From this doctrine it followed, that the Western was the whole catholic church of Christ, and that whatever Western councils had decreed, was obediently to be received by Christians. Now some doctrines and practices rejected by the Reformation had apparently been so authorized, therefore the Romanists did not without strong reasons oppose the truth. Secondly, the doctrines and practices of some of the reformed were apparently innovations in some cases, as being either not commonly received in the church for some time before, or as being in fact and truth innovations on very ancient customs which had been abused, and become inexpedient and prejudicial to piety. And many churches were afraid of innovations and changes, and deemed it most prudent to remain as they were. Thirdly, the reformed were not exempt from faults and errors themselves, in doctrine as well as discipline; and their numerous divisions naturally excited a prejudice against their system. The language of some leaders of the Reformation, was too violent and harsh in relation to the Roman church, and kept alive feelings of irritation and estrangement: while the principles of unbounded liberty and license of private opinion, which at length appeared amongst the Protestants, raised an additional obstacle to the progress of truth which it threatened ultimately to subvert. Fourthly, the reformed generally were in a difficult and unfavourable condition, from being apparently in opposition to the existing bishops and pastors of the church; and it was natural, and not blameable, that the people should prefer to

church, and therefore the centre of unity, has always been very great; I am nevertheless obliged to abandon the opinion of those who say, that all those who are

separated from the Roman see, have always been reputed schismatics, and ought now to be considered such.'

adhere to their pastors, and be apprehensive of being cut off from their communion. Fifth, the Synod of Trent, though not, according to the true principles of the catholic church, invested with any authority strictly binding on the conscience, had yet, according to the opinions universally prevalent amongst Romanists at that time, a good title to be considered equal in authority to the ancient œcumenical councils; and therefore, though they were mistaken in point of fact, they cannot fairly be accused of heresy in admitting its decrees, for they judged, on reasons of no inconsiderable strength, that it was irrefragable and infallible.

It appears to me, that these considerations should exculpate the members of the Roman church generally, from such pertinacious opposition to the evident truth, as would properly constitute heresy. It is true that their church is in error on several points, and even perhaps in matters of faith, but it seems that they were prevented by so many excusable circumstances from seeing the right way, that we ought not to judge too harshly, and exclude from the church of Christ so vast a multitude of believers, so many nations, and such a crowd of ancient churches.

That these churches should even now be regarded as churches of Christ, I argue for the following reasons. First, they have been always visible from the most remote antiquity, having existed in perpetual succession in the countries were they are found, and having never separated from any older Christian churches in those countries. Secondly, it is undeniable that these churches preserve unity of communion among themselves, both in principle and practice. They urge its necessity as a

See Part IV. where the is investigated. authority of the Synod of Trent

matter of religious duty, and inflict punishment on those who offend against unity. There is no evidence that they have ever been excommunicated by the majority of the catholic church, or that they have voluntarily separated from it; and if they have unjustly expelled some from their communion, it can be easily shown, that it was under the influence of pre-conceived opinions, or from ignorance. Thirdly, there cannot be a doubt of their zeal to maintain the unity of Christian truth; they acknowledge the authority of the universal church in faith, receive the apostolical tradition in principle, and endeavour in practice, to sustain to the best of their power the catholic faith. Nor is there evidence that any of their doctrines have been ever formally and clearly condemned by the catholic church. No one pretends that they have been so; and the truth is, that many of their theologians so explain and teach the doctrines in dispute, that the difference, as represented by them, is, in most points not considerable". It is true that they esteem the Synod of Trent œcumenical, and are thus tied in fact to certain errors, notwithstanding all their explanations; but I have already observed that they are excusable in this. Fourthly, they inculcate the duty of holiness, and endeavour by a certain sort of discipline and by religious exercises, to promote it, and it is certain that many men of genuine piety and excellence have adorned their communion. Fifthly, they are extended over many countries, and with the addition of the Eastern and British churches, have all the catholicity which the true church can require.

"There is scarcely a point in debate between us, in which our doctrine might not be proved

Sixthly, they possess a

simply from Romish theologians. I have observed a thousand proofs of this.

ministry descended by regular succession from the apostles. I conclude from this, that they are really to be considered churches of Christ.

SECTION III.

WHETHER THESE CHURCHES CONSTITUTE EXCLUSIVELY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CHRIST.

The exclusive claim which Romanists make for their branch of the church, asserting that it constitutes the whole catholic church, has been adduced as affording in itself a presumption of its correctness. But it is forgotten, that the Donatists and the Luciferians of old, made the very same claim for their churches, and yet no one will pretend that it afforded any presumption in their favour. The proofs by which Romish theologians attempt to sustain their position, are classed under the four heads of unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. After what has been already said of the Oriental and the British churches, it will be seen in a moment, that most of these arguments are merely baseless assertions.

UNITY.

It is asserted that the Roman church alone has not separated herself from any more ancient church. She alone has efficacious principles calculated to preserve unity, for her principles are these-that the faith of all Christians ought always to be the same; that by the force of Christ's promises there ought always to be a tribunal for the decision of controversies in the church; and that the rewards of eternal life are only to be obtained in the church. Accordingly the Roman church alone has always been inflexible in matters of faith, and never connived at schism or heresy. Her

children always obey the judgments made by her infallible authority in matters of faith. Among them no disputes exist except on matters of mere opinion, not decided by the church. In fine she alone possesses a most efficacious principle of unity, in maintaining the Roman pontiff to be by divine appointment head of the church and the centre of unity".

Answer. I deny that the Roman church alone has not separated from any more ancient church; or that she alone has the efficacious principles of unity spoken of. These are attributes equally of the Oriental and British churches, as I have shown. They do not indeed affirm, that a tribunal for the decision of controversies by irrefragable authority must always be in a state of organization, and ready to issue its decrees; because most controversies can be terminated without any such authority. But they admit that such a tribunal has been constituted before now, and will be again, whenever the Divine Head of the church shall judge it necessary to the preservation of his true faith. As to the peculiar inflexibility of the Roman church in matters of faith, it would be impossible to prove that in this respect she stands above the rest of the church; and if she does not connive at schism and heresy, it is at least certain that there are abundance of both in her communion. The existence of JANSENISM in all parts of the Roman communion up to the present day, although it was condemned as a heresy two hundred years ago; the existence of INFIDELITY and INDIFFERENCE which threaten to swallow up the faith of its