nounced not only the errors, but the dominion of Rome. As an independent branch of the Catholic Church, she shook off that usurped supremacy, which the Roman pontiffs had assumed in an age of ignorance and superstition; and having thus asserted that liberty, which by right belonged to her, she employed her freedom in purifying herself from the pollutions, which during her slavery she had contracted. She had therefore an additional motive for separating from the see of Rome, as a national Church, which of itself distinguishes her case from that of those individuals, who have since renounced her communion, and when an appeal has been made to her example, for the purpose of illustrating and defending their conduct, as if the situation of the parties was in all respects similar, the most erroneous conclusions have been the result of the comparison.

The Church of England claims no dominion over her members, but that which is inherent in her, as a spiritual society; and it surely would not be sound reasoning to maintain, that because she was justified

in resisting an usurped authority, therefore they are not bound in subjection to her legitimate government.

That the members of every true church ought to submit to its enactments, provided they be not contrary to the revealed will of God, does not seem to have been g denied even by those, who, under the direction of Brown and Barrow, formed the first separate congregations in this country. They rested their cause, not upon the wild notion of a natural right to worship God. as they pleased, but upon the plea of a necessity for further reformation. They h denied that the Church of England was a true Church of Christ, and therefore they maintained that it ought to be deserted. Upon this ground then alone must the question be tried: if it can be proved, that the Church of England has exacted from her members sinful terms of communion; that her doctrine is fraught with fundamental errors; that her worship is idolatrous, her ceremonial superstitious and anSee Note CXII. Appendix.

h See Note CXIII. Appendix.

tichristian; then may she be justly accused of having produced the schisms which have destroyed her peace, by forcing those to relinquish her communion, who wished to maintain i“ the faith once delivered to the "saints,” and *" worship the Lord in the "beauty of holiness."

Happily however her defence against such accusations has been undertaken by persons, whose conduct in other respects has ranked them among her adversaries. Calvin himself, whose authority on the present question will scarcely be objected to by his followers, has unequivocally declared, that her liturgy, ceremonial, and government, at which the offence was originally taken, though not so pure and faultless as in his judgment they might have been rendered, contained nothing. which could be termed impious or intolerable.

m Beza and his associates in the ministry at Geneva, hesitated not solemnly to warn.

i Jude 3.

k Psalm xxix. 2. 1 See Note CXIV. Appendix. m See Note CXV. Appendix,

n

the scrupulous and dissatisfied nonconformists against a separation, as a proceeding wholly unjustifiable; inasmuch as the ceremonies, practices, and habits, of which they complained, were not in their own nature impious, ungodly, or idolatrous, and the purity of the Christian doctrine and sacraments was preserved. In the same spirit, the most distinguished leaders of the nonconformists themselves plainly declared, that the failings and imperfections of the Church of England, whatever they might be, were not such as made it necessary to withdraw from her communion; that as she was "a true Church, consisting of a "lawful ministry and a faithful people," holding the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and duly administering the holy sacraments; no man could separate from her without "incurring the reproach of mani"fest schism."

Not only may abundant testimony of this general kind be extracted from their writings, but we shall find in them express

n See Note CXVI. Appendix.

• admissions of the lawfulness of every particular, against which their objections were in general most forcibly levelled. Nor should this be hastily imputed to inconstancy or insincerity; though it may be difficult perhaps to reconcile such opinions, so openly avowed, so steadily maintained, with their general conduct. They were fully convinced that the Church of England did not exact sinful terms of communion : and though they would willingly have carried the reformation farther than the sound judgment of those in authority would permit; and were so far irritated by the failure of their favourite projects, as to sow the seeds of all the troubles which ensued, by indulging in invectives against the ecclesiastical rulers whom they could not bias, and encouraging opposition to that authority which they could not control; yet they never deviated so widely from the line of truth and honesty, as to become the apologists of open separation. Even the Puritans, who overthrew the • See Note CXVII. Appendix. P See Note CXVIII. Appendix,