REVIEW

OF

HAWEIS' CHURCH HISTORY.

IT was reserved, for our author to publish a history of the church, for the express purpose of proving that the Church of England, in which he enjoys a rich rectory, has deviated essentially from the original church of Christ in doctrine, in government, and in worship; that prelacy is an usurpation, and patronage contrary to the principles of the gospel; that it is the duty of the people, when the regular clergy preach unsound doctrine, of which the most illiterate clown is a competent judge, to withdraw themselves from the church, which, in consequence, becomes schismatical; that all establishments of one church in preference to another, are the offspring of a corrupt policy; that the alliance between church and state has ever been meretricious ; and that to contend for the unity of the church in any thing more than a few articles of faith, of difficult comprehension, is to be guilty of a sin enormous as that of blasphemy.

Should any of our readers be disposed to waste his time in attempting to conceive by what means an ecclesiastical historian reconciles such opinions to the concurring testimony of the fathers of the church, we beg leave to assure him, that Dr. Haweis employs no means for so vain a purpose. He is perfectly aware that his book and the writings of the fathers can never be reconciled; but he must consider this as a matter of no importance, since he represents almost all the Catholic writers for the first four centuries as either so very weak or so very wicked as to be unworthy of the smallest credit.

He admits, indeed, that there was something respectable in the character of Augustin, bishop of Hippo, and more in that of Athanasius; but he characterizes Clemens of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, as very mean

writers.

66

Justin the martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Pantanus, and many others, zealous indeed in apologies for the Christian cause, and ready to die rather than renounce their profession, yet held a Christianity of so equivocal a nature, as to render it very dubious whether they had any real part or lot in the matter." What extravagant enthusiasts they must have been! Ireneus, though he combated all the heresies then subsisting in the church, yet suffered " his philosophic opinions to mingle with, and debase the Christian purity” and, of course, was a heretic himself!

"Tertullian is a striking instance, how much wisdom and weakness, learning and ignorance, faith and folly, truth and error, goodness and delusion, may be mixed up in the composition of the same person! Though Tertullian himself affords but a very wretched specimen of Christianity, his apology demonstrates, that in all the great and glorious features of this divine religion, there was a people in that day eminently to the praise of the glory of God's grace!" We really should have thought that the author of an apology which demonstrates this, must afford a tolerable specimen of Christianity!

Of Gregory Thaumaturgus, so highly praised by Cave, and others, our impartial and charitable historian says:→ "I must be exceedingly hard drove for a Christian, before I can put such men as Gregory Thaumaturgus into the number!" What though St. Basil* compares Gregory to the prophets and apostles, affirming that he was actuated by the same spirit with them, trod in their footsteps, and his conversation in the gospel during the whole course of his

* De Spiritu Sancto, c. 29.

life, from the day of his conversion to the day of his death? Basil was denominated the Great; and "the title great," says our author, when speaking of Constantine," as far as my observation reaches, usually marks the most destructive, the most tyrannical, and the most murderous of mankind."

2

The learning and genius of Origen furnish great cause of offence to Dr. Haweis, who professes indeed no respect for learning in any Christian divine antient or modern. Origen, it is true, maintained many errors; but our author is the first ecclesiastical historian, whom we have met with, that did not acknowledge his obligations to the learned labours of the presbyter of Alexandria. In this he is, however, consistent; for such an acknowledgment in behalf of Origen could not reasonably be expected from that man, who boldly pronounces the labour of Connybeare, and Warburton, and Watson in defence of revelation, useless; and who, noticeing" their elaborate defences of Christianity, and apologies for the Bible," adds, "did these ever convince one infidel, or make him a real convert to gospel truth? I trow not!" ... In many things our author admits Cyprian to have been worthy, and to have merited all the praise he receives; but in his office he manifested the pride of a too unhumbled heart (Is the heart of his censurer humbled?); his episcopal ideas appear too elevated; he was a visionary; his assertion that there is only one episcopacy (Episcopatus unus est, cujus e singulis in solidum pars tenetur) "is unscriptural;" though the martyr builds it on a text by St. Paul,* which obviously admits of no other meaning. No matter; St. Cyprian is pleading for " the unity of an outward church, which, in the eyes of a spiritually minded man, must be contemptible;" and, therefore, our spiritually minded historian thinks himself authorized to quote the tract, De unitate Ecclesia, partially and unfairly! Nay, he thinks himself authorized to affirm, that "the strong lines of popery,

Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6, &c.

and a visible head of the Catholic church, whose anathemas were to hurl into the dust every opposer to prelatical pride, had now begun to make considerable strides, and that no man hitherto had more contributed to this than Cyprian !" Yet he must know, if he knows any thing of antiquity, that Cyprian, in his letters to Stephen, bishop of Rome, chastises the insolence of that prelate, and contends with ear. nestness and great strength of reasoning for an absolute equality among bishops! To belie the records of antiquity, is a very singular proof of the impartiality of an historian; but what could be expected from the man who, while he affirms that, in the age of Cyprian, "strong lines of popery, and a visible head of the church had begun to make consi derable strides," suspects that in the very same age," the name of bishop and presbyter was still synonimous !" and confounds Cyprian with certain bishops sent by him and the African synod, to converse with Stephen on heretical baptism! To be impartial, a man must be accurate as well as honest.

Of Constantine the Great, our author thus writes: "The bounties he bestowed; the zeal he displayed; his liberal patronage of episcopal men;" (Are there any episcopal women in the conventicles of Lady Huntingdon ?) "the pomp he introduced into worship; and the power invested with general councils," (What kind of power was this?) "made the church appear great and splendid; but I discover not a trace in Constantine of the religion of the Son of God. (You are a discerner of spirits!) As an outward professor, and for an outward church, no man more open, more zealous as a partaker of the grace of God in truth, either in genuine repentance for his crimes, or real newness of life,” (Pray, what is the distinction between these?) "I want abundantly better evidence than I can see in Eusebius, who, like many a courtly bishop, is very cordially disposed to exalt on a pedestal, the king that patronizes and increases their power, wealth, and dignity!"