were enjoined to form their judgment strictly by Scripture and the First four General Councils, (Hook's Church Dict., Art. "Councils.")

VII.

ECUMENICAL v. GENERAL.

The "General Councils" discussed in Art. 21, are not these four Ecumenicals, but such as that of Trent, A.D. 1545—63; which was "General" only as concerned the Latin Church, being restricted to representatives from different portions of the Roman Communion.

VIII. POWERS OF CHURCH CATHOLIC. (a) “TO DECREE Rites and CeremoNIES,” (Art. 20).

1. To establish usages, de novo; e.g., Infant Baptism, with Cross and Trine Affusion; Confirmation; Female Communicants; Ring in Marriage; Sunday; Canon of Scripture.

2. To abolish usages already existing, even of Divine Appointment or allowance; e.g., Sabbath Day; Feet Washing; Love Feasts; Evening Communions; Kiss of Peace; Slavery; Polygamy.

(b)

"AUTHORITY IN
(Art. 20).

CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH,"

1. To settle disputed points; e.g., the time for keeping Easter.

2. To define true doctrine; e.g., as to the Two Natures of Christ; or the Divinity and Personality of the Holy Ghost.

3. To condemn heresies; e.g., of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches.

4. To formulate Creeds, binding upon the Whole Body, for instruction in truth, and protection from error; e.g., Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian.

F

IX. THE EARLY CHURCH.

These powers were largely exercised by the Early Church, especially in the thirty years immediately succeeding the Ascension, during which period it was in full working order, with Government, Priesthood, Creeds, Sacraments, Liturgy, &c., before a single line of the New Testament had been written; having been fully instructed by Christ in the "Great Forty Days," when He spoke of the "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (Acts i. 3.)

X. PARTICULAR (a) CHURCHES AND (b) COUNCILS.

(a) Represented by Provincial Councils or National Synods.

(b) Authorized to legislate locally in matters of local interest, not defined and settled by the four Ecumenicals; e.g., Self-Reformation; Dipping, or Pouring, in Holy Baptism; Leavened or Unleavened Bread in Holy Eucharist, &c. (Art. 34)

(c) Not authorized to legislate universally, i.e. for the whole Catholic Church, or to deal with points already settled by the four Ecumenicals.

(d) Hence Rome had no authority to add to the Faith in the ninth century by thrusting the "Filioque" into the Nicene Creed, &c. &c.; or to take away from it in the 15th by withdrawing the Cup from the Laity.

(e) Hence also, the English Church not only had ample warrant for the restoration of the Cup to her own Communion at the Reformation, but would have grievously failed in her duty had she acted otherwise.

XI.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE CUP.

ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON.

Pro. 1. Reverential fear of spilling the "Precious Blood;" or other accident.

2. Philosophical ideas connected with Transubstantiation; e.g. that the Consecrated Bread must contain "Sanguis" as well as "Corpus."

Con. 1. The half of what Christ commanded as His one special Service for all the Faithful, cannot possibly be the same as the whole.

2. Grace of "Refreshing," or Gladdening, lost certainly.

3. Doubt as to how much loss is sustained by this putting asunder of what Christ deliberately and of set purpose joined together.

XII. TWO EVIL RESULTS FROM THIS ROMAN FALSITY.

(a) Decay of Spiritual life and moral tone in nations under Roman sway, e.g. Italy, France, Spain, &c.; and consequent degradation of the people.

(7) Impulse given to "Heresy" or choosing for oneself, i.e., the Private Judgment theory of Dissent; which regards the "Faith once for all delivered to the saints," (S. Jude 3,) not as a Deposit of Truth to be firmly believed, and a Pearl of Price to be reverently guarded as a sacred trust (1 Tim. vi. 20); but as a mere bundle of "open questions" to be noisily wrangled over; a Record of doubtful meaning, to be interpreted

F 2

by each man for himself, and treated like a plastic lump of coarse clay; i.e., wrested into any odd shape and put to any base use that the ignorance or perversity of its readers may devise from day to day (2 Pet. iii. 16). Hence the proverb, "Quot homines, tot sententiæ," "As many opinions as men," so strongly protested against in Art. 34.

XIII.

"PRIVATE JUDGMENT THEORY:" ITS DOWNWARD TENDENCY.

The Bible, on this theory, having no one definite meaning, has not, and cannot have, any value at all as a Guide Book; and consequently God becomes the "Author of confusion." Hence the path is short and easy to rejection both of Book and Giver; and Rome must bear the blame of having done much, by her "free handling" of this and other matters, to prepare the way for "Low" views of the Church in the first place, "Broad" views in the second, and "No" views at all in the third; in other words, for Dissent, Scepticism, and Infidelity.

XIV. DESERTION TO ROME OR DISSENT.

Foolish and perilous, as well as cowardly and sinful. (S. John xvii. 21; Rom. xvi. 17; S. Jude 19; Acts xxvii. 31).

Moreover, the English Church has in her keeping all the Divine Gifts that are necessary to salvation,

"the means of grace and hopes of glory ;" and is ready and willing to give of her abundance to all who ask. Rome, on the other hand, will not, and Dissent cannot, do this. Rome gives only Half of that Whole which Christ pronounces needful (S. John vi. 53); and Dissent, having deserted

the Apostolic Fellowship (Acts ii. 42) has lost the Divine Promise (S. Matt. xxviii. 20), and can give none at all.

Hence, as a Branch withers away when its sap from the parent stem has dried up, the Religious Separatists of one generation become the Irreligious of the next, by a process of gradual and unconscious, but natural and inevitable, deterioration ; and "waxing worse and worse” (2 Tim. iii. 13,) tread the downhill road, step by step, to the very bottom.