videntially raised up and specially qualified for this purpose, in whom the common sentiment embodies itself, and finds a mouthpiece. So it was at the period of the Reformation. For a length of time, the Germanic nations had chafed impatiently under the Papal yoke, and to religious minds the corruptions of the Church had become intolerable. The invention of printing, and the revi val of classical learning, had given a decided impulse to liberty of thought. Under such circumstances, when Luther appeared, he appeared, not as a mere individual promulgating peculiar doctrines of his own, but as the embodiment of the feelings which had long pervaded the sounder portion even of the Church itself. If, therefore, it be true that without a Luther the Reformation might not have taken place, it is also true that Luther was not the creator of the Protestant Church: he was quite as much led by, as he led, the spirit of the age. He was merely the appointed instrument of bringing matters to a head; a vent for the expression of sentiments which were becoming more and more general, and difficult of suppression. Hence it is, that while the works of the principal reformers are undoubtedly very valuable, as presenting a view of the interior spirit of Protestantism, they can by no means be considered authentic sources of information respecting the faith of the Protestant Churches. If Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin, were the foremost individuals, still they were but individuals, in the work of reformation. To illustrate, to explain statements otherwise ambiguous, or to supply defects in the authentic formularies, the writings of the reformers may properly be applied; but no argument can be founded upon them. The same observations of course apply to the great writers of the Romish communion. In the works of Bellarmin, for example, much light is thrown upon several points which are either obscurely treated, or wholly passed over, in the symbols of the Romish Church: but the statements of that eminent writer are his own, and his Church must not be held responsible for all that he advances.

The question then recurs, Where shall we find Protestantism and Romanism authentically set forth? There remains but one, and that indeed the true, source of information upon the subject; -viz. the public confessions, or symbols, in which the opposite parties have respectively embodied their sentiments. It will be evident, from what has been said, that nothing can, in fairness, be attributed to either party but what is, either expressly or by fair implication, contained in these symbolical documents. With a

brief mention of the principal of them, both Romanist and Protestant, these introductory remarks shall be brought to a close.

The Church of Rome has, strictly speaking, but one document of a symbolical character, viz. the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Soon after it became evident that the Protestants of Germany could not be put down by force, men's minds turned to a general council, as the only means left of restoring harmony between the two parties. It has already been mentioned that, at the beginning of the Reformation, Luther and his followers, far from opposing such a measure, appealed from the Pope to a council; an appeal, the justice of which was admitted by the right-minded members of the Papal party. But, partly owing to political obstacles, and partly to the reluctance of the successive Popes, from Adrian to Paul III., to take a step which might endanger the Papal authority, the design was not carried into effect until the year 1545. In that year the Council was solemnly opened at Trent: but, owing to the frequent interruptions which occurred in its sittings, it was not brought to a conclusion until A. D. 1563. It then received the Papal confirmation, and has ever since formed the authoritative exposition of the Romish faith. It was not to be expected that the Protestants would consent to abide by the decisions of a Council, over which the Pope was to preside, and in which the Bishops alone were to have the right of voting: and, though summoned to Trent, none of their leading theologians repaired to the Council.

The decisions of the Council relate, partly to the reformation of practical abuses, and partly to doctrine. Under the former head, many salutary reforms were by it effected, occasioned, there can be no doubt, by the movement on the other side. The doctrinal statements of the Council consist of "Decrees," which contain the doctrines of the Church positively stated, and "Canons," in which the opposite views are anathematised. It is in these latter clauses that the real points of difference are chiefly to be found; the positive statements of the Council being, for the most part, moderate in their tone.

But though the Church of Rome possesses but one authoritative symbol of faith, there are certain works of the highest authority in her communion, which are very nearly, if not quite, symbolical in their character. Among these, the first place is due to the Catechism of the Council, which appeared in the year 1566, soon after the dissolution of that assembly. It had been the intention of the prelates there assembled to draw up a popular exposition of

Romish doctrine, founded upon the Canons of Trent, to serve as a manual for the parochial clergy: but, the Council having been dissolved before the design could be carried into effect, it was given in charge to three eminent prelates to execute the work, which they completed in the year 1566. In a literary point of view, this Catechism possesses great excellencies. It is written in clear and elegant latinity; and without being prolix, embraces every topic of Christian doctrine. It gained, as it well deserved, universal acceptance; and has ever been regarded as only second in authority to the decisions of the Council itself.

Another document, holding the same place as the Catechism, though much inferior in importance, is, the Professio Fidei Tridentina. It is merely a short epitome of the chief heads of Tridentine doctrine, cast into the form of a profession of faith; to be subscribed by those who hold cure of souls in the Romish Church. In proceeding to enumerate the principal confessions of the Protestant Churches, it will not be necessary to enter formally into the differences which exist between those of the Lutheran, and those of the Reformed, Churches. As against Rome, they all agree in certain fundamental particulars.

Of the Lutheran formularies the principal is the Confession of Augsburg, the groundwork of all the other Protestant symbols. It was composed by Melancthon, and presented to the diet sitting at Augsburg, by the Protestant princes, as the exposition of their faith. The Romish theologians prepared a reply, entitled a Confutation of the Confession, which drew from Melancthon a second, and much more extended, apologetic statement, entitled, The Apology of the Augsburg Confession; a work of the greatest importance in ascertaining the real points in dispute between the Protestant party and their opponents. The third symbolical book of the Lutheran Churches is, the Articles of Schmalcald, prepared by Luther in the expectation of its being presented at a general Council to be held at Mantua; which, however, never took place. Luther's two Catechisms, composed for the use of the laity, close the list.

The Reformed Churches differed from the Lutheran in not possessing a common confession recognised by all; each Church framing one for itself, according as it inclined to the views of Calvin or Zuinglius, which on some points, especially the sacraments, were not exactly the same. Of the Reformed Confessions the following, arranged (with the exception of the two Catechisms placed last) in chronological order, are the most important:—

The three Helvetic Confessions. The first of these, commonly called the second, appeared at Basle, A. D. 1536. In the year 1566, the same confession, much enlarged, was given to the world, in the name, and with the sanction, of the Swiss Churches, those only of Basle and Neufchatel excepted. The third Helvetic Confession, by some considered the most ancient of all the Protestant symbols, was composed by Oswald Myconius, the friend of Zuinglius and Ecolampadius, A. D. 1529.*

The Scotch Confession; the work probably of John Knox. It appeared at Edinburgh, A. D. 1560.

The French Confession (Confessio Gallicana); presented by Theodore Beza, in the name of the French Reformed Churches, to Charles IX., A. D. 1561. It was afterwards formally adopted at a national Synod, held at Rochelle, 1571.†

The Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church.

The Belgic Confession; sanctioned by various Synods, the last of which took place in 1619.

The Polish Confession, which goes by the name of Declaratio Thorunensis. It was drawn up in 1645, with the view of effecting a reconciliation between the Romish, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches of Poland; and is perhaps, of all the Protestant confessions, the most carefully worded and instructive.

The Heidelberg Catechism: composed by command of the Elector Palatine, Frederic III., A. D. 1563. It was received by the Reformed Churches with universal approbation, and in many of them was used as a manual for schools.

The Genevan Catechism; drawn up by Calvin, A. D. 1545. Like the former, it gained a place in the Swiss Churches as a manual of instruction for youth.

*See Augusti's "Corpus Lib. Symb. Eccles. Ref." p. 628.
† Ib. p. 629.

BOOK I.

THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH.

PART I.

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

CHAPTER I.

DECLARATIONS OF THE ROMISH AND PROTESTANT FORMULARIES.

In this first chapter, such portions of the Romish and Protestant formularies, whether formal definitions or indirect statements, as may enable us to collect what the idea, or conception, of the Church is which each party respectively frames to itself, shall be laid, at some length, before the reader, whose indulgence is craved while this irksome, but necessary, task is gone through. The clauses in italics are those in which the point of divergency between the two parties is most prominently expressed.

The Council of Trent, -acting perhaps on the suggestion of some of the theologians present at it, viz. that the authority of the Church should be treated as a ruled point,*-observes a comparative silence upon the article of the Church; at least, presents us with

* "D'autres tenant pour certain et incontestable que par l'Eglise il falloit entendre l'ordre ecclésiastique, et surtout le concile, et le Pape qui en est le chef, disoient que l'autorité de l'Eglise se devoit tenir pour décidée, et que d'en traiter à présent, ce seroit donner lieu de croire, ou qu'il y avoit sur cela des difficultés, ou au moins que c'étoit une vérité nouvellement éclaircie, et qui n'avoit pas toujours été crue dans l'Eglise chrétienne." (Sarpi, tom. i. p. 261.) This is the reason why in the discussions of the great systematic writers of the middle ages, the schoolmen for example, the Church, as such, has no distinct place assigned it. Living under the system, and without an antagonist Protestantism, it never occurred to them to be necessary to explain, or defend it.