firm the preacher's personal convictions, as to whether a given man, or set of men are the legal officers they claim to be. It is not so much on first principles, which few men possessing a moral sense will dispute, as the application of these principles to the vast and complex affairs of nations and communities, that the angry questions of party politics arise. And here, imperfect knowledge, interest, prejudice, party predilections so distort and bewilder, that however strong our own personal convictions, we see vast numbers earnestly enlisted on opposite sides, whose piety cannot be questioned. We do not undertake to say that these questions may not sometimes have an ethical or religious side too obvious and urgent for the pulpit to neglect. But we do say, as the result of considerable observation, that we never knew the pulpit throw itself into the issues that divide political parties, without contracting a stain and a wound upon its sanctity and spiritual power. It inevitably soils itself by such association with the unworthy passions which embitter and disgrace political conflicts. We have not known any instance in which political harangues from the pulpit aided the party espoused, or gained a voter, or did anything more than give intolerable offence to partisans of the opposite side. Others may have witnessed better results. "As to patriotic and political sermons, they are rather to be avoided, and yet in certain grave circumstances, we may be obliged to touch upon such subjects in the pulpit. ... We must beware, lest we inflame on this hearth, the passions of the natural man. How shall we now speak of politics without taking a side? We must remark, also, the utilitarianism which for the most part is concealed in these subjects. It is better for the preacher, as it is for the navigator, to keep himself in the high sea; it is in the neighbourhood of coasts that shipwrecks are most frequent."-Vinet's Homiletics, pp. 86–7. And it may be added, that with the ample sources of political information afforded by a free press, exigencies can rarely occur which call for its dissemination from the pulpit. Its office should rather be to moderate the fierceness of these violent conflicts, by holding up the contrasted greatness of the Infinite and Eternal.

ART. V.-The Church-Its Perpetuity.

THE Church is perpetual. Of this there is, among Christians, neither doubt nor dispute. But as to what is meant both by the subject and predicate of this proposition, there exist radically different views. By the Church, Romanists understand the external visible society united in the profession of the same faith, by communion in the sacraments, and subjection to bishops having succession, especially to the Roman Pontiff. The perpetuity of the Church, therefore, must on their theory include the continued existence of an organized society, professing the true faith; the continued legitimate administration of the sacraments; and the uninterrupted succession of prelates and popes.

Anglicans understand by the Church an external society professing the true faith, united in the communion of the same sacraments, and in subjection to bishops canonically ordained. Perpetuity with them, therefore, must include perpetual adherence to the truth, the due administration of the sacraments, and the uninterrupted succession of bishops.

Protestants hold that the true Church is the body of true believers; and that the empirical or visible Church is the body of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. All therefore that the perpetuity of the Church, according to the Protestant theory, involves, is the continued existence on earth of sincere believers who profess the true religion.

It is obvious that everything depends on the definition of the Church. If you determine the nature of the subject, you determine the nature of its attributes. If the Romish or Anglican definition of the Church be correct, then their view of all its attributes, its visibility, perpetuity, holiness, and unity, must also be correct. And, on the other hand, if the Protestant definition of the Church be accepted, so must also the Protestant view of its attributes. It is also obvious that the consideration

* By Anglicans is meant the Laudean, or Oxford party, in the Church of England. 88

VOL. XXVIII.-NO. IV.

of any one of these points involves all the others. The perpetuity of the Church, for example, brings up the question, whether external organization is necessary to its existence; whether the Church may depart from the faith; whether the prelatical office is necessary, and whether an uninterrupted succession of ordination is essential to the ministry; how far the sacraments are necessary to the being of the Church; whether Peter was the head of the College of the Apostles; whether the bishop of Rome is his successor in that office; and whether submission to the Roman Pontiff is essential to the unity, and, of course, to the existence of the Church. All these points are involved in the Romish theory on this subject; and all, except the last two, in the Anglican doctrine. It would be impossible to go over all this ground in less compass than that of a volume. On each of these topics, ponderous tomes have been written. We propose simply to present, in a series of propositions, a brief outline of the Protestant answer to the question, In what sense is the Church perpetual?

The predictions of the Old Testament, and the promises of the New, it is universally conceded, secure the existence of the Church on earth until the second advent of Christ. Our Lord said to his disciples, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." He promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church. As to the fact, therefore, that the Church is to exist on earth as long as the world lasts, there is and can be no dispute among Christians. The only question is, How are these promises to be understood?

The first proposition which Protestants maintain in answer to the above question, is, that the promise of Christ does not secure the continued existence of any particular Church as an organized body. By a particular Church is meant a body of professing Christians, united by some ecclesiastical organization, as the Church of Antioch, of Jerusalem, of England, or of Holland. The proposition is, that, from all that appears in Scripture, any such Church may apostatize from the truth, or cease to exist even nominally. This proposition is almost universally conceded. Many of the apostolic churches have long since perished. The Churches of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Corinth, of Thessalonica, have been blotted out of existence.

Romanists teach that the Eastern Churches, and those of England, Scotland, Holland, &c., have so far departed from the faith and order of the true Church, as no longer to belong to the body of Christ. Anglicans teach, that all societies which have rejected the office, or lost the regular succession of the episcopate, have ceased to be Churches. Protestants, with one voice, deny that any particular Church is either infallible, or secure from fatal apostacy. All parties therefore agree in asserting that the promise of Christ does not secure the perpetuity of any one particular Church.

The great majority of Papists do indeed make an exception in favour of the city of Rome. As the bishop of that city is regarded as the vicar of Christ, and as all other Churches are required to recognize and obey him as such on pain of exclusion from the body of Christ, so long as the Church continues on earth, that bishop must continue worthy of recognition and obedience. Any member of the body may die, but if the head perish, the whole body perishes with it.

But since there is no special promise in Scripture to the Church of Rome, it can be made an exception to the general liability to defection only on the assumption, 1. That Peter was made the head of the whole Church. 2. That the recognition of him in that character is essential to membership in the body of Christ. 3. That he was the bishop of Rome. 4. That the Popes are his legitimate successors in the bishopric of that city, and in his headship over the Church. 5. That the recognition of the supremacy of the Pope is an essential condition for all ages of the existence of the Church. Every one of these assumptions, however, is false.

The second proposition is, that the promise of Christ does not secure his Church from all error in matters of faith. The Protestant doctrine is that a particular Church, and even the whole visible Church, may err in matters of doctrine, and yet retain their character as Churches. "The purest Churches under heaven," says the Westminster Confession, "are subject to mixture and error." By the profession of the truth, therefore, which is declared to be essential to the existence of the Church, must be understood the profession of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. This distinction between essential and

non-essential doctrines is one, which however it may be denied, is in some form admitted by all Christians. Sometimes the distinction is expressed by drawing a line between matters of faith and matters of opinion; at others, by distinguishing between truths which must be received with explicit faith, and those which may be received implicitly. In some form the distinction must be acknowledged.

What we are concerned to show is, that the existence of the Church does not depend on its absolute freedom from error. This may appear too plain a point to need proof; and yet it is one of the fundamental doctrines of Romanism, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith. That the Church may thus err, is proved, 1. Because nothing can be necessary to the existence of the Church which is not necessary to salvation. Freedom from error in matters of doctrine, is not necessary to salvation, and therefore cannot be necessary to the perpetuity of the Church.

That nothing can be necessary to the existence of the Church which is not necessary to salvation, is so nearly a self-evident proposition, that its terms cannot be understood without forcing assent. Salvation involves union with Christ; union with Christ involves union with the Church, for the Church is his body; that is, it consists of those who are united to Him. Therefore, nothing which is compatible with union with Christ, can be incompatible with union to the Church. Consequently, the Church exists so long as true believers exist. It is a contradiction, therefore, to say that anything is necessary to the being of the Church, which is not necessary to salvation.

That freedom from error in matters of faith is not necessary to salvation, is scarcely less plain. By "matters of faith" are meant those truths which God has revealed in his word, and which all who hear the gospel are bound to believe. Perfect faith supposes perfect knowledge; and such perfection cannot be necessary to salvation, because it is not necessary to piety. It is of course admitted that knowledge is essential to religion, because religion consists in the love, belief, and obedience of the truth. It is therefore conceded, that all religious error must be injurious to religion, in proportion to the importance of the truths concerned. If such errors are so grave as to pre