of the Romish communion. It is not without a sense of the disadvantage to the argument thence arising, that, in the following pages, issue is joined with the Romish controversialist upon the subject of the Church, before the Protestant doctrine of justification has been expounded, and its connexion with the former topic pointed out. On the other hand, if the object be to select the cardinal point of the controversy between Romanists and Protestants as that which should be first discussed, then both parties must agree in assigning that position to the subject before us. Not to mention that, in all discussions concerning the application of redemption to individuals, the existence of the Church must be presupposed, for it is by means of the Church, as an instrument, that the work of Christ is carried on in the world; and that, under this head of controversy, the essential differences of the two systems reach their culminating point, and assume their most decided aspect of opposition; it is, obviously, but reasonable that the great question concerning the source of revelation and the ultimate authority in matters of faith, should be settled, before an attempt is made to determine what is, and what is not, the pure doctrine of Christ. But it is plain that this question cannot be discussed without a continual reference to the conception which each party respectively entertains of the nature and authority of the Church, and of its relation to Scripture. In making good his doctrine concerning the Church, the Romanist virtually proves all the other dogmas of his system; and even the Protestant cannot satisfactorily set forth the proof of his formal principle viz. the supreme authority of Scripture in matters of faith, without touching upon the characteristics of that spiritual society which existed before the New Testament was written, to which the Christian Scriptures were addressed, and between which, as the "witness and keeper" of the Divine Word and the Word itself, there is a divinely established connexion which never can be safely dissolved. To this we may add, that it is as embodied in a living Church system that Romanism has ever produced the greatest impression upon nations, and individuals. On this side chiefly it is, that the system of Trent has exhibited its power to draw over to itself the unstable, and the ill-informed. In fact, if we examine the history of the various cases of conversion to Romanism which have occurred amongst ourselves, we shall find that, in almost every instance, it was the imposing aspect which the Church of Rome presents, as a visibly organised body under one visible head, and the pretensions which she puts forward to

a divine commission to pronounce authoritatively upon questions of doctrine, that principally weighed with the converts, and led them to take the step which they have taken. These pretensions, on the other hand, are the real impediment in the way of a reconciliation between the two great divisions of Christendom: it is against the claims of the Church of Rome, as a church, that Protestants must go on protesting, until they are abandoned. A Church may be disfigured by serious corruptions in doctrine and in practice, but as long as it does not claim for itself infallibility, that is, make its very corruptions part and parcel of Christianity, there is hope of its being reformed; and, meanwhile, its imperfections may, and indeed ought to be, borne with by those bred within its pale. The abuses of the ecclesiastical system of the sixteenth century, grievous as they were, would not of themselves have justified the Protestants in separating from the communion of Rome. But when the claim to infallibility was authoritatively put forth, and the plainest practical abuses thereby invested with a character of immutability, and even of sanctity, no alternative was left to those who had become convinced that the practices in question were corruptions but to secede from her communion. The same claim, which has not as yet been abandoned, interposes, at this day, an impassable barrier between us and Rome. On the whole, then, a comparative view of the two systems will most fitly commence with a discussion of their dif ferences on the subject of the Church.

These preliminary observations upon the historical bearings of the subject about to be discussed, conduct us to an important inquiry, without some notice of which it would be improper to advance further;-viz. What are the authentic sources whence we are to derive our knowledge of Romanism and Protestantism, respectively?

It will be obvious, on a moment's reflection, that Scripture is not, directly, one of these sources. Scripture is the common treasure of all Christians; the common record which both parties recognise, and wherein each thinks it discovers the peculiarities of its own system. For no Romanist has as yet advanced so far as to admit that Scripture is opposed to the doctrines of his Church; at most, he maintains that it is an imperfect, or an obscure, record of the Christian faith, and needs the aid of tradition, or development, to supply its deficiencies. Scripture, too, from its structure, and from the place which it holds, or ought to hold, in the Church, is manifestly unfitted, as it was never intended, to furnish us with

dogmatical expositions of the Christian faith, much less of the faith of any party in the Church. The Church had her faith within, and could have given expression to it, before the New Testament was written:-the latter was added, to be a perpetual touchstone, or standard, whereby she is to try her faith, and correct any deviations which it may exhibit from the spirit of Apostolic Christianity. Scripture, therefore, is not a protest against certain specific errors, whether Romanist or Protestant, but against all forms of error, which may, to the end of time, prevail in the Church. The very place of supremacy which the Word of God holds in the Church, unfits it to be the symbol of any party: -it presents a record not so much of what the Church does, as of what she ought to, believe; it exhibits the pure pattern of Apostolic Christianity, to which all churches should endeavour to conform themselves. The Protestant, therefore, will search in vain in Scripture for a dogmatical exposition of the points in which he differs from the Church of Rome, just as he will in vain search there for a categorical expression of his faith, as it is opposed to Arian and Socinian errors. Both in the one case and in the other, he will feel himself bound to prove from Scripture what he holds as matter of faith, but he cannot, as a Protestant or as a Trinitarian, take Scripture immediately, and say, This is an exposition of what I believe. It is also to be remembered, that, to claim Scripture directly as a record of what we hold in opposition to Romanism, is, not only to detract from the sacredness of the inspired writings, but to affirm that we have succeeded in reproducing amongst ourselves a perfect representation of Apostolic purity, both in doctrine and practice; an assumption which we are not justified in making. To be continually approximating to the idea of a Church presented in Scripture is our bounden duty; but it is not permitted us to say that we have actually reached that ideal; for this would be equivalent to making the imperfections under which our system may be labouring part of Scripture itself. We must carefully limit the sense of the celebrated aphorism, "The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," or we shall possibly be led into dangerous error: for it is a dangerous error to affiliate our particular creed directly upon Scripture, so as to make the latter responsible, not only for every sentiment therein expressed but, even for the form of words in which it is expressed. If, by the aphorism above-mentioned, be meant, that the Bible is with Protestants the ultimate authority in matters of faith, its truth is undeniable; for whatever we hold as Protestants we hold

because we believe it can be proved by Holy Scripture: but if the meaning intended to be conveyed be, that Scripture is Protestantism, and Protestantism Scripture, the assertion is not true, and what is more, is an unwarrantable assumption. Protestantism, as a system of doctrine, may have many defects which need, like the errors of Romanism, to be corrected by a reference to Scripture. The Inspired Word itself must be jealously guarded from such an identification with theological systems, which have been built up by the operation of the logical faculty, as would place both on the same footing of authority.

Equally obvious is it, indeed it need hardly be observed, that the three cecumenical creeds contribute nothing towards enabling us to ascertain the distinctive doctrines of the Romish, and the Reformed, Churches. They, like Scripture, are the common property of both parties, the expression of their common Christianity,the ground upon which they must both unite against the common enemy-Rationalism, or infidelity. An agreement of both parties in the great objective truths of Christianity, as expressed in the creeds, must be pre-supposed, if we are to understand clearly the point of divergence:-otherwise, we shall be wasting our time in contending about first principles. Protestants may not arrive at their belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures, or of the doctrines expressed in the creed, by the same road which Romanists take; but if they do accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity as part of that Word, it is enough it is comparatively of little consequence how they came by their faith. Romish controversialists are constantly forgetting this, and asking us, how we prove the inspiration of Scripture, &c. ? They might as well go back further, and ask us how we prove the existence of a God. There is a certain portion of ground common to both parties, to dispute about which is wholly irrelevant to the questions on which they are really divided. Moreover, for either party to adopt the three creeds as its symbol, is to ignore the existence of its opponent. If we choose to forget that the Reformed and the Romish Churches are existing realities, and imagine ourselves to be living in the 4th century, we may adopt this course; otherwise, it is an illusion, and a dangerous one. The supposition upon which it is really based is, that there are no essential differences between Romanism and Protestantism, or, in other words, that we may reunite ourselves to the Church of Rome, without forfeiting our position as a Protestant Church. Nothing can be more suicidal than the attempts which have been made in certain

quarters to substitute, as the symbol of the English Church, the three creeds for the thirty-nine articles; as if the former comprise everything which distinguishes us as a Church. So far forth as we are a Christian Church, as distinguished from Socinians, Jews, and Mahometans, the ancient creeds are our symbols; but they are not so, so far forth as we are a Reformed Church, for they contain no protest against the peculiar errors of Rome.

Nor, again, are we warranted in regarding the private writings of the reformers or their opponents, whether English or foreign, as authentic sources of information on the differences of the two great sections of Christendom. True it is, that, as helps to ascertaining the real points at issue, the writings of Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and Zuinglius, and of our own reformers, on the one hand, -and of Bellarmin, Bossuet, and Moehler, -on the other, are very valuable: but it is manifest that no statement of any individual writer, however eminent, can in fairness be attributed to the Church to which he belongs, unless indeed the latter have formally adopted it. Had this rule been observed by both parties, how much useless controversy might have been avoided! The Romish theologians are careful to discriminate between the unauthorised speculations of their writers, and the formal decrees of their Church: let them accord to their opponents the same measure of equity which they claim for themselves. If Luther or Calvin have made some rash assertions, what is that to the reformed Churches? those Churches must be judged by their authentic declarations, and by nothing else. Yet so little has this rule of equity been attended to that, in the latest work of any consequence on the Romish side of the controversy, that of Moehler, the citations by which he attempts to justify his description of Protestantism are, for the most part, drawn, not from the accredited formularies of the eformed Churches, but from the works of Luther, Melancthon, and Zuinglius.

To speak of any individual, such as Luther or Calvin, as being the creator of the German, or the Swiss, Protestant Church, is wholly to misunderstand the place which the chief reformers occupied in the movement of the 16th century. In all great revolutions of this kind, whether political or religious, a preparatory work has been long going on, previous to the actual outbreak: passions have been long smouldering, sentiments fermenting in the mass, which only awaited some particular circumstance to call them forth into practical energy. In the ordinary course of things, the office of igniting the train falls to some individual, pro