BEVERIDGE AND WHITBY

287

Lordship (Laud) saith, In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church, but in the immediate times before Luther, or in some ages before, that it was a corrupt and tainted Church: And so in those times in which it was right, those might be heretical who did not communicate with it, not meerly because they did not communicate with it, but because, in not communicating with a right and orthodox Church, they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption.1

WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

1637-1708

Quod primo ad Pontificios spectat, illi, fateor, sese Catholicos vocant, atque ab aliis etiam ita vocari amant. Sed omnium indignissimi sunt qui glorioso isthoc nomine nuncupentur. Illi enim soli Catholici antiquitus appellati sunt, hodieque merito appellari possunt, qui Ecclesiæ Universalis fidem ac disciplinam pie tenent, sancteque observant. At vero Romana ista ecclesia, in cujus fidem moresque Pontificii omnes jurati sunt, tot nova dogmata adinvenit, totque novos ritus Ecclesiæ Universali vel rejectos, vel incognitos nuper instituit, hodieque imperat, ut vix ecclesiæ Christianæ, nisi forsitan corruptissimæ, nedum Catholicæ nomen mereatur. Nihil enim cum Catholica, nihil cum omnibus aliis ecclesiis commune habet, sed omnia potius diversa et contraria, præter ea in quibus cum Anglicana consentit.2

DANIEL WHITBY

1638-1726

If this be truly the result of the most specious pretences of the Roman party to draw our souls into their deadly snares, if all their fairest pleas do make for Judaism, more

1 Preface to his "Vindication," edition 1665, p. 331.

2 Sermon at opening of Convocation in 1672, Popish Plot time. The preacher goes on to condemn many Popish rites and ceremonies. The title of the sermon is "De Ritibus Ecclesiasticis." It is found in A. C. L., "Works," vol. x., p. 483.

naturally than they do for popery; if what they urge, to prove the Protestant divines to be deceivers of the people, doth more strongly prove our blessed Jesus a deceiver, which is the highest blasphemy; I hope that no true lover of this Jesus will be much tempted by such pleas to entertain a good opinion of the Romish faith: it being certainly that faith, which cannot be established but on the ruins of Christianity, nor embraced by any Protestant, but with the greatest hazard, if not the ruin, of his soul.1

GILBERT BURNET

1643-1715

Those of the Church of Rome do teach, that a man born in the Greek Church, or among us, is bound to lay down his error, and his communion too, and to come over to them; and yet they allow our baptism, as well as they do the ordinations of the Greek Church.

Thus they allow private men to judge, and that in so great a point, as what Church and what communion ought to be chosen or forsaken. And it is certain, that to judge of Churches and communions is a thing of that intricacy, that if private judgment is allowed here, there is no reason to deny it its full scope as to all other matters.†

Those who think that it is in general well proved, that there must be an infallibility in the Church, conclude from thence, that it must be in the Pope: for if there must be a living speaking judge always ready to guide the Church, and to decide controversies, they say this cannot be in the diffusive body of Christians; for these cannot meet to judge. Nor can it be in a general council, the meeting of which depends upon so many accidents, and on the consent of so many princes, that the infallibility will lie dormant for some ages, if the general council is the seat of it. Therefore they conclude, that since it is certainly in the Church, and can be nowhere else but in

1 Sermon on St. John vii., pp. 47-49, Burnet's "XXXIX Articles," p. 237.

2 44 XXXIX Articles," ed. Page, p. 246.

WILLIAM WAKE

289

the Pope, therefore it is lodged in the see of Rome. Whereas we, on the other hand, think this is a strong argument against the infallibility in general, that it does not appear in whom it is vested: and we think that every side does so effectually confute the other, that we believe them all as to that; and think they argue much stronger when they prove where it cannot be, than when they pretend to prove where it must be.1

WILLIAM WAKE

1657-1737

The account of his correspondence with the Gallicans in 1717 in Perry's "Church History," vol. iii., ch. iii., is very interesting:

My task is pretty hard, and I scarce know how to manage in this matter. To go any further than I have done, even as a divine of the Church of England, may meet with censure, and, as Archbishop of Canterbury, I cannot treat with these gentlemen. This would only expose me to the censure of doing what, in my station, ought not to be done without the King's knowledge, and it would be very odd for me to have an authoritative permission to treat with those, who have no manner of authority to treat with me. I cannot tell what to say to Dr. Du Pin. If he thinks we are to take their direction, what to retain and what to give up, he is utterly mistaken, I am a friend to peace, but more to truth. And they may depend upon it I shall always account our Church to stand upon an equal foot with theirs; and that we are no more to receive laws from them, than to impose any on them. In short, the Church of England is free, is orthodox. She has a plenary authority within herself, and has no need to recur to any other Church to direct her what to retain and what to do. If they mean to deal with us, they must lay down this for the foundation-that we are to deal with one another on equal terms." 2 1 "XXXIX Articles," ed. Page, p. 256. 2 Perry, pp. 46-47.

INDEX