by the fact, that a priest of the Roman Church, on his joining the Church of England, is not required to be reordained." Ibid. Hooker says, "As there are which make the Church of Rome utterly no church at all, by reason of so many, so grievous errors in their doctrines, so we have them amongst us, who, under pretence of imagined corruptions in our discipline, do give even as hard a judgment of the Church of England itself." Ibid, p. 324.

The foregoing testimonies are, in some respects, all reconcileable. In order to believe the testimony of Bishop Hurd to be true, it is not necessary to consider the others to be wholly untrue. It will be found that Swedenborg regards them all as in some measure correct. First, he coincides with those who say that the doctrines of the Church of Rome and those of the Protestant churches agree on some points, which have been called fundamentals. "The Roman Catholics," says he, "before the Reformation, held and taught exactly the same things as the Reformed did after it, in respect to a trinity of persons in the Godhead, original sin, the imputation of the merit of Christ, and justification by faith; only with this difference, that they conjoined that faith with charity or good works." Brief Exposition. Secondly; Swedenborg agrees with Bishop Hurd and the common voice of the whole Protestant world, that the Church of Rome is apostate. Indeed, even those Protestant divines who say the Church of Rome is not apostate, have had their faith very much shaken by what has lately occurred in regard to the canonization of certain saints.

Supposing then, that the doctrines belonging to the Roman and Protestant churches are fundamentally the same; hence, that as catholic, the two churches form only one:

there are certain serious considerations which, by this view of the subject, are naturally suggested. The late Bishop of Durham

says:

....

"It seems evident, that if popery be really an Antichristian system, it deserves to be treated as a species of apostacy from the faith, and to be numbered among the devices of Satan to defeat the purpose of the gospel. Even if the scriptural character of Antichrist were intended, as some suppose, rather to denote a series and succession of different adversaries to the gospel, from the time of its promulgation to the end of the world, including every description of infidelity and apostacy that has arisen or may yet arise; still popery would be justly entitled to a share in that reproachful character, inasmuch as its tendency to propagate error and delusion has manifestly had the effect of promoting an absolute apostacy from the faith. In many respects it bears a striking resemblance to paganism, or rather it appears to be a system of paganism engrafted upon Christianity. Its idolatry, its superstitious ritual, its saint worship, all so nearly approaching to the spirit and practice of the ancient mythology, bespeak it to be of similar character and origin." Van Mildert; Boyle Lectures, vol. i. p. 313.

Again; "Christianity was so miserably defaced by the superstitions of the middle ages as scarcely to be distinguishable in many respects from paganism. Infidelity, even in the very bosom of the church, was in several instances notorious and undisguised. Indeed in no part of Christendom did gross atheism prevail so much as in Italy, and even in Rome itself, in the college of cardinals and under the patronage of popes. With this general corruption and apostacy was connected such a system of authority, both temporal

and spiritual, as rendered it impracticable, while the system continued, to liberate mankind from their deplorable thraldom. The adversary seemed to be rapidly advancing to the completion of his design; and the means employed to defeat the labors of those who sought to restore the gospel to its genuine purity, were truly characteristic of the author of evil.

"Persecution, calumny, and sophistry, were the engines employed by papal, as they had been formerly by pagan, Rome, against all who endeavored to enlighten mankind with the pure knowledge of the gospel. According to the strong language of the Apocalypse, 'Rome was drunk with the blood of the martyrs.' Ibid, vol. i. p 293.

Now we would ask, whether such a state of corruption can be conceived to be consistent with the supposition of a purity in regard to those fundamental doctrines which belong to a true church? If it be, let us further ask, whether Rome be really the Babylon of the Apocalypse, as it is above declared to be? If so, is it possible that we can believe that this Babylon was after all a Catholic Church, nay, fundamentally, a true church? That the great whore spoken of in the 17th chapter of the Revelations, is no other than the bride of the Lamb spoken of in chapter 21?

Strange as it may seem, even this hypothesis has been adopted, and we shall see the reason for its necessity and use. "With regard to the Church of Rome," says a modern writer,

Bishop Hall adopts the 'charitable profession of the zealous Luther, We profess that under the papacy there is much Christian good, yea, all, &c. I say, moreover," adds the Bishop, "that under the papacy is truc Christianity, yea, the very kernel of Christianity, &c., and that, on the very ground, that it

held the fundamental truth in the creeds. Neither do we censure that church for what it hath not, but for what it hath. Fundamental truth is like that Maronean wine, which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water, holds its strength; the sepulchre of Christ was overwhelmed by the pagans with earth and rubbish,-yet still, there was the sepulchre of Christ; and it is a ruled case of Papinian, that a sacred place loseth not the holiness with the demolished walls; no more doth the Roman lose the claim of a true visible church by her manifold and deplorable corruptions; her unsoundness is not less apparent than her being; if she were once the spouse of Christ and her adulteries are known, yet the divorce is not sued out."" Pusey's Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, p. 20.

The Church of Rome then was the spouse of Christ; her adulteries are known, but her divorce is not sued out, hence she is the legitimate spouse still, yet an admitted adulteress.

Again; says Bishop Davenant, "For the being of a church does principally stand upon the gracious action of God, calling men out of darkness and death, unto the participation of light and life in Christ Jesus. So long as God continues this calling unto any people, though they (as much as in them lies) darken this light, and corrupt the means which should bring them to life and salvation in Christ; yet where God calls men unto the participation of life in Christ, by the word and by the sacraments, there is the true being of a Christian church, let men be never so false in their expositions of God's word, or never so untrusty in mingling their own traditions with God's ordinances. Thus the church of the Jews lost not her being of a church when she became an idolatrous church. And thus under the government of

the Scribes and Pharisees, who voided the commandments of God by their own traditions, there was yet standing a true church, in which Zacharias, Elizabeth, the virgin Mary, and our Savior himself was born, who were members of that church, and yet participated not in the corruptions thereof. Thus to grant that the Roman was and is a true visible church, (though in doctrine a false, and in practice an idolatrous church,) is a true assertion, and of greater use and necessity in our controversy with papists about the perpetuity of the Christian church, than is understood by those that gainsay it." Ibid, p. 21.

What then is the use and necessity which they who gainsay it do not understand? This we are informed in the following extract from the British Critic, and here in fact lies the secret of the whole argument.

"We consider that it is impossible to maintain certain branches of the church (such as that of Rome) to be the communion of Antichrist, as it has long been the fashion with Protestants to do, without our own branch being involved in the charge; if any part of the church be Antichristian, it will be found that all the church is so, our own branch inclusive. We are much disposed to question whether any tests can be given to prove that the Roman communion is the synagogue of Satan, which will not, in the judgment of the many, involve the Church of England. This is a most serious consideration, in proportion as we incline to concur in it. In such case, it will be from no special leaning towards Romanism, that we become eager to prove that Rome is not the seat of the enemy of God; it will arise simply from pru

dential motives if we have no other. . . .

We take up Dr.

Todd's position, if it must so be said, from nothing more or