Such was the eminent servant of God, whose Memorials are now presented to the Church of Christ. Though they afford only a sketch of his thoughts and actions from time to time during his lengthened Episcopate (a complete history of which is much to be desired) these memorials will not be without value as exhibiting an example of rare judgment, devotion, gentleness, fidelity, and holiness.

'And now that He who gave has taken away, it is consoling and profitable (as Bishop Lee observes) to dwell upon his character, his course, and his labours. Mournful though the task be, it is the prompting of love, and has the warrant of Scripture. It assuages the bitterness of grief, and leads us to magnify the grace of God in him.'

ΤΩ ΘΕΩ ΔΟΞΑ.

APPENDIX.

Extracts from Bishop McIlvaine's work, referred to p. 205, entitled 'THE TRUE TEMPLE; OR, HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH AND COMMUNION OF SAINTS, IN ITS NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND UNITY.' Philadelphia: 1861.

'For lack of diligent observing the difference between the Church of God mystical and visible, the oversights are neither few nor light that have been committed.' Of the truth of these words of Hooker, as well in application to these times as his own, we have no question. There is at this time not only the lack of diligently observing the difference mentioned, but there is among us a decided and diligent effort to treat it as a fiction, and thus, in the face of our Church-standards and great writers, to represent the Church visible and mystical as identical and commensurate; in other words, that all who belong to the former belong also to the latter. . . . It is to resist such evil tendencies by promoting the more diligent observing the difference between the Church of God mystical and visible,' the want of which in his day the judicious Hooker lamented, that these pages are put forth, with an humble prayer and hope that the Lord and Head of the Church will be pleased to use them in some measure for the promotion of the truth, the guidance of His people, and the furtherance of the highest interests of His kingdom.

The visible Church is the Church as seen of men, in the mixed mass of the true and the false, the genuine and the counterfeit people of God. The invisible Church is the same Church as seen only of God in the unmixed company of all

His faithful people. The one is that great flock gathered together, by the call of the Gospel from all parts of the earth to the professed following of the Good Shepherd; in which the sheep of His pasture are mingled with the goats that know Him not, and are none of His-all, however, visibly, that is, professedly, His flock. The other is simply so much of that mixed multitude as do truly hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him, and unto whom He giveth eternal life.

To call all the visible Church the Church of God, when it is not all really the Church but only contains it, and when indeed a very great part is really of the kingdom of darkness, is only consistent with a mode of speech common in the Scriptures and in ordinary life. . . . . All the people of Israel were called 'the people of God,' 'the Israel of God,' 'the circumcision,' 'the congregation' (or Church) of the Lord, because all were visibly so by the profession which all made in the visible ordinances of the Jewish Church. But, said St. Paul, 'all are not Israel that are of Israel; neither because they are all the seed of Abraham are they all children' of the promise made to Abraham. 'He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.' Thus did St. Paul draw the distinction between the visible or professing Church, and the real but invisible Church under the Mosaic dispensation. . . . He thought it highly important to be very distinct in his instruction on the point, that the sign was not the thing; that the sacrament of circumcision was not the circumcision. It was the thing only sacramentally, or in the sign, not in the reality. It was the visible rite, not the invisible grace.

The analogous use of language extends to all that is visible of the Church under the Gospel. There is but one real baptism not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God; not the outward washing, but the inward sanctification-for baptism, precisely as circumcision, is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Still that outward washing is called baptism, just as the outward Jewish sacrament was called circumcision. But it is important now, as in St.

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

373

Paul's time, to keep it very distinctly in mind, that it is only sacramental baptism-only the sacrament or sign of baptism, not the thing. The sign or sacrament is not depreciated in this, but the thing signified is relatively honoured above it."

Again, there is but one real communion of the body and blood of Christ, that of those who feed on Christ, in their hearts, by faith, with thanksgiving. And yet in Scripture the visible sacrament is called the communion. 'The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? But in strictness of speech it is not the communion of the body of Christ, but only the sacrament, or divinely instituted sign of that communion. It is the visible communion. The real is

invisible.

It is an old saying of St. Augustine, quoted in our homilies, and very common in our old writers, for the illustration of this precise point, that 'Sacraments do for the most part receive the names of the self-same things which they signify.' In this application of terms, the Sacrament of Communion is called the Communion; the Sacrament of Regeneration is called the Regeneration. By analogous terms, the receiver of these sacramental signs, and visible notes of a Christian, is called a Christian, whether he be a Christian inwardly or not; and the vast multitude, in the whole earth, united into one professing community, under the same signs, are called the Christian Church; though it is no uncharitableness to suppose, that an immense proportion of them have not the Spirit of Christ, and so are none of His; and consequently are no more His Church than a merely professing Christian is a true Christian, or than a merely external communicant is a real communicant of the body and blood of Christ.

Peculiar circumstances have tended so much to draw the minds of the Protestant Episcopal ministry in this country to the study and defence of those visible institutions, which are peculiar to an Episcopal Church, and which we believe to be Apostolic in origin, that it is apprehended there are not a few minds, not unfavourably disposed, that have become so unused to the old Anglo-Protestant views of the Church, as it is invisible

* 'All receive not the grace of God,' says Hooker, 'who receive the sacraments of His grace.'-Eccl. Pol., b. 5, § 17.

or mystical, that our undisguised exhibition of them here will seem almost new. Such minds, on a little reflection, will come to their true bearings. The slightest effort to controvert those views of Scripture, or in consistency with other great truths of the Gospel, will convince them that nothing else can be true, and that the whole doctrine is both Anglican and Scriptural. The tendency in the present day among many, in the precise direction by which the Romish Church arrived at its present doctrine, has suggested the importance of giving those views the prominence they occupy in these pages. And that no reader may be at a loss to know how entirely the doctrine of these pages is identical, in every particular, with that which our Hookers, and Taylors, and Ushers, etc., most earnestly taught, a series of extracts from such authorities is added in the Appendix, to which the reader's careful attention is requested. We have taken Cranmer and Ridley for the times of the Reformation; Jewel and Hooker for the days immediately succeeding; Bishops Taylor and Hall, Archbishop Usher, Doctors Jackson and Perkins for the trying times of the early part of the seventeenth century; and Isaac Barrow for those immediately succeeding.

Thus we have representations of all classes and schools of English divines of the times above-mentioned. And it will be seen, that among these great writers there was not the least difference of opinion as to the points now in view. That the true Church is composed only of the true children and people of God, united by a living faith to Christ; that none others have real membership in God's Church, however they may be externally associated with it in visible ordinances; that this Church is the Holy Catholic Church and Communion of Saints, having all its being in the union of its several members, by faith, immediately to Christ; that this is the mystical body of Christ, as nothing else can be; that it is invisible, because while its members on earth are personally visible, their distinction, as such, from all merely nominal or professed members is invisible; that this and no other is the Church to which all the promises are given, just as real believers among the children of Abraham were the only Church to which the promises then made belonged; finally, that this Church, mystical and invisible, is 'the pillar and ground of the truth, against which the