And further, what followeth when the parts, by little and little, have been set aside, but that, in conclusion, the whole in like manner must be set aside? And, contrariwise, if new things and old, foreign and domestic, profane and sacred, begin once to be confounded together, then must needs this custom generally creep on, that nothing hereafter remain in the Church untouched, nothing without corruption, nothing sound, nothing pure; and so where before was the sanctuary of chaste and immaculate truth, there shall be a very brothel-house of wicked and filthy errors. But God of His goodness deliver His servants from such minds, and let such madness be rather for the impious !

For the Church of Christ, a careful and diligent keeper of doctrines committed to her charge, never changeth any thing in them, diminisheth nothing, addeth nothing.' pp. 104-9.

I have added this last sentence, to shew plainly how little any of the Fathers, when they speak of adding nothing to the faith,' imply any contradiction to the doctrine here so clearly set forth and my readers cannot but have been struck with the very curious similarity of the language used respectively, by St. Vincentius in advocating a doctrine which Mr. Palmer considers worse, if possible, than rationalism, and by Mr. Palmer in endeavouring to hinder that, which he who hinders is regarded by St. Vincentius as envious of men and hateful of God.'

Again: the deep feeling of love and union, which existed throughout the various branches of the Church, say in the

z What has been here said is sufficient of itself to supersede the necessity of formally examining a theory often propounded by members of our Church; viz. that our own Church authoritatively refers us to Antiquity as our standard of doctrine and practice. Without entering then into the other reasons which make me consider this theory wholly untenable, it is obvious here to remark that Antiquity itself remands us back again, as it were, to the existing Church. There is no one truth more plain on the very surface of the history of the early ages, than the exceeding deference which they considered due from each local Church to the whole Catholic Body, and to the Bishop of Rome. And the last quotation in the text shews in addition, if we may take St. Vincentius as a fair representative of their doctrine, that so far from considering the existence of doctrinal developments to be an excuse from the performance of this duty, they would, on the contrary, have considered the Church to have failed in her duty, if she had not given birth to such develop

ments.

time of St. Augustine, when the Arian troubles had been for some time brought to a close, displayed itself outwardly, as all real feelings among men do display themselves, in various observances, regulations, and formal results. One of these would even necessarily be, that a Christian, whether in his own country or in any other, who should separate himself from the Communion of the local bishop and join some other body, would be treated by the whole Church as a schismatic, and considered most justly to have excluded himself from the ordinances of grace. Such a rule had a deep meaning and value, under the circumstances which then existed; but 'high-church' Anglicanism has its being, its only possible life, in most zealously maintaining that those circumstances. have wholly changed. If therefore a maxim formerly in force, which had its origin, nay its very meaning, in that particular state of things which has now passed away, be itself retained or rather revived, such revival may on other grounds be wise and proper, or it may not: but to defend it by appeal to Antiquity is absolutely ludicrous. It will be at once seen, that the allusion is to that principle, very generally prevalent among high-churchmen,' and so startling and astonishing to an ordinary mind, that English Catholics, who are in Communion with the See of Rome, are in a state of schism. Here again I am not saying whether this principle should stand or fall, but that on its own merits it must stand or fall; that to adopt at random, as it were, from early ages some external rule, when the very spirit which gave life to the rule has gone away from us, is not to follow, but to abandon, the principles of those ages; which shrank from no one thing more sensitively, than from a carnal and ceremonial resting in outward ordinances and appointments.

It will be well, however, to state as accurately as may be what this principle is; and I suppose it will be admitted on all hands to be this: viz. that a French clergyman, e. g. who says mass at Calais to-day and crosses the water, should he say mass at Dover to-morrow with the same intention and in the same state of mind, (unless he can

plead invincible ignorance,) commits a mortal sin; receives the Lord's Body to his condemnation; and, were he to die without repenting of such sin, would be consigned to everlasting torments. Mr. Palmer adds a still further step; for he denies that invincible ignorance itself can excuse one, who in England remains separate from our Church. Whether or no, however, others may follow him in the latter view, the sentiment which he holds in common with other high-churchmen, leads by necessary consequence to a very serious result. The deliberate intention of committing mortal sin under certain conceivable circumstances, is, as every one knows, itself a mortal sin. Now there is not a Roman Catholic living, who does not most fully purpose, should he come to England, to communicate with the Roman Catholics, not

a Objection “xii. Papists do not admit that the members of the British Churches can be saved, while the latter allow that Papists can be saved. Therefore it is plain that there is greater safety in the Papal communion.

"Answer.

The argument ought to be directly reversed, thus: Papists allow that the members of the [English] Church can be saved. They cannot allow that Papists are in the way of salvation; therefore the communion of the [English] Church is safer than that of the Papal schism. I prove the two first propositions thus. (1.) Papists allow that we can be saved. Dr. Milner says: Catholic divines and the holy fathers. . . . make an express exception in favour of what is termed invincible ignorance; which occurs when persons out of the true Church are sincerely and firmly resolved, in spite of all worldly allurements on the one hand, and of all opposition on the other, to enter into it, if they can find it out; and when they use their best endeavours for this purpose. Our great controversialist Bellarmine asserts that such Christians, in virtue of the disposition of their hearts, belong to the Catholic Church.' (2.) On the other hand, the Church of England excommunicates any one who shall dare to affirm that the Romish community in these countries is a true Church; and as we therefore cannot allow Romanists to be in the Church, and as we have no right to admit that any persons out of the Church are or can be in the way of salvation, it is plain that there is much the greatest safety in adhering to our communion, in which alone both parties allow that salvation may be obtained." 'On the Church,' vol. i. p. 254, first edit.-Mr. Palmer seems unwilling to speak quite plainly: but his distinct argument is, that Roman Catholics admit the salvability of members of our Church, in a sense in which English Churchmen do not admit the salvability of Roman Catholics in England. But the sense in which Roman Catholics admit the salvability of members of our Church, according to Mr. Palmer's quotation, is merely that invincible ignorance forms a ground of excuse; therefore it is Mr. Palmer's opinion, that English Churchmen do not admit that, in the reverse case, invincible ignorance forms a ground of excuse. Q. E. D.

with the English Church: it follows then by inevitable consequence from this theory, that all Roman Catholics throughout the world are in mortal sin; either simpliciter, as Mr. Palmer must say, or saving invincible ignorance, which is, I suppose, the more ordinary sentiment. To base a maxim thus pregnant with consequences on so precarious a foundation as that above described, does seem an inconceivable procedure: but how much stronger does the case against it become, when we call to mind that,-on referring to the chief example in Antiquity which presents any distant parallel to our present condition, and which in consequence has to support no little weight of argument and inference, (the example of St. Meletius of Antioch,)-we find no appearance whatever (but the very reverse) of the prevalence of such a maxim; "there is not the faintest trace of any idea, prevailing in any quarter at that time, of casting so strange an imputation on Paulinus and his followers."b

6. Let so much have been said on the ecclesiastical principles appertaining to, and adducible in defence of, the respective systems which I am comparing together. The most important particular of comparison, however, is of course that which still remains; a comparison as to the general tone and temper of mind on doctrinal and practical subjects. This comparison has already indeed been incidentally carried out in one or two particulars: nor again shall I here attempt to trace it upwards to its ultimate elements, for that would necessarily imply a discussion on the primitive doctrine of justification; a discussion which on the one hand would lead us far more into controverted matters than is necessary for my purpose, and, on the other hand, would in some respects anticipate what will find a more fitting place in the next chapter. Let us rather, then, confine our attention to various salient points of usage or common language, of whose existence no one entertains a doubt, and which will nevertheless be acknowledged by all candid inquirers, to indicate conclusively the presence and energy of a certain definite character among Christians of that day.

bOn the Synagogue and the Church,' p. 45.

I. At the risk of appearing fanciful, I will begin by speaking of the tendency so universally found among the Fathers, as among holy men in all periods of the Church, to think the religion of their own age and country the most corrupt that has ever existed, and not worthy to be even mentioned in comparison with that of other times. It should of course be fully acknowledged, that this tendency, even if existing most actively, will in times like the present receive a very decided check, from the growth of historical studies, and our consequent knowledge of the prevalence of similar complaints at other periods. Such causes, however, though they may well prevent the tendency from growing into an opinion, will not help at all in accounting for an absence of the tendency itself; nor does it require any very deep research into human nature, to discover how necessarily a high standard of religious obedience, when brought into contrast with that miserable amount of practical evil which must always and everywhere be found here below, will produce this tendency in the serious mind. And if, in addition to this previous probability, the fact adduced be itself found historically true, as on examination it most certainly will; if a continued inclination to think our Church peculiarly corrupt has ever been an especial note of our own religion being pure; what reason have not those for suspecting the real spirituality of their desires and religiousness of their views, who are so little conscious of such an inclination, as the ordinary professors of high-church' principles appear to be!

II. This deep principle of human nature has also borne a very chief part, in producing that continual expectation of our Lord's immediate coming to judgment, which so much astonishes all modern readers of early religious writings. Mr. Newman, in his works, fully accounts for and defends this expectation; of whose existence, even in Apostolic times, certainly the New Testament itself bears on its surface very apparent and obvious marks. If then in our own days we are disposed to simple astonishment, not to say contempt, when

Parochial Sermons, vol. vi. Serm. 17 and 18.