the Church are inward before they become outward, participation in the same Spirit constituting the essential bond of union among Christians. Hence, finally, it is that the Protestant, while he admits that unrenewed men may, and indeed must, be found in every visible Church, denies that they are members of the Church, i. e. of the Church in its truth; denies, that is, that the latter is a body of mixed composition, comprehending within its pale both those who are, and those who are not, led by the Spirit of God. To admit that unsanctified men are true members of the true Church would obviously lead to the Romish doctrine, that the latter is a visible institution, under a visible head, its essential being lying in its visible characteristics.

If it should seem strange to the reader that a mere relative difference in the mode of viewing the same object should give rise to systems of very opposite character, he has only to remember that most of the errors that have appeared in the Church, both in past and present times, have arisen from giving an undue prominence to what in itself is an undoubted truth. Thus Arian tendencies spring from dwelling too exclusively upon the humanity of Christ; while the opposite error of the Docetæ, which manifested itself under so many forms in the first two centuries, may be traced to a similar exclusiveness of view with respect to His divinity. Sabellianism took its rise from not counterbalancing the declarations of the Old Testament, respecting the Unity of God, with the equally clear statements of the New Testament respecting the Trinity in Unity. Certain declarations of St. Paul on the subject of justification, misunderstood, have led to Antinomianism: certain others of St. James, taken alone, have given rise to a type of sentiment equally erroneous. By taking too exclusive a view of the agency of divine grace in the work of conversion, Calvin was led to make rash statements on the subject of predestination: by unduly magnifying man's part in that work, anti-Calvinists have verged towards Pelagianism. It must not, then, be thought necessarily a trifling difference, or one of words merely, when we say that the controversy between Romanists and Protestants, in reference to the idea of the Church, is reducible to the question, Does the true being of the Church lie in its external characteristics, or in its unseen life? or, to put the same question in another form, Is the life within the foundation and source of that which is visible in the Church; or, on the contrary, is that which is visible the foundation and source of the life within? Questions, which are by no means decided by the bare acknow

ledgment on both sides, that the Church, according as it is regarded from different points of view, is both visible and invisible.

If confirmation of this mode of stating the real question at issue be needed, it will be found in the following statements of the same trust-worthy expounder of Romanism, to whom allusion has been already made:-"This," says Bellarmin, "is the distinction between our view and that of the Protestants, that they, to constitute any one a member of the Church, require internal virtues, (ie. the work of the Spirit in the heart,) and consequently make the true Church invisible: we, on the contrary, believe indeed that all internal graces, faith, hope, charity, &c., will be found in the Church, but we deny that to constitute a man a member of the true Church, any internal virtue is requisite, but only an external profession of the faith, and that participation of the sacraments which is perceptible by the senses" (i. e. which is merely outward).* Which, as is evident, is equivalent to saying, that Protestants make the inward fellowship of the Spirit essential, Romanists nonessential, to the idea of the Church in its truth.

In conclusion, it may be proper to remind the reader, that both parties accept the statements of the three creeds on the subject of the Church, however different may be the interpretation of them which they respectively adopt. Both parties believe in the existence of the "one Holy Catholic Church," though they may not attach exactly the same meaning to that article of faith. Nor are we compelled to adopt any particular interpretation of it, as the only admissible one. It may be true that the fathers generally expound it in a particular way, and that their expositions deserve our respectful attention: but before the Protestant can attribute a binding authority to them, he must be assured, first, that the creeds are the production of, not merely Apostolic times, but of the Apostles; and secondly, that the fathers are to be considered as unerring expounders of the meaning of these formularies. It is needless to say that neither of these positions can be established. While it is very probable that the Apostles employed some short summary of the principal articles of the Christian faith, as a form

De Eccles. Mil. c. 2. As this passage contains the hinge of the whole controversy, the original is here subjoined. "Hoc interest inter sententiam nostram, et alias omnes, quòd omnes aliæ requirunt internas virtutes ad constituendum aliquem in ecclesiâ, et propterea ecclesiam veram invisibilem faciunt; nos autem et credimus in ecclesiâ inveniri omnes virtutes, fidem, spem, caritatem, et cæteras; tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars veræ ecclesiæ, non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum externam professionem fidei, et sacramentorum communionem quæ sensu ipso percipitur."

of baptismal confession,* we have no certain evidence that the creed which now passes under their name proceeded from them; the fable of each of the twelve having contributed an article to it having been long since exploded. Indeed, the loose manner in which the earliest fathers recite the baptismal confessions used in their times, and the variations which occur in these summaries themselves, sufficiently prove that no fixed form of the kind really descended from the Apostles: otherwise, it would have been preserved with the same jealous care with which the New Testament Scriptures themselves were. With respect to the particular article in question, internal evidence would lead us to assign to it a later date than to the rest of the creed; for it would hardly have been deemed necessary to make the Church an article of faith, until its existence seemed endangered by heresies and schisms. This surmise is confirmed by historical testimony. No trace of the article is found before Tertullian, who, however, alludes to it as, in his time, forming part of the profession of faith made at the baptismal font. From Cyprian downward, it is certain that it had a fixed place amongst the baptismal interrogatories. As to the expositions which the fathers give of its meaning, it is obvious that we are no more bound by them, than we are by their interpretations of the article which speaks of "the forgiveness of sins."

* Traces of such a summary may be thought to be visible in Scripture itself. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, and 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Compare

"Sed et ipsa interrogatio quæ fit in baptismo testis est veritatis. Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam æternam et remissionem pec catorum per sanctam ecclesiam ?" &c. (Epist. 70. Edit. Baluz.) The various reading which Cyprian here presents us with is worthy of observation.

PART II.

DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION.

CHAPTER I.

METHOD OF THE INQUIRY.

THE foregoing observations have done little more than put us in possession of the fundamental difference between the Romish and the Protestant idea of the Church, as expressed in the definitions adopted by the two parties: the inquiry now about to be instituted relates to the truth or error of these definitions. The Romanist defines the Church by its outward, the Protestant by its inward, characteristics: the former makes its essence to consist in its visible rites and polity; the other holds that its true being lies in its spiritual, and therefore unseen, union with Christ. Which of these views is the true one? This is the question now before,us.

But here the previous question meets us, What are we to regard as the authoritative source of truth in matters of religion? By what test are we to try doctrines which present themselves to us with, as far as human authority is concerned, equal pretensions? A question which itself is differently answered by Romanists and Protestants. And here, in truth, lies the real difficulty of their arriving at any mutual understanding. We differ from Romanists, not merely on this or that particular point of doctrine, but upon the ultimate authority by which all doctrinal statements are to be tried. Ever since the Council of Trent decided that ecclesiastical tradition is to be regarded as of equal authority with Scripture, and consequently of equal force in proof of doctrine, there has existed an apparently insuperable impediment to a reconciliation between the two parties: for, before such can take place, one or the other must abandon that which constitutes the formal principle of its system; on the Romish side, the doctrine

*

"Omnes libros tam veteris quam Novi Testamenti... necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes... pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit ot veneratur (Synodus.)" Sess. 4ta.

of an unwritten word of God; on the Protestant, the supreme authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture in matters of faith. The source of revelation, the principium cognoscendi in religion, is not the same to both; hence it should seem that every attempt to reconcile their differences must prove abortive. Romanists must give up their doctrine of tradition,—that is, become Protestants, or Protestants must receive it, that is, become Romanists, before the argument can be conducted on any common basis: hence the inconvenience, constantly felt, of arguing with Romanists on particular points of the controversy, before the great question of the rule of faith is settled.

In this point, too, lies the great distinction between the doctrinal system of the fifth and sixth centuries and later Romanism. The impulse, which recent events have in this country communicated to the study of the patristic remains, has had the effect of dissipating the illusive splendour with which it had become the custom to invest the early Church, and of teaching us that, even in the time of Cyprian, the principles, of which Tridentine Romanism is the mature development, were actively at work in the Christian body. On one important point, however, we can claim the great divines of the period just mentioned as our own: they, with us, taught the supreme authority of Scripture in controversies of faith. What Cyprian and Augustin call Apostolic traditions, are either the writings of the New Testament themselves, and the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as expressed in the Apostles' Creed; or the few regulations of polity, such as episcopacy, which could be really traced up to Apostles. Neither of these eminent fathers felt any scruple in recommending a departure from ecclesiastical custom, however ancient, when it appeared to them to be inconsistent with the Word of God.* If they laid the foundations of the Church system, they did so on Protestant

"Nec consuetudo quæ apud quosdam direpserat impedire debet quominus veritas prævaleat et vincat. Nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Quam veritatem nobis Christus ostendens in evangelio suo dicit, Ego sum veritas. In compendio est apud religiosas et simplices mentes et errorem deponere et eruere veritatem. Nam si ad divinæ traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus. Quod et nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes præcepta divina servantes, ut si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas, ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam atque apostolicam traditionem revertamur." (Cyp. Epist. 74. ad Pomp.) What Cyprian means by "Apostolica traditio" appears from the instance that immediately follows: - "Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus et Christus unus, et una spes, et fides una, et una ecclesia, et baptisma unum." Compare Augustin, Cont. Cres. lib. ii. s. 39. "Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant, quos omnino judicare non audeamus, et secundum quos de cæteris litteris vel fidelium vel infidelium libere judicemus."