in 426, when the greatest Father of the Church was one of them, anticipated and pleaded the cause of the English Church in 1534. It is precisely the same claim made in both instances, viz., that these two laws should be observed on which the stability of the government of the whole Church Catholic rests; as Thomassin remarks; first, that the action of the Bishop in his own diocese in matters proper to that diocese, should not be interfered with; secondly, that the action of the Metropolitan with his suffragans in matters belonging to his province should be left equally free. "Who ever accuses the African Bishops and S. Augustine of schism, for maintaining a right which had come down to them from all antiquity, was possessed and acted on all over the Church, &c.? This was all that the Church of England claimed: she based her claim on the unvarying practice of the whole Church, during at least the first six centuries." (p. 64.)

The well known work of S. Vincent, of Lerins, we should also observe, may be adduced as an irrefragable argument against the claims of Rome, since the whole argument is to prove the authority of Catholic tradition over private judgment; and not a word is said about the Bishop of Rome as being exempted from the authority of universal consent a fact so fatal to the claims of Rome, that De Maistre, Moehler, and Mr. Newman, have directed their chief assaults against it.

S. Chrysostom and other Fathers are equally strong in asserting the unity and independence of the Episcopate, but we must pass from the sentiments of Fathers and the decrees of provincial Synods, to, if possible, the more incontrovertible evidence of the acts of General Councils. Having already noticed that of Nicæa, let us pass to the Council of Ephesus; but in order to appreciate the full force of the evidence to be adduced therefrom, a few of the circumstances which led to the summoning of the Council, must be detailed.

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, being reported to have denied the title of "Mother of God" to the Virgin Mary, which was of course tantamount to dividing into two the person of CHRIST, Pope Cœlestine, as holding the first rank in the Episcopate, and watchful according to his rank, over the affairs of the whole Church, though without any independent control over them, requests S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to send him a particular statement of the doctrine broached by Nestorius. In sending this, Cyril requests Coelestine to condescend to unfold his judgment in the matter, that he may clearly know whether he ought to communicate with one holding such a doctrine. The Pope approves the letter of Cyril, condemns the heresy of Nestorius as " open blasphemy," and decrees that he should be deprived of the Episcopate and Communion, unless within ten days from the date of the announcing of the sentence, he openly rejects this faithless inno

vation, which endeavours to separate what Scripture joineth together, that is, the Person of CHRIST.

It is passages in the Church's history like this which are triumphantly claimed by Romanists as proving the Pope's supremacy, whereas it is to his primacy that such passages belong. The subsequent events connected with this Council, will show that these functions are not only distinct from, but directly opposed to each other. Notwithstanding the decree of the Pope, a general Council is summoned at Ephesus by the command of the son of Arcadius, the younger Theodosius, in order that the charge made against Nestorius may be fully investigated; and although the Council finally confirms the sentence of Cœlestine, the subject is discussed as freely as if that sentence had never been delivered; which of course could not have been, had the Pope been then known as the supreme head of the Church, from whose judgment there was no appeal. But the Council of Ephesus is, in other respects, a still more decided witness against this pretension, since it is this very Council which re-asserts the jurisdiction of Metropolitans over their own provinces, and further requires, "that if any one has so invaded a province, and brought it by force under himself, he shall restore it." It need not be added, that this celebrated Canon, while directly opposed to the Papal claim, fully justifies the English Church from withdrawing from the communion of Rome; the English Church having never, of right, belonged to the Roman Patriarchate.

The great S. Leo, who filled the Metropolitan See of the West nine years after the council of Ephesus, and at that eventful period when the Roman empire was being broken up by the barbarians, high as he exalted the claims of his See, falls far below the pretensions of the medieval and present times. At the same time it must be admitted that we find in his proceedings, backed by the imperial power of Valentinian, the germ of the Papal supremacy, especially in his interference in the deposition of Celidonius Bishop of Besançon, by his Metropolitan S. Hilary of Arles in a provincial Synod. But however, chiefly from the unsettled state of the times, the Pope might tyrannize over the Western Church, his claims were stoutly resisted in the East, both by provincial Synods and by individual Bishops, so that the Romanist cannot claim S. Leo as the supreme head of the Catholic Church, even in times so far removed from Apostolic times as the end of the fourth century.

Again, the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, at which 630 Bishops were assembled, afford another striking instance of the independence of a General Council upon the judgment of the Bishop of Rome. The heresy of Eutyches, though already condemned by S. Leo, was nevertheless freely discussed by the Council, and the Pope's judgment confirmed; and from the fact of a General Council being necessary to confirm a judgment of the Pope it is plain, that that judgment was not the ipse dixit of a supreme

authority. Besides, in this same Council, a Canon was passed altogether subversive of that notion. It was determined that the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, new Rome, should hold the same rank as old Rome. As might be expected, Leo, by his legates, opposed this Canon; but it is observable that his opposition was, strange to say, grounded upon a violatoin of the Nicene Canons, and not on any Divine right of supremacy in the See of Rome itself. Further, the Pope's protest was never acknowledged by the Eastern Church, and it was eventually withdrawn by the Bishops of Rome themselves. Even in the unsettled times of Pope Vigilius, when the state of empire threw great power into the hands of the Bishop of Rome, we find from the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, the Fifth General,-that the ancient rule of the Church was preserved, and that when Pope Vigilius was thought to have outstretched the limits of his primatial authority in the matter of John of Edessa, the Eastern Bishops even excommunicated the Pope, and refused to hold communion with him,-a rejection of his usurped claims which tallies with the excommunication of Pope Julius by the Patriarch of Antioch; the defiance of S. Victor's excommunication of the Eastern Bishops, and of S. Stephen's excommunication of the African Bishops, touching the re-baptizing of heretics, have been already noticed. So that from the second century to the sixth, we have the whole current of Ecclesiastical history witnessing to the fact that so far from the Bishop of Rome being esteemed the sole monarch of the Church, from whose judgment there was no appeal, and out of whose communion there was no hope of salvation, we have the Eastern Church proceeding to excommunicate the Roman Patriarch, and a portion of the Western Church setting the Pope's excommunication at defiance, themselves nevertheless continuing to be acknowledged as Members of CHRIST'S Body.

S. Gregory himself may be adduced as a witness against papal supremacy. He rejected the title of Universal Bishop now claimed as jure divino by the Popes of Rome, and denounced John the Faster, patriarch of Antioch, who had assumed that title. In his letters written to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch on the subject, he declares it as his opinion, that if a patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is taken from the rest. To the emperor Mauricius he confidently affirms, that whoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, in his pride goes before Antichrist. And in another letter to the Bishop of Antioch he pronounces a remarkable prophecy which he doubtless little thought would be fulfilled by his own successors. "If one Bishop be called Universal, the whole Church tumbles to pieces if that one being Universal falls." That the claim of the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop, Episcopus Episcoporum, has led to this conviction is plain, from De Maistre's assertion that Christianity rests entirely upon the Sovereign Pontiff. "The Sovereign Pontiff is the neces

sary, only and exclusive foundation of Christianity"-an assumption this, utterly opposed to what we have shown to be the tradition of the Church during the first six centuries of her existence. That the claim was eventually established is an undoubted fact-but a claim which runs counter to the earliest traditions of the Church and owes its origin to very questionable means, must have a very feeble hold upon those who are able, or are sufficiently independent to appreciate the foundation of sand on which it rests.

Beyond this period it is unnecessary to produce evidence against papal supremacy, though the evidence is considerable. We will hasten to notice the effect of this refutation of the papal claim.

As observed at the outset, the whole controversy between the Romanists and ourselves turns upon this point, so, that having disproved the monarchy of Rome, we have proved our own position from the Reformation downwards to be strictly defensible. The English Church in the sixteenth century only witnessed against an assumption against which the whole Church for the first six centuries of her existence had protested. And if the English Church acted not schismatically then, she is not in schism now, for as regards Rome her position is unaltered. It follows therefore that our position is strictly and historically defensible, and that the reformed Church of England is a true member of CHRIST's Body.

It need not be added that most important consequences, bearing upon the present state of the Church, are involved in this fact, in respect of her children whether lay or clerical. Being assured of the integrity of our position, our duty is to remain consistent and dutiful Sons of the Mother that bare us, maintaining her honour, defending her privileges, and faithfully doing her work. We are aware that the present aspect of our communion is such as to dishearten even her most devoted sons. Oppressed by the State, betrayed by her friends, patronized by the rich, deserted by the middle class, (though happily not by the poor,) weakened by the dissensions and more by the unfaithfulness and remissness of her children, one is almost tempted in moments of despondency to conclude that her candlestick has been removed out of its place. What George Herbert said of "the country parson" may now be applied to the clergy in general-they are usually sad. But still though the Church of old as described in the eightieth Psalm may be a fit description of our own; though GOD for our manifold sins and short-comings has laid His chastening hand upon us, surely our duty is not to rebel against His fatherly correction, but to bear it meekly, earnestly imploring HIM to turn us again, to show the light of His countenance that we may be whole. Unsatisfactory as the present state of our Church is, it is not in worse plight than it was during the dark era of the Rebellion. And yet did "her true fond nurslings" forsake her then? No,

VOL. II.

"As the child whom scaring sounds molest,
Clings close and closer to its mother's breast,"

T

So these our Lauds, our Taylors, our Bulls, our Sandersons, our Hammonds remained her fearless champions still, adorning her by saintly lives, suffering for her sake, and preparing her by their labours and their prayers for emerging, in GoD's good time, from the flame

persecution brighter than when she entered in. And let us hope that if we her children are true to our Church in this her hour of peril, her Divine Head will accomplish the same blessed result.

It is no answer to this to say that the English Church is no longer the Church of the Restoration. Doubtless her practice is in some respects changed, but doctrinally and as far as authoritative teaching is concerned she is the same. Our Book of Common Prayer is the same now as then. But if the English Church were altered fundamentally, Rome is still the same, and her terms of communion unaltered. Nor let us forget that we shall only exchange our present evils for greater should we suffer ourselves to be driven into the Romish communion, whose relation to the state, especially in France, and her internal dissensions, (witness the ravings of Ronge and Czerski,) are equally perplexing as in the English Church. We may indeed pray with Bishop Andrewes for the deliverance of the whole Western Church from bondage. Taking even the lowest ground and putting the sin of separating from that portion of the Church in which we have been providentially placed out of the question-we shall gain nothing by the change. This view of the matter is ably stated by Mr. Allies in the work before us, p. 198.

But the Roman Catholic, who seems to escape this difficulty, and points to his communion as one organic whole, falls into another. Grant that it is one, but it is at the expense of ceasing to be Catholic: it has lost all the East and the North, and part of the West. Thus, in this choice between difficulties, it seems the least to suppose that the unity of Christendom may be for a time suspended, during which the several parts of CHRIST'S Body retain communion with the one Head, and thence derive life, though active communion with each other is suspended. A less difficulty, I say, than to cut off, not merely our own Church, but the seventy millions of the Eastern Church, having a complete inward identity with the Roman, from the covenant of salvation, merely because that intercommunion is prevented by a claim to spiritual monarchy, which was unknown in the best ages of the Church, and has been resisted ever since it was set up. If this view be true, we should expect that the several parts, though living, would yet be languishing, and far from that healthy vigour which they ought to possess; that the Great Head would give manifold warnings of the injury done to His Body. Now, it is very remarkable that the circumstances, no less of the Latin than of the Eastern and the Anglican Church, exactly agree to this expectation. I need not speak on this point of the second and third; but I cannot help thinking that they who have suffered themselves to be driven by fearful scandals out of our bosom, who have brooded over acknowledged but unrelieved wants, till the duty of patient long-suffering has been forgotten, close their eyes to the state of France,