LETTER VII. ROMANISM. "Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the OLD PATHS."-JEREMIAH vi. 16. MY DEAR CHILDREN,— "The Church," I ex In my letter to you on plained the meaning of the word Catholic, and I incidentally mentioned that our branch of the Church of Christ in England is rightly so called, while, on the contrary, Romanists or Papists, are, in this country, wrongly so called. Also in my letter on the subject of Dissent, I alluded again to the Papists or Romanists, as forming in this country one of those numerous sects of Christians, who have cut themselves off from the lawful communion of their bishop, and are thereby guilty of the grievous sin of schism. Now, as there is so much error in people's opinions on these points, and the con nexion between Popery and the Catholic Church in England, is spoken of by persons who have not well considered the subject, in a manner so liable to mislead you, I think I must beg your attention, in another letter, to a more exact description of the real state of these things. A great many persons have a notion that the Church of England, in being distinct from the Church of Rome, has thereby been guilty of separation; that the Church of Rome is the old original Church in this country, as well as in Rome itself; and that ours is a new Church, dating its existence only from the time of the Reformation. And, again, a great many persons imagine that the Church of England stands in the same light as the various societies of Christians which they know to exist in other countries, such, for instance, as the Presbyterians in Scotland, or those who followed Luther in Germany, or those who followed Calvin in Geneva, and thus they class the whole of the Christian world in Europe under two divisions, and only two, that is, Protestants and Catholics. It runs in their minds that whoever is a Protestant cannot be a Catholic, and whoever is a Catholic cannot be a Protestant; whereas nothing can be more untrue. It requires only a little consideration to set this right, and this consideration I must ask you to give me in reading what follows. You must begin by taking into your mind. the state of the Church at that period of history which precedes the Reformation. Look in your books of history for this period: let us say the close of the fifteenth, or beginning of the sixteenth century. You will find that the whole of the Church of Christ throughout Europe was alike under the dominion of one powerful bishop, that is, the bishop who held the see of Rome. There were, indeed, bishops in every Christian country; in fact, there were no Christians without bishops, and they governed their own dioceses in ecclesiastical matters, subject to their own primate or archbishop, in each several country. But then these very primates or archbishops in each country, were, in turn, subject to the one universal bishop, as he called himself, the Pope of Rome; so that, in fact, the whole of Christendom was ruled by the Church of Rome, and nothing could be done, either in ecclesiastical matters or in political matters, without his interference and superintendence. Now it happened that, at many dif ferent periods of history, the bishops, and the Churches over which they presided, had desired to make alterations or improvements in their discipline; to amend what had fallen into decay, or to correct what had fallen into abuse; but the Pope always contrived matters, by his superior skill in politics, and by his great power and management, so that no alterations ever took place. Corruptions and abuses went on unamended from year to year; many outcries were made, but nothing was done. At length, in Germany, in the year 1517, a learned monk of the name of Luther, a name imperishable in the annals of his time, a man of singular courage and perseverance, as well as true Christian faith, determined to oppose some of the principal corruptions of the Church, at that time in full vigor. And nearly at the same time, in other parts of the continent, an equal opposition arose from other learned men-Carlostadt, Calvin, Melancthon, Zuinglius and others. By degrees this opposition was carried so far, being led on from one thing to another, that although in the outset nothing was further from their thoughts than separation from Rome, yet to this it came. Being excommunicated by the Pope, there was nothing to be done but to form societies for religion as best they could; and thus it came to pass that you find the followers of these men dropping the name of Catholic, and calling themselves Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, and the like, in contradistinction to the Church of Rome, from whose communion they had been driven. Now you must carefully remember that these men, whose names I have just given you, though good and learned men, still could not be said to act in a proper ecclesiastical manner, in thus setting up fresh societies under their own names. They saw gross errors and perversions of all that was good in the doctrines and discipline of the Church of which they were severally members; and they had, indeed, a perfect right to call attention to these errors, to demand their examination, and to ask for their redress. Inasmuch as they were not able to succeed in obtaining what they desired, they were unfortunate; and, most unquestionably, the refusal of the bishops, and particularly the pope, to agree in the necessity of what was advocated by these conscientious men, was the cause of much misery to the Church, and the beginning of that break in her unity which has never since been healed. Excommunicated, forcibly expelled from the communion of their Church, what were these men and their followers to do? They desired not to form any Church, even if they could, opposed to Rome. They under |