Nothing therefore can be more fallacious than this analogy. When it is made out to our satisfaction, that visible churches can separate, and are separating, from themselves, not merely open transgressors, but their unconverted, unsanctified, members, as we know the true Christian is doing, with respect to his evil nature, then we will admit that the two cases may be fairly compared.

Such are the difficulties by which the Anglican theory of the church is beset. Rome, with instinctive sagacity, perceives its defects, and, in one particular, supplies them, by carrying out the theory to its legitimate consequences. Perceiving the absurdity of a visible body without a visible head, the absurdity of terming that "a body," which, composed of distinct and separate parts, has no visible centre of unity, she boldly deposes Christ from his headship over the church, and in his place sets up the Bishop of Rome. We say she deposes Christ from being head of the church, though we are quite aware, that, in her authorized Catechism, she speaks of him as being the invisible head thereof.* But what is this but a mere play upon words? The church is a visible body, of which the Pope is the visible head; this is clear and consistent; but what room is there then for another head? The church, as a visible body, has its head already; if it be said that there is still room for a spiritual, invisible head, we admit it; but there is no body for this head, for the church, according to the Romish theory, is essentially a visible body. To make the theory consistent, we ought to have two churches-one a visible church, of which the Pope is the head; the other a spiritual one, of which Christ is the head. But in reality, Rome has but one head of the church; though, for decency's sake, she may nominally assign that office to Christ, or suffer him to share it with the Pope. For she teaches that Christ

* Unus est enim rector ejus, invisibilis quidem Christus-visibilis autem is qui Romanam cathedram Petri tenet. Cat. Con. Trid. Art. 9. c. 14.

has delegated to the Bishop of Rome his own plenary authority to rule and teach his people. He has constituted the Pope his organ of communication with the church. Infallibly guided by the spirit of God, the Bishop of Rome propounds articles of faith, decides what is and what is not heresy, and issues decrees from which there is no appeal; in fact, exercises the functions of unlimited sovereignty. In a word, having named the Bishop of Rome his vicar and representative, the Saviour has retired altogether from the administration of church affairs, and virtually abdicated his kingly office. Still it is said, he is in one sense the head of the church; yes, in the same sense in which God is the head of the nation, because "by him kings reign, and princes decree justice," and "the powers that be are ordained of God." God governs the nation not immediately, but by instruments; He has delegated a portion of his sovereignty to the ruling powers; if therefore we are asked, who is the head of the nation, we answer at once "the Queen," not God. In no higher sense is Christ, according to Romish doctrine, the head of the church; that is, he is no real head at all. He is the remote and ultimate fountain of spiritual power; but the Pope is the real acting head of the body,

The Romish theory then is nothing less than a deposing of Christ from his headship over the church, and setting up a man in his place. And however much we may shudder at her blasphemous temerity in doing so, we cannot deny the church of Rome the credit of being consistent. It is the ultimate result to which all theories, based upon the idea of the church being one visible society, must, when pushed far enough, lead. In confirmation of what we here advance, we cannot forbear quoting one or two passages from the very able pamphlet which is placed second in the heading of this article. "It was Anglicanism," the writer says, p. 23, "that led me to the Church of Rome. I thankfully acknowledge it. It first taught me all those principles and doctrines, in their germ or elements, at

66

least, which are fulfilled and harmonised, only in the one Holy Catholic Church, of which the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, is the head and centre." Again, p. 24, as an instrument to bring men to Rome, it (Anglicanism) is invaluable; as a resting place in itself, as a consistent system, it is, to my mind, the most unsatisfactory and delusive." Once more, p. 33, "I had now rid myself altogether of the unsatisfactory, delusive, and contradictory theories of Church-of-Englandism and Anglicanism. Anglicanism had condemned, first, the Church of England, then itself. It was nothing better than a sham, a thing of words and phrases, that could not stand examination; Protestantism, on a larger scale, more deceptive, because of the use of Catholic words in an un-Catholic sense, and therefore more injurious. After all, I saw that it was the old question of church or no church, authority or private judgment; only private judgment exercised on tradition and the fathers, instead of on the Bible. The only body in which the principles and doctrines which Anglo-Catholics taught as Catholic were fulfilled and embodied, was the Roman Catholic Church." Nothing can be more just than the sentiments expressed in these extracts. Anglicanism has been tried and found wanting. Destitute of logical consistency, and an incongruous compound of Protestantism and Romanism, it has given way, and precipitated its votaries into the latter, with which it had always an essential affinity. Emphatically rejected by the nation at large, it may still linger in minds which refuse, or are unable, to see whither their principles lead them; but, as a system, it is defunct, and only waits a decent burial.

There are, as we have said in a former paper, but two coherent and logically constructed systems, Romanism and Protestantism; Protestantism, we mean, as it is found in the confessions of the Reformed Churches. We might here enter upon a refutation of the Romish doctrine of the church; but, independently of having

recently done so,* what we have just said with respect to Anglicanism is of course, a fortiori, applicable to Romanism. Both coincide in making the one Holy Catholic Church of Christ a visible body, in making its essence to consist in visible characteristics; the further step which Romanism takes, of giving a visible head to this visible body, is one indeed which must sooner or later follow if the theory is to be consistent, but which, on that very account, is of less importance as regards the present controversy. The Pope is but the visible exponent of a false system; overturn the system, and the exponent falls with it. As regards the mere matter of fact, whether the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, has received a divine commission to rule the whole visible church, it is a question of history, to be determined, like any other alleged fact, by the documentary evidence of Scripture and the early church; those who wish to see the question fully examined should consult "Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope." We proceed, therefore, to make some observations explanatory of the Protestant theory of the church.

The phrase, "invisible church," which the Reformers adopted to distinguish their doctrine of the church from that of Rome, was unhappily chosen; inasmuch as it seems to present a contradiction in terms. For a church composed, not of angels or spirits, but of human beings, can never be absolutely an invisible one. Moreover, it belongs essentially to the church to be, in one sense, visible. Christianity is not a school of philosophy, like the Academy or the Peripatetics of old, but a life, a life in Christ; and for the purpose of nourishing that life the Saviour has appointed ordinances, visible ordinances, so that where these ordinances are not administered we have no evidence of the existence of the church. The church becomes visible in the preaching of the word and in the ce

* Christian Guardian for December, 1847, and for January, 1848.

lebration of the two sacraments; and if it ceases to be visible in this sense of the term, it ceases to be the church. The real difference between the two parties is this:-the Romanist places the essence of the church in its outward organization, in such things as episcopacy, succession of Bishops, communion with the Bishop of Rome, and visible extent; the Protestant in what is invisible, faith and holiness. The Romanist says, "I am a member of the church because I profess the faith of Christ, partake of the Sacraments, and submit to the authority of the Pope;"* the Protestant says, "I belong to the church because I am in vital union with the Saviour by faith." The former admits that external communion with the church is not enough, that the individual should not rest there, but should endeavour to realize the end for which he has been incorporated in the body, viz. his own personal holiness; that he is not a living member of the church until he has actual faith in Christ. Nevertheless, even while dead in sins, he is by virtue of that external conjunction, a real member of the church; because the essence of the church consists in visible institutions. No one has better explained the doctrine of his church on this subject than Bellarmin :— This," he says, "is the difference between our view and that of the Protestants, that they, to constitute any one a member of the church, require internal virtues" (i. e. faith, love, &c.,) and consequently make the true church invisible" (this, stated thus absolutely is false); we, on the contrary, believe indeed that all internal graces, such as faith, hope, and charity, are found in the church, but we do not think that, to constitute a man a part of that true church of which Scripture speaks, any internal virtue is requisite: but only an external profession of faith, and that par

* Nostra autem sententia est, Ecclesiam esse cætum hominum ejusdem Christianæ fidei professione, et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine Romani Pontificis.-Bellarmin, De Eccles. Lib. III. c. 2.

ticipation of the sacraments which is perceived by the senses" (i. e. which is visible).* Real faith in Christ, therefore, and personal holiness are not, however desirable and proper they may be, of the essence of the church; they are not the "differentia" of its members; but only an end, or result, at which they ought to aim; because they are (in the manner aforesaid) members of the church, therefore they ought to be holy. Such is the Romish doctrine. The Protestant, on his part, admits that "internal graces" are not enough, and that the individual who possesses them should also, by the reception of the two sacraments, be in external communion with the church he admits that we have no evidence of the existence of faith in the heart, until confession is made with the mouth, and that confession sealed by the receiving of the sacraments; nevertheless, in his view, it is the living faith from which these external acts proceed, and which gives them all their value, that primarily and chiefly makes a man a member of Christ; this faith is to the Protestant the "differentia" (i. e. the distinguishing characteristic) of a member of the church, and far from being able with the Romanist to view it merely as the end which ought to be kept in view, he makes it the very essence, the "terminus ex quo," of church-membership. In a word, the Romanist presents us with a visible institution and says, "enrol yourself among its members and submit to its ordinances; never mind at present what your state of mind or heart may be; once in the institution, it will be your duty to imbibe its spirit, and you will find in it a discipline admirably fitted for that purpose; you will there

*Hoc interest inter sententiam nostram et alias omnes, quod omnes aliæ requirunt internas virtutes ad constituendum aliquem in ecclesiâ; nos autem et credimus in ecclesiâ inveniri omnes virtutes, fidem, spem, et caritatem, et cæteras, tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars veræ ecclesiæ, de quâ scripturæ loquuntur, non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum communionem, quæ sensu ipso percipitur.-De Eccles. cap. 2.

learn to have faith in Christ, and to be holy; habits of piety will then be wrought into you; and the result will be that if you have not been wanting to yourself, you will be a very different person from what you were when you entered the institution." The Protestant presents us with the Saviour, and says, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world! Faith in Him is the grand desideratum, the very root of the Christian life. Until you are in vital union with Him by faith, you are not a Christian at all, or only so nominally. It is this faith, wrought in you by the Spirit of God and by means of the Word as an instrument, which impresses upon the soul (if the expression may be allowed) the distinctive Christian character. Forgiveness of sin, peace with God, the renewing of the heart, are all dependent upon the exercise of this faith. And then, because you have faith in Christ (not in order to acquire it), in consequence of this faith, fulfil His commands, join yourself to His church by baptism, renew your communion with Him and with his church from time to time in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, assemble with His people for social prayer and hearing the word. But remember that these outward acts have no value except so far as they spring from faith; they are means indeed whereby faith is increased and the Christian life nourished, but they cannot, by constant repetition, impart that faith and that life in the first instance; the Christian life will indeed, if it exist at all, manifest itself outwardly; but it must itself exist previously to its visible manifestations." Every reader will perceive that there is an essential difference between these two ways of viewing the church. According to the Romanist view, the church confronts the individual as a system of positive institutions, by means of which he is to be habituated and disciplined into Christian feelings; according to the Protestant view, the church is a society of those who, because they already possess Christian feelings, come to have the new life within them cherished, and strengthened, by the use

All

of the ordinances which Christ has appointed for that purpose; ordinances indeed which are visible, and, in one sense, positive, but the use of which conveys no benefit except to the believing soul. Rome teaches that we must first be united to the church in order to be ultimately united to Christ; we hold that we must first be united to Christ in order thereby to be united to His church; hence, as might be expected, she magnities those outward acts whereby especially we testify our union with the church, we those inward acts (faith, &c.) in which, more especially, we hold communion with Christ. this is nothing more than a repetition, in another form, of the remarks we lately made on the diverse nature of the legal and the Christian dispensations. Romanism is Judaism Christianized. She would make the relation of outward to inward in the Gospel exactly the same as it was under the Law. The essence of the Mosaic dispensation consisted in visible institutions and ceremonies. True it is that moral precepts formed a part of the law of Moses, and not less so that in the Old Testament, God in some measure, unfolded His name and character; but this does not affect the general character of the Jewish dispensation, which, according to St. Paul, was a dispensation "of the letter;" that is, of minutely prescribed ordinances, as contrasted with Christianity, which is a Iministration of the Spirit." The righteousness of a Jew consisted in an exact fulfilment of the legal injunctions. The blessings annexed to God's covenant with the chosen people, blessings which were merely temporal, might be secured by a strict adherence to the letter of the law. The economy, as an economy, looked no further than the outward life. The nation was a holy nation, irrespectively of the personal holiness of its members. The whole system was emphatically "a yoke of carnal ordinances.' It is quite true that matters were not intended to, and did not, rest there; for, as we have elsewhere remarked, the law paved the way to its own abolition. The sacri* Heb. ix. 10.

66

fices proclaimed their own insufficiency to take away sin; positive precepts fell in estimation as compared with moral; prophets encouraged, and awakened, the growing moral sense of the nation; and had they but permitted themselves to be led into the true import of their own law, had they but listened to the prophetic teaching, the Jews would at once, and with one accord, have recognized in Christ Him "that should come. Unhappily, when the Saviour appeared, the mass of the nation had fallen into bondage to that outward yoke of ordinances which God intended should have "been imposed" upon them "only until the time of reformation," when it was to drop off, as an antiquated husk, and give place to a totally different system, a system the characteristic of which was to be 66 spirit" and not "letter;" and "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Not content with the prescribed legal ceremonies, they added new ones; and, under the guidance of their Pharisaic teachers, admitted, as an excuse for the gravest breaches of the moral law, some one or other self-imposed vow. They were careful to pay "tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin," but "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith;" "making the Commandments of God of none effect through their traditions." Romanism is Christianity Judaized. Even in St. Paul's time the "mystery of iniquity" did already work; and in the age of Cyprian, if we may judge of the general sentiment of the church by what we find in his writings, it was full-fledged, and only waited for a favourable conjuncture of circumstances to come forth as the well-organized system of the Papacy. The martyr of Carthage speaks of it as an admitted truth, needing no demonstration, that the "bishops, priests, and deacons " correspond to the High Priest, Priests, and Levites of the Jews. The common title he gives to Presbyters is "Sacerdotes," sacrificing Priests. "Can that man," he asks, "think that he has communion with Christ, who acts against the Priests (Sacerdotes) of Christ? Such an one bears

arms against the church and ordinance of God. An enemy of the altar (altaris), rebellious against the sacrifice of Christ, faithless instead of believing, a sacrilegious wretch, a disobedient servant, despising the Bishops, and abandoning the Priests of God, he dares to set up another altar (aliud altare), to offer up other prayers in unlawful words, to profane the true victim Christ by false sacrifices (dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia audet prophanare), nor reflects that he who thus opposes himself to the divine ordinance, will experience a like punishment with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram"* Such is the language held by this great and good man in the middle of the third century. What stronger expressions should we expect from a Gregory or an Innocent? Even the foundation of the Papal power is firmly laid by him. "Though all the Apostles had equal power and authority, yet the primacy is assigned to Peter, that the church of Christ might be exhibited as one. He who resists the church, who forsakes the chair of Peter, upon whom (i. e. Peter) the church is founded (super quem fundata est ecclesia), how can he hope to be in this church?" Allowances, doubtless, must be made for the circumstances in which Cyprian was placed; but what the Paris editor of his works remarks in his preface is quite true, that almost all the peculiar doctrines of Rome may be there found in germ.

66

The Reformers, appealing from church tradition to apostolic tradition (i. e. Scripture), recovered the great truth, so long buried and forgotten, that the "Gospel is not a ceremonial law," and that the essence of Christ's kingdom consists not in meat and drink," but "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. xiv. 17.) They restored Christ to his supremacy in the church, and, as a necessary consequence, rejected the Pope. For a vicar is only necessary when he whom he represents is absent, but Christ is present; Vicarius est absentis, Christus est præsens. Christ once more *De unit. Eccles. De unit. Eccles.