ings were propitiatory, then both themselves and their works were profane.

Thus much of the opinions adduced by Hooker, respecting the claims of the Romish to be considered a Christian church.

If the Church of Rome be guilty of idolatry, then is it no more a Christian communion than Jerusalem could have been accounted a member of the Jewish Church, whilst in the commission of idolatry. The law was plain: Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly. Deut. xiii. 15. Before it can be shewn that idolatry is compatible with Christianity, it must be proved that idolatry is a less sin now than formerly.

Bishop Davenant, as able a controversial divine as the church of England ever produced, places amongst the fundamental points as well the Decalogue as the Creed, and, in respect of the Decalogue, remarks: "Viderit itaque Romana ecclesia, quæ fundamenta Fidei Christianæ suâ potissimùm operâ gloriatur fuisse hactenus conservata, an in fundamentalibus Decalogi non erraverit crassè et damnabiliter; ut de erroribus aliis nihil dicam."*

*Ad Fraternam Communionem inter evangelicas Ecclesias restaurandam Adhortatio, p. 98. Cantabr. 1640,

CHAPTER XVI.

Fuller's Church History of Britain.

EYLYN was not less inveterate against the memory of Lord Cobham, than of Wickliff. "Yet coming out of Wickliff's schools, and the chief scholar, questionless, which was trained up in them, he must be registered for a martyr in Fox his calendar." Fuller replies, "As for Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, his case is so perplexed with contrary relations, much may be said against him, and little less in his behalf; and I have cause to believe indeed, that his innocence wanted not clearness, but clearing."* Thus, also, that impartial historian, Sir James Macintosh, who clearly proves, that it was not as a traitor that this pious nobleman was put to death; remarking also, that in that age, no man durst confute the accusations brought by the King and Parliament against him.t

The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Pt. II. p. 40. t Hist. of England, vol. i. pp. 357, 358.

S

Fuller, under the reign of Edward IV. after recording the foundation of the Archbishopric of St. Andrews, (taken out of the see of York,) remarks, “Henceforward, no Archbishop of York meddled more with church matters in Scotland, and happy had it been if no Archbishop of Canterbury had since interested himself therein;"-an allusion to Laud, to whom Fuller did ample justice, but of whom he was no admirer. Heylyn taxed our author with "raking the Archbishop out of his grave, and arraigning him for many misdemeanors, of which none could accuse him when he was alive." It will not be deemed a false charge by any impartial person, that Laud's zeal to conform Scotland to England in ecclesiastical discipline and in worship, was no small aggravation of those heart-burnings, which at last broke out into rebellion. Heylyn's prejudices would not suffer him to adhere strictly to truth. Whilst Fuller did not hesitate to censure Laud in some things, he amply commended him in others; as, for his temperance in diet, purity in conversation, simplicity in apparel, patronage of learned men, and superiority to family considerations in the disposal of his preferments, hatred of covetousness, opposition to the corrupt practices of courtiers, strict observance of the Lord's day in his own person, moderation in pressing the Book of Sports in his own diocese, great learning, and as great zeal to recover the just possessions of the church, both in England and Ireland: added to this, his account of his death, when he was seen to be of so cheerful a countenance, as one about rather

"Thus I

to gain a crown than to lose his head. did write," says Fuller, "in his due praise, as much as I durst, and though less than his friends expected, more than I am thanked for."*

Heylyn objected to him his brevity in the eventful period of the Reformation. To this, he replied, that he had not proposed to repeat what had been published by others, and that, therefore, what Fox had performed so elaborately, he had touched upon more sparingly.

Here I cannot withhold from the reader, our church historian's brief and characteristic defence of the English Reformation.

"Three things are essential to justify the English Reformation from the scandal of schism, to shew that they had:

1. Just cause for which

2. True authority by which they receded

from Rome.

3. Due moderation in what "The first will plainly appear, if we consider the abominable errors, which, contrary to scripture and primitive practice were then crept into the Church of Rome: as, the denying the cup to the laity; worshipping of images; locking up the Scriptures in Latin; and performing prayers in an unknown tongue, with the monstrosity of Transubstantiation; inexcusable practices. Besides, the Behemoth of the Pope's infallibility, and the Leviathan of his universal jurisdiction, so exclaimed against by Gregory the Great, as a note of Antichrist.

* Appeal, Pt. III. p. 67.

"Just cause of Reformation being thus proved, proceed we to the authority by which it is to be made. Here, we confess, the most regular way was by order from a free and general council, but here, alas, no hope thereof. General it could not be, the Greeks not being in a capacity of repairing thither; nor free, such the Papal usurpation. For, before men could try the truth, hand to hand, by dint of scripture, (the sword and buckler thereof, by God's appointment,) the Pope took off all his adversaries at distance, with (those guns of hellish invention) his infallibility and universal jurisdiction; so that no approaching his presence to oppose him, but with certainty of being precondemned.

"Now seeing the complaint of the conscientious in all ages, against the errors of the Romish church, met with no other entertainment than frowns and frets, and afterwards fire and faggot, it came seasonably into the minds of those who steered the English nation, to make use of that power which God had bestowed upon them. And seeing they were a national church under the civil command of one King, he, by the advice and consent of his clergy in convocation and great council in Parliament, resolved to reform the church under his inspection, from gross abuses crept into it, leaving it free to other churches either to follow his example, or continue in their former condition: and on these terms was the English Reformation advanced.

"But the Romanists object, that England being first converted to Christianity by the zeal and care of the Church of Rome, (when Pope Gregory the