acknowledges that of those (falsly) called Nestorians, there are 300,000 families; of Eutychians, 100,000 families; of Semi-Eutychians, in all 170,000 families, and the Armenian patriarch has in all 260 bishops under Him; besides the vast number of christians in Ethiopia, Abyssinia, Greece, Turkey, &c.-Nothing can be more rooted and invincible (Mosheim 5, 245.), than the aversion thee in general discover to the Romish church; and which has continued inflexible amidst the most zealous efforts of the Roman pontiffs, and the various means employed by their numerous missionaries to gain over this people to their communion.-The Armenians (says Jesuit Averil, Travels 1693, p, 149.) declared all excommunicated who should come to our assemblies.-Cerri, Secretary to Innocent XI, confesses that when the Persians are convinced of the falsity of Mahometanism, instead of embracing the catholic religion (i. e. popery) they profess Atheism; and that the Greeks educated at Rome, turn schismatics, anti become more violent enemies to us (papists), after they become

innovation on the church, and usurpation on the rights of the other patriarchs and bishops.

particular case,

But it is objected from St. Austin, "that there is no sufficient cause for dividing unity."-But this he does not speak absolutely, but only in the which he treats of; lib. 2. cont. Parm. But he does not say that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause. This is confessed also by Mr. Knot, (Infidelity unmasked, p. 534.) They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure church, and brought in corruptions in faith, liturgy, and use of sacraments, may truly be said to have been heretics, by departing from the pure faith; and schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external communion of the uncorrupted church." We maintain that the present church departed from the ancient primitive Roman church, not locally, but morally, which is worse, by introducing corruptions in faith, liturgy and sacraments, whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the external communion of the true primitive uncorrupted church of Christ, and became the cause of all following separation. Bramhall's works, 56. 68.

But it is objected that "we charge the church of Rome with idolatry, which is inconsistent with a christian church."But we must distinguish here, between a pure and a true or real church-Now it is essential to a church pure in doctrine and pure in worship, 'not to teach and practise idolatry, even as essential or ne cessary it is to a sound man not to have the leprosy or plague. But to a church only true in a metaphysical sense, i. e. to a real church, it is not essential or ne cessary not to practise idolatry, no more than it is to a real man, not to have the leprosy or plague. In this sense we say that a church may be guilty of some kinds of idolatry, and of very great corruptions in faith and worship, yet may be a real or

"A

true, though not a right sound or pure church. I say

acquainted with our imperfections. State of Religion, translated from Italian, 1716, p. 51. 99. He also cautions us to give little credit to the relations of the Romish, missionaries, for according to their custom they give no other account, but that they have converted thousands, p. 79. 186. See also, Smith's state of the Greek church, 1686, and Cowell's do. 1723.

*In this sense of a true church, and in this only, must be understood the quotations in the late Protestant Apology, chap. 2. in which the author, taking advantage of our writers styling the church of Rome a true church, endeavours to make his rea