in the Church, partly through the internal developement of opposite ideas, two systems became prevalent, the episcopal and the papal system; the latter whereof, without questioning the divine institution of bishops, exalted more particularly the central power; while the former, without denying the divine establishment of the Primacy, sought to draw authority more particularly towards the circumference.* As each system acknowledged the essence of the other to be divine, they constituted an opposition very beneficial to ecclesiastical life; so that, by their counteraction, the peculiar free developement of the several parts was, on one hand, preserved, and the union of these in one living, undivisable whole, was, on the other, maintained.

The dogmatic decrees of the episcopacy (united with the general head and centre), are infallible; for, it represents the universal Church, and one doctrine of faith, falsely explained by it, would render the whole a prey to error. Hence, as the institution which Christ hath established for the preservation and the explanation of His doctrines, is subject, in this its function, to no error;

* The most general maxims of the episcopal system are comprised in the Synods of Constance (1414), and of Basil (1431); they assert, the Pope is subject to a general Council lawfully convoked, representing the Church militant :—a one-sided principle, which, when carried out to its legitimate consequences, threatened the Church with annihilation. This coarse opinion may now be considered as obsolete. Concil Const. Sess. iv. in Hardouin, lib. 1. tom. viii. p. 252. "Ipsa Synodus in Spiritû Sancto congregata legitime generale Concilium faciens, ecclesiam Catholicam militantem representans, potestatem à Christo immediate habet, cui quilibet cujuscunque statûs vel dignitatis, etiamsi papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quæ pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem dicti schismatis, et reformationem generalem ecclesiæ Dei in capite et in membris." In the fifth Session this is repeated, and the like is added. The Council of Basil, also, in its second Session, hath adopted both decrees verbally. See Hardouin, lib. 1. p. 1121.

so the organ, through which the Church speaks, is also exempt from error.

The Metropolitans (archbishops), and patriarchs, are not, in themselves, essential intermediate grades between the Bishops and the Pope; yet has their jurisdiction, the limits whereof have been determined by general councils, proved very useful for maintaining a closer connexion, and a more immediate superintendence over the bishops, subject to their authority.

The priests, (taking the word in a more limited sense), are, as it were, a multiplication of the bishop; and, as they acknowledge themselves his assistants, they revere in him the visible fountain of their jurisdiction-their head and their centre. In this way, the whole body is bound and jointed together in a living organism and as the tree, the deeper and wider it striketh its roots into the earth, the more goodly a summit of intertwining boughs and branches it beareth aloft unto the sky, it is so with the congregation of the Lord. For, the more closely the community of believers is established with him, and is enrooted in him, as the all-fruitful soil; the more vigorous and imposing is its outward manifestation.

As to the remaining non-sacerdotal orders, the deacons were instituted by the apostles, and, as their representatives, were charged more immediately with affairs of administration, not immediately connected with the apostolic calling. The sub-deaconship, and the four so-called minor orders, are restricted to a circle of subordinate, yet indispensable ministrations, and in former times, formed altogether (including the deaconship), a practical school, wherein the training for higher ecclesiastical functions was acquired, and a test of qualification for their discharge was afforded. For,

in the ancient Church, the pastors as well as believers, were formed in, and by the immediate experience of life; as the inferior ministers constantly surrounded the bishop or priest, and attending him in all his sacred functions, imbibed the spirit which animated him, and qualified themselves to become one day his successors. But, they rose only slowly and by degrees; and every new ordination, was but the recompense of services faithfully performed, and a period of probation for a still more important trust. At present, these orders, from the sub-deaconship downwards, are preserved but as ancient customs; for, the educational system of modern times, bears an essentially different character, and follows a decidedly theoretical course. Hence, the duties, which the inferior members of the clergy once performed, are now nearly everywhere discharged by laymen, such as acolytes, sacristans, and the like.

LUTHERAN DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH.

§ XLIV.-The Bible the only source and arbitress in matters of faith.

Great importance has been attached by us to the proposition, that a positive religion, if destined to act with a permanent and decisive authority on mankind, must be ever imparted to successive generations, through the medium of an authority. In the application of this trust, however, an illusion may easily occur. Thus we may imagine that the ordinary mode, in which an historical fact is attested, may here absolutely suffice; and that thus, if credible eye and ear-witnesses have delivered a written testimony, respecting the divine

envoy, their evidence should constitute an adequate and lasting authority for all times. In the same way, as Polybius and Livy are our sources of information, in respect to the second Punic war, and Herodian in regard to the heroic deeds of the emperor Commodus, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the standing authority for those who desire to know Christ, to surrender to him their faith; and thus the necessary claim, that the authority of Christ should be represented by an authority, is fully satisfied.

But here, several extremely important circumstances are completely overlooked. The sacred historians the Christian, in fact, by no means ranks in the same class with other writers of history, nor, on that account, the readers of the Bible with those of any other historical work. We hold it to be necessary, that, under quite special conditions, the evangelical historians should have written down their narratives, in order not to be disturbed by the doubt, whether they had in reality rightly heard, seen, and understood. For this very reason, from the foundation of Christianity, it has been deemed a matter of necessity, that only under certain peculiar conditions could the right understanding of the sacred penmen be secured, in order that we might have the decided conviction, that what they recorded, without falsification, we apprehended, without confusion. As little, nay, from evident reasons still less, can we trust alone to the honest purpose and personal capacity of the author of the apostolic epistles, when the question at issue is, whether, in the application and further developement of what they had learned from and respecting Jesus, they have not erred; but precisely, because we do not wish, and cannot wish to bestow such confidence, we are unable to rest satisfied with those ordinary means, which

are employed to discover the sense of an author. And this, because here far other wants are to be satisfied than those, which the study of a Greek or Roman classic can gratify; because matters of far graver moment, and unquestionably weightier influence on life, are involved, than in the case of the latter; to wit, the knowledge whereon depends the salvation of immortal souls.

The following circumstance, also, was overlooked, the non-observance whereof was likely to entail important consequences. We have two sources from which we derive our knowledge of God and divine things, the natural and the supernatural revelation : for brevity-sake we will put a part for the whole, and say, the revelation of God within us, and the revelation of God out of us in Christ Jesus. The revelation of God within us, is likewise the organ, whereby we apprehend the outward revelation; and it has, therefore, a twofold function, at once to bear testimony unto God, and our relation towards Him, and also to receive the testimony coming from without. Accordingly, in behalf of one and the same object, we directed to two witnesses, quite distinct one from the other; and the matter of importance is, that the one witness within us should not overvalue the worth of his evidence, and willingly confess that his declarations stand in a subordinate relation to those of the other; for, otherwise, the necessity of another witness, beside him, would be inexplicable. Precisely as historical criticism decides on the qualities of the witnesses, and seeks to discover, in each particular case, whether they could rightly apprehend, and desired faithfully to recount what they had learned, so must the witness in our own interior be examined. But, this inward witness possesses a very

VOL. II.

6