V.

2 Chron. ii. 8.

of Lebanon 1 Kings v. 6. Jehu did not 2 Kings x. Nebuchad- 30, 31.

29.

A. We might ask, in reply, "Is not the Papal CHAP. Supremacy due to the Emperor Phocas a murderer?" But, admitting for argument's sake, all that has been said against King Henry VIII. by the adversaries of the Reformation; admitting also, that he was a leading agent in effecting it; still the workman is not the work. The Temple of Solomon was constructed with cedars hewn by workmen of heathen Tyre. please God; but his Reformation did. nezzar and Ahasuerus were idolatrous; but their Dan. iii. 1Edicts for God's service were religious. The Esther ix. 92. Temple in which our Lord was presented, and in which He preached and worshipped, had been repaired by the impious and cruel Herod, who sought our Lord's life. And so with respect to the charge of sacrilege, we are not careful to defend the character and conduct of all those who had any part in the Reformation; but we bless God for His own work, and for many of the instruments He raised up for it, and for overruling and directing others to His own glory in the good of His Church."

1 PLATINA, de Vitis Pontificum, in Bonifac. III. 2 Abp. BRAMHALL, i. p. 123.

CHAPTER V.

THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND A REMOVAL OF
WHAT WAS NEW, AND A RESTORATION OF WHAT
WAS OLD.

Q. 1. Is it not sometimes said that the Church of England, as she now exists, arose at the Reforma

II.

PART tion, and is, therefore, a new Church, not more than 300 years old? How then can she be united by origin with the Catholic Church?

A. The language of the Church of England, when she reformed herself, was similar to that of the Fathers at the Nicene Council, in A. D. 325, TA APXAIA EOH KPATEITO, Let the ancient customs prevail.1

1 HAMMOND contr. Blondell, in Prælim. c. xiv. f. 13. Ecclesia Anglicana hoc se universo orbi charactere dignoscendum, hoc æquæ posteritati æstimandum proponit, quod in controversiis fidei aut praxeos decernendis, illud firmum ratumque semper habuerit, et huic basi Reformationem Britannicam niti voluerit, ut SCRIPTURIS primæ, dein, primorum sæculorum episcopis, martyribus, scriptoribus, ecclesiasticis secundæ deferantur.

The following are the testimonies of three eminently learned foreigners, Isaac CASAUBON, Hugo GROTIUS, and Dr. Hadrian SARAVIA, to the restorative and primitive character of the Reformation in ENGLAND.

CASAUBON, ad Salmas. Epist. 837, p. 489, A. D. 1612. Quod si me conjectura non fallit, totius Reformationis pars integerrima est in ANGLIA, ubi cum studio Veritatis viget studium Antiquitatis. CASAUBON, Epist. ad Cardinal. Perron. p. 494. (See below, pt. ii. ch. v. ans. 6.) Parata est ECCLESIA ANGLICANA fidei suæ reddere rationem, et rebus ipsis evincere, auctoribus Reformationis hic institutæ non fuisse propositum, novam aliquam Ecclesiam condere, ut imperiti et malevoli calumniantur; sed quæ erant collapsa, ad formam revocare quam fieri posset optimam; optimam autem judicarunt nascenti Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditam, et proximis seculis usurpatam.

HUGO GROTIUS, Epist. ad Boetselaer. (Ep. 62, p. 21, ed. 1687.) Certum est mihi croupyíav ANGLICANAM, item morem imponendi manus adolescentibus in memoriam Baptismi, auctoritatem Episcoporum et Presbyteria ex solis Pastoribus composita, multaque alia ejusmodi satis congruere institutis vetustioris Ecclesiae, a quibus in Galliâ et Belgio recessum negare non possumus. GROTIUS, Epist. ad Corvinum, Epist. p. 434. Qui illam optimam antiquitatem sequuntur ducem iis non eveniet ut multum sibi ipsis sint discolores. In ANGLICA vides quam bene processerit dogmatum noxiorum repurgatio; hac maxime de causâ, quod qui id sanctissimum negotium procurandum suscepere, nihil admiserit,

novi, nihil sui, sed ad meliora secula intentam habuere oculorum aciem.

HADRIAN SARAVIA, cited by Dr. Puller, Moderation of the Church of England, chap. xvi. p. 427. Among others that have reformed their Churches, I have often (saith Saravia) admired the wisdom of those who restored the true worship of God to the Church of ENGLAND; who so tempered themselves that they cannot be reproved for having departed from the ancient and primitive custom of the Church of God; and that moderation they have used, that by their example they have invited others to reform, and deterred none.

See also the references to the next question.

Q. 2. But you say she reformed herself; did she not thus become a new Church?

CHAP.

V.

A. No. She reformed herself, because she loved what was old, and did not love what was new.1 As was before shown, (chap. i. ii. ans. 7, note,) she was founded in the Apostolic age; at the Reformation she recovered herself from the errors into which in course of time she had fallen; and she proceeded in all this gradually and moderately, lawfully and wisely, with the joint deliberation and co-operation of her Universities, her Clergy, and the People of England in Parliament assembled; and finally, with the ratification of the Crown. The errors of the English Church were not the Church herself; and in quitting them she did not quit herself,3 any more than a man changes his skin when he cleanses it, or loses his identity when he recovers from a disease. The English Church after the Reformation was as much the English Church, as Naaman was Naaman after he had washed in the river Jordan; indeed, as "his flesh then came again," so was she restored to her 2 Kings v. 14. healthful self at the Reformation. She might then have applied to herself the language of the Bishop of Carthage, "In quo nutaverit Veritas, ad Originem Dominicam et Evangelicam et Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri Ratio unde et Ordo et Origo surrexit !"

PART 1 CASAUBON, Dedicat. Exer. Baron. p. 128, ed. 1709. II. Quâ fronte hæc novationis criminatio in Reformationis auctores aut assertores hodie confertur qui à centum fere jam annis hoc unum clamant, Reddite populis Christianis Primam Fidem! Reddite primitivæ Ecclesiæ ritus; desinite nuper inventa pro credendis necessario, et quidem sub anathemate, gregibus magni Pastoris obtrudere.-Volumus scire quæ sit vera fides: ea est, auctore Juda Apostolo, (v. 3,) quæ semel fuit tradita.

2 Archbp. LAUD against Fisher, sect. 24. In the English Reformation our Princes had their parts, and the Clergy theirs; and to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belong. That our Princes had their parts is manifest, by their calling together of the Bishops and other of the Clergy to consider of what might seem worthy of Reformation. And the Clergy did their part; for being then called together by Regal Power, they met in the National Synod of sixty-two, and the Articles then agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of state and the Royal assent.-And it is more than clear, that if the Roman Church will neither reform nor suffer reformation, it is lawful for any other particular Church to reform itself, so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly. See also Bp. PEARSON, Minor Works, ii. 233.

Archbp. WAKE, Letter to Dupin, Oct. 1, 1718, in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. Appendix iii. No. v. Tandem defatigato regno dura necessitas sua jura tuendi oculos omnium aperuit. Proponitur quæstio Episcopis ac Clero in utriusque Provinciæ Synodo congregatis, an Episcopus Romanus in Sacris Scripturis habeat aliquam majorem juridictionem in regno Angliæ quam quivis alius externus Episcopus? In partem sanam, justam, veram utriusque concilii suffragia concurrere. Quod Episcopi cum suo Clero statuerant, etiam regni Academic calculo suo approbarunt, Rex cum Parliamento sancivit: adeoque tandem, quod unice fieri poterat, sublata penitus potestas, quam nullæ leges, nulla jura, vel civilia vel ecclesiastica, intra debitos fines unquam poterant continere.

Siquam prærogativam Ecclesiæ concilia Sedis Imperialis Episcopo concesserint (etsi, cadente imperio, etiam ea prærogativa excidisse merito possit censeri ;) tamen quod ad me attinet, servatis semper Regnorum juribus, Ecclesiarum libertatibus, Episcoporum dignitate, modo in cæteris conveniatur, per me licet, suo fruatur qualicunque primatu. At in alias ecclesias dominari; episcopatum, cujus partem Christus unicuique episcopo in solidum reliquit, tantum non in solidum sibi soli vindicare; siquis ejus injustæ tyrannidi

sese opposuerit, cœlum ac terram in illius perniciem commovere; hæc nec nos unquam ferre potuimus, nec vos debetis. In hoc pacis fundamento si inter nos semel conveniatur, in cæteris aut idem sentiemus omnes, aut facile alii aliis dissentiendi libertatem absque pacis jacturâ concedemus.

3

Bp. JEWELL, Apology, c. vi. in Christian Institutes, p. 352, and ibid. p. 312, and note. HOOKER, III. 1. 10. As if we were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church of CHRIST. Bp. HARSNETT, Parl. Hist. i. 1481. We fetch not our Reformation from Wickliffe, Huss, and Luther, of latter times, but from the first 400 years next after Christ. Bp. SANDERSON, Pref. to Sermons, ? xv. Our godly forefathers had no purpose; nor had they any warrant to set up a new Religion, but to reform the old. Archbp. BRAMHALL, i. 119. We do not arrogate to ourselves a new Church, a new Religion, or new Holy Orders. Our Religion is the same as it was, our Church the same, our Holy Orders the same, differing from what they were only as a garden weeded from a garden unweeded. Bp. BULL, ii. p. 205. We maintain that our Church, and the Pastors thereof, did always acknowledge the same Rule of Faith, the same fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion, both before and since the Reformation; but with this difference, that we then professed the Rule of Faith, with the additional corruptions of the Church of Rome; but now, God be thanked, without them. 4 St. CYPRIAN. Ep. 74.

Q. 3. But since then the English Church was, as you affirm, restored at the Reformation, can we say that she could have been properly called a Church while she was infected with so many Papal corruptions as she was before it?

A. Yes; under Popery she was a Church, though an erring one. The Israelitish Church still remained a Church even under Ahab; the Jewish Church still existed under the Pharisees; the Scribes sat in Moses' seat, and were to be obeyed in all things lawful and indifferent. Jerusalem was "the Holy City," though its rulers did not receive Christ. The Christian Church existed still, when the "world groaned that it had become Arian:" The ark of God was still the ark of God, even when in the hands of the

CHAP.
V