unity than now is."-No. 27. p. 2.-Bishop Cosin on Transubstantiation.

11. "It is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendous doctrine [transubstantiation]; and it is not true, what they so often and so confidently affirm, that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it being it was not so much as heard of in the Church for many ages, and hath been but lately approved by the Pope's authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent."Ibid. p. 16.

:

12. "The history of the Papists is this. Many centuries ago, strange and corrupt notions and practices prevailed in many of the Churches in Europe. Among others, people thought the Pope or Bishop of Rome was gifted with authority from Heaven to control all the branches of the Church on earth, and that his word was to be of more weight than even the Holy Scriptures themselves. But about three hundred years ago, the Bishops of the Church of England saw these errors in their true light."-No. 30. p. 5.

13. "Clericus. Say more definitely what the charge against me is. Laicus. That your religious system, which I have heard some persons style the Apostolical, and which I so name by way of designation, is like that against which our forefathers protested at the Reformation.

C. I will admit it, i. e., if I may reverse your statement, and say that the Popish system resembles it. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, seeing that all corruptions of the truth must be like the truth which they corrupt, else they would not persuade mankind to take them instead of it?"-No. 38. p. 1.

14. "Be assured of this,- -no party will be more opposed to our doctrine, if it ever prospers and makes noise, than the Roman party. This has been proved before now. In the seventeenth century, the theology of the divines of the English Church was substantially the same as ours is; and it experienced the full hostility of the Papacy. It was the true Via Media: Rome sought to block up that way, as fiercely as the Puritans. History tells us this. In a few words, then, before we separate, I will state some of my irreconcileable differences with Rome as she is; and in stating her errors, I will closely follow the order observed by Bishop Hall in his treatise on The Old Religion, whose Protestantism is unques

tionable.

I consider that it is unscriptural to say with the Church of Rome, that we are justified by inherent righteousness.'

That it is unscriptural that 'the good works of a man justified do truly merit eternal life.'

That the doctrine of transubstantiation, as not being revealed, but a theory of man's devising, is profane and impious.

That the denial of the cup to the laity, is a bold and unwarranted encroachment on their privileges as CHRIST's people.

That the sacrifice of masses, as it has been practised in the Roman

Church, is without foundation in Scripture or antiquity, and therefore blasphemous and dangerous.

That the honour paid to images is very full of peril, in the case of the uneducated, that is, of the great part of Christians.

That indulgences, as in use, are a gross and monstrous invention of later times.

That the received doctrine of purgatory is at variance with Scripture, cruel to the better sort of Christians, and administering deceitful comfort to the irreligious.

That the practice of celebrating divine service in an unknown tongue is a great corruption.

That forced confession is an unauthorized and dangerous practice. That the direct invocation of saints is a dangerous practice, as tending to give, often actually giving, to creatures the honour and reliance due to the Creator alone.

That there are not seven sacraments.

That the Roman doctrine of Tradition is unscriptural.

That the claim of the Pope to be universal bishop is against Scripture and antiquity.

I might add other points in which also I protest against the Church of Rome, but I think it enough to make my confession in Hall's order, and so leave it."-Ibid. p. 11.

15. "Rome has to confess her Papal corruptions, and her cruelty towards those who refuse to accept them."—No. 8. p. 4.

16. "The Church has in a measure forgotten its own principles, as declared in the sixteenth century; nay, under stranger circumstances, as far as I know, than have attended any of the errors and corruptions of the Papists. Grievous as are their declensions from primitive usage, I never heard in any case of their practice directly contradicting their services; whereas we go on lamenting once a year the absence of discipline in our Church, yet do not even dream of taking any one step towards its restoration."-No. 41. P. 1.

17. "Do you not suppose that there are multitudes both among clergy and laity at the present day, who disparage not indeed CHRIST's merits, but the sacraments He has appointed? and if so, is not their error so far the same in kind as that of the Romish churchthe preferring Abana and Pharpar to the waters of Jordan! . . . Happily we are not as yet so corrupted as at the era of the Reformation; . yet is not the mode of viewing the subject I refer to, a growing one, and how does it differ from the presumption of the Papists ? In both cases the power of CHRIST's sacraments is denied; in the one case by the unbelief of restlessness and fear, in the other by the unbelief of profaneness."-Ibid. p. 2.

...

18. " Our Reformers in the sixteenth century did not touch the existing documents of doctrine; there was no occasion; they kept the creeds as they were; but they added protests against the corruptions of faith, worship, and discipline, which had grown up round them.”—Ibid. p. 3.

19. "While Dissenters are exclusive on the one hand, Papists are so on the other. The council of Trent converted certain theological opinions into (what they maintained to be) Catholic verities. This was wrong, whoever did it; but it is some comfort to find, that the body that thus became uncatholic, was not the Church Catholic itself." No. 61. p. 3.

20. "This case [departure from antiquity] had been instanced even before Vincentius's time, in the history of the Arians. In our own day it is fulfilled in the case of the Church of Rome, which indeed has not erred vitally, as the Arians did, nor has infected with its errors the whole Church, yet has to answer for very serious corruptions, which it has not merely attempted, but managed to establish in a great part of the Churches of Christendom. Here then apply Vincentius's test-Antiquity; and the Church of Rome is convicted of unsoundness, as fully as those other sects among us which have already been submitted to the trial."-Records of the Church, No. XXIV. p. 3.

a

21. " How miserably contrasted are we with the One Holy Apostolic Church of old, which serving with one consent,' spoke pure language!' And now that Rome has added, and we have omitted in the catalogue of sacred doctrines, what is left to us but to turn our eyes sorrowfully and reverently to those ancient times, and, with Bishop Ken, make it our profession to live and die in the faith of the Catholic Church before the division of the East and West?" -Ibid. No. XXV. p. 11.

22. "The following are selected by way of specimen of those practical grievances to which Christians are subjected in the Roman communion:-1. The denial of the cup to the laity. 2. The necessity of the priest's intention to the validity of the sacraments. 3. The necessity of confession. 4. The unwarranted anathemas of the Roman Church. 5. Purgatory. 6. Invocation of saints. 7. Images." -No. 71. p. 9, et seq.

23. "We cannot consent to confine ourselves to a mere reference to the text of the Tridentine decrees, as Romanists would have us, apart from the teaching of their doctors, and the practice of the Church, which are surely the legitimate comment upon them.... The conduct of the Catholics during the troubles of Arianism affords us a parallel case. They interpreted the language of the Creeds by the professed opinions of their framers. They would not allow error to be introduced into the Church by an artifice....Apply this to the case of Romanism. We are not indeed allowed to take at random the accidental doctrine or practice of this or that age, as an explanation of the decrees of the Latin Church; but when we see clearly that certain of these decrees have a natural tendency to produce certain evils, when we see those evils actually existing far and wide in that Church, in different nations and ages, existing especially where the system is allowed to act most freely-under such circumstances surely it is not unfair to consider our case parallel to that of the Catholics

during the ascendancy of Arianism—and to apprehend that, did we express our assent to the creed of Pope Pius, we should find ourselves bound hand and foot—to the corruptions of those who profess it.”—Ibid. p. 15, et seq.

24. “Should it be inquired whether this admission of incompleteness in our own system does not lead to projects of change and reform, on the part of individuals, it must be answered plainly in the negative. Such an admission has but reference to the question of abstract perfection; as a practical matter, it will be our wisdom as individuals to enjoy what God's good providence has left us, lest, striving to obtain more, we lose what we still possess.”—Ibid. p. 35.

25. “One great unfairness practised by Roman controversialists has been to adduce in behalf of their own peculiarities, doctrines or customs of the primitive Church, which resembling them in appearance are really of a different character. Thus because the early Fathers spoke of the Holy Communion in such reverent and glowing terms, as became those who understood its real nature and virtue, they have tried to make it appear that they believed in their own theory of transubstantiation. Whereas they spoke of it as a commemorative sacrifice, they have thence taken occasion to make it a real and proper sacrifice. The doctrine of ecclesiastical penances they have converted into the theory of satisfactions to Almighty GOD for sins committed. The existence of Apostolical tradition in the early Church, in behalf of the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and the like, has been made a pretence for introducing so-called Apostolical traditions concerning various unfounded opinions in faith and practice."-No. 72. p. 1.

26. "Of course there is no reason why the Church might not, in the use of her discretion, limit as well as select the portions of the inspired volume which were to be introduced into her devotions ; but there were serious reasons why she should not defraud her children of their portion of meat in due season;' and it would seem as if the eleventh, or at least the twelfth century, a time fertile in other false steps in religion, must be charged also, as far as concerns Rome and its more intimate dependencies, with the partial removal of the light of the written word from the sanctuary."-No. 75. p. 7.

27.

Haymo's edition, which was introduced into the Roman Church by Nicholas III. A. D. 1278, is memorable for another and still more serious fault. Graver and sounder matter being excluded, apocryphal legends of saints were used to stimulate and occupy the popular mind; and a way was made for the use of those invocations to the Virgin and other saints, which heretofore were unknown in public worship. The addresses to the Blessed Mary in the Breviary, as it is at present constituted, are such as the following: the Ave Mary, before commencing every office through the day, and at the end of compline; at the end of Lauds and Vespers, an Antiphon invocatory of the Virgin; the Officium B. Mariæ on the Sabbath or Saturday,

and sundry other offices, containing hymns and antiphons in her honour. These portions of the Breviary carry with them their own plain condemnation, in the judgment of an English Christian; no commendation of the general structure and matter of the Breviary itself will have any tendency to reconcile him to them, &c. ... These usages [Invocations] certainly now do but sanction and encourage that direct worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, which is the great practical offence of the Latin Church.”—Ibid. p. 9.

28. "They [the Invocations] are here given in order to show clearly, as a simple inspection of them will suffice to do, the utter contrariety between the Roman system, as actually existing, and our own; which, however similar in certain respects, are in others so at variance, as to make any attempt to reconcile them together in their present state, perfectly nugatory. Till Rome moves towards us, it is quite impossible that we should move towards Rome; however closely we may approximate to her in particular doctrines, principles, or views."-Ibid. p. 23.

29. "And further still, as regards the doctrine of purgatorial suffering, there have been for many ages in the Roman Church gross corruptions of its own doctrine, untenable as that doctrine is even by itself. The decree of the Council of Trent acknowledges the fact. Now we believe that those corruptions still continue; that Rome has never really set herself in earnest to eradicate them. The pictures of Purgatory so commonly seen in countries in communion with Rome, the existence of Purgatorian societies, the means of subsistence accruing to the clergy from belief in it, afford a strange contrast to the simple wording and apparent innocence of the decree by which it is made an article of faith. It is the contrast between poison in its lifeless seed, and the same developed, thriving, and rankly luxuriant in the actual plant."-No. 79. p. 3.

30. [As to the tendency to substitute the Virgin as the object of religious worship.] "The great Catholic doctrine of the Trinity being so strongly established among them [the Romanists] by entering into all their devotional forms and creeds, that it could not be shaken; human depravity has sought out an opening for itself under another shape. It is by this means the natural heart lowers the object of its worship to its own frailty."-No. 80. p. 80.

31. "The Romish Church corrupted and marred the Apostolic doctrine in two ways-first, by the error of Transubstantiation, secondly, by that of Purgatory; and in both there occurs that peculiar corruption of the administrators of the Romish Church, that they countenance so much more of profitable error than in their abstract system they acknowledge."-No. 81. On the Eucharistic Sacrifice, p. 7.

32.

66

These false notions in themselves aggrandized the character of the priesthood: and as such, it was part of the unhappy policy