necessary, and appointed by God, that the Church, or whole body of Christians at any one time on Earth, should form one society, under one government: and hence they argue (not unfairly) that this Church must have an earthly Head, or Supreme Governor, whom all Christians are bound to obey;— whether that be the Pope alone, or the Pope and a general Council (on which points they are divided amongst themselves): and they urge, that since the Protestant Churches are not thus united in one society, and they are, therefore it is plain that they are the ONE universal Church which all men should belong to. They forget, when they argue thus, that, even on their own principles, there is at least one other Body which has just as good claims to such an unity as this—namely, the Greek Church; which exists (and has subsisted as long as the Roman-catholic) in a great part of Europe, Asia, and Africa. But one needs to trouble oneself the less about the pretensions of either the Greeks or the Roman-catholics, because this whole notion of the Unity of the Church is quite unscriptural.

The Scriptures never teach us to regard the Universal Church, or Body of believers existing at any one time on earth, as, in this sense, one Society. They rather teach us to regard believers on Earth as part of a great Society (Church or Congregation), of which the Head is in heaven, and of which many of the members only "live unto God," or exist in his counsels ; -some having long since departed, and some being not yet born. Of such a community the Centre cannot possibly be on earth: and, accordingly, the apostle Paul expressly distinguishes the Christian Church [Assembly or Congregation] from that of Israel:-"Ye [that is, ye Christians] are not come to the mount that might be touched; [as the Israelites were collected in a great assembly-those of them that were alive that day-round Sinai, as a holy place on earth] but are come to mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." (Heb. xii. 18-24.) So in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Mount Sinai answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem

...

ye

which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal iv. 25, 26.)

Nor does the thought of having one earthly centre of unity, or Supreme Governor, ever enter into the descriptions of christian Unity given us in the New Testament. The Sacred Writers tell us, indeed, that all Christians have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [that is, that all are baptized alike into the same privileges,] one God and Father of all." (Eph. iv. 5, 6.) But they never add, "one Pope, one Council, one form of Government." As a bond of union between the members of particular Churches (or Congregations), Christ did ordain that they should meet together to eat of one bread and drink of one cup; but He did not institute any assembly of the representatives of all Churches, or any rite which would require all Churches to confederate together.

All Christians are bound to "live in love," one with another, as children of the same heavenly Father, and disciples of the same Master, even Christ. The Universal Church may, therefore, be said to be ONE in reference to its Supreme HEAD in heaven, but it is not one community on earth. And even so, the human Race is one in respect of the one Creator and Governor; but this does not make it one Family or one State.

The Apostles, indeed, exercised a general government over the various Churches which they founded: but it does not appear that they appointed any persons to succeed them in that general government. We read of their appointing "elders in every city;" but we do not read of their setting, or intending to set, any one over the whole Church. If you look at the account of Paul's taking leave of the elders of Ephesus and Miletus, (Acts, xx.) whom he expected never to see again, you will plainly see that he could not possibly have had any notion of any supreme central authority, lodged either in the Church of Jerusalem, or of Rome, or in Peter and his successors, or in any general Council. For he there directly foretels that false teachers should arise out of their own Body (that is, from amongst the clergy), and anxiously impresses on them the best advice he could think of for guarding against such a danger. Yet that advice is only to watch, and remember what he had taught them. This seems to imply that each particular Church was left

C

sufficient means within itself to ascertain the true doctrine of Christ, continuing, and preserving it; but that the actual preservation of such doctrine depended on the watchfulness of the Churches themselves. For, the occasion was one on which he could not have failed to bid them have recourse, in case of any difficulties or disputes among themselves, (such as he actually foresaw,) to some central authority, if any such had existed, or were to be set up.

Nor does the apostle Peter (though writing his second Epistle, in the near prospect of death (2 Pet. i. 14, 15), and anxious to provide a record of his teaching that might last after his decease) say a word to the disciples of the duty of submitting to his successors; but refers them back for guidance to the words of the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Apostles (chap. iii. 2), and to his own letters (ibid. i.), and to those of Paul (15, 16).

In the beginning of the Revelation of John, too, you will find the Lord addressing each of the seven Churches of Asia as severally independent of any earthly central power, and responsible to Him alone for their conduct as Christian-Churches.

On the whole, then, there is not only no evidence in the New Testament for any such central authority, but very strong evidence against its being, in any sense essential to the Church.

4. But the point which Roman-catholics love most to dwell on is the weakness of private judgment, which they represent as a prevailing reason why we should rather give ourselves up to the direction of an infallible guide. In answer to this, several Protestant writers have very well defended the right of private judgement: others have preferred to regard it as a duty; and, in truth, the exercise of it is both a right and a duty; or rather, a right because it is a duty. But the most important consideration of all is the necessity of private judgment. A man who resolves to place himself under a certain guide to be implicitly followed, and decides that such and such a Church is the appointed infallible guide, does decide, on his own private judgment, that one most important point, which includes in it all other decisions relative to religion. And, if by his own showing, he is unfit to judge at all, he can have no ground for confidence that he has decided rightly in that. And if, accordingly, he will not trust himself to judge even on this point, but resolves to consult his priest, or some other friends, and be led

entirely by their judgment thereupon, still he does, in thus resolving, exercise his own judgment as to the counsellors he so relies on. The responsibility of forming some judgment is one which, however unfit we may deem ourselves to bear it, we cannot possibly get rid of, in any matter about which we really feel an anxious care. It is laid upon us by God, and we cannot shake it off. Before a man can rationally judge that he should submit his judgment in other things to the Church of Rome, he must first have judged, 1. That there is a God; 2. That Christianity comes from God; 3. That Christ has promised to give an infallible authority in the Church; 4. That such authority resides in the Church of Rome. Now, to say that men who are competent to form sound judgments upon these points are quite incompetent to. form sound judgments about any other matters in religion, is very like saying, that men may have sound judgments of their own before they enter the Church of Rome, but that they lose all sound judgment entirely from the moment they enter it.

66

The true use of this topic of the weakness of private judgment, is to make us modest in our decisions,-not pretending to more certainty than we have, or claiming any absolute security from error; and diligent in seeking all we can, to inform and strengthen our judgments. Thus when the Apostles found men babes" and "weak," they were not content to leave them so; but trained and instructed them till they became "fullgrown men," and "exercised their senses," [powers of discrimination] that they might "by use," be able to "distinguish good and evil." And when addressing such persons, they spoke as to wise men," and bade them "judge what was said;" commanding them to "prove [try] all things, and hold fast what was good."

66

5. But Roman-catholics sometimes tell us that there is in the New Testament, the express command, "Hear the Church;" and that therefore we are bound to submit implicitly to the Church's decisions upon all points of doctrine. There is nothing more necessary, in answer to this, than to lay before you the text which is profanely caricatured in this argument.

"If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take

with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matth. xviii. 15—17.) Here it is manifest that (not doctrines, but) disputes between man and man are spoken of; and that the Church mentioned is (not the Universal, but) some particular Church or congregation. Now the Romancatholics themselves do not believe that the decisions of particular congregations are infallibly true.

6. Again, when Roman-catholics would persuade us to receive their traditions of doctrine as certain truths, without examining them by the test of Scripture, they are fond of reminding us that it is by tradition only that we have the Scriptures themselves. But when you meet such persons, you may ask them, whether they would as readily believe the correctness of a report transmitted by word of mouth in popular rumours, from one end of the kingdom to another, as if it came in a letter, passed from one person to another over the same space? Would they think, that because they could trust most servants to deliver a letter, however long or important, therefore, they could trust the same men to deliver the contents of a long and important letter in a message by word of mouth? Let us put a familiar case. A footman brings you a letter from a friend, upon whose word you can perfectly rely, giving an account of something that has happened to himself, and the exact account of which you are greatly concerned to know. While you are reading and answering the letter, the footman goes into the kitchen, and there gives your cook an account of the same thing; which, he says, he overheard the upper-servants at home talking over, as related to them by the valet, who said he had it from your friend's son's own lips. The cook relates the story to your groom, and he, in turn, tells you. Would you judge of that story by the letter, or the letter by the story?

The case of the Jewish Church is an apt illustration of the difference of security in the tradition of Scripture and the tradition of Doctrine. The Jews, we know, faithfully preserved the writings of the Old Testament, which were entrusted to them. Nor do Christ and his Apostles ever charge them with corrupting or destroying their Sacred Books, as no doubt they