we have discarded, had any existence. Neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Wiclif, nor Cranmer, was the founder of our church, but Christ himself. (3.) We deny that the reformers of our church. usurped any ministerial office for which they had not the fullest apostolic warrant and authority. We admit that the orders of the Romish church are valid, though on the principles of those Romanists who hold that holy orders are vitiated by heresy, we can prove them to be void: * our charge against their clergy is not that they have no right to preach the Gospel of Christ, but that they do not preach it. (4.) And we deny that the Church of England has, by any deed or declaration, weakened or dissolved the bands of church authority. If the fact *The Roman Patriarchate was stained with heresy, for the space of twelve years, in the persons of Liberius I. and Felix II., who occupied it successively from the year 352 to 367. The former was exiled in the year 355, and Felix II. chosen in his place by the Arians. Baronius labours to prove that this latter Pope was not an Arian. But the orthodox people of Rome thought otherwise, for they refused to communicate or enter the church with him. Theodoret expressly says, εδεὶς μέντοι τῶν οικέντων τὴν Ῥώμην εις ευκτήριον ἐισελήλυθεν ὅ ικον, ἔνδον ὄντος ἐκεινε. (lib. ii. cap. 17.) Sozomen also asserts (lib. iv. cap. 11) that he received the heterodox (i.e., the Arians) to communion. He was consecrated in the year 355. When Liberius returned to the Patriarchate, being restored by the Emperor Constantius three years after, he signed the Sirmian confession of faith, which was Arian, and signed the condemnation of Athanasius, as decreed in the council of Milan. But the orthodox Christians refused communion with him, as Baronius freely admits, though he labours to clear his character from the imputation of heresy. Conf. Baron. Annal., tom. iv. p. 607, 611; Edit. Luc., 1739; Centur. Magdeb. Cent. IV., cap. x. Thus it appears that the see of Rome was infected with heretical pravity from the year 355 to 367, the period of the death of Liberius. were so, we should not be taunted as we are, by the ultra-zealous among our brethren, for adhering to a relic of Popery by upholding it. And we shall prove that the doctrine of the right of private judgment is in no way prejudicial to church authority; but, on the contrary, that its denial renders all rational, sound, and scriptural belief in revealed truth a moral impossibility. In order to view the Church of England in a proper light, and to form a correct judgment how far she can with fairness be charged with the act of separation, we must consider first what the Catholic Church of Christ is from which we are said to have separated. It is first to be premised that the word Catholic means universal. Now the Church of Rome is in no sense universal, neither in its prevalence, as extended over the whole world, nor in its spirit, which is narrow, selfish, and bigoted, nor in its comprehensive character, for it admits only a particular sect, and excludes the far larger portion of those who confess the essentials of the Christian religion. The last of these senses is that in which we most commonly use the word Catholic; and if it be applied so to the Romish church, it amounts to a contradiction in terms, for that cannot by possibility be universal which is confined to Rome and the Papacy. When we call Romanists, Catholics, we therefore incautiously pervert the word from its true meaning; when we term them Roman Catholics, we are guilty of a contradiction in terms. What, then, does the term Catholic mean? The we have discarded, had any existence. Neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Wiclif, nor Cranmer, was the founder of our church, but Christ himself. (3.) We deny that the reformers of our church usurped any ministerial office for which they had not the fullest apostolic warrant and authority. We admit that the orders of the Romish church are valid, though on the principles of those Romanists who hold that holy orders are vitiated by heresy, we can prove them to be void: * our charge against their clergy is not that they have no right to preach the Gospel of Christ, but that they do not preach it. (4.) And we deny that the Church of England has, by any deed or declaration, weakened or dissolved the bands of church authority. If the fact *The Roman Patriarchate was stained with heresy, for the space of twelve years, in the persons of Liberius I. and Felix II., who occupied it successively from the year 352 to 367. The former was exiled in the year 355, and Felix II. chosen in his place by the Arians. Baronius labours to prove that this latter Pope was not an Arian. But the orthodox people of Rome thought otherwise, for they refused to communicate or enter the church with him. Theodoret expressly says, &diis μívtoi tãv dixúvtwv tàv 'Púμnv εις ευκτήριον εισελήλυθεν δ ικον, ἔνδον ὄντος ἐκεινε. (lib. ii. cap. 17.) Sozomen also asserts (lib. iv. cap. 11) that he received the heterodox (i. e., the Arians) to communion. He was consecrated in the year 355. When Liberius returned to the Patriarchate, being restored by the Emperor Constantius three years after, he signed the Sirmian confession of faith, which was Arian, and signed the condemnation of Athanasius, as decreed in the council of Milan. But the orthodox Christians refused commuuion with him, as Baronius freely admits, though he labours to clear his character from the imputation of heresy. Conf. Baron. Annal., tom. iv. p. 607, 611; Edit. Luc., 1739; Centur. Magdeb. Cent. IV., cap. x. Thus it appears that the see of Rome was infected with heretical pravity from the year 355 to 367, the period of the death of Liberius. were so, we should not be taunted as we are, by the ultra-zealous among our brethren, for adhering to a relic of Popery by upholding it. And we shall prove that the doctrine of the right of private judgment is in no way prejudicial to church authority; but, on the contrary, that its denial renders all rational, sound, and scriptural belief in revealed truth a moral impossibility. In order to view the Church of England in a proper light, and to form a correct judgment how far she can with fairness be charged with the act of separation, we must consider first what the Catholic Church of Christ is from which we are said to have separated. It is first to be premised that the word Catholic means universal. Now the Church of Rome is in no sense universal, neither in its prevalence, as extended over the whole world, nor in its spirit, which is narrow, selfish, and bigoted, nor in its comprehensive character, for it admits only a particular sect, and excludes the far larger portion of those who confess the essentials of the Christian religion. The last of these senses is that in which we most commonly use the word Catholic; and if it be applied so to the Romish church, it amounts to a contradiction in terms, for that cannot by possibility be universal which is confined to Rome and the Papacy. When we call Romanists, Catholics, we therefore incautiously pervert the word from its true meaning; when we term them Roman Catholics, we are guilty of a contradiction in terms. What, then, does the term Catholic mean? The phrase itself, we admit, is not scriptural; but we do not object to it on that account, as any appropriate terms, if properly defined beforehand, are admissible to express our ideas. But though the word Catholic be not strictly scriptural, we have one in Scripture which is tantamount to it-the mystical "body of Christ." Thus St. Paul says of Christ, "He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead;"* and "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular;" and "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:" and in the fourth verse of the same chapter, "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." Now in these and similar passages, the Apostle was addressing churches composed generally of faithful men, who held all the great essentials of the Christian faith; and he evidently is not adverting to insulated churches, but speaking of the whole body of true believers. It is of this body, united by a strong but invisible bond to the Lord Jesus, that St. Paul spake when he termed "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."§ It was to this body that Christ made the solemn promise that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. It was to the rulers and authorized pastors of this body that Christ declared that He would be with * Col. i. 18. +1 Cor. xii. 27. |