its own dominions to its own will, and make it the tool of its ambition, or the minister of its vices, corruptions, and oppressions. This is the secret of the long continued struggles of the ecclesiastical and civil powers, the one to maintain the unity, the other to break it up into separate and independent national establishments, on the principle of dividing to conquer.

The distinction of national Churches was not, in the original constitution of the Church, that of separate and independent church polities, for this were pure Independency, but merely a distinction for the necessities and convenience of local administration. The Church, in her true, normal constitution, knows no geographical lines or national distinctions; and the apparent independence, or partial independence, of national Churches, which we sometimes meet in ecclesiastical history, is an anomaly, an irregularity, which the Church has not been able to bring within the rule against the resistance, and too often armed resistance, of the temporal powers.

But admitting that our Oxford divines cannot, on their church theory, and, we may add, on the true Catholic theory, defend the original separation of the Anglican Church from the rest of the Church Universal, does Bishop Hopkins succeed any better? The Bishop is a sincere Protestant; he avows it, and glories in it. He reverences the men who labored in the sixteenth century to free the Church from the corruptions of Rome. He believes that their estimate of the Church of Rome was the true estimate, and he is not ashamed to say so. He is filled with their spirit, and would honor and continue their work. All this is manly, and honorable to him as a Protestant bishop. But has he been able to strike out a ground of defence more tenable than that of the Oxford divines? He rejects their theory of the Church, and places the unity of the Church, not in the unity of the corporation, but in the unity of the faith. The Church is not a body corporate, but a body aggregate; and all professedly Christian bodies or associations, which maintain the apostolic faith, are integrally portions of the Church of Christ, and together constitute

the one holy Catholic Apostolic Church. understand him, is the Bishop's view.

This, if we

Taking this view, the Bishop contends that separation from Rome was not only justifiable, but a high and imperative duty, because Rome had apostatized from the true faith, and had, become so corrupt in doctrine, as well as idolatrous and superstitious in practice, that no one who valued his Christian character could longer continue in her communion. It is, he tells us, on this ground, and this alone, that Protestantism is to be justified, and in this we are unable to dispute him.

But, if we take this ground, we must admit, first, that there is a standard of orthodoxy; and, second, that there is also, somewhere, an authority competent to say what does and what does not conform to that standard. As to the standard, we will raise, at present, no difficulty. We will accept the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and say, that the standard is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, rightly interpreted. But who, where, or what, is the authority competent to say what is, or what is not, their right interpretation?

To this question one of three answers must be returned, for only three answers are possible, namely: 1. The Church; 2. The State; 3. The Individual Reason. If the Bishop adopts the first answer, and contends that the Church is the authoritative interpreter, as his own Church teaches, he must abandon his notion of the Church as a body aggregate, and concede it to be a corporation. For the Church cannot act, has no function, at all, unless it exist as a corporation, as an individual, a personality, with an official voice, and an official organ through which it may speak.

But, if the Bishop recoil from his aggregate church, and concede it to be, after all, a body corporate, he must also concede it to be either a one single corporation, or several distinct, separate, and independent corporations. If he assume it to be a single corporation, he exposes himself to all the objections we have just urged against what we have called the Oxford theory. The Church

of England was not this one single corporation, and therefore could not speak in its name, or with its authority. She, then, was not competent to receive the impeachment of Rome and her Bishop, or to convict them. of heresy. But, on the Bishop's own principles, till she had convicted them of heresy, she had no right to separate from their communion; for the separation, he tells us, was justifiable only on the ground that Rome and her Bishop had apostatized from the orthodox faith, corrupted the pure word of God.

Protestantism assumes that the Church herself, in her corporate existence, had become corrupt and heretical. The party to be tried for heresy was, then, the Church herself. Protestantism must impeach and convict the Church herself of heresy, before it can justify itself. But before what tribunal can it bring its charges against the Church, and demand conviction? Before the written word of God? But the Church is the authoritative interpreter of the word, and it is her very interpretation that is in question. She herself is the highest court for the trial of herself, and before what court can you try her? By impeaching her you deny the authority of the only tribunal competent to take cognizance of the accusation you bring against her.

Granting, then, that Rome and her Bishop had corrupted the pure word of God, since she was the centre of unity and her Bishop the visible head of the corporation, there was no Church before which either could be summoned to answer to the charge of heresy, no legal tribunal that could, against their consent, or without their authority, take cognizance of the fact. For any number of Churchmen coming together without being convoked by their authority, however numerous or respectable, would not be the Church, any more than a political caucus is a legal convention; and their acts would be no more the acts of the Church, than the resolutions of a mob, or a disorderly assembly, would be the enactments of the State.

If the Bishop abandon the notion of the Church as a single corporation, and assert the existence of distinct, separ

ate, and independent church polities, he falls into Independency, of which, we doubt not, he has as much horror as we ourselves. Each of these polities must be complete in itself, and supreme over its own members. They must be equals. Then what is decreed by one stands on as high authority as what is decreed by another. What one decides to be orthodox is as orthodox as that which is decided by another. Rome is equal to England, and England is equal to Rome. Rome decrees one interpretation, England another. Which is right? Which is wrong? Where is the umpire to decide between them? Why shall I assume the interpretation of Rome to be less orthodox than that of England? or that of England more orthodox than that of Geneva? Why shall I hold the decision of the Episcopal Church to be more authoritative than the decision of the Presbyterian Church, the Congregational Church, or the Unitarian Church?

But only those Churches are authoritative in which the pure word of God is preached. Agreed. But what is the pure word of God? What the Church declares it to be. Agreed, again. But what Church? The true Church. Agreed, once more. But which is the true Church? That in which the pure word of God is preached. Here we are, turning for ever in a circle. Each Church, doubtless, declares its own doctrine to be the pure word of God; all the Churches are equal; by what authority, then, is the doctrine of one declared to be orthodox, and that of another to be heterodox?

Shall we say those Churches are to be regarded as true Churches, whose doctrines are accepted by a majority of the whole number of Churches? This is to abandon the ground of the sufficiency of each Church for itself, and to make something beside the Church a competent interpreter of the word of God. It subjects each particular Church to the will of the majority, and makes the criterion of truth a plurality of voices. How was it when nearly all the particular Churches, except Rome and Alexandria, were Arian? when, during the temporary lapse of the Pope, St. Athanasius was almost the

only Catholic Bishop left? If the majority are to decide, then, if the majority establish Arianism or Socinianism, Arianism or Socinianism must be held to be orthodox, and all who adhere to the Nicene and Athanasian creeds must be unchurched, and declared to be no portions of the body of Christ. The Bishop's argument presupposes that a Church may lapse into heresy. If one may, why not another? And then what guaranty have we that the majority have not departed from the faith, and that, in point of fact, the pure word of God is preached now only in a feeble minority of the so-called. Churches?

This doctrine of separate and independent Churches, each a competent interpreter of the word of God, gives us as many competent, authoritative interpreters, as there are separate bodies calling themselves Churches. It lays the foundation for all the sectarianism which now desolates Christendom. The decision of one neutralizes the decision of another. Orthodoxy is one thing at Rome, another at Geneva, another at London, another at Edinburgh, and still another at Boston. We lose, on this ground, not only the unity of the body of Christ, but the unity of faith itself; that very unity, which Bishop Hopkins, and all who believe in the Church at all, hold to be essential to the very being of the Church.

Will the Bishop adopt the second answer, and seek an authoritative interpreter in the STATE? To make the State the authoritative interpreter of the word of God would be to make it supreme in spirituals as well as in temporals, to destroy religions liberty, to deny conscience, to rekindle the flames of persecution, and to give the State the same right to burn for heresy, that it has to imprison for theft, or to hang for murder. Moreover, it would not answer the Bishop's purpose. The States must all be held to be mutually independent, and each, therefore, to be free to enact, within its own dominions, such reading of the word of God as it pleases. So we should have, under another form, all the evils of Independency. Italy may enact Catholicism; Geneva, Calvinism; Prussia, Lutheranism; England, Episcopacy;