66

"canonists, I despise them utterly.' Are all the school-doctors and canonists now become intestabiles, i. e. so far out of credit, so infamous and so

66

66

66

vile, that they may not be allowed to bear witness? "Whose then are they? Are they not all M. Harding's own doctors? Is he now ashamed of his "own? And yet will he suddenly condemn them "all, every one, by one sentence, Abbots, Bishops, "Archbishops, Decrees, Decretals, Cardinals, Saints, "and Popes and all together! But we must

66

pardon M. Harding; he dealeth indifferently "and is nothing partial. For even with the like "reverence he useth all the ancient Doctors of "the Church, and others of later time, that fight • Tertullian,' "on his side, and are allied to him. "he saith, was an heretic, and wrote this or that "in defence of his heresy.' 'St. Cyprian,' he saith, "had an ill cause, and defended a falsehood, and

66

6

6

was driven to the very same shifts whereunto all "hereticks are driven.' 'It seemeth,' saith he, 'St. "Jerome was deceived by a rumour,' &c. &c. Thus, we see, M. Harding has a commission to control "all manner of Doctors whatsoever, Greeks, Latins,

66

66

66

1

Old, New, his own and others, if they come not readily to his purpose. Nicolaus Cusanus saith, 'Pope Eugenius tells us this thing is true, if he "will have it true, and not otherwise.""

66 6

The Anglican Divines, then, whom we follow as the

1 De Concordan. 1. ii. C. 20.

expositors of the meaning of our Church, differ from Rome in the following points. They appeal to the authority of the Universal Church as long as it was one; Rome to the Church, ancient or modern, in communion with herself: they, to the consent of the Early Church, however it be ascertained; Rome, to the decision of Councils confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: they rest on it as bearing testimony to an Apostolic origin; Rome, as the result of her own infallibility they hold that the Universal Church is only a witness to the Catholic truth, and has no power of forming new articles of faith; Rome, that even the Modern Church in communion with herself, has that power: they, that the Church is a witness; Rome, that she is a judge: they, that the more recent may not contradict the ancient; Rome, that she may, and may correct them: they, that the meaning of Holy Scripture, of which the Church is the interpreter, must always be one and the same, to be collected from "the agreement of the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops;" Rome, that the Church may, under different circumstances, affix different meanings, and that the meaning last affixed supersedes the former: they, in a word, seek for a

1 See the remarkable extract from Card. Cusa in Mr. Newman's Romanism, &c. Lect. 2. "On Romanism as neglectful of Antiquity," p. 97, note. Here a few sentences may be extracted; his task is to defend the Council of Constance for refusing the cup to the laity, contrary to our Lord's institution and the practice of antiquity, as itself acknowledged. "Let it not disturb thee, that "at different times, the rites of sacrifices and even of sacraments

genuine Apostolic tradition, to be established by the consent of all times, all Churches, and the great Doctors of all those Churches; Rome, (like UltraProtestants,) follows modern traditions, assumes them to be Apostolic, simply because she holds them, and she is infallible; and so was the ancient Church, in communion with Rome; and so she must have taught then the same as Rome does now. And thus she brings in her modern corruptions, against which the appeal to Christian Antiquity is the surest safeguard. Scriptural language she can (as did the enemy of mankind to whom she is partially in bondage,) plausibly apply: many of her chief corruptions, she (in common with Ultra-Protestants) rests on the language of Scripture, and (in common also with them) in contradiction to the ancient Church; but the appeal to Antiquity she cannot elude. It is too full, too cir

66 are found to differ, the truth abiding the same; and that "Scriptures are adapted to the times, and variously understood, "being explained at one time in conformity to the rite then "universally prevalent, and again their meaning being changed "when the rite is changed. For Christ to whom the Father hath "delivered the kingdom of heaven and earth, in both uses a sort of "economy, and either by secret inspiration, or by a clearer expla"nation, suggests what suits each distinct period. Wherefore if "the Church's interpretation of the same Gospel precept be diffe"rent now from heretofore, yet this sense now current in the "Church, being inspired for the use of the Church, as being suited "for the times, is to be accepted as the way of salvation. It is therefore an absurd argument, to try to object to an universal "rite of the [Roman] Church out of the writings of their pre"decessors."

66

し

cumstantial. No, my Lord, they only who suspect Antiquity, because it is opposed to modern and private doctrines of their own, need fear committing themselves and their Church to it; we have full confidence in our Church, and know that she can stand the test of primitive doctrine, and that Rome cannot. Rome may entice the unwary by the name of Antiquity, but she dare not pledge herself to the reality: if in name she seem to take the same ground as the Anglican Divines, she must differ from them. Or to look upon it in another way; Rome differs from us, as to the authority which she ascribes to tradition; she regards it as coordinate, our divines as subordinate as to the way in which it is to be employed; she, as independent of Holy Scripture, our's, as subservient to, and blended with, it; as to its limits, she supposes that the Church of Rome has a power of imposing new articles, necessary to be believed for salvation; our's, that all such articles were comprized at first in the Creed, and that the Church has only the power of clearing, defining, and expounding these fixed articles: as to the office of the Church therein ; Rome supposes that the Church may select of dif ferent opinions that which she judges right; our's, that she must take that which is attested by universal consent as to the power of the Church; Rome supposes that the Church may stamp that as certain, which before was really uncertain; our's, that she only ascertains that to be certain which in fact was so, but had not formally been pronounced to be so:

as to the source of that power; Rome places it in her own assumed infallibility; our's, in the office of the Church, as the depository of, and witness to, the traditions confided to her: so then, beyond the name of tradition, the Church of Rome and our Divines differ in every thing besides.

It might yet be satisfactory to state two or three points bearing upon this subject:

1st, (lest the name of tradition should appear to imply an indefinite body of truth,) as to the subjects comprehended in the traditions acknowledged by the Church. These, as drawn out by the learned Dean Field', are (1) the number and names of the authors of books divine and canonical, (2) that summary of the chief heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Apostles' Creed, (3) "The form of Christian doctrine and explication of the several parts thereof, which the first Christians, receiving "of the same Apostles that delivered to them the 'Scriptures, commended to posterities." [Whence it was enabled to expand the Apostles' Creed into the Nicene and Athanasian.] (4) "Rites not ex"pressly contained in Scripture, though the grounds,

66

66

66

reasons, or causes of their necessity, or benefit are; "as Infant Baptism." (5) The particular application of things generally ordained; " of this sort, many think, the observation of the Lenten fast, the fast "of the fourth and sixth days of the week, and

66

1

Of the Church, p. 375, extracted more fully in the Catena above quoted, p. 12—15.