over nearly the whole universe, and which counts its followers by hundreds of thousands,-followers, who have in every age given to the world the noblest proofs of intellectuality, of genius, and of devoted piety,-proofs, which arrest the attention of the student and of the scholar, in this, as well as other lands, and which, neither time, nor influences more destructive than time, have been, or ever will be, able to obliterate, not only denies the fact of the errancy of the Church, but also, the possibility of such an occurrence. This mighty body, consisting, perhaps, of two hundred millions of members, asserts, that the Church has not erred, and that it cannot err, since Jesus Christ has promised to guard His Church against all error, even unto the end of time. Such is the Catholic statement; and if the decision of this question were left to mere human evidence-if nations, or numbers, or learning,1 or sanctity, were allowed to be decisive in such a matter, it is plain that Protestantism would be cast; units would have to yield to thousands, and before our millions of scholars and armies of saints, the fautors of the new system would have to hide their diminished heads.

If, then, it can be made manifest, that the Anglican Church can, at the best, offer only human evidence, in favour either of this or any other distinctive conclusion,

1 Anglicans are for ever boasting of their own learning, and speaking contemptuously of the learning of Catholic countries. Cobbett took an easy way of testing the accuracy of the English idea. He fixed upon a period most favourable to English, and least favourable to French and Italian literature-the period ranging from 1600 to 1787. Now what was the result of this examination? This: whilst England, Ireland and Scotland could only boast of 132 writers of eminence during that period, France could point to 676, and benighted Italy to 164!-See Cobbett's Letters, p. 34, 8vo Ed.

it will be clearly seen, not only that the bold and Christianity-destroying statement, contained in this first proposition, is utterly reckless and untrue, but also, that the book of Homilies, in which this position is maintained, and the Articles which sanction the Homilies, are valueless as authorities. Now, all this can easily be established, as we shall show during the course of this work.

The other proposition, which asserts, that when Christianity was again restored, it was restored by the English Reformers, and that the English Church professes the one form of faith which the Apostles originally taught, is again denied, and denied, as I have already observed, with increased emphasis. Not only do Catholics rise up in opposition, but the Eastern and Western world treats the declaration with scorn. Greeks, and Nestorians, and Eutychians, as well as Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, and the professors of a hundred other creeds, all proclaim the word to be false. The former tell the Anglicans, that the Protestant creed is a creed of yesterday, a creed unheard of in past times; whilst the latter point to their sects as the living representatives of the Church of former ages; and they openly declare, that therefore have they joined the ranks of dissent, because, through dissent only, could they become real professors of Christ's one faith. Such is the view, which all but Anglicans take, of the grounds of the Reformation, and of the character of that Establishment,

2 Although, to gain the favor of the Dissenters, some Low Church ministers have lately asserted, that the differences between Anglicanism and Dissent are trifling, neither Dissenters have adopted this notion, nor will the writings and laws issued against Dissent, bear out this time-serving statement.

which arose in England in the sixteenth century,—a view not certainly very flattering, either to the originators, or to the actual defenders of the new Church.

The propositions, however, are too important to be thus hastily passed over; on them the most important results depend. If it can be shown that the Church cannot err, then is the old, the unreformed Church, the Church which discards the very notion of errancy, which upholds the principle of inerrancy, and assumes an unchanging semper eadem for its glorious motto, to be believed; and reform in all its shapes, is proved to be erring reason, set up in opposition to the Divine mind, the apotheosis of ignorance, and the metamorphosis of truth. Obviously, then, the question of the errancy or inerrancy of the Church, is deserving of the greatest attention. On the Church's inerrancy, the Catholic relies with confidence; here is his anchor of security, and here his answer to all separatists. These may prophecy the downfall of the Church; they may declaim against a hundred truths, and call them blasphemies; but he is unmoved. Believing in the authority of the Church, he feels assured, that though the storm may rage, the mystic vessel will not founder; though numerous enemies may assail the Church, it will not be overcome: to be lashed by the waves, to be assailed by enemies, was to be the lot of the Church; but to endure for ever, to survive every assailant, that was likewise to be its destiny. Though accused of error, it shall be truthful, for Christ the truth is with it; and though scoffed at as foolish, it shall still be heaven-informed, for with it and in it, the Spirit of wisdom unceasingly abides. On the other hand, the Protestant of the Church of England justifies his Reformation, and his rejection of the

olden Church,1 on the supposition of the actual failure of the Church. If it have not failed, then his system is false, and worse than worthless; it is Anti-christian, and essentially blasphemous. But mark! Whilst the Church's inerrancy proves the falseness of every opposing system of belief, its fallibility would not evidence the truthfulness either of the Anglican or any other form of faith. The scores of conflicting fallible systems, have still to settle their respective differences, and each fallible Church has to prove, that, though fallible, it does not fail, and that the propositions which it enunciates, and the practices which it considers as essential to religion, are, in fact, the revelations and the ordinances of the Almighty. How this is to be done,-how, without some infallible living and teaching authority, the differences which separate and divide this country are to be settled, is a problem, I think, of at least difficult solution. But with this we have nothing to do: our observations will be restricted to the doctrinal, sacramental, and governmental developments of the Anglican Church. After examining the question of the authority of the Church, we will further consider the evidences which Protestantism offers for the creed of the Articles, and the statements of the Prayer-book and of the Homilies; thus adding evidence to evidence in respect to the real character of that establishment which supplanted the Church of this country, on the 30th day of March, 1534.

1 See Jewel's Apology, passim, especially towards the close of the work.

8

Chapter the Second.

Examination of the principle laid down in the Homilies, relative to the defection of the Church.

CONTENTS.

The Church infallible-proved first by an universal testification, and secondly, by the Scriptures of the New Law, which are a realization of the prophecies of the Old Testament.-Use and end of the Ministry.— This end attained in Catholicity.—The Ministry is useless on Protestant grounds. The Protestant allegation of defection disproved.-The charge of idolatry shown to be absolutely groundless, from the zeal and character of the Missioners of the middle ages, the countries they converted, the monuments they erected, the books they wrote; as also from even the Protestant catalogue of Saints.-Origin and progress of the Protestant calumny.-The charge not substantiated by reference to Catholic doctrines.-These doctrines are defended by eminent Protestants.-General observations on the folly and falseness of the Homelists. CAN the whole Church of Christ, fall into damnable error, as is stated in the Book of Homilies? My answer shall be clear: the Church of Christ cannot err, it cannot possibly fall into that damnable idolatry, of which the book of Homilies accuses it. And mark my proof: Christ the founder, the parent of the Church, has absolutely promised to secure it against all error, even unto the end of the world. If further, you bid me say on what grounds I rest this statement, I answer: I am acquainted with this fact in the same way as I am with the fact of the existence of Christ, the original planting of the Church, or the in