about them new guards to defend them against gainsayers," &c. He thinks that the apocryphal books will not occasion much difficulty. He is, indeed, of opinion, that "they ought to be deemed canonical, as those books concerning which there were doubts for some time;" yet, since they are not in the first or Jewish canon, he will allow them to be called Deutero-Canonical. He consents to the Xth article, which relates to freewill, provided that by the word power be understood what school divines call potentia proxima, or a direct and immediate power, since, without a remote power of doing good works, sin could not be imputed.

With respect to the XIth article, which contains the doctrine of justification, he thus expresses the sentiments of his brethren: "We do not deny that it is by faith alone that we are justified, but we maintain that faith, charity, and good works, are necessary to salvation; and this is acknowledged in the following article "."

Concerning the XIIIth article, he observes, "that there will be no dispute, since many divines of both communions embrace the doctrine contained in that article," (viz. that works done before the grace of Christ are not pleasing to God, and have the nature of sin). He indeed thinks "it very harsh to say, that all those actions are sinful which have not the grace of Christ for their source;" but he considers this rather as a matter of theological discussion than as a term of fraternal communion 8.

On the XIVth article, relating to works of supererogation (undoubtedly one of the most absurd and pernicious doctrines of the Romish church), he observes, "that works of supererogation mean only works conducive to salvation, which are not matters of strict precept, but of counsel only; that the word, being new, may be rejected, provided it be owned that the faithful do some such works."

He makes no objections to the XV. XVI. XVII. and XVIIIth articles.

His observations on the XIXth is, that to the definition of the church, the words under lawful pastors ought to be added; and that though all particular churches, even that of Rome, may err, it is needless to say this in a confession of faith.

He consents to the decision of the XXth article, which refuses to the church the power of ordaining any thing that is contrary to the word of God; but he says, it must be taken for granted, that the church will never do this in matters which overturn essential points of faith, or, to use his own words, "quæ fidei substantiam evertant."

6 The original words are: "Hoc lubenter admittemus, modo non excludatur traditio, quæ articulos fidei novos non exhibet, sed confirmat et explicat ea, quæ in sacris literis habentur, ac adversus aliter sapientes munit eos novis cautionibus, ita ut non nova dicantur, sed antiqua nove."

7 The original words are: "Fide sola in Christum non justificari, quod articulo XImo exponitur, nou inficia

mur; sed fide, charitate, et adjunctis bonis operibus, quæ omnino necessaria sunt ad salutem, ut articulo sequenti agnoscitur."

66

8" De articulo XIIImo nulla lis erit, cum multi theologi in eadem versentur sententia. Durius videtur id dici, eas omnes actiones quæ ex gratia Christi non fiunt, esse peccata. Nolim tamen de hac re disceptari, nisi inter theologos."

It is in consequence of this notion that he remarks on the XXIst article, that general councils, received by the universal church, cannot err; and that, though particular councils may, yet every private man has not a right to reject what he thinks contrary to Scripture.

As to the important points of controversy contained in the XXIInd article, he endeavours to mince matters as nicely as he can, to see if he can make the cable pass through the eye of the needle; and for this purpose observes, that souls must be purged, i. e. purified from all defilement of sin, before they are admitted to celestial bliss; that the church of Rome does not affirm this to be done by fire; that indulgences are only relaxations or remissions of temporal penalties in this life; that the Roman catholics do not worship the cross, or relics, or images, or even saints before their images, but only pay them an external respect, which is not of a religious nature; and that even the external demonstration of respect is a matter of indifference, which may be laid aside or retained without harm.

He approves the XXIIId article; and does not pretend to dispute about the XXIVth, which ordains the celebration of divine worship in the vulgar tongue. He, indeed, excuses the Latin and Greek churches for preserving their ancient languages; but, as great care has been taken that every thing be understood by translations, he allows, that divine service may be performed in the vulgar tongue, where that is customary.

Under the XXVth article he insists that the five Romish sacraments be acknowledged as such, whether instituted immediately by Christ or

not.

He approves the XXVIth and XXVIIth articles; and he proposes expressing the part of the XXVIIIth that relates to transubstantiation (which term he is willing to omit entirely), in the following manner: "That the bread and wine are really changed into the body and blood of Christ, which last are truly and really received by all, though none but the faithful partake of any benefit from them." This extends also to the XXIXth article.

With regard to the XXXth, he is for mutual toleration, and would have the receiving of the communion in both kinds held indifferent, and liberty left to each church to preserve, or change, or dispense with its customs on certain occasions.

He is less inclined to concessions on the XXXIst article, and maintains that the sacrifice of Christ is not only commemorated, but continued, in the eucharist, and that every communicant offers him along with the priest.

He is not a warm stickler for the celibacy of the clergy, but consents so far to the XXXIId article, as to allow that priests may marry, where the laws of the church do not prohibit it.

In the XXXIIId and XXXIVth articles, he acquiesces without exception.

He suspends his judgment with respect to the XXXVth, as he never perused the homilies mentioned therein.

As to the XXXVIth, he would not have the English ordinations pronounced null, though some of them, perhaps, are so; but thinks that, if an union be made, the English clergy ought to be continued in their offices and benefices, either by right or indulgence, "sive ex jure, sive ex indulgentia ecclesiæ.”

He admits the XXXVIIth, so far as relates to the authority of the civil power; denies all temporal and all immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the pope; but alleges that, by virtue of his primacy, which moderate (he ought to have said immoderate) church-of-England-men do not deny, he is bound to see that the true faith be maintained; that the canons be observed every where; and, when any thing is done in violation of either, to provide the remedies prescribed for such disorders by the canon laws, "secundum leges canonicas, ut malum resarciatur, procurare." As to the rest, he is of opinion, that every church ought to enjoy its own liberties and privileges, which the pope has no right to infringe. He declares against going too far (the expression is vague, but the man probably meant well) in the punishment of heretics, against admitting the inquisition into France, and against war without a just cause.

The XXXVIIIth and XXXIXth articles he approves. Moreover, in the discipline and worship of the church of England, he sees nothing amiss, and thinks no attempts should be made to discover or prove by whose fault the schism was begun. He farther observes, “that an union between the English and French bishops and clergy may be completed, or at least advanced, without consulting the Roman pontiff, who may be informed of the union as soon as it is accomplished, and may be desired to consent to it; that, if he consents to it, the affair will then be finished; and that, even without his consent, the union shall be valid; that, in case he attempts to terrify by his threats, it will then be expedient to appeal to a general council"." He concludes by observing, "that this arduous matter must first be discussed between a few; and, if there be reason to hope that the bishops, on both sides, will agree about the terms of the designed union, that then application must be made to the civil power, to advance and confirm the work," to which he wishes all success.

It is from the effect which these proposals and terms made upon archbishop Wake, that it will be most natural to form a notion of his sentiments with respect to the church of Rome. It appears evident, from several passages in the writings and letters of this eminent prelate, that he was persuaded that a reformation in the church of Rome could only be made gradually; that it was not probable that they would renounce all their follies at once; but that, if they should once begin to make concessions, this would set in motion the work of reformation, which, in all likelihood, would receive new accessions of vigour, and go on until a happy change should be effected. This way of thinking might have led

9"Unio fieri potest aut saltem promoveri, inconsulto pontifice, qui, facta unione, de ea admonebitur, ac suppliciter rogabitur, ut velit ei consentire.

Si consentiat, jam peracta res erit: sin abnuat, nihilominus valebit hæc unio. Et si minas intentet, ad concilium generale appellabitur."

the archbishop to give an indulgent reception to these proposals of DuPin, which contained some concessions, and might be an introduction to more. And yet we find that he rejected this piece, as insufficient to serve as a basis, or groundwork, to the desired union. On receiving the piece, he immediately perceived that he had not sufficient ground for carrying on this negociation, without previously consulting his brethren, and obtaining a permission from the king for this purpose. Beside this, he was resolved not to submit either to the direction of Dr. Du-Pin, or to that of the Sorbonne, in relation to what was to be retained, or what was to be given up, in the doctrine and discipline of the two churches; nor to treat with the church of Rome upon any other footing than that of a perfect equality in point of authority and power. He declared more especially, that he would never comply with the proposals made in Du-Pin's Commonitorium, of which I have now given the contents; observing, that though he was a friend to peace, he was still more a friend to truth: and that, "unless the Roman catholics gave up some of their doctrines and rites," an union with them could never be effected. All this is contained in a letter written by the archbishop to Mr. Beauvoir, on receiving the Commonitorium. This letter is dated August 30, 1718; and the reader will find a copy of it subjoined to this appendix'. About a month after, his grace wrote a letter to Dr. Du-Pin, dated October 1, 1718, in which he complains of the tyranny of the pope, exhorts the Gallican doctors to throw off the papal yoke in a national council, since the general one is not to be expected; and declares, that this must be the great preliminary and fundamental principle of the projected union, which being settled, an uniformity might be brought about in other matters, or a diversity of sentiments mutually allowed, without any violation of peace or concord. The archbishop commends, in the same letter, the candour and openness that reign in the Commonitorium; entreats Dr. Du-Pin to write to him always upon the same footing, freely, and without disguise or reserve; and tells him he is pleased with several things in that piece, and with nothing more than with the doctor's declaring it as his opinion, that there is not a great difference between their respective sentiments; but adds, that he cannot at present give his sentiments at large concerning that piece 2.

Dr. Wake seems to have aimed principally, in this correspondence, at bringing about a separation between the Gallican church and the court of Rome. The terms in which the French divines often spoke about the liberties of their church, might give him some hope that this separation would take place, if ever these divines should be countenanced by the civil power of France. But a man of the archbishop's sagacity could not expect that they would enter into an union with any other national church all at once. He acted, therefore, with dignity, as well as with prudence, when he declined to explain himself on the proposals contained in Du

1 See this Letter, No. III.

* See this Letter to Du-Pin, No. V.

as also the archbishop's letters to Dr. P. Piers de Girardin, No. VI.

Pin's Commonitorium. To have answered ambiguously would have been mean; and to have answered explicitly would have blasted his hopes of separating them from Rome, which separation he desired upon the principles of civil and ecclesiastical liberty, independent of the discussion of theological tenets. The archbishop's sentiments in this matter will still appear farther from the letters he wrote to Mr. Beauvoir, in October, November, and December, 1718, and the January following, of which the proper extracts are here subjoined 3. It appears from these letters, that Dr. Wake insisted still upon the abolition of the pope's jurisdiction over the Gallican church, and leaving him no more than a primacy of rank and honour, and that merely by ecclesiastical authority, as he was once bishop of the imperial city; to which empty title our prelate seems willing to have consented, provided that it should be attended with no infringement of the independence and privileges of each particular country and church. "Si quam prærogativam" (says the archbishop in his letter to Girardin, after having defied the court of Rome to produce any precept of Christ in favour of the primacy of its bishop) "ecclesiæ concilia sedis imperialis episcopo concesserint (etsi cadente imperio etiam ea prærogativa excidisse merito possit censeri) tamen quod ad me attinet, servatis semper regnorum juribus, ecclesiarum libertatibus, episcoporum dignitate, modo in cæteris conveniatur, per me licet, suo fruatur qualicumque primatu; non ego illi locum primum, non inanem honoris titulum invideo. At in alias ecclesias dominari, &c. hæc nec nos unquam ferre potuimus, nec vos debetis."

It appears, farther, from these letters, that any proposals or terms conceived by the archbishop, in relation to this project of union, were of a vague and general nature, and that his views terminated rather in a plan of mutual toleration, than in a scheme for effecting an entire uniformity. The scheme that seemed to his grace the most likely to succeed was, that "the independence of every national church, or any other, and its right to determine all matters that arise within itself, should be acknowledged on both sides; that, for points of doctrine, they should agree, as far as possible, in all articles of any moment (as in effect the two churches either already did, or easily might); and, in other matters, that a difference should be allowed until God should bring them to an union in them also." It must be allowed, however, though the expression is still general, that the archbishop was for "purging out of the public offices of the church all such things as hinder a perfect communion in divine service, so that persons coming from one church to the other might join in prayers, and the holy sacrament, and the public service." He was persuaded, that, in the liturgy of the church of England, there was nothing but what the Roman Catholics would adopt, except the single rubric relating to the eucharist; and that in the Romish liturgy there was nothing to which protestants object, but what the more rational Romanists agree might be laid aside, and yet the public offices be not the worse, or

3 See No. IV. VII. VIII. IX. X. 4 No. VI.

See the pieces subjoined to this

appendix, No. VIII.
Ibid.