They may be compared to a recruiting depot for the Church of Rome, kept up among ourselves: and, sooner or later, the persons who fall under their influence very generally become open converts to Romanism. And their efforts are the more insidious, because they, for the most part, begin by loudly declaring that they teach nothing but the recognised doctrines of the Established Church,-that they are inculcating "Church principles," and that all who are opposed to them are little better than Schismatics.

We intend hereafter to examine their " Church principles" more fully, and point out to you how repugnant they are both to Scripture and to reason. But, at present, we will confine ourselves to showing that these are not the principles of our Church, but, in many respects, quite opposed to its decisions.

In doing this, we shall not refer you to the works of old Divines of our Church, many of which may not be readily within your reach, but shall confine ourselves to those public authorized Formularies which we trust you all have in your hands the Articles and Liturgy of our Church.

The writings of our old Divines are, many of them, very valuable, and, in one sense, of great authority—that is, entitled to respect and deference; but they are not of authority as determining what any man should hold in order to be a consistent member of the Anglican Church. Our eminent Divines have, in their writings, declared their own opinions, which, in some matters, are very various. But they had no power to determine the principles of the Church. Those were settled by the Church itself, and set forth in its public documents. And the very circumstance that opinions going beyond what those public documents express, did exist, and were well-known and current in the days of our Reformers, this gives even the more force to their deliberate omission of these, and their distinct declaration of what they do mean to maintain.

I. Now, in the first place, on looking at the Articles and Liturgy, you will find that our Church never puts itself in the position of a mere subordinate member of some great Body, nor professes to act under the authority of the Church Catholic, and merely to enforce the decrees of that Church in matters of Faith and Discipline; but, as for matters of Faith, it propounds them

directly on the authority of Scripture; and as for matters of discipline, it deals with them as having itself a perfect independent right of ordering such matters as may seem best to itself.

There are, for example, no ancient christian documents, except the Scripture, that can more justly claim to be called "Catholic" than the three creeds which have been received, from times of great antiquity, by the majority of Christians both in the East and West. Yet, in recognising these, our Church makes no mention whatever of any such claims which they may have on our respect. It does not say that these creeds should be received as the voice and judgment of the universal Church, or as attested by Catholic tradition; but, "the three creeds . . . . ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."—(Art. VIII.)

Then, again, as for general Councils, which must be the supreme governing authority of the Catholic Church if there be any such authority, our Articles plainly declare them to be neither necessary, nor infallible" General Councils," (says Art. XXI.,)" may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared [plainly proved] that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

Now, if our Reformers had thought, and meant to teach, that General Councils are the supreme governors of the Church, and divinely instituted for that purpose, they would never have said that it was unlawful to convoke them without the will and commandment of Princes; because that would have been making a divine institution subject to the will of man. Nor, if they had meant to teach that private judgment must always submit to the decision of a General Council, would they have said, that," things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture." For it would be quite childish to say this, if, after all, the Council were to be the only judge whether or

not this all-important point could be "declared" or made evident. If any man, or Body of men, refer us to Scripture as the sole authoritative standard, meaning that we are not called on to believe anything as a necessary point of faith on their word, but only on our own conviction that it is scriptural, then they place our faith on the basis, not of human authority, but of divine. But if they call on us, as a point of conscience, to receive whatever is proved to their satisfaction from Scripture, even though it may appear to us unscriptural, then, instead of releasing us from the usurped authority of Man taking the place of God, they are putting upon us two burdens instead of one. "You require us," we might reply, "to believe, first, that whatever you teach is true; and, secondly, besides this, to believe also that it is a truth contained in Scripture; and we are to take your word for both." Our Reformers manifestly did not require such double submission as this to Assemblies which they expressly declare to be fallible.

Again, as for matters of discipline, rites, ceremonies, &c., our Church always speaks of these as being (except the two Sacraments) of human institution, and of itself as having a perfect right to establish or alter them. "It is not necessary," (says Art. XXXIV.,) "that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly alike: for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed, according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done unto edifying." Accordingly we have, in the Preface to the Common-prayer, a long and distinct account of the grounds upon which the Church went in arranging these matters; in which the Reformers, all along, treat both the Liturgy and the Ceremonies as things of mere human authority, and as falling entirely under their own control. "The forms," they say, "of divine worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable that, upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those who are in place of autho

rity should, from time to time, seem either necessary or expedient." And, again :-" There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted; as, among other things, it may plainly appear by the Common Prayers in the Church, commonly called Divine Service." Then, again, when our Reformers are vindicating their conduct in retaining some of the ancient ceremonies, what is their language? Do they speak of themselves as bound to do so by their allegiance to the "Church Catholic," by whose authority they were established? Do they betray the least suspicion that, in handling such things, they are dealing with a "sacred deposit," a system of rites, like those of the Old (Levitical) Law, prescribed by the Spirit of God, "a pattern showed in the Mount," a body of ceremonies invested with a mysterious and "sacramental" character? Quite otherwise. "If men," they say, " shall think much that any of of the old do remain, and would rather have all devised anew, then such men, granting some ceremonies convenient to be had, surely where the old may be well used, there they cannot reasonably reprove the old only for their age, without bewraying of their own folly. . . . . Furthermore, such shall have no just cause with the ceremonies reserved to be offended. For as those be taken away which were most abused and did burden men's consciences without any cause, so the other that remain, are retained for a discipline and order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal to God's Law. . . And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own people only; for we think it convenient that every country should use such ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, &c."

All this shows clearly the meaning of Art. XX., when it says, "The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies." For, from the passages just quoted, it manifestly appears that the Article is not speaking of a (supposed) universal Church, acting as a great corporate Body through its governors, but of each and every "particular or national Church." And this way

of speaking is very common. When we say, for example, that "it is the duty of the magistrate to punish crimes against the State," we do not mean to indicate some universal magistrate,

and universal State, but we mean that every magistrate is bound to punish crimes against that particular State in which he holds his office. And when the Article says that "it is lawful for a christian man, at the command of the Magistrate, to serve in the wars," no one can doubt that this means the Magistrate of his own Country. When we pray that God would "speed the plough," we do not mean to imply that there is one grand universal plough; but we pray God to bless the work of each and every plough employed in agriculture.

And so, most manifestly, in Art. XIX. "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered:"-there, we say, manifestly also the Article is speaking not of one visible organized Body, as the universal Church, but of each and every particular visible Church of Christ. It is lay

ing down, in short, what is, and all that is essential to the notion of a true Church.* And that it is not the universal Church that is spoken of, but each particular Church, is further proved by the sentence immediately following, in which mention is made of the Churches of Alexandria, Rome, &c.

وو

II. And among these essentials to a true Church, you will observe, the Article makes no mention of any particular form of government. It does not lay down the great "Church-principle,' -that "where there is no Bishop there can be no Church;" but merely says that the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are necessary to constitute a congregation a visible Church of Christ. And this silence is made more emphatic and significant by the language of Art. XXIII.

"It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public

same.

* Compare Articles XIX. and XXIII. with the corresponding Articles in the Augsburg Confession:

ENGLISH ARTICLE.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

AUGSBURG CONFESSION.

Est autem Ecclesia congregatio Sanctorum, in quâ Evangelium rectè docetur, et rectè administrantur sacramenta.