Let us then, in all seriousness, set ourselves to examine the grounds of this startling, and wonderful title: which, though it may not have been assumed with the lofty meaning which we have assigned to it, does really not exceed the vocation with which these two writers appear to regard themselves as designated to open the husk of the hitherto imperfect and undeveloped Church, and usher into destined life its new and more perfect organization. Let us ask for the signs, the tokens, the proofs from God. If these be not forthcoming, let us demand what are the arguments which are exhibited, in order to induce us to believe that the Church of God, corrupted in the first age, went on deepening its guilt and evil till the sixteenth century after Christ; that then it began to appear in the world in that full reality of which its former existence was but a shadow; that a dead and dreary period has elapsed since, during which all Church polities rest either on the remains of the earlier period, or on the mere negation of it; that now both of those things, the ruins of the old Clergy-Church, as well as those modern 'systems which are built up upon the mere denial of what was 'false in it,' must be swept away, in order to make room for the living restoration of the Church?

The answer is simple. These two writers claim to have found out, from the Scriptures, that the Episcopal Constitution of the Church Universal as held for sixteen hundred years was not only a corruption of the original divine institution, but a corruption so gross that it is heresy' to esteem it necessary to Church membership on the part of individuals; a corruption so early and universal, that the germs of the mischief may be here and there discernible' in the first Christian writers,-that this' false and superstitious notion of a Church-the very mystery of 'iniquity-began in the first century, and had no more to do with Rome in the outset, than with Alexandria, Antioch, or Carthage; that the Church, early in the second century, was ready to slide into the doctrine of a priesthood, with all its accompanying corruptions of Christian truth;" a corruption so total, that now, the true and grand idea of a Church, that is, a society for the purpose of making men like Christ,-earth like heaven, -the kingdoms of the world the kingdom of Christ, is all lost;25 a corruption so shocking, that 'if,' says Mr. Bunsen, an angel from heaven should manifest to me that, by introducing, or advocating, or merely favouring the intro'duction of such an episcopacy' (as should be esteemed, 'on principle and catholically,' necessary to the due constitution of

3

6

1 Bunsen, p. 68. 2 Arnold, p. 58.
Arnold, p. 123.

3 Arnold, Corresp. ii. 61. 5 Arnold, Corresp. ii. 15.

the Church, and so to the full membership of Christians,) into any part of Germany, I should not only make the German 'nation glorious and powerful above all the nations of the world, but should successfully combat the unbelief, pantheism, and atheism of the day-I would not do it: so help me God. 'Amen.'1

6

They claim to have discovered, instead of this immemorial, universal, episcopal constitution (episcopal, we mean, as a matter of principle and catholically') another.

Of this newly discovered constitution, it does not matter though there should be no traces either in the writers of the early Church, or in the early Church institutions. Dr. Arnold does, indeed, condescend to adduce the writers of the early Church as witnesses to his hypothesis: but he takes good care that his readers should understand how great a condescension he makes in so doing.

The chapter which I am now going to write,' he says, 'is, in truth, superfluous. Nay, although its particular object were proved ever so fully, yet this would be a less gain than loss, if any were by the nature of the argument encouraged to believe that we are to seek for our knowledge of Christianity any where else but in the Scriptures. What we find there is a part of Christianity, whether recognised as such or no in after ages: what we do not find there is no part of Christianity, however early or however general may have been the attempts to interpolate it.'—Arnold, p. 47.

In this temper he begins his examination of early writers. After adducing various passages from them, and applying to them, we cannot but think, more forced and unnatural modes of interpretation than any ordinary principles will justify, he concludes by rejoicing that he is spared the pain of believing that Christianity was grossly corrupted in the very next gene'ration after the Apostles by the men who professed themselves to be the Apostles' true followers." So that in the former passage he shows how little he is disposed to esteem even the universal voice of Christendom, unless it should coincide with his own individual views of Scriptural interpretation, whilst in the latter he almost proclaims how unhesitatingly he would have rejected even the most primitive records of the PostApostolic Church, if they had resisted his strong explanatory wrestings. Indeed, we can hardly conceive language stronger to this point than Dr. Arnold's in another place:

Thus, then, as the Scriptures wholly disclaim these notions of a human priesthood; as the perfection of knowledge to which they would have us aspire consists in rejecting such notions wholly; it is strictly, as I said, superfluous to inquire into the opinions of early Christian writers, because, if these uphold the doctrine of the priesthood ever so strongly, it would but show

1 Bunsen, Corresp. p. xlvii.

2 Arnold, p. 117..

that the state of mind of which the Epistle to the Hebrews complains, was afterwards more universal, and more remote from Christian perfection.'— Arnold, p. 57.

Is there not something marvellous, as a mere piece of natural history, in the confidence with which this writer holds his own personal interpretations of Holy Scripture?

But we must allow writers of such powers to unfold their Church theory for themselves. It is in a beautiful passage, of which the following is an extract, that Mr. Bunsen begins the statement of his view.

‹ All religions whatever have for their inward ground that feeling of need which springs from the interruption of man's union with God by sin, and for their final object that re-union for which, however dimly and uncertainly, men were encouraged to hope. All their sacrifices were attempts at this restoration, founded on this hope. But it was not possible that such attempts should ever fully realise that to which they aspired; and this for two reasons: in the first place, because, if considered as mere symbolical outward acts, they could of course effect nothing in a matter where that which is essentially inward, namely, the moral disposition of the heart towards God, is concerned: and in the second place, because it was not in man's power really to consummate that inward act, which their outward sacrifices expressed. Perfect thankfulness is only possible for the man who feels himself perfectly at one with God; and, therefore, that divided feeling with respect to God, which, as we have said before, is the prominent feature in man's religious sentiment, prevents the feeling of separation, of sin, of alienation from God, from being ever permanently merged in thankfulness. And thus the soul, although thankful, and ready to offer itself in thankfulness as a living sacrifice unto God, is necessarily driven to the other pole. The desire of union awakens the sense of distance and of guilt; the sin-offering is felt to be needed. But on this side it is still more out of man's power to consummate the sacrifice. For to this end the perfect innocence and sinlessness of the sacrificer is, in the very first place, necessary; but how can any man lay claim to this? and, if not for himself, how then for others,-for the family, or the nation? The consciousness of sin, of imperfection, of alienation, accompanies the worshipper even to the altar. He surrenders his most cherished possession, he invokes upon the head of the victim which stands in his place all that vengeance of God with which his conscience tells him his own head is threatened: he even, in his madness, offers the head of his beloved child as a sacrifice to the offended Deity. But still in the heart abides the feeling of God's anger: every misfortune, every pain, every bereavement, is to him a witness of this wrath, of this alienation.. The great atonement, or sin-offering, of mankind was consummated by Christ, by means of his personal sacrifice: the great thank-offering of mankind became possible through Christ by means of the Spirit.'-Bunsen, pp. 6—10.

From these premises Mr. Bunsen thus draws his conclusion:

'There can henceforth be no more human, and therefore typical, mediators between God and man; for the Mediator, the High Priest, is himself God: no more acts of mediation (sacrifices) can henceforth exist, as means of producing inward peace and satisfaction in the conscience, for the true sacrifice of atonement has once for all been offered, and the true sacrifice of thanksgiving is continually being offered.'-Bunsen, p. 11.

Dr. Arnold must be allowed to strike this point still more strongly, and for the purposes of the theory, more pertinently.

Some there are who profess to join cordially in this doctrine, and ask who disputes it. So little do they understand the very tenets which they uphold! For they themselves dispute and deny it, inasmuch as they maintain that the sacraments are necessary to salvation, and that they can only be effectually administered by a man appointed after a certain form. And thus they set up again the human mediator, which is idolatry. This dogma, then, of a human priesthood in Christ's Church, appointed to administer His sacraments, and thereby to mediate between God and man, from no reasonable or moral necessity, is a thing quite distinct from any exaggerated notions of the activity of government it is not the excess of a beneficent truth, but it is, from first to last, considering that it is addressed to Christians, who have their Divine Priest and Mediator already, a mere error and an error not merely speculative, but fraught with all manner of mischief, idolatrous and demoralizing, destructive of Christ's Church; injurious to Christ and to his Spirit; the worst and earliest form of Antichrist.'-Arnold, p. 19.

This is the first, great, palmary argument of both these writers. The single, complete High Priesthood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ utterly abolishes and makes impossible any other Priesthood; and, inasmuch as Priesthood, in its full and true signification defined by themselves, means any sort of mediation whatever between God and man, every possible claim of mediation, even the claim of certain persons having alone the right of administering Sacraments necessary to salvation, falls under the same condemnation,-is corrupt, idolatrous, demoralizing and antichristian.

But secondly, the Priesthood of our Lord, admitting every single Christian, of whatever rank or profession of life, directly and immediately to the access and approach of God, involves the Priesthood of every individual Christian.

Christianity first gave to man's moral responsibility its true position, first made it the central feeling of the individual, and caused it to be felt as the inseparable appendage of the awful gift of personality. Thus far then had every individual man become a priest of the Most High, because morally responsible to Him alone. Man's whole life, in intercourse with the world, as well as in the direct worship of God, was to be a continual sacrifice, to form a portion of the great work of the Spirit of love, by whose influences mankind is restored, and the kingdom of truth and righteousness founded and advanced. This is, according to our view, that priesthood which the apostle St. Peter ascribes to the whole Christian Church, a body of believers, under the designation of the true and elect Israel, when he says, "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.'-(1 Pet. ii. 9.)-Bunsen, p. 13.

Such is the entire Scriptural argument, as far as Scripture is adduced for the affirmative proof, and establishment of their theory, of these two great Apostles of the Church of the Future.

Dr. Arnold does indeed in his 2d chapter allege eight or nine passages of the Acts and Epistles; but it is not in order to add any weight to his direct argument, but to relieve it from the pressure of the objections which those passages might seem to bring against it. Mr. Bunsen does also make a cursory reference to a few more passages, (one of which references contains a most adroit evasion of the force of an important place of the Old Testament, Exod. xix. 6, to which we shall refer again,) but the others are slight and unimportant, and not alleged in any strict or argumentative way.

There can, of course, be no doubt, that this Theory is as complete as it is simple. What can be plainer? In the times of old, before our Lord's coming, there might have been typical mediators, whose various efforts of sacrifice indicated the difficulty felt by man in becoming at peace with God; but the sacrifice once offered, all believers approach equally and with equal authority and right to God. Henceforth believers, not as a Church, not as one in Christ, not as a body, but separately and singly, are in absolute possession of the entire christian estate. Each is, so to speak, a corporation sole, a Church. Each is, in position, title, privilege, equal to all the rest. Holy Scriptures, on which alone everything is founded, belong alike to all. None has a right to hold that his views of interpretation are better or sounder than those of another. None can be entitled to impart to others what those others may not impart to him.

The

The theory is simple indeed, as a Theory of the Constitution of the Church: so simple, that we cannot find out in what points it differs from the broadest Independentism.

6

Nor do we forget in saying this, that Mr. Bunsen expressly protests against Independentism, and says of it that it 'forgets time and hour, and looks even upon the present, the hard won 'inheritance of centuries, as having absolutely no real exist6 ence. In this despair, it is for beginning everything afresh, 'as if the past had yielded no experience, and formed no institutions, as if no Christian state existed-led away in this by 'American orators, who, like many others before them, make ' a virtue of necessity.' Mr. Bunsen's is a sort of ConservativeIndependentism. He would graft a pure independentism of theory upon an existing condition of government and subordination. He would avail himself practically of the order and organization which result from the theory which he condemns, whilst he maintains a theory from which order and organization could never possibly result.

So simple indeed is this theory, that we venture to assert, and will undertake to prove, that, if it be admitted to be, as