Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

which were their first founders." 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." 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 fellow servants. 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, as the apostle doth antichrist from the temple of God wherein he sitteth'."

66

Canon xxx.

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

*Hall, Of the Old Religion, p.

202.

Sermon before the King, on

Eph. iv. 13.

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".

Usser. de Christian. Eccl. Successione et Statu, c. 7. sect. 21, 22.

Of the Church, Appendix, part iii. p. 880.

• 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: "Anti

christum 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.

SECTION II.

WHETHER THE CHURCHES OF THE ROMAN OBEDIENCE CON

TINUED 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 probable; 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 nevertheless 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 P." 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 grievous 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.”

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

.

P Works, ii. 478. Edit. Keble. "Works, i. 438.

r

* Conference, s. 20. nu. 3.

members of all other Christian churches.....and would most willingly, by the use of the ancient method of literæ communicatoriæ, 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 heretical, generally, in upholding the errors of the Council of Trent, I argue thus. First, they were deeply impressed with an opinion, of long standing in the Western church, that the Roman pontiff was the divinely appointed centre of unity, and that every one who did not communicate with him was cut off from the church. This opinion was of such antiquity, and supported by such forgeries, frauds, and usurpations, that it was difficult to perceive its error'.

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

So deeply-rooted was this prejudice long afterwards even in the most enlightened part of the Roman church, that the learned Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbonne, was compelled to abstain from publishing to the world his belief that non-communion with the Roman see was no proof of schism. This curious fact was discovered by Jurieu, who in his work, De l'Unité de l'Eglise, p. 211, has printed the suppressed passages of Du Pin's treatise De Antiqua Eccl Disciplina, p. 256,

[blocks in formation]
« FöregåendeFortsätt »