rejected by the Greeks, chiefly through the perfidious conduct of Mark, bishop of Ephesus. This instability of the Greeks only proved the proverbial Greek faith the Græca fides; but it did not invalidate the acts of the councils in question, any more than the rejection of the first general council of Nice by the Arians had rendered null its doctrinal decisions. 5. There is no evidence to prove that, in the general council of Lyons, "the ambassadors of the Greek emperor' "advocated the primacy to "gratify the Pope," or that in it "the Greek bishops acted under intimidation." This is all a paltry suspicion unworthy of an historian. This same council of Lyons was one of the most numerous that was ever convened it was composed of five hundred bishops, both Latin and Greek, besides one thousand abbots and distinguished divines: and it certainly clearly represented the whole Church. 6. It is not true, that the council of Florence "was of doubtful authority, even in the west." The "rival synod of Basle" had degenerated into a schismatical conventicle, which had very few adherents; and the whole western Church very soon after received the decrees of the Florentine council. Its canons were universally viewed as having emanated from a general council; at least those which had been enacted before the departure of the Greek bishops;-including the famous definition on the primacy, which was signed by the bishops of both the Greek and Latin churches. It is not true, that this synod "consisted only of Italian bishops;" the Greek church was certainly represented in it by some of its bishops; and after the departure of these, the Armenian and Jacobite, and subsequently the Abyssinian bishops sanctioned its decrees, and were re-united to the Roman Church. Were not the six general councils which Mr. Palmer receives, composed almost entirely of Greek bishops? Was the Latin Church as fully represented in any of them, as was the Greek Church in those of Lyons and Florence? We should be endless were we to undertake the refutation of all the historical blunders, which our author has scattered over the pages that treat of this epoch. Here, for instance, is another curious extract from the same page as the one just given: "The synod of Florence, just alluded to, was the first which taught the doctrine of purgatory as an article of faith. It (not the synod, but the doctrine) had indeed been held by the Popes and by many writers; and it became the popular doctrine during the period under review; but it was not decreed by any authority of the universal, or even the whole Latin Church. In the eastern church it was always rejected.". Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the council of Florence was the first which defined this doctrine as an article of faith, would it thence follow that the doctrine itself was of recent origin? It could only be inferred that it was never before questioned; and that, therefore, there was no need of any definition on the subject. Would it follow from the fact, that the council of Nice was the first general synod which 1. Cabassutius, Notitia Ecclesiastica, in Concilia Lugdun. II, et Florentinum. defined the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, that this too was a new doctrine, unknown to the three previous centuries? Mr. Palmer himself admits, that this tenet of purgatory "had become the popular doctrine during the period under review;" which, in connection with the solemn promises of Christ to guard his Church from error, clearly proves that it was an article of divine revelation, on the principles even of our Oxford divine! - It is not true, that "it was always rejected in the eastern church." The Greek church admitted it in the council of Florence, and, at least, impliedly, in that of Lyons. It had never been a bar to union between the churches, however their theologians may have differed on the secondary question, whether the souls detained in this middle place of temporary expiation, are purified by a material fire? The ancient fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Church, who had occasion to refer to the subject, had unanimously agreed in maintaining the doctrine, as could be easily shown by reference to their works. All the ancient liturgies of both churches had embodied this same article of faith. And even at present, not only the Greek church, but all the oriental sectaries still hold it as doctrine, and practice accordingly. We are prepared to prove all this, and more besides. Let Bishop Whittingham only deny one of these facts, and we promise him proof to his heart's content. We are also amply provided with proof to establish the falsity of the following statement, which we merely give as a specimen of Oxford skill in mystification: "The council of Lateran (the fourth of that name, A. D. 1215,) indeed, had made use of the word transubstantiation to express the change by which the bread and wine become the sacrament of Christ's body and blood; but this word might be, and in fact was, used in many senses inconsistent with the Romish interpretation of it; and the object of the synod itself seems to have been merely to establish the old doctrine of the presence and reception of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, in opposition to the Manichean errors.' This is, indeed, a curious piece of absurdity. It is worthy of Dr. Pusey himself. So Rome, we presume, must go to Oxford, before she can learn her own doctrines aright! This same doctrine of transubstantiation, besides being perhaps the clearest of all the doctrines contained in the Bible, could be also established by whole volumes of ancient testimony." Our historian tells us the truth, - who would have thought it? about the doctrine of indulgences; but he complains, singularly enough, that their too great extension ruined the ancient penitential discipline of the Church: 1. See their testimonies accumulated in the "Faith of Catholics," sup. cit. See also the learned work of the Greek, Leo Allatius - De Consensu Orientalis Ecclesiæ, &c., in dogmate Purgatorii." 1 Vol. 12mo. This work exhausts the subject. Wonder if Mr. Palmer ever heard of this learned publica'iou! 2 See "Faith of the Catholics." sup. cit. "The plenary indulgence which the Popes issued, first to the crusaders, but afterwards to many other persons, completed the ruin of the penitential discipline of the Church. These indulgences, or pardons, were the remission of the lengthened works of penitence imposed by the ancient canons. All that was necessary to obtain them, was to confess to a priest all past sins (with true sorrow and purpose of amendment, we add,) to go to the crusade in Palestine or in some other country, or to perform some other work assigned by the Pope." One would think that this all was a great deal. Protestants have granted a much more ample indulgence than this :- they have abolished penitential works altogether, and with them every thing that is in any way painful to human nature! Theirs is at least a very easy way to heaven, provided it be only safe. They the Anglican Church Catholic" (!) always included-have swept off entirely, at one fell stroke, the whole ancient "penitential system of the Church." Why does not Mr. Palmer, and why does not the Protestant bishop of Maryland, make some effort to restore this same ancient penitential system? 66 Our author says, that the scapular was now worn by some persons as a sort of charm; "—we thought it was worn only as a badge of a pious confraternity. He ridicules the idea of the commutation of ɔne penance for another, and laughs at St. Peter Damian for affirming,for which fact we have only his bare word, "that the repetition of the psalter twenty times accompanied by discipline (that is, scourging,) was equal to a hundred years of penitence." This he calls an ingenious way of "paying the debt." Protestants have discovered a far more ingenious way of paying this same debt of penance,-they have repudiated it altogether! He cannot bear the idea of "sackcloth or haircloth worn next the skin, by way of voluntary mortification." It is absolutely shocking to his delicate nerves, only to think of this cruel infliction! Nor can he relish the devotion of the rosary, introduced by St. Dominic. The Protestant sense of smell has become, alas! too obtuse to perceive the delightful fragrance of this sweet chaplet of roses, woven in honor of her," the pure and holy one,"— who is "Our tainted nature's solitary boast."6 Though, in truth, the honor is given chiefly to her divine Son, from whom all her beauty is borrowed, and on whom it is again reflected back. "The sensual man perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God: for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand; because it is spiritually examined.""" Our author complains of the power of the Popes during this period; he denominates it "the grand and crying evil of these ages.' He tells us two or three "rousing" ones, about the sainted Gregory VII;' which he would have himself detected as such, had he only opened the life of this great Pontiff, lately written by the Protestant historian, Voigt. He gives us an absolutely incredible account of some disputes between the Pope and the bishops of England:' but he takes special care not to give us the name of the Pope in question, though we guess he means the great Innocent IV.; nor does he furnish any authority whatever for his statement. We enter a simple denial of the entire account, and challenge proof. The author, in fact, seems to become absolutely unsettled in mind, whenever the Popes and his own dear England come into collision; or even when, without coming into actual conflict, they appear at all on the arena. He should have borne in mind, that, but for the efforts of the Popes, and for the power they acquired in temporal matters by the free consent of the European nations, Europe would, in all human probability, never have arisen from barbarism nor progressed in civilization. That power was almost always put in requisition to check tyranny, and to succor the oppressed. The voice of Rome liberated the captive, struck off the chains of the serf, cheered the oppressed, and struck terror into the hearts of tyrants. Protestants have admitted all this. Though we have marked many other passages for animadversion, yet we must here close our imperfect notice of the present epoch. 1 P. 135, et seq. Necessity of calm impartiality-Protestant and Catholic views of reformation- Wickliffe and Huss-Oriental languages - Foreign and British reformation - Luther and Carlostadt - Curious anachronism Luther and Episcopacy - Anglican branch of the reformation" Scruples of Henry VIII."— The new Gospel light-The Anglican Pope - Royal prerogative predominant--Cromwell Vicar General- Base servility of first Anglican Bishops-Fisher and Moore - Burning Protestants and Catholics Palmer's theory of Anglican reformation examined - Downright tyranny-Trait of noble independence - Edward VI.- Married clergy - Improvements of Anglican liturgy - Return to unity under Mary Bull of St. Pius V. - Henry's divorce Reformation in Ireland - How the Anglican church was persecuted in Ireland - Dr. Lingard's testimony and proofs - Anglican saints- Ridley McCauley's portrait of Cranmer - A parallel - Infidelity of Protestant origin― Anglican infidels-Suppression of Anglican convocation - Church and state-Where Voltaire learned infidelity Infidels in Protestant Europe French clergy during the Revolution - Did the French Revolution make any Protestant martyrs? -Conclusion. We have now reached the fifth and last epoch of Church History, according to Mr. Palmer's division. It embraces the period intervening between the year 1517,- the date of the reformation, so called, — and the year 1839, when our historian's work was published. This is the most important and exciting era of ecclesiastical history. It is difficult to approach it with that even temper of mind, which is absolutely necessary to form a right judgment on its many startling events. Men are too apt to view these through the medium of their preconceived opinions; and we are not at all astonished that our Oxford historian, who had already given so much evidence of deep prejudice, should here have exhibited himself the thorough partisan. He hazards the following opinion as to the general character of this whole period : "Fifthly, the epoch (1517-1839) when a reformation being called for, was resisted by those who ought to have promoted it; when the western Church became divided; and at length infidelity came to threaten universal destruction." We would have drawn a different picture altogether of the period in question. We would have designated it as the epoch when a reformation having been called for in a violent and tumultuous manner, — by persons too who wished, under pretext of reform, to undermine the ancient faith, and who could not agree among themselves as to the nature or measure of the reformation asked for ; the demand was met by the Church in *A Compendious Ecclesiastical History, from the earliest period to the present time. By the Rev. William Palmer, M. A., of Worcester College, Oxford. With a Preface and Notes, by an American Editor. New York, 1841, republished. 1 Vol., 12mo. Pp. 228. |