lishman were resident in France or Spain, he ought to join in communion with the Roman churches there, and in order to do so, ought to subscribe the creed of Pius IV. in which the invocation of saints, purgatory, the papal supremacy, &c. are included. For according to you, there is no necessity to examine the truth of these doctrines: they should be received on the authority of the church. Answer. The law of unity requires that he should be willing to communicate with those churches; but he cannot lawfully subscribe or profess the creed of Pius IV. for the following reasons. (1.) This creed is proposed to him as a heretic. It is designed to exact from him the condemnation of that branch of the catholic church in which he has hitherto lived, and such an admission and condemnation cannot be made consistently with truth. Therefore the creed of Pius is to be firmly rejected. (2.) The Roman church, in exacting from him the profession of this creed, as the condition of communion with her, evidently expects that the particular doctrines therein contained shall be professed explicitly, after examination, for otherwise she would have only exacted a general adhesion to all the doctrines of the Roman church. Now it is impossible, consistently with a due regard to Christian truth, to profess explicitly all points of this creed, especially as matters of faith, because several of them are uncertain and erroneous, and disputed in many parts of the catholic church. APPENDIX I. ON JANSENISM. To those who are acquainted with the history of the Roman churches, in connexion with Jansenism, few things can appear more absurd, than the air of triumph with which modern Romish theologians vaunt the unity of their church in faith, its sole and exclusive possession of authority for the termination of religious controversies, and its freedom from all heresy. According to Bouvier, now bishop of Mans, the Roman church has perfect unity of doctrine," for whosoever denies the very least article of faith, is ipso facto separated from her, and regarded as a heretic: no opportunity is afforded for examination or disputation; learned and unlearned are bound to submit themselves immediately, heart and soul, to the same definition once pronounced, under the penalty of anathema; therefore it is impossible that unity of faith should not be preserved among them," &c. "When debates rise among 'Catholics' concerning points of faith," says Milner, "the pastors of the church...fail not to examine them by the received Rule of Faith, and to pronounce an authoritative sentence upon them. The dispute is thus quashed, and peace is restored," &c." is restored," &c." "The church never changes her doctrine, nor suffers any persons in her communion to change it, or to question any part of it," &c. The dogmatical tone of these assertions is highly imposing; but it is not sustained by facts. The truth is, that no branch of the catholic church has been more divided in points of faith, and more troubled, and exposed to a De Vera Ecclesia, p. 145. b End of Controversy, p. 102. Ibid. p. 147. Dr. Baines is equally positive in his assurance of the unity of faith in the Roman communion. "The doctrines of the catholic religion are every where the same. Not a difference will be found any single article of faith, (sic) on amongst all its countless millions". . . . "Unity like this is indispensable in any church which claims to teach the uniform and unchangeable doctrines of Christ. Need I add, that you will in vain seek for it in any other communion or sect."-Sermon at Bradford, 1825. greater perils in consequence, than the Roman, during the last two hundred years. I. Romanists commonly, I suppose, regard the followers of Jansenius and Quesnel as heretics. Their theologians, Tournely, Delahogue, Bailly, &c. &c. have clearly shown that the judgment of the whole body of pastors of the Roman obedience, has been repeatedly pronounced in condemnation of Jansenism. Without speaking of the censure of Jansenius' book, entitled Augustinus, by Urban VIII. in 1641, the five principal tenets of Jansenism, (which amount in fact to the doctrine of Calvin,) were condemned by a bull of Innocent X. in 1653; again by Alexander VII. in 1656, whose subsequent bull of 1665 prescribed a formulary, to be signed by all the clergy, receiving the above bulls and condemning the propositions in the sense of Jansenius. This was followed, in 1705, by the bull of Clement XI. confirming the former, and condemning the subterfuges of the Jansenists. In 1713 the bull Unigenitus was fulminated by Clement XI. against the doctrines of Quesnel, a Jansenist; this was confirmed by the bull Pastoralis Officii, the papal Synod of Rome 1725, and by other bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. of succeeding pontiffs. The Romish theologians prove very clearly, that these various bulls were addressed to the universal church, that they were received by the infinite majority of the Roman bishops, that in consequence all who held Jansenist doctrines were heretics, that Jansenism is in fact a damnable heresy, &c. II. Notwithstanding all this, it is a matter of absolute certainty, that this very Jansenist heresy has, in opposition to all these anathemas and condemnations, and in spite of the persecution of the temporal powers, continued to exist for nearly two hundred years; and what is more, that it has existed all along in the very heart of the Roman church itself. Yes, it has perpetuated itself in all parts of that church, sometimes covertly, sometimes openly, exciting uneasiness, tumults, innovations, reforms, persecutions, schisms, but always adhering to the Roman communion with invincible tenacity. It is in vain that, sensible of so great an evil, the Roman church struggles and resorts to every expedient to free herself from its presence: the loathed and abhorred heresy perpetuates itself in her vitals, and infects her bishops, her priests, her monks, her universities; and depressed for a time by the arm of civil power, gains the ascendancy at length, influences the councils of kings, overthrows the Jesuits, produces religious innovations of the most extraordinary character, and inflicts infinite and permanent injury and disgrace on the cause of the Roman church. The Jansenist party is thus described by the historian of this church in the eighteenth century. "Active, intriguing, obstinate, it produced a crowd of writings which wounded charity and perpetuated dissensions. Condemned by the body of pastors, it took shelter in the arms of the secular power, and found support in some of its branches. . . The continual declamations in which they indulged, against the pope and the bishops, abased the ecclesiastical power. The obstinacy with which they sustained false miracles, led Deists to cast doubts even on those which support Christianity. This party offers to the impartial observer, all the features of a real sect... the church was troubled wherever it existed; she was only tranquil where it existed not. During fifty years it rent the church of France, producing a multitude of incidental disputes, fomenting deplorable illusions, exciting a spirit of opposition, of VOL. I. Y mutiny, and slander against the bishops. From France this spirit passed to other countries; and, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, Germany and Italy saw it develope itself in their bosom, under the protection of some deceived princes, or some seduced ministers. To the same influence must be attributed the changes introduced into the schools of those countries, the errors of their canonists, the reforms attempted at Vienna, Florence, and Naples, the instruction of the university of Pavia, so many writings against the holy see, and that secret but active conspiracy to effect universal alteration in the church, and to place it under the secular armd." Such was the boasted unity of the Roman church during the eighteenth century! III. I proceed to verify these observations by facts, and to show that Jansenism has continued always to exist in the communion of the Roman church. I shall, in the first instance, remark its condition during the seventeenth century, and afterwards proceed to trace its progress in the various countries of Europe, from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the present age. The Jansenist party was soon headed, or supported, by many of the most distinguished men in France; as Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, Launoy, whose writings, even at the present day, are cited by all Romanists, as among the most learned which their church has ever produced. The strength of their party was shown at once, by the letter of eleven French bishops to Innocent X. in 1653, imploring him not to condemn the work of Jansenius. The divisions were not terminated even by the bull of Alexander VII. in 1665, d Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire Eccles. xviii. siècle. Préface, iv-vi. This work is com mended by Cardinal Pacca in |