which it will appear, that the cases are very different; I affirm, now, that it is incumbent upon those who thus argue, to shew that our church requires such terms of communion as are actually sinful; because we and every protestant church do most positively declare and hold, and it will be my business, and is part of my professed design, to shew that this is most strongly the case with the church of Rome. This once shewn, it follows, of course, that, if the church of Rome had ever so much or so entirely been our church, if we had been born, indeed, within her pale and under her jurisdiction, still the terms of her communion being contrary to the true faith, and, of course, endangering our salvation, it would have been our duty to withdraw ourselves from her fellowship, to break off her yoke from our necks. The fact is, however, that it cannot, with any shew of reason, be pretended that the Roman pontiff ever had a right to exercise any sort of jurisdiction in this kingdom, that he was the head, or in any way the governor of this church. At the reformation, therefore, the church of England did only reassert that independence which belonged to her in the beginning, and which, neither to her nor to any national church can be denied. Again, in recognizing the king of this realm for her head, as supreme in ecclesiastical as well as temporal causes, she only followed the example

1

of the primitive church, which, from the moment that it pleased God to give her Christian emperors, submitted herself to their authority, and owned them for her sovereigns. And this lasted for several centuries, without any pretence to the contrary advanced by any one pope1.

There will appear no doubt of this, if we take ever so cursory a survey of what was the practice of the first ages, in which we shall find the absolute independency of bishops established in the first instance, and afterwards only limited by their being made subject to the superintend ence of patriarchs or metropolitans within their several provinces, and to the emperor as the head of all. Their independency was so absolute at the beginning, that it extended to all matters whatever, relating to the internal economy of the church, to rites and ceremonies, to the form of prayer which was used, nay, to the particular terms of the creeds, with all that was necessary in order to enforce and to preserve uniformity. According to the practice then

12 See the proofs of this most amply detailed in Barrow's Treatise on the Supremacy of the Pope. Supposition vi.

13 See for this, Bingham, B. ii. C. 6. § 2 and 3. There is a remarkable passage to this effect, from Austin, there cited, where Casulanus is exhorted to submit, in all indifferent matters, to those who were the rulers of the church where he was. "Si concilio "méo acquiescis, episcopo tuo in hâc re noli resistere et quod facit ipse sine ullo scrupulo vel disceptatione sectare." Aust. Epist.

pursued and approved by all the orthodox, every Christian was bound to join in communion with the particular church within whose limits. he was resident, and to conform to all her ordinances, under the penalty of being considered as a schismatic.

Such was the state of every church within herself, and such her constitution with respect to individual members. As far as this goes, therefore, it is clear that the church of England was fully authorized in the claims which she made for herself at the reformation, and in the manner in which she established and gave effect to those claims.

But I admit, that there was also another and a larger sort of communion, according to which all the churches were bound in close fellowship with each other, and constant correspondence was kept up between them. Indeed, this was a consequence of that unity which our Lord commanded to be observed between all his disciples; so that the several particular churches, however, almost of necessity, having separate and independent rites and customs, yet agreeing

ad Casulanum. Vol. ii. p. 52. Ed. Bened. The question was about fasting on a Sunday or not, and he cites the advice giyen to himself when young, by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, that, for avoiding offence, he should follow the custom of every church to which he "Ad quamcunque ecclesiam veneritis, ejus morem servate si scandalum pati non vultis aut facere." Ib. pp. 61, 62.

came.

66

in all essential and fundamental points made up the one catholic church of Christ. It may also be well conceived, how desirable, and of what importance it must have been to keep up such a union and correspondence in those days of persecution, when, as well the governors as the individual members of the several churches had such pressing need of advice and consolation and support under the tribulations and dangers to which they were almost daily exposed. It followed also from this sort of connexion that every bishop, although only ruling his own church, had a concern, and felt an interest in seeing that those articles of faith, by the consenting in which the connexion was kept up, and made to answer its proper end, should be preserved pure and inviolate; and this gave him a warrant to interpose, with his advice and remonstrance, whenever, in any of the churches, he perceived a disposition to run into heresy, and to corrupt the genuine doctrines of the gospel. And this was the sort, and the only sort of interference, which, in the beginning, was allowed to any bishop, whether the bishop of Rome, or any other, in common with his fellows. The dignity of that see, indeed, owing to the opulence and extent of the metropolis to which it belonged, might give a particular weight to his opinion, but still he was only considered as a simple individual, among many who

were his equals". Nor did this or any other circumstance give to him more than to any other

14 There is a remarkable instance of this interference in one of Cyprian's Epistles (the Iviith) where the bishop of Carthage applies to his brother bishop of Rome, on account of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who had joined himself to Novatian, and so was guilty of schism and heresy; in which case, it, as he says, belonged to them upon whom the government of the church was rested, to interfere and take order. "Cui rei nostrum est consulere et subvenire, frater "carissime, qui divinam clementiam cogitantes, et gubernandæ "Ecclesiæ libram tenentes, sic censuram vigoris peccatoribus ex

hibemus," &c. And he says, lower down, that, on that account it was, that so many bishops were joined together, in order, that if one of their body should fall into heresy, or destroy the flock, the others should come in, like diligent and charitable shepherds, and keep together the scattered sheep of Christ. "Ideirco enim, fra"ter carissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiæ glutino

atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro "hæresin facere et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, sub"veniant cæteri, et quasi pastores utiles et misericordes oves domi"nicas in gregem colligant." And he illustrates this by two instances; as that in the case of a haven becoming insecure, or a house on the road being infested with robbers, how desirable it must be for the ship to have a better port, which it might put into, and the traveller to have another inn more safe, where he might be lodged without danger. Again, he urges, that, although there are many shepherds, yet there is but one flock. "Etsi multi pastores

"

sumus unum gregem pascimus." In consequence, he presscs him to write letters into the province, and to the people at Arles, in order that Marcian may be deposed, and another placed in his stead. Baluze, in his notes on this passage truly observes, from Cicero, that, where there is room for conjecture, ingenious men will think very differently, according to their prepossessions. And, 30 he says it has happened here. For, the Romanists urge this place as shewing that Stephen was referred to as head of the church, and as having power to excommunicate or depose any bishop, and Baronius boldly asserts, that, neither the bishops nor the people at