THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH

by Sir Robert Anderson

PREFACE and Contents.

THE subject of these pages is one of the highest interest, and it is only those who are in some way behind the scenes who can judge aright of its peculiar urgency at the present moment.
"The greatest achievement in English history" is a distinguished historian’s estimate of the Reformation ; but in this flippant and shallow age we seem to be letting slip what the Reformers won for us. For a national lapse toward superstition upon the one hand, and rationalism upon the other, is one of the marked characteristics of the day. And altogether apart from religious controversy these movements deserve the earnest attention of the thoughtful. For the dethronement of the Bible eliminates the most important factor in the formation of our national character, and it is not easy to estimate the effect which this will have on the life of the people of this country.
The superstitious phase of the apostasy, with which the following chapters chiefly deal, was the burden of a volume published ten years ago, with the title The Buddha of Christendom. And as that book is now out of print, the greater part of it is incorporated with the present work.
The title, The Bible or the Church? implicitly raises the question whether the Bible can still be accorded the place which it held with the Reformers as a Divine revelation. And I intended to deal with this question in a concluding chapter. But a defence of the Scriptures within such narrow limits would necessarily be so inadequate that it might serve only to prejudice the issue. I have decided therefore to omit it, trusting that my other writings will be accepted as proof that I do not ignore the subject in any aspect of it. I will only add that my deepening and now settled belief in the authenticity and Divine authority of the Bible owes much to the study of rationalistic criticism.
R. A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
To establish the supremacy of the Bible was the aim of the Reformers False views about the Church Cardinal Newman on Transubstantiation and the Church as the oracle of God The question discussedPascal’s advice to those who cannot accept superstitious beliefs  The Papal Bull of September 1896 Cardinal Vaughan on the Ritualists Action taken by the English Archbishops The Martyrs, and their attitude toward the Church Excavations at New Scotland Yard Dean Alford on the apostasy of the Christian Church The scheme and purpose of this book

CHAPTER II.
Man is a religious animal Renan’s dictum Testimony of Tiele, Max Muller, and Charles Darwin How can the fact be explained? How can man’s evil propensities be accounted for? These appear in the spiritual, more universally than in the moral, sphere The Pelagian heresy If man is a religious being, why is not religion always pure and true ? The tendency of all religions is to regenerate and to corrupt mankind The only possible explanation of this

CHAPTER III.
It follows that religion should always be tested By what standard? The Christian answers, "By the Bible"; and yet the Church is set up as the authority What and where is the Church ?~The Church of England's position-The claim of Rome is an instance of "the confidence trick "-How, then, is the question to be decided ?-The claims of the Greek Church-The dogma of Papal supremacy-It is unsupported by evidence and refuted by Scripture-The Apostle Peter's ministry-To him were given the keys of the kingdom, not of the Church -A confirmation of the Eden fall

CHAPTER IV.
The dogmas of the religion of Christendom: on what ground are they presented to our faith ?-Dr. Pusey's answer: Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers-This is refuted by the testimony of the Fathers themselves, and by the condition of the early Church--The Bampton Lectures, 1864, quoted -The Church of Christendom was founded on the Fathers - Augustine's pottion and influence - His Confessions -The teaching of the Greek and the Latin Fathers contrasted - Clement and Augustine - Dean Farrar on the Church as formulated by Augustine

CHAPTER V.
The teaching of Gautama and the corruption of Buddhism-The Lamaism of Tibet-The Christian religion marked by corruptions akin to those of Buddhism and the old classic cults-The explanation of this strange phenomenon -The Divine religion of Judaism differed from all other religions-The character of the apostasy it suffered-The "Golden Calf"

CHAPTER VI.
The religion of Christendom refuses an appeal to Scripture - Not so was it with the Reformers - Article XX.-The true character of the Reformation-Henry VIII. and Paul -The vital question is whether the supreme authority is the Bible or the Church- Bishop Gore cited as an exponent of the Romish view-Lux Mundi and The Ministry of the Christian Church-The absutdlty and effrontery of his position--Professor Harnack quoted-The figment of Apostolic Succession stated and refuted .

CHAPTER VII.
With the Romanisers the Church is paramount -The one mediator -This is the cause of the secessions to Rome -The true character of Protestantism -Salvation a personal matter -The teaching of the Law and the Gospel contrasted: Moses and Paul - The meaning of "religion": Trench and Carlyle quoted - The secular Press on Ritualism - A typical letter quoted - What these men mean by "The Church "- The Reformers' definition of it - The vital importance of the distinction - The revival of the Confessional in England - The manuals in use by priests - The profanity of priestly absolution - Scripture condemns it - Its degrading effect on national character

CHAPTER VIII.
The fate of an unbaptized infant-The change alleged to be caused by baptism-What kind of God is thus presented to us? - Three facts established by an appeal to Scripture-Baptismal regeneration traced to the classic cults of Paganism-Mithras worship- The Eleusinian mysteries-Description of the cult, and its influence on the Christian Church-The Hibbert Lectures, 1888- Similar rites in Mexico and T'ibet-The early corruption of the other "Sacrament"

CHAPTER IX.
"The illuminated mind of primitive Christendom "-The Church of Christendom and "the Church in the wilderness "-The early Church marked by false doctrine and low morality--Pledged celibacy and asceticism-Nuns and nunneries -Tertullian's baneful teaching-The testimony of Cyprian and Clement-Chrysostom and the Church in his day-The Imperial Edict to shield women from "The greed of the clergy-Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of 1431-The "Council of Robbers" -Salvian and his testimony to the state of the Church-"A sink of vices "-Ritualists appeal to this "primitive Church :" the Reformers appealed to the Christianity of the New Testament- The decline of the Evangelical party

CHAPTER X.
The apostasy of Christendom and of "the Jews’ religion "The apostasy of Buddhism Satan’s influence in the religion of Christendom Alexander VI. and his immoralities The Emperor Charles V. and his dreams of reform The Edict of Worms Charles’ efforts to obtain the calling of a Council The Council of Trent and Paul The Massacre of Bartholomew, and Gregory XIII.Submission to the Pope is declared to be the way of salvation  Cardinal Vaughan’s statement of this Macaulay’s problem Human Religion a curse to mankind Mill’s dictum discussed and justified The God of the historic Church a monster

CHAPTER XI.
The true method of theological study The typology of Scripture a safeguard against Ritualism The Passover; the Exodus; Sinai; the Covenant Redemption was completed apart from priesthood  The antitype of all this in Christianity Latin theology ignores or denies the truth of it The teaching of Hebrews . . .

CHAPTER XII.
Bishop Gore again cited as an exponent of the Romish view of the Church The covenant is for the covenant people: How then men be brought within it ? The answer is to be found in the fundamental, but forgotten, truth of Grace The doctrine explained and vindicated The teaching of Hebrews and Romans contrasted

CHAPTER XIII.
Restatement of the question The "Catholic’s" answer The Church an apostasy, but the Bible stands unchanged" But the Church has given us the Bible": discussion of this and other like themes of Rome The true Church cannot fail, but the professing Church has become a part of the world The charge of Bibliolotry To the Christian, Christ is, not first, but all in all- Christianity not a religion Archbishop Trench quoted Judaism and Christianity compared and contrasted The origin of sacrifice Harnack on the Church of the Fathers Dr. Hatch quoted The position and teaching.

APPENDIX I.
Christian Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration
APPENDIX II
The Romish Propaganda
APPENDIX III
Paolo Sarpi and the Council of Trent
APPENDIX IV.
NOTE I. Bishops II. "Deacons" III. "The Church" . . IV. "The Priest in Absolution". V. Death-dates of the leading Fathers VI. The "Virgin Mary" myth VII. The Apostle Paul on Celibacy - VIII. "We have an altar" .

CHAPTER ONE

"IT was the main purpose of the then rulers of the Church to put prominently forward the supremacy of the Bible."
These words are quoted from the Archbishops' decision in the famous Incense case; and they indicate the chief aim of the leaders of the Reformation in England. For the Reformation was not merely a revival, it was a revolt. And ecclesiastical supremacy was the bondage from which those brave and noble men delivered us.
That Church which is the vital unity of the Body of Christ Rome confounds with the visible Church on earth - the public organisation entrusted to human administration. But more than this, the Church on earth, which, according to Scripture, is the congregation of the faithful, the Romish system represents as an authority established to govern the faithful, with power to control not only their acts but their beliefs.
The following words of Cardinal Newman will afford an admirable text for the discussion of the question here at issue. With reference to the dogma of Transubstantiation, he writes: "I had no difficulty in believing it as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation." Transubstantiation, the Reformers maintain, "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."’ Simple and clear though this statement be, people fail to grasp its meaning. A sacrament is merely a sign or symbol to represent some spiritual reality. In the Eucharist, for example, the bread is bread and nothing more, but it represents the Lord’s body. If therefore the bread be regarded as being in fact His body, it is no longer a "sacrament" at all. But let us analyse Cardinal Newman’s words. Why should we believe that a piece of bread is flesh, seeing that, judged by every possible test, it is not flesh but only bread? The Roman Catholic replies that we should believe it on the authority of the Church, for the Church is the oracle of God. But why, we dernand again, should we believe the Church to be the oracle of God? We should believe it, the Roman Catholic tells us, because the Church is thus accredited by Holy Scripture. Is it not then our plain duty to test this claim by referring to the Scripture? "Certainly not," is the emphatic rejoinder; "that is Protestant heresy of the worst kind. For the Church is the oracle of God, and therefore the authoritative exponent of Scripture; and instead of using our own judgment or reason, we must accept the Church's teaching on the subject." To the enlightened this may be the highest wisdom; but to the benighted Protestant it bears a sinister resemblance to the artifice which, in another sphere, the vulgar describe as "ringing the changes."
"Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?" the Lord demanded of the unbelieving Jews. But while faith is the highest exercise of reason, Newman's position is the complete abnegation of reason. "Come now, and let us reason together," was the Divine appeal to His people in the old time, even in days of apostasy. And coupled with that appeal was the Divine lament, "My people doth not consider." and the word is emphatic and significant. It means using their intelligence, and thinking for themselves, instead of blindly following their reigious leaders, or in other words "obeying the voice of the Church."
That the Church is "the oracle of God" is a figment unsupported by evidence and disproved by facts. But no matter how able and pious a man may be, if he stultifies his reason by accepting it, he has "no difficulty in believing" that a piece of bread is the flesh of the Lord of Glory. In the same way he would have "no difficulty in believing" that this earth is not a planet but a fixed plane and the centre of the solar system; that the drivel contained in some parts of the Apocrypha was divinely inspired; and that the tortures of the Inquisition and the, fires of Smithfield were divinely sanctioned and blessed! Superstition such as this explains the advice which Pascal gave to those who found a difficulty in accepting the dogmas of the Church. Take to religion, he said in effect, "for that will make you stupid and enable you to believe."
(Footnote - He is dealing with the difficulties of people who say they cannot believe, and he urges them to act as if they believed, using the ordinances, holy water, masses, &c. &c., and he adds:
"Naturellement même cela vous fera croire et vous abétira." The passage is given by Matthew Arnold in the preface to God and The Bible. No wonder that Pascal's Port Royal editors suppressed words so cruelly cynical, though so true. For while Christianity elevates or ennobles the whole being, human religion seems to make men either fools or fiends.
It is important to notice, first, that the Church for which this monstrous claim is made is not "the Catholic Church of undivided Christendom," but that section of it called the "Catholic Roman Church"; and secondly that the claim is not based on a history marked by purity of faith and morals such as might be deemed proof of divine calling and favour. Any appeal to considerations of that kind would be fatal; and Rome discreetly founds its claims upon the figment of "Apostolic succession." This was made emphatically clear by the Papal Bull of September, 1896. Exposing the duplicity and ignorance of the Anglican Romanisers,. who sought Papal recognition of Anglican Orders, that Bull declared : - - - "A new rite was publicly introduced under Edward VI.; the true Sacrament of Orders, as introduced by Christ, lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession."
While the Anglican conspirators sought to ignore the Reformation, the Pope of Rome thus insisted on its importance. To quote Cardinal Vaughan, "They have persuaded themselves that their clergy are really sacerdotal ; - that they possess sacrificing powers, and that they hold direct continuity from the old Catholic Church of England, as founded by St. Augustine." A "strange and almost incomprehensible belief," he justly calls it, for a main object with the Reformers was to break that continuity of guilt, and to set the national Church upon a basis only and altogether divine.'(Footnote - I am reminded of one of my visits to the Cardinal. It was in connection with an unpleasant Police case. I gave him certain facts which led me to believe that one of his priests was a thoroughly evil man. He listened with an incredulous air, and then, opening the " Clergy List," he showed me that the delinquent was a beneficed clergyman of the Cht~ch of Ejigland. My apology for troubling him was, that the man called himself a Catholic priest, and my officers never doubted that he was a Roman Catholic. To which the Cardinal replied, "My dear Mr. Anderson, these men call themselves Catholic priests, but they are double - dyed Protestants!")
And what was the action of the English Archbishops in this matter? Instead of seizing the opportunity to reaffirm the principles of the Reformation, they openly took sides with the conspirators. Their "letter" of 19th February, 1897, was in effect an appeal to their "venerable brother Pope Leo XIII." to acknowledge that the Clergy of the Church of England were sacrificing priests and that they ought to be recognised as such by Rome. Did the Prelates never stand by the Martyrs' Memorial at Oxford? Or were they so blinded by the superstitions to which they thus pandered that they failed to realise that Cranmer and Ridley and Latimer, who were there burned to death, stood for the Chuzch of England, or rather for the truth of God, and that the guilt of that hideous crime rests upon the apostate Church with which they thus basely sought to ally themselves? Was there ever a more shameful betrayal of the National Church!
In the days of Pagan Rome the Church was on the side of the martyrs. But under Papal Rome the martyrs were the victims of "the Church." The Reformers of the sixteenth century were the proscribed antagonists of the religion of Christendom. The struggle for the truth, and for the liberty which we owe to the maintenance of the truth, was waged by men who dared to stand out against "the Church," denouncing its errors and defying its power. But in these strange days of ours, the great question which till lately we supposed the Reformation had settled for ever, is again reopened in all kinds of insidious ways. And a superstitious and false view of "the Church" is the main cause of our troubles. According to the Reformers "the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached." But, according to Rome, the Church is, as already noticed, an institution set up to lord it over the "congregation of faithful men," and to mediate between them and God. Such a conception of the Church is essentially anti-Christian; and even if the Historic Church of Christendom had been always pure, and true to its high ideals, it would be none the less an outrage upon Christians and Christian truth.
But there are many who, though they have no sympathy with Rome, consider that the work of the Reformation was marred by fanatical excess. The Reformers, they would tell us, ought to have been content to fall back upon "the Primitive Church of the Fathers." But those great men acted with full knowledge of facts and truths which are now forgotten or ignored. They knew that the much vaunted Church of the Fathers was tainted with the errors and evils which were afterwards developed in the Romish system.
While at Scotland Yard I watched the excavations for the building which has been erected on the then vacant ground across the way. The removal of a deep layer of river mud, permeated by the foul refuse of centuries, disclosed a rich bed of sand which had been thrown up by the sea in an earlier age. That sand was pure and wholesome in comparison with the filth which had been heaped upon it. But it was cleared away, and the foundations of the new building were laid on the rock which lay beneath. This parable needs no interpreting. The Reformers knew well what they were about when they refused to build even upon "the Primitive Church of undivided Christendom," and insisted on going back to Apostolic times, and laying their foundations deep and firm on the bedrock of Holy Scripture.
In his exposition of the parable of Matthew Xli. 43 - 45, Dean Alford, after explaining its primary reference to the Jewish people, goes on to notice its application to "the Christian Church." Here are his words: "Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the Apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of the Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity and rationalism, the house has become empty, swept and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of civilisation and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill who does not see under all these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man of sin, the great repossession, when idolatry and the seven [morewicked spirits] shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end."
These words have no reference to the Church regarded as the Body of Christ, the vital unity.Between the Bible and the Church in this its firstand highest aspect, there can be no conflict, no antithesis. The Lord’s promise is eternal, "Iwill build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Dean Alford’s words refer to the Professing Church on earth, "the outward frame" entrusted to the care of men.And keeping this clearly in view - we shall recognise that the Church on earth has apostatised from the place divinely given to it, and has utterly failed to fulfil its mission. And justifying the conduct and attitude of the Reformers, we shall avoid the superstitions and errors from which they sought to deliver us.To defend their acts and words is my mainpurpose in these pages. And my method will be to give plain facts and clear testimony for theconsideration of the thoughtful. "Muck-rake" work in the filth of pre-Reformation times is not sufficient. It is necessary to go farther back,and by an appeal to the writings of the Fathers themselves, to throw light upon the condition of the "Primitive Church."
But all this suggests a preliminary inquiry.The history of all ages and of every land gives proof that in the sphere of religion man always drifts away from God. What explanation can be offered of this strange and sinister law of gravitation in the spiritual sphere? The following investigation of the problem is conducted on new lines. And it is here placed first, because the solution of it will prepare the way for all that follows.

CHAPTER TWO
UNIVERSALITY OF RELIGION

"AS soon as man grew distinct from the animal he became religious." No one gifted with a sense of humour could have gravely penned a suggestion so grotesque as this. That the remote descendant of an ape might become intelligent, philosophical, mathematical, musical, poetical, scientific-all this possibly we could understand; but why should he become religious?
And yet this dictum of Renan's is most important as a testimony from such a quarter to the fact that man is a religious being. The universality of religion has, indeed, been denied ; but the denial is based on grounds that are inadequate.
"The statement," says Professor Tiele, "that there are nations or tribes which possess no religion, rests either on inaccurate observations, or on a confusion of ideas. No tribe or nation has yet been met with destitute of belief in any higher beings, and travellers who asserted their existence have been afterwards refuted by facts. It is legitimate, therefore, to call religion, in its most general sense, an universal phenomenon of humanity." And in quoting these words, Professor Max Muller declares: "We may safely say that, in all researches, no human beings have been found anywhere who do not possess something which to them is religion."' And Charles Darwin himself admits that "a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal."
Accepting the conclusion, therefore, that man is by nature religious, the question remains, How can this fact be accounted for? Philosophers may amuse themselves with the theory that it is due to his losing a tail and learning to talk; but all who acknowledge the reign of law, and insist on seeking a cause for an effect, will see in it a proof of that, as even heathen poets taught, man is in a special sense the offspring of God. This conclusion suggests the inquiry why it is that he is so unworthy of his origin. Were there a competent court to issue the writs, what damages human nature might obtain in libel actions against biological science and Augustinian theology! Bad as it is to proclaim that man is the child of an anthropoid ape, it is almost worse to declare that, through and through, and in every sense, he is only and altogether bad. True it is that the history of the race has been black and hateful. No less true is it that wrong-doing is easy, whereas well-doing calls for sustained effort. But in this connection such facts, important though they be, are not everything. In a real sense the truest test of a man is not what he does, but what he approves; not what he is, but what he would wish to be. Vicious indulgence may have so depraved him that vice seems no longer vicious, for just as his physical faculties may be destroyed by abuse, so his conscience may become "seared as with a hot iron;" but this in an abnormal condition.
What is called the "moral" law is so described because it is the law of our being. It was not the commandment which made thieving wrong. It was because it was wrong that the commandment was given. It has been said, indeed, by a modern disciple of Hobbes, that "Thou shalt not steal" is merely the selfish precept of the hog in the clover to warn off the hog outside the fence. But such teaching is the outcome of a reprobate mind, and merely exemplifies the fact that a man may sink morally to the level of a hog. But, it may be urged, we can point to communities that see no evil in theft. True; and we could also point to a nation whose women have stumps instead of feet. But let the lowest savage and the Chinese woman be removed in infancy from the influences which distort the conscience of the one and the limbs of the other, and in both cases nature will assert itself.
A full discussion of this problem would fill a volume. But no such discussion is necessary here. For no infidel will raise the question; and in the case of the believer an appeal to the Scripture should settle it. Its testimony is clear:
"When Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience It may be useful to note that it is not the law, but the work of The law, which is written in man's heart by nature bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them." Words could not be plainer. A heathen, though destitute of a Divine revelation, has a knowledge of good and evil, for that is inherent in man. That such a knowledge was implanted in him by his Creator will be very generally admitted, but the popularity of a belief is no pledge of its truth. According to Scripture man was created innocent, and it was his lapse from innocency that brought him the knowledge of evil. But the knowledge of good and evil would not of itself make man religious. He was religious before he acquired that knowledge, and the atheistic evolutionist is theoretically right in holding that he might possess it now apart from religion. The fact is that what is so commonly mistaken for "conscience" is but a subordinate characteristic of conscience. For it is what may be termed God-consciousness, and not the knowledge of good and evil, which constitutes man a religious being ; and it was this that the Creator implanted in him when He made him a spiritual being.
Here then is the question : Man being the "offspring of God," and having instincts be-fitting his origin, how is it that he does not always choose the good and turn from the evil? Who will dare to answer that it is because he cannot? Not the Christian, certainly ; for his Scriptures assert the responsibility of man; and indeed the whole doctrine of future judgment is based upon that truth. Nor yet the infidel, for the dignity of humanity is his favourite theme. But the fact remains that while some, not only among Pagans, but even among those who, like Renan for example, affect to ignore all religions, can lead worthy and excellent lives, these are few and exceptional. The lives of the vast majority of men are evil. And they choose the evil in spite of knowing that it is evil, and in spite of a fitful desire to shun it. Apart from special depravity, a man's higher nature turns toward the good even while he yields to the evil. He praises virtue though he practises vice. It is his will that is paralysed, not his judgment. He is like a bird with a broken wing, whose instincts prompt it to fly while it flounders helplessly on the ground.
Man has instincts and aspirations which indicate for him a noble origin and a still nobler destiny, but yet he is practically a failure. How is this to be accounted for? In the whole range of nature, man excepted, there is nothing to correspond with it. It must of course be due to the operation of some law which applies only to the human race. All other creatures fulfil the patent purpose of their being; man alone not merely falls short of this but out-rages it. How is this mystery to be explained? It may be said perhaps that man's vices are merely the natural propensities of the brute from which he is derived. But here we can silence the evolutionist once again by appealing to the phenomena of religion. The religious instincts of the race are certainly not derived from the brute, and it is precisely in this sphere that the corruption and perversity of human nature are most manifest. If it were merely a question of animal-worship among Pagan races, the evolutionist might again bring in his theories. But the fact to be explained is that, in the most advanced civilisations, whether of classic heathendom or of modern Christendom, religion has invariably tended to degenerate, and to make its votaries a prey to superstition.
Let us approach the matter from another standpoint. The bird is unable to fly: is it unreasonable to suppose that some mishap must have occurred to it? Let us then tentatively adopt the suggestion that some disaster in the moral and spiritual sphere befell the human race in primeval times; and let us consider what results might be expected as the consequence of such a catastrophe? Man's moral equilibrium would of course be disturbed. The machinery of his moral being would, so to speak, be thrown out of gear. But the effect upon his spiritual nature, by reason of its greater delicacy and sensitiveness, would be absolutely disastrous. A broken water-pipe may in a measure serve its purpose, but no electricity will pass along a broken wire.
And is not this precisely in accordance with experience? In the sphere of morals men differ vastly from one another. Apart from Christianity altogether, some men lead pure and excellent lives. Others are steeped in vice. And the fact that some are moral is proof that all might be so. In this limited sphere, indeed, we may, even at the risk of being made the quarry in a heresy hunt, adopt the dogma of Pelagius, "That as man has ability to sin, so has he also not only ability to discern what is good, but likewise to desire it and to perform it." And the truth of this is recognised when our selfish interests are involved. If a man steals his neighbour's cash, he goes to gaol; for "original sin" is no defence to a criminal charge. True it is that a thief comes in time to weaken his moral power to keep his hands out of his neighbour's pocket. But prison discipline is rightly deemed a useful tonic in such a case. And what the fear of human judgment is to the criminal, the fear of Divine judgment is intended to be to the sinner. But orthodoxy so dins it into men's ears that they have no power to live moral and virtuous lives, that they naturally believe it, and cease to make the effort. That they can, but will not, is the righteous basis of the judgment that awaits them.
The vital error of the Pelagian heresy was the application of it in the spiritual sphere. But in the fifth century, revealed truth had been so obscured by theology that the distinction was ignored. A traveller who has missed his way in a forest can stand upright and walk like a man; but so long as the heavens are shut out from his view, he cannot direct his steps, he is lost. The morality of Saul of Tarsus, the profane persecutor, was as unimpeachable as that of Paul, the inspired apostle; but his splendid morality only served to bring into stronger relief the depth of his spiritual blindness and depravity.(Footnote - Some people are held in high esteem by all who do not know them: the Apostle Paul could appeal to those who had known him from his youth (Acts xxvi. 4, 5). "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day," he could declare in the scene of his early life (xxiii. i). His life throughout had been blameless (Phil. iii. 6). Never perhaps did any other mere man live a life so perfect. therejore it was he wrote the words: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (i Tim. i. i5). The claim to stand forth as "first" in all the long line of sinners, was not inspired (as with thousands who since have adopted the words) by "the pride that apes humility;" it was due to the fact that while he had had advantages which raised him above all other men, his religion had served only to make him a God-hater, "a blasphemer and a persecutor." Mere religion always drags a man down spiritually.)
Man, then, is a religious being, not moral, merely, but religious. And he is religious because he is spiritual. Here is the parting of the ways, where we must break once for all with the mere evolutionist. It is idle for him to talk to us of "embryonic developments "-dog's teeth and donkey's ears, and any amount besides. Even if we accept his account of the origin of man's animal structure, the fact remains that the spiritual element in his complex being must have come from God.
But this only serves to emphasise our difficulties. Were we to reason out the matter a priori, we should expect to find complete unity in the religious beliefs of the race, and they would have for us the same certainty as the truths and facts which are apparent to reason or the senses. And further, religion would always and inevitably tend to elevate and en-noble mankind. But if we could imagine any so ignorant and simple as to cherish such dreams, the records of the past and the facts of life on earth should bring them a rude awakening. As for the religious beliefs of the world, there is nothing too crude, too wild, too false, too monstrous, to find enthusiastic adherents. And whenever a great teacher has appeared, and has sought to elevate the religion of men, his system has soon been perverted and depraved.
It has ever been so. Of the early Egyptian religion, all that was sublime was demonstrably ancient, and its last stage was the grossest and most corrupt. In China the lofty system of ethics formulated by Confucius has suffered the utmost deterioration. In India the pure nature-worship of the Vedas has ended in superstitious puerilities. And the teaching of Gautama, sublime in its rejection of all idolatry and priestcraft, has ended in the gross asceticisms and superstitions of modern Buddhism. The Divine revelation of Judaism was degraded to the level of "the Jew's religion," which made the race the common enemy of God and His people. And Christianity itself has been almost swamped by "the religion of Christendom," that tangled skein of Divine truth and Pagan superstition. The whole history of the race records no exception to the rule. It is a law, like that of gravitation, that religion ever tends to degenerate, and in its decadence to corrupt and deprave man-kind. This subject will claim further notice in these pages. The question here is, What explanation can be given of facts so patent and yet so extraordinary?
In the moral sphere we have to account for the phenomenon of a right judgment thwarted and violated. But in the spiritual sphere the problem is stranger still. It is not that the bird has a broken wing, but that instead of endeavouring to fly, its normal instinct is utterly perverted, and it clings to the ground and even struggles to burrow into it. How is this mystery to be accounted for? Only one solution of it has ever been proposed, and that is the story of the Eden Fall. And that explanation is so entirely reasonable and adequate that if it had been left for some thinker to suggest it, the dis-covery might well have evoked an exclamation such as that with which Huxley is said to have greeted the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, "How stupid not to have thought of that "
I do not stop to inquire whether the story of the Fall should be taken literally or as an allegory, for I desire to avoid here all side issues. If any choose to regard the forbidden tree as a "sacrament" (I use the word in the classical, not the superstitious and pagan, sense), it will not affect the argument.

CHAPTER THREE
IS "Christian Religion" True

ONE of the most obvious consequences of the conclusion reached in the preceding chapter is neglected or refused by many who profess to accept that conclusion most unreservedly. If it be the spiritual side of man's complex being that has suffered most by the disaster which has befallen him, it is here that the result will be most apparent. And while his moral nature may be capable of self-adjustment, we shall expect to find that, in the spiritual sphere, he is absolutely dependent upon a Divine revelation. In fact, nothing relating to man should be regarded with so much distrust as his religion, and yet this is precisely the sphere where self-satisfaction most prevails.
The phenomenon is all the stranger because every one is convinced that all religions are wrong save one; the exception of course being the particular cult of which he himself is a votary.
And, the unanimity felt by people who agree becomes to them a strong confirmation of their faith. After shouting "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" "with one voice, about the space of two hours," the worship of Diana is raised to the level of "things that cannot be spoken against."
At the close of his Essays on Religion, John Stuart Mill states thus the result of his argument:
"It follows that the rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural, whether in natural or revealed religion, is that of scepticism as distinguished from belief on the one hand and from atheism on the other." This position is generally regarded as hostile to faith; but our nature being what it is, it becomes a test and safeguard of faith. No matter how excellent my chronometer may be, I am glad at all times to test it by the sun in the heavens. And as I belong to a fallen race, and it is in the sphere of religion that the effects of the catastrophe are most felt, I ought to be ever ready to test my religious tenets by whatever standard is the true one. Men may differ as to the standard, and as to how the testing process should be carried out, but all will agree upon the principle here enunciated."
What guarantee have we that the religion which prevails in Christendom to-day is true? To many the very statement of the question will seem scandalous and profane. They will set themselves angrily to shout it down, as the Ephesian Diana worshippers treated what they deemed to be the Christian heresy. But thoughtful people will welcome the inquiry. Assuming that Christianity is a Divine revelation, the question still remains, How far may we not have departed from "the faith once for all delivered"? We know how we can test our chronometers. Is there any standard by which we can test our religion?
"All who profess and call themselves Christians" will reply with united voice in pointing us to the Bible. But this unanimity is merely apparent, not real. The vast majority of Christians will object to our appealing to the Bible directly and immediately. We must, in turning to it, subject our minds to an authority that claims to be its interpreter. Every citizen is supposed to know the laws of his country; but though the statute-book is the standard of authority, the interpretation of the statutes does not depend on the citizen's private reading of them, but on the decisions of competent tribunals. So also in the religious sphere. The Bible is the only, as it is the infallible, standard of faith and practice, but the Church claims to be its authorised exponent.
At first sight nothing can be simpler than this, nothing more reasonable, nothing more practical. But no sooner do we attempt to act upon it than difficulties overwhelm us. What is the Church? and where are we to find it? There are rival claimants to the title; to which of them shall it be accorded? Answer will be made that the Eastern Church is heretical. But what tribunal has so decided? And by what standard? The tribunal, we shall be told, was the Catholic Church, and the standard was the common faith. But this is a most transparent begging of the question. What took place was that the head of the Western Church excommunicated the Eastern Church for refusing to acknowledge his supremacy, which supremacy the Eastern Church denounces as "the chief heresy of the latter days." Which, then, is in the right?
If we appeal to the Church of England, her answer will be definite and clear, that both are wrong, and that they have "erred, not only in their living and manners of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." Nor need we look to the Church of England to claim for herself the place she refuses to accord to any other Church, of being "the witness and keeper" of the truth. Hers is the humbler position of being "a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ"; and to that supreme authority she appeals as the only sanction for her practice and her teaching.
But, we are told, Christ did not write a book; He founded a Church; and He speaks in and through the Church; our part, therefore, is to commit ourselves to the Church's teaching and guidance.
This is merely an attempt to get behind the question which it pretends to solve. How do I know that Christ founded a Church? And how do I know that I can trust myself to the teaching of what claims to be the Church? The only, possible answer to these questions is an appeal either to the Church itself or else to the New Testament. IF the former, then I am to trust the Church because the Church claims my confidence - a flagrant case of what in another sphere is known as "the confidence trick." If the latter, then by all means let me turn to the New Testament. But no "thimble-rigging" can be tolerated here. If the Church speaks with inherent authority, I must render unreasoning obedience to her teaching; but if she appeals to Holy Scripture, she must place an open Bible in my hands.
If we accept the former alternative we find ourselves again at the point from which the argument has moved away. What, and where, is the Church? Is this question to be decided by a plebicite? Are we to be content to settle it by blindly joining the biggest crowd? Or are we to yield to whichever authority presents its claims with the greatest arrogance? It is not thus that in sublunary affairs the thoughtful direct their conduct. But it is precisely thus that in highly-favoured England, in this enlightened age, people of culture decide a question which concerns their eternal destiny!
If our choice must be limited to one or other of the two most ancient Churches, it is extraordinary that educated Englishmen, acquainted with the history of both, should hesitate for a moment which to choose. That Rome should loom greater in our view is natural, but that Rome should engross our attention can be accounted for only by our insular ignorance and prejudice. For, as Dean Stanley writes- "That figure which seemed so imposing when it was the only one which met our view, changes all its proportions when we see that it is overtopped by a vaster, loftier, darker figure behind. If we are bent on having dogmatical belief and conservative tradition to its fullest extent, we must go, not to the Church which calls itself Catholic, but to the Church which calls itself Orthodox."' And yet the fact is clear that in a book addressed to English readers the Eastern Church may be ignored as absolutely as though it had no existence.
Papal supremacy is the special characteristic of the Western Church. Even if the history of Christendom had run differently, and this dogma were accepted by Christians of every name, a sceptic would be none the less entitled to ask on what authority it rests. Christ, we are told, entrusted to the Apostle Peter the keys of the Church, thus conferring upon him the primacy of the Church. Peter became Bishop of Rome, and every after occupant of the See of Rome has succeeded to the Primacy. The Bishop of Rome, therefore, is supreme Pontiff, Christ's Vicar upon earth.
By all means let us investigate this without prejudice or passion. Let us refuse to be influenced by the fact that some of those who have filled the Papal throne were shameless profligates of infamous character. Let us refuse also to take account of the high personal qualities of its present occupant. And his environment is nothing to us. Gorgeous vestments, a magnificent ceremonial, regal dignity and pomp - all these serve but to prove the faith of those who accept his claims. What concerns us is the evidence on which those claims are based.
Suppose it be conceded that the Apostle Peter held the place thus claimed for him, what ground is there for believing that his successors in the See of Rome had equal precedence and power? The only ground is that they themselves have asserted it, and that half Christendom has yielded them the position. Evidence there is absolutely none. What ground, again, is there for believing that the Apostle Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome? The only ground is that the Roman Church asserts it. Evidence there is absolutely none.
Indeed the very statement itself implies an anachronism as glaring as if it were asserted that the apostle was a cardinal. Of course there must have been bishops in the Church in Rome, as in the other Churches, but the thought of a bishop with a diocese or see, belongs to post-apostolic times; the New Testament knows nothing of it. And as Dean Alford bluntly says, "The episkoftoi of the New Testament have officially nothing in common with our bishops." Moreover bishops were appointed by an apostle, and therefore if Peter was a bishop in Rome he must, instead of being superior to any of his brethren, have become subordinate to them - a complete reductio ad absurdum. It is proverbially difficult to prove a negative; but the absence of all reference to Peter in Romans makes it reasonably certain that he had no relations with the Church in Rome when that Epistle was written : the last chapter of The Acts makes it practically certain that he was not in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment; and the last chapter of 2 Timothy leaves no doubt whatever that he was not there during Paul's last imprisonment. And to turn to a witness of post-apostolic times, Clement of Rome will confirm us in this conclusion. He was admittedly bishop of the Church in Rome before the end of the first century, and his Epistle to the Corinthians is admittedly genuine. Can any honest-minded man believe that his Epistle was written with the knowledge that the Apostle Peter had ever preceded him in the bishopric? (Footnote - The letter in question was written in the name of the Church of Rome. The only reference which it contains to Peter is in the following passage: "Peter by unjust envy underwent not one or two, but many labours, and thus having borne testimony unto death, he went unto the place of glory which was due to him)
Lastly, what ground is there for supposing that the Apostle Peter was entrusted with the." keys of the Church? The only ground is the fact that to him were given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and the Church which proudly boasts of being the keeper of Holy Writ is so ignorant of Scripture that it confounds "the kingdom of heaven" with the Church!
Every well-instructed Sunday-school child is aware that the book which records these words is the Hebrew Gospel, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" - in a word, the book which presents Him as Israel's Messiah. It deals only with the favoured nation - the covenant people - to the exclusion of Gentiles altogether. The gospel of the Grace is not in it. The very word "Grace" does not occur in it even once. And the reason why the Apostles were twelve in number was because the "tribes of Israel" were twelve in number. And among the twelve, Peter held the foremost place. To him were committed "the keys of the kingdom of the heavens "-an expression that is found only in connection with Israel. To him, therefore, it was that, at Pentecost, the proclamation of the great amnesty to Israel was entrusted.' And when "the word which God sent unto the children of Israel" was to be carried to Gentile proselytes, he was the appointed messenger. Throughout what theologians describe as "the Hebraic portion" of the Acts, his ministry is pre-eminent. He is the foremost, the commanding figure. But when Israel proved again impenitent and finally rejected the gospel of the kingdom, the very name of "the Apostle of the Circumcision" disappears from the narrative. Nay, more, it disappears from the New Testament, save for his two Epistles addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (that is of Israel), and for a passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, which proves to demonstrate that he had no precedence whatever except in relation to Israel. In the Church of this Gentile dispensation the pre-eminence is with "the Apostle of the Gentiles."
We are not dealing here with deep theological problems beyond the power of common men to investigate. And the conclusion is clear; first, that even if it could be shown that Peter was "the Vicar of Christ on earth," the fact would give no such precedence or dignity to the Roman Popes - a bishop might as well claim to be a cardinal or a marquis because his predecessor in the see wore the hat of the one or the coronet of the other; secondly, that the story that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome is the merest legend, and absolutely inconsistent with his office of Apostle; and, thirdly, that the figment of his having had a position of supreme authority in the Church is not supported by the Scripture to which appeal is made in its support.
Some errors are based on misread passages of Scripture. Others grow up apart from Scripture altogether, and Scripture is afterwards perverted to support them. In this latter category is the figment of the supremacy of Rome. It had its origin in the pride begotten of citizenship in the Imperial city - in what Augustine himself described as "the insolence of the city of Rome." Such is the foundation upon which rests the claim of the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. And yet his pretensions are acknowledged, not merely by ignorant peasants and superstitious women, but by educated and sensible men; by men reputed to be thinkers and scholars; by some even who are trained lawyers, holding high judicial offices. How, then, is the phenomenon to be accounted for? In presence of such facts evolution - talk is idle. When human ingenuity can suggest an answer, it will claim consideration. Meanwhile the story of the Eden fall holds the field.
Until I came to pen these pages I had not read any Roman Catholic work on this subject; and I have always supposed that a fair prima facie case could be made out for the Papal claims. But a perusal of Rev. Luke Rivington's Primitive Church and the See of Peter - work of high repute, to which Cardinal Vaughan contributed a preface - has destroyed that illusion. Any one who is either versed in Holy Scripture or accustomed to deal with evidence will search these 480 pages in vain for either. All that the writer proves may be freely conceded - namely, that the Pope has been acknowledged by vast numbers of people from very early times.

CHAPTER FOUR
Dr. Pusey's Teaching

A THEORY, a legend, and a blunder - such, as we have seen, are the pillars upon which rest the proud pretensions of the great Western Church of Christendom. And the discovery may well lead us to distrust that Church's teaching, and fearlessly to investigate the truth of every dogma for which she claims our faith.
Now if these dogmas be true, they are transcendental truths; and therefore it is idle to appeal to any human experience or authority in their support. A Divine revelation alone can justify our accepting them. Have we such a revelation? And will an appeal to it convince us of their truth? To the first of these questions Christians of every name and creed will reply in perfect Unison. But when we come to the second, our suspicions will be aroused, not only by the fact that some of these doctrines the Churches of the Reformation repudiate, but also by the reluctance of those who champion them to permit an unfettered appeal to the authority on which they are supposed to rest. The Church is to limit and control our access to the Scriptures, either directly, in virtue of its own mystical authority - one of the very points at issue - or else in - directly, by insisting that we shall interpret the Scriptures in accordance with the writings of the Fathers.
Scripture, we are told, is "reverenced as paramount." "The Old and New Testaments are the fountain, the Catholic Fathers the channel, through which it has flowed down to us. The contrast, then, in point of authority is not between Holy Scripture and the Fathers, but between the Fathers and us." They are not "equalled, much less preferred, to Holy Scripture, but only to ourselves: i.e. the ancient to the modern, the waters near the fountain to the troubled estuary rolled backward and forward by the varying tide of human opinion, and rendered brackish by the continued contact with the bitter waters of the world." '
This is the language of Dr. Pusey - a teacher than whom no one has borne bolder testimony to the supreme authority and value of Holy Scripture. In the preface to his Daniel The Prophet, he writes: "No book can be written in behalf of the Bible like the Bible itself. Man's defences are man's word; they may help to beat off attacks, they may draw out some portion of its meaning. The Bible is God's Word, and through it God the Holy Ghost, who spake it, speaks to the soul which closes not itself against it." That one who wrote such words as these should seek to identify the Bible with the writings of men, gives proof how well he knew that, apart from the writings of men, the Bible would lend no sanction to the system with which his name is associated.
And yet how plausible it is! It seems the perfection of reasonableness. The simple reader might suppose that in regard to doctrine and practice the Fathers were agreed. But the Fathers differed, and the Churches with which they were severally connected differed; and their differences led to many a division, many a feud. And so Dr. Pusey goes on to warn us that no one Father in particular is to be accepted as our guide, and we are to follow them only so far as their teaching was "universally received." "It is this only," he adds, "which according to Vincentius' invaluable rule, was received 'by all, in all Churches, and at all times,' which has the degree of evidence upon which we can undoubtedly pronounce that it is Apostolic." More plausible still! But, in fact, it is but dust flung into our eyes. If the "Catholic faith" is to be thus limited to doctrines universally accepted, we shall jettison at once not only certain Pagan superstitions which are "undoubtedly pronounced to be Apostolic;" but also some of the great fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. And who is to decide for us what is the residuum of mingled truth and error which is to serve as a creed by which we shall mould our character and shape our course in view of the solemnities of our existence? The most honoured of the Fathers were men whose minds were impregnated by the superstitions of Pagan religion, or the subtleties of Pagan philosophy: are we to assume that nineteen centuries of the Christian religion have so enfeebled or depraved the intellect of Christendom that we are less capable of understanding the Scriptures than they were? They were "near the fountain" of Christianity, forsooth; yes, but they were nearer still to the cesspool of paganism. And inquiry will show that it is to the cesspool that we should attribute every perversion of the truth which today defaces what is called the Christian religion.
The Christian turns to the Bible to hear in it the voice of his living Saviour and Master and Lord, who, by the Holy Spirit, sent down from heaven to that very end, "speaks" in and through that Word, "to the soul which closes not itself against it." But the founder of this religious system is the dead Buddha of nineteen centuries ago, the pure waters of whose teaching are now dissipated in "the troubled estuary rolled backward and forward by the varying tide" of the opinions of the Fathers, and "rendered brackish by the continued contact with the bitter waters" of a corrupt and apostate Church.
Let those who thus appeal to the Fathers hear the Fathers. No one among them is held in higher esteem than Chrysostom. The most famous of the Greek Fathers, he has been canonised by the Roman church; and both Greek and Roman Churches celebrate his festival. And with abundant reason. For he lived a pure and floble life in an age when this much-vaunted "primitive Church" was characterised by shame-less profligacy and corruption. Here is Chrysostom's testimony to the Scriptures -
"And why does he bid all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures? Because at that time, when heresy hath got possession of those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith but the Divine Scriptures. For before it was shown in many ways which was the Church of Christ, and which heathenism; but now it is known in no way to those who wish to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, but only through the Scriptures. Why?
Because all those things which are properly Christ's in the truth, those heresies have also in their schism: Churches alike, the Holy Scripture alike, bishops alike, and the other orders of clergy, baptism alike, the eucharist alike, and everything else; nay, even Christ Himself. Therefore, if any one wishes to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, whence can he ascertain it, in the confusion arising from so great a similitude, but only by the Scriptures? .
"Therefore the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take place in the last days, commands on that account, that the Christians who are in Christianity, and desirous of availing themselves of the strength of the true faith, should betake themselves to nothing else but the Scriptures; otherwise, if they should look to other things they shall stumble and perish, not understanding which is the true Church."
These were the words of the most famous of the Greek Fathers: now let us hear the testimony of Augustine, the most famous of the Latin Fathers. He says - "I declare unto you that the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, are the only books in the world to which I have learned to pay such honour and reverence, that I most firmly believe that none of their authors has committed any error therein. Other authors are read by me with the persuasion that however they may excel in holiness and learning, what they write is not true because they write it, but because they can prove it to be true either by Scripture or reason."
In "all things that pertain to life and godliness" the words of Holy Writ are so simple and clear that a little child can grasp their meaning. Thus the apostle could write to Timothy, "From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." But who is to interpret the Fathers for us? Rival schools of Christian thought appeal to them in support ortheir opposing tenets; who, then, is to arbitrate between them? And by what standard? And why should we turn from what is plain and simple to writings which are maze of mingled heresy and truth? "Near the fountain!" These men talk as though the apostles left behind them a pure and united Church, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers had entered without a break upon the heritage. But what are the facts? "While the apostles wrote, the actual state of the visible tendencies of things showed too plainly what Church history would be." and the writer goes on to say - "I know not how any man, in closing the Epistles, could expect to find the subsequent history of the Church essentially different from what it is. In those writings we seem, as it were, not to witness some passing storms which clear the air, but to feel the whole atmosphere charged with the elements of future tempest and death. Every moment the forces of evil show themselves more plainly. They are encountered, but not dissipated. .
"The fact which I observe is not merely that these indications of the future are in the Epistles, but that they increase as we approach the close, and after the doctrines of the gospel have been fully wrought out, and the fulness of personal salvation and the ideal character of the Church have been placed in the clearest light, the shadows gather and deepen on the external history. The last words of St. Paul in the second Epistle to Timothy, and those of St. Peter in his second Epistle, with the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude, breathe the language of a time in which. the tendencies of that history had distinctly shown themselves; and in this respect these writings form a prelude and a passage to the Apocalypse." In very truth those "last words" were wrung from men depressed by patent signs of general apostasy. The same apostle who had exulted in the fact that "all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus," lived to pen the sad lament, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in 'Asia be turned away from me." And then, taking a still wider view of the condition of the Church, he indited the solemn forecast, "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." And for more than a century before Ireneus - the earliest of the Patristic theologians - appeared upon the scene, the leaven had been working. That heresies should be the subject of the only treatise we possess from his pen, may indicate the state into which the Church had already passed. "Dogs," "evil workers," "the Concision," warned against even in apostolic times, increased in number and in influence, as the traditions of apostolic times lost their power in the Church. Such men were ever at work - lowering the standard of Christian life, and corrupting the purity and simplicity of the Christian faith and the Christian ordinances.
Error is a weed of rank and rapid growth. But it was not until more than a century after Ireneus had gone to his rest, when the last and fiercest of the persecutions had ended, and, with the advent of Constantine, the wolf of paganism openly assumed the sheep's clothing of the Christian religion," that the errors, which were in the very 'warp and woof of that religion, began to ripen and spread unchecked; and ere another century had passed, the standard even of outward morality in the professing Church sank to the level of that of the heathen world.'
The Church of God is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets"; the Church of Christendom is built upon the foundation of the Laiin Fathers. What the Apostle Paul was to the one, Augustine of Hippo was to the other. Though inferior to Jerome in learning, he was practically the founder of the Latin Church. The personal greatness of the man - beyond question. His writings give proof of it. Throughout the Middle Ages their authority was supreme, and their influence is felt to the present hour. And though till recently his Confessions were known only to the theologian and the student, the book now finds a place in thousands of English homes. But, as the inspired apostle wrote, "God accepteth no man's person," so we may fearlessly bring the teaching of Augustine to the test of Scripture.
Can any spiritually intelligent Christian read the Confessions without being struck by the ignorance it betokens of Christian doctrine? It reveals the experience of a great and pure and earnest soul reaching out after God in the midst of mists and darkness which the sunlight of Christianity would have dispelled. Intense reverence for God, and desire to please Him - these are manifest in it throughout. But it all savours of what the apostle describes as the effort to be "made perfect in the flesh." Indeed it is startling to notice how little there is of Christ in it all, even in the theology of it. It is possible of course that men unknown to fame, of whom no record has come down to us, may have been spiritually in advance of their ecclesiastical superiors. What is true in our own day may have been true in the days of the Fathers. But if the Patristic literature is to be our guide, the great truth of Grace disappeared from the Church with the Apostles who were its heralds. And ignorance of grace will go far to account for the differences which marked the systems of Greek and Latin theology, and for the heresies by which the one and the other were corrupted.
Before the law of gravitation was discovered, many problems in astronomy were solved as clearly and accurately as they are today; but there was no unity in the science, and much pertaining to it was incomprehensible. And so, if Grace be unknown, various Christian doctrines may still be understood, but the central principle which binds them together is wanting, and there are elements not only of darkness, but even of seeming contradiction. The truth of Grace having been lost, the doctrine of Divine wrath, eternal and inexorable, against human sin, became overwhelming and intolerable; and the theologies of the Fathers struggled to bridge over the chasm which separated God from men. The Greek school, under the influence of the Neo-Platonism of which Alexandria was the cradle and the home, leant toward the conception of a deity " immanent" in the world, and especially in humanity. The incarnation, not the cross, was to them the climax of the Divine revelation to men. But though a climax it was not a crisis. It was rather the unfolding and display of the principle on which the Supreme had been working throughout the ages. Thus it was that God restored relations with the fallen race, alienated and lost by sin. Thus was humanity redeemed; for the true emblem of Redemption was not the Cross of Calvary, but the manger of Bethlehem. It was Paganism in a Christian dress.'
The theology or the Latin Fathers, on the other hand, was governed by the old Platonic conception of the "transcendent" Deity, a God far removed from men; whose alienation, moreover, was rendered more terrible by the doctrine of original sin. In their view the benefits of the work of Christ were limited to a privileged few, and their system aimed at extending the number of that minority, and mitigating for them the perils of their position. The simple baptism of the New Testament - a public confession of Christ by those whom the gospel had won to the ranks of His disciples - was remodelled on Pagan lines' as a mystical regeneration and cleansing from sin, bringing the sinner from under the stormcloud of Divine wrath into the sphere where a mystically endowed priesthood could minister to him further grace.
For in this theology Divine sovereignty became sheer favouritism; election was degraded to mean no more than immunity from wrath; and grace, instead of being, as in the New Testament, the principle of the Divine action, and the characteristic of the Divine attitude toward mankind, was regarded rather as a sort of spiritual electricity, to be communicated to the favoured few by ordinances which owed their validity to a sacerdotal class. The Church, which in their system meant practically the clergy, was the mediator between an alienated and angry God, and men depraved and doomed. The horrors of the system became further alleviated by the figment of a purgatory, prayers and masses for the dead, the invocation of saints, and all the superstitions which, to the present day, characterise the reli - gion of Christendom. Paganism, again, in a Christian dress.
It is not that these conflicting views were taught thus plainly by all the leaders of the rival schools of Christian thought. Far from it. But in varying degrees the writings of all are tainted by them. Clement of Alexandria, rival claimant with Ireneus to the title of father of Greek theology, and Augustine of Hippo, so specially honoured by the Latin Church, are the most pronounced exponents of them. Though the fame of Clement is eclipsed by that of his brilliant disciple and successor as head of the Alexandrian catechetical school,' he remains to the present hour the "patron saint" of "the sect of the Sadducees." It was not till two centuries after his time that the Roman Church was moulded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained. Of all the errors that later centuries developed in her teaching there is scarcely one that cannot be found in embryo in his writings.
"The Church to him," Dean Farrar writes, "was an external establishment, subjected to the autocracy of bishops, largely dependent on the opinion of Rome. It was a Church represented almost exclusively by a sacerdotal caste, cut off by celibacy from ordinary human interests, armed with fearful spiritual weapons, and possessing the sole right to administer a grace which came magically through none but mechanical channels. And this Church might, nay, was bound to, enforce the acceptance of its own dogmas and customs even in minute details and in outward organization. It was justified in enforcing unity by using the arm of the State to fetter free consciences by cruel persecution.
And outside this Church, with its many abuses, its few elect, its vast masses arbitrarily doomed to certain destruction, its acknowledged multitudes of ambitious, greedy, ignorant and unworthy priests - there was no salvation! Augustine substituted an organised Church and a supernatural hierarchy for an ever-present Christ. To Augustine more than to any one else is due the theory which is most prolific of the abiding curse inflicted on many generations by an arrogant and usurping priestcraft.
"The outward Church of Augustine was Judaic, not Christian. The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is a protest against it. And all that was most deplorable in this theology and ecciesiasticism became the most cherished heritage of the Church of the Middle Ages in exact proportion to its narrowest ignorance, its tyrannous ambition, its moral corruption, and its unscrupulous cruelty."'
Farrar's Lives of the Fathers, vol. ii. 603.

CHAPTER FIVE

"THE extravagances which disfigure the record and practice of Buddhism are to be referred to that inevitable degradation which priesthoods always inflict upon great ideas committed to their charge." Thus writes Sir Edwin Arnold, in the preface to his great Indian poem; and the words may serve to "point a moral" here.
In its origin Buddhism was no more than "a mere system of morality and philosophy, founded on a pessimistic theory of life." It was lacking in the essential element of a religion, for it had no God. And yet it had much in common with Christianity. It resembled it notably in its repudiation of idolatry and priestcraft and asceticism, and in its contempt for everything unworthy, material, and base. And not only in these respects, but also in its doctrine of the "path," it comes nearer to Christianity than does the historic religion of Christendom. A. man's acts and words, important though they be, are in one respect not so important as his aims, and the beliefs that inspire them. For his acts and words may, like the clothes he wears, be assumed; but his aims bespeak the deeper currents of his inner life, and his beliefs are part and parcel of himself.
But though the teaching traditionally attributed to Gautama was thus beautiful and pure, the Buddhism of today is one of the most degraded forms of Paganism. And what concerns us here is to mark that, though Buddhism and Christianity have flowed in channels wholly separate, the corruptions of both are of the same type, both having developed errors and superstitions so precisely similar that the errors of the one cult could easily be adapted to the other. The following most striking language is used by Dr. Rhys Davids in describing the Lamaism of Tibet :- The principles of "the noble eightfold path" are (r) right belief ; (2) right aims ; (3) right words ; (4) right actions; (5) right means of livelihood; (6) right endeavour; (7) right mindfulness and (8) right meditation. The more this is studied the more will the order be approved.
"Lamaism, indeed, with its shaven priests, its bells, and rosaries, its images, and holy water, and gorgeous dresses; its service with double choirs, and processions, and creeds, and mystic rites, and incense, in which the laity are spectators only; its abbots and monks, and nuns of many grades; its worship of the double Virgin, and of the saints and angels; its fasts, confessions, and purgatory; its images, its idols, and its pictures; its huge monasteries, and its gorgeous cathedrals, its powerful hierarchy, its cardinals, its Pope, bears outwardly at least a strong resemblance to Romanism, in spite of the essential difference of its teachings, and of its mode of thought."
Such is Buddhism in countries where it has made its home. Is it any wonder that when Roman Catholic missionaries settled in certain provinces of China, they were amazed to find all the externals of their own religion ready to their hand; and that a change of images and of nomenclature alone seemed needed to "Christianise" the native cult?
But more than this, both Christianity and Buddhism in their decadence bear a family resemblance to the religions of classic Paganism, and to the old-world cults of Babylon and Egypt. What is common to all is the presence of some material representation of the God, a priesthood and an altar, and mystical rites and ceremonies
This intensely interesting fact has escaped the attention it deserves. How is it to be accounted for? Evolution-talk about "cells and sacs and nerves" and "abnormal reversions" will throw no light on it. Neither dogs, nor donkeys, nor anthropoid apes, display the least appreciation of images, or priests, or millinery, or "incense used ceremonially." Therefore, even if it were only among degraded races that these frauds and fooleries of human religion prevailed, evolution could claim no hearing. Not so, indeed, if men turned naturally to atheism; for the lapse might fairly be described as an "abnormal reversion." But atheism is always a revolt against a false religion, and it never maintains its hold upon the minds of men. The problem here, however, is that the superstitions which prevail in the midst of Western civilisation are essentially identical with those of Buddhism in its most depraved form, and with those of the Pagan religions of the ancient world. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus! The same phenomena apparent everywhere, whether in ancient Babylon or in modern England; whether in the decaying civilisations of the East or the advancing civilisation of the West. One explanation only is possible, and it is that already urged. Man is by nature the slave of perverted religious instincts. The existence of such instincts is proof of the Divine origin of the race; the perversion of them is proof of a great catastrophe in its primeval history. Man is God's creature in a special sense; but he is a fallen creature, and it is in his religion that the effects of the fall first and most declare themselves.
And not only is man, regarded as a spiritual being, thus subject to a law of "degeneration," but there is some mysterious influence which so guides the operation of that law, that it invariably leads to similar results. No matter what the point of departure, no matter what the environment, man's religion assumes the same phase, and displays the same general characteristics.
In a world so full of doubt it is not easy to find a "rough and ready" test by which to distinguish truth from error. But "Vincent's famous rule,"' already cited, will rarely fail us. (What has been accepted always, everywhere, by all) The method of its application, however, must depend upon the sphere in which it is to be applied. Speaking generally, what mankind in the mass approves is seldom wrong. And the intuitive judgment of the many is not infrequently a safer guide than the reason of the few. But in one province, at least, the presumption is reversed. In the religious sphere anything which satisfies this threefold test we may with reasonable confidence reject. It may generally be taken as an authentic "hall-mark" of falsehood.
In no other sphere save that of religion do men of intelligence and culture willingly subject their minds to delusions. The "historic Church" once tried to compel belief that this planet was the fixed centre of the solar system; but who believes it now? Men cannot be made to believe that water runs uphill, or that five and five make anything but ten. In no other sphere can they be induced to stultify reason and common sense. But in religion there seems to be no limit to their credulity. And in every age, and in all kinds of different environments, credulity fastens, and feeds itself, upon errors and superstitions of a kindred type.
One exception only has there been to this rule. In the ages when His people were in a state of tutelage, God gave them a religion. It was a concession to the weakness of human nature. That Divine religion is expressly described as "a shadow of the good things to come," namely, Christianity; for, to the spiritual discernment, Christ Himself was the sum and substance of it all. It was the only Divine religion the world has ever known; for Christianity is not, strictly speaking, a "religion" at all, but a revelation and a faith, And how did it differ from human religions, not excepting that which calls itself Christian? It differed essentially in these respects :-
(i) In the absence of any material representation of God.
(2) In the absence of mystical rites.
(3) In the absence of a mystically endowed priesthood.
(4.) In the absence of tradition. It was based altogether upon a Divine revelation which every Israelite was expected to study and obey.
And though in their apostasy the Jews lapsed into idolatry, the evil was eradicated by the judgments which fell on them in the era of the Captivity; and after the great revival under Ezra it never again declared itself. The post-captivity apostasy was not due to idolatry, but to the prevalence of human tradition, by which, as the Lord declared, they "make the word of God of none effect," "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."'
But never even in the darkest period of the nation's history was, their religion corrupted by the Pagan conception of priesthood. "The Jews' religion" was, I repeat, an apostasy; but it never sank to the level to which "the Christians' religion" has fallen. It never knew the degradation of openly displaying those brand-marks of Paganism - mystical ordinances and a priesthood with mystical powers. "Sacraments" abounded. The priest himself, the appointed rites which he discharged, the altars at which he ministered, the sacrifices which were offered on them, the shrine, and every detail of its divinely ordered furniture - each and all proclaimed some spiritual truth, and pointed forward to the Messiah who was the reality of every type, the substance of every shadow, of the national religion. But there was not a single act, a single rite, in the prescribed ritual, even for the high-priest himself, which would have been beyond the capacity of any member of the congregation to discharge. The priest's position was unique, his privileges and duties were exclusively his own; but mystical powers he had absolutely none. The prophets in Israel were specially inspired. They uttered God-breathed words: they "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." But if the members of the Aaronic house were, like the prophets, a class apart, it was solely and altogether in virtue of the Divine appointment which separated them to the service of the altar. In no respect did they differ from the people in whose behalf they ministered.
The book has yet to be written which will describe what Israel might have been, and the world would have been, had the favoured nation been true to the revelation God entrusted to them. Solomon's prophetic prayer at the dedication of the temple gives a transient glimpse of the vision.' Blessed with the knowledge of the true God in a world that had wilfully lost it, they would have been a rallying centre to which earnest souls of every kindred might have come to seek and find the light. Professing a sublime faith, and commending it by noble and blameless living, they would have been missionaries to all the nations. The traditions of Eden, which even now still linger in some of the old religions of the world, of a coming deliverer, destined to bring blessing to mankind, would have been voiced by every part of their national cult. But that ritual was maintained solely in the interests of a carnal and corrupt priesthood. False prophets were honoured in proportion to the audacity with which they pandered to the nation's pride, and God-sent messengers were persecuted and slain. Appeal followed appeal, warning succeeded warning, one judgment after another fell on them; but all without avail. Their divinely taught religion became utterly degraded, arid in its degradation dragged down the nation to still lower depths; until at last, in the name of that religion - in the name ot the God who gave it them - they became "the betrayers and murderers" of the Son of God.
And these were nominally "the people of God," and their priests were "the priests of God"; and during His life on earth our blessed Lord acknowledged them, and called them to repentance on the ground of their divinely given promises and covenant. If ever there was a people who had seemingly a right to boast of knowing the true God, and of having a divinely ordained religion, it was the Hebrews. In every detail their cult was ordered by an express revelation. During all their pilgrimage from the house of bondage to the land of promise the tabernacle of Jehovah was in their midst. But what was the judgment of God who reads the heart? We here recall the words of the prophet, quoted by the martyr Stephen: "Have ye offered unto me slain beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye look up to the tabernacle of Moloch."' Outwardly and with their hands they bore the tabernacle of Jehovah; but inwardly and with their hearts they were carrying the tabernacle of Moloch.
Who was the god they served when they stoned the prophets and persecuted the messengers of heaven? That god was Moloch, the god of blood; though Jehovah was the name by which they called him. Who was the god they served when they "killed the Prince of life"? That god was Moloch, though the name they gave him was Jehovah. The nation as a whole had in all respects the same ordinances, and used the same nomenclature, as those among them who were the true "Israel of God"; but they knew nothing of their spiritual significance; they were dead to their spiritual power.
It will be said that the making of the golden calf is proof that the Jews were always idolaters, whereas the Christians' religion has a pure and spiritual worship. The plea will not avail. Idolatry in the sense this argument implies has no existence save perhaps among the most degraded races of mankind. The golden calf was to fill the place of Moses, not of God. But yesterday, Moses the mediator of the covenant had offered the sacrifice by which the covenant was dedicated, and now he had gone up to the Mount, where for forty days he remained with God. The tabernacle had not yet been made -the daily ritual had not yet been appointed. So they cried out for something to represent to them: and make vivid to their minds the solemnities of their religion. And to this end they made an effigy of the calf which was the appointed victim in the great sacrifice of the covenant'; and Aaron forthwith proclaimed a feast, but it was a feast to Jehovah. It is crassly stupid to suppose that these men believed the calf to be the God of their deliverance. It was nothing but an outward symbol. It met the craving of man's fallen nature for something material in religion. It was idolatry, no doubt, but it was idolatry of the kind in which the Christians' religion is steeped. Altars and crucifixes, images and pictures, relics and the "hocus-pocus " of the mass - these fill precisely the same place in the religion of Christendom which the golden calf was designed by Aaron to hold in the cult of Israel. But "God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit." All such idolatry is hateful to Him. And are we to learn nothing from all this in our judgment of Christendom? The religion entrusted to the Jews was Divine, but yet "the Jews' religion" was false; false, moreover although in externals it had right ordinances, and it used a correct nomenclature. Why, then, should we suppose that the religion of Christendom is different? Like apostate Judaism, it is a human religion based upon a Divine ideal; and, as we have seen, every human religion gravitates towards error and evil.

CHAPTER SIX

THE great religions of the world appeal to sacred writings for their sanction. But the religion of Christendom differs in this respect from the religions of the East, that its pretended appeal to Scripture is but a juggler's trick. It claims our acceptance of doctrines which none but the credulous would believe on mere human testimony; and when we demand to know when and where has God revealed them, the answer given us is that "He has founded a Church, and in and through the Church He speaks to us." When we seek authority for this we are referred back to Holy Scripture; but when in turn we claim to be allowed access to Scripture, human tradition is foisted upon us instead. This sort of thing is well known in another sphere: "ringing the changes," I again repeat, is what the vulgar call it!
How different, this, from the attitude and language of the great men who, in the sixteenth century, sought to free England from the toil and tricks of priestcraft. Here are their words:-

"It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written; neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation."(Art.20)

This was precisely the question at issue in the sixteenth century. Obviously so; for the Reformation was essentially a revolt against the pretensions of "the Church," and an appeal to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. Different sorts of men of course were moved by different motives. With the devout, the ruling influence was love of truth: with others, it was detestation of the Church's immoralities and tyrannies. As for Henry VIII, he cared little for either piety or morals. What he wanted was to be master in his own realm. Roman Catholics seek to discredit the movement in England by representing Henry as its leader. But they are on dangerous ground. They forget that it was from the Pope that Henry obtained the title of "Defender of the Faith." Immorality and hypocrisy were no bar to Papal favour. Let them paint the King as black as they can, and brand him as hypocrite and scoundrel, the fact remains that he was no worse than the man who then sat in "the chair of St. Peter." The vices of Henry VIII. were of a kind that the Church habitually condoned. But what shall be said of Paul III.? This "Vicar of Christ on earth," so far from being ashamed of his immoralities, flaunted them in the face of the world. The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza he conferred upon his illegitimate son Lewis, and he made provision for two of his schoolboy grandsons, by appointing them Cardinals. These things need to be remembered in these days when the salaried servants of the Church of the Reformation are trying to undermine the work of the Reformation.
Nothing is more unfair in controversy than to state in our own words the tenets of others from whom we differ. And to many the discussion of principles, apart from the men who champion them, seems too academic to be interesting. Let us then select an exponent of the views it is here desired to challenge. Dr. Gore, now Bishop of Birmingham, who was Dr. Pusey's immediate successor, as head of the House which bears his name, will serve the purpose admirably. All the more so because of his high personal character and his Christian spirit. His personal contribution to Lux Mundi gave prominent expression to certain of the errors here assailed, and The Ministry of the Christian Church was written in defence of them.
"How irrational it is," he says, "considering the intimate links by which the New Testament canon is bound up with the historic Church, not to accept the mind of that Church as interpreting the mind of the apostolic writers." The logic of this is charming. Let us test it by a parallel case. "How irrational it is, considering the intimate links by which the Old Testament canon is bound up with the Jews (and they, moreover, were the divinely appointed custodians of them), not to accept the mind of the Jews as interpreting the Messianic prophecies." The glaring fallacy of this argument lies in confounding questions of fact with interpretations of doctrine. The question of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament is of the same character as issues of fact such as are dealt with every day in our courts of justice.' We owe our obligations to the historic Church in early times for settling and preserving the sacred canon. But this does not blind us to the fact that the hatred of the Scriptures which it displayed in later times was the natural fruit of the false teaching of the Fathers.
But the statement above cited calls for further criticism. First, it raises the whole question whether we possess a Divine revelation at all. Secondly, the question again presents itself, What is the Church? The argument assumes that it means the clergy - a figment which no one accepts who has not already given up his Bible. And, thirdly, waiving that point, how is the mind of the Church to be ascertained? If by the decrees of Councils, then we are met by the fact that the mind of the Church was not declared until after the epoch when "the mind of the apostolic writers" would, by lapse of time, have been lost. If by the writings of the Fathers, then the fact obtrudes itself that the Councils were convened to detect and expose their heresies, and, therefore, they cannot be safe guides to the "apostolic mind."
But our author is logical enough to see that this position is untenable, so he abandons it for another. Pusey reverenced the Bible as supreme, but his disciple is unembarrassed by any enthusiasm of faith in Holy Scripture. In his opinion "the Scriptures have suffered greatly from being isolated."' "Nor can a hard-and-fast line be drawn between what lies within, and what lies without, the canon." And lest any one should miss the meaning of these monstrous statements, he explains them by an illustration. "The Epistle to the Hebrews and S. Clement's letter are closely linked together." And, he adds, "How impossible to tear the one from the other." Suffice it to say that in the letter referred to, appeal is made to the Pagan myth of the Pheonix, not incidentally, nor as an, allegory or illustration, but gravely and as a fact, to establish the truth of the resurrection.' Impossible to tear apart the Scriptures from puerilities and blunders like these! Could any one have written the sentence above quoted who believed the New Testament to be a Divine revelation?
(Footnote - And yet the letter which is traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome is in some respects vastly superior to the writings of the later Fathers. Suffice it here to say that while expressly connected with the apostolic Epistles to the Corinthians, it has nothing whatever in common with the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why then bracket them thus together? The answer to this question may be gleaned from the following sentence: "For Clement interprets the high-priesthood of Christ in a sense which, instead of excluding, makes it the basis of, the ministerial hierarchy of the Church." Now, first, this appeal to Clement is an admission that Sèripture will not support what is pleaded for. And, secondly, the view here attributed to Clement the ordinary reader will search for in vain. In the clause referred to he enforces the maxim of r Cor. xiv. 40 (that "let all things be done in order ") by referring to the Jewish orders of chief priest, priest, levite, and layman, each having his fitting duties; but in the next clause but one he gives clear proof (as has been noticed by numberless writers) that he knew nothing of a "ministerial hierarchy.")
Having thus undermined confidence in Holy Scripture, the writer goes on to set up the authority of "the Church" in its place. In a word, he falls back upon the position of medial superstition which was repudiated at the Reformation by the Church of which he is a minister. The immense importance of the subject must be my apology for pursuing it; for this is the teaching by which the people of this nation are being insidiously drawn back to the darkness, the intellectual and spiritual degradation, from which the Reformation delivered our forefathers.
Proceeding with his argument upon inspiration, he says:- "Let us bear carefully in mind the place which the doctrine holds in the building up of a Christian faith. It is, in fact, an important part of the superstructure, but it is not among the bases of the Christian belief. The Christian creed asserts the reality of certain historical facts. To these facts, in the Church's name, we claim assent; but we do so on grounds which, so far, are quite independent of the inspiration of the evangelic records. All that we claim to show at this stage is that they are historical; not historical so as to be absolutely without error, but historical in the general sense, so as to be trustworthy. All that is necessary for faith in Christ is to be found in the moral dispositions which predispose to belief, and make intelligible and credible the thing to be believed; coupled with such acceptance of the generally historical character of the Gospels, and of the trustworthiness of the other apostolic documents, as justifies belief that our Lord was actually born of the Virgin Mary. . . ." (p. 340). Here in a single clause - and it is the climax of an argument - we have the root error of the apostasy, as definitely formulated by Augustine. As Professor Harnack expresses it,
"The Church guaranteed the truth of the faith, when the individual could not perceive it."' "To these facts, in the Church's name, we claim assent." If ever there was an appeal to ignorance and superstition it is here. Having regard to the Church's history the effrontery of it is amazing. Its folly will be apparent to any one who brings reason and common sense to bear upon the question at issue.
(Footnote - In the same connection he says, "When he (Augustine) threw himself into the arms of the Catholic Church he was perfectly conscious that he needed its authority not to sink in scepticism or nihilism" (History of Dogma, vol. v. ch. iii.). We are asked to follow the teaching of Augustine, and yet he himself was simply following the crowd - superstition calls it "the Church "- because, like a timid man in the dark, he could not trust himself to be alone!)
The first of "these facts," upon which all the rest depend, is that the Nazarene was the Son of God. The founder of Rome was believed to be the divinely begotten child of a vestal virgin. And in the old Babylonian mysteries a similar parentage was ascribed to the martyred son of Semiramis, Queen of Heaven. What reason have we, then, for distinguishing the birth at Bethlehem from these and other kindred legends of the ancient world? These men disparage the Scriptures, and, though yielding a conventional assent to their claim to inspiration, they refuse even to pledge themselves to their truth; and yet in the Church's name "they claim assent" to that to which no consensus of mere human testimony could lend even an a priori probability.
All we need for faith is to be found, forsooth, in "the moral dispositions which predispose to belief." When the weak-nerved guest who has been plied with tales about the haunted room, retires to rest with "the moral dispositions which predispose to belief" in ghosts, the ghost is certain to appear! And so also here: if we will but allow our minds to be hypnotised by priests, we shall be prepared to believe in the Incarnation, the sacrifice of Calvary, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, and the mystic efficacy of the sacraments. And we shall swallow all these doctrines without any exercise of mind or heart or conscience, and without any capacity to distinguish between Divine truth and human error and superstition.
If, on the other hand, the New Testament is a Divine revelation; if "the evangelic records" are, in the language of the Apostle Paul, "God-breathed Scriptures," then indeed the Christian can face his fellow-men with the confession of his faith that the crucified Jew was the Son of God. But, apart from such a revelation, faith in anything which is outside the sphere of reason and the senses is mere superstition. The foundation fact of Christianity is of that character; and those who accept it on the authority of "the Church" are poor superstitious creatures who would believe anything.
And such these men prove themselves to be. They believe that the Nazarene was the Son of God; they believe the same, and on the same authority, of a piece of bread from the baker's oven. They are like the schoolboy who answers that six and seven are thirteen, and later on, in reply to a further question, says that six and eight are thirteen. The wrong answer destroys the value of the right one, by showing that it rests on no intelligent basis. And so here. Faith in that which is true is not necessarily true faith. In this instance it would seem to be sheer credulity. One quotation more to make clearer still the anti-Christian character of this system :-

"If we believe . . . that our Lord founded a visible Church, and that this Church with her creed and Scriptures, ministry and sacraments, is the instrument which He has given us to use, our course is clear. We must devote our energies to making the Church adequate to the Divine intention - as strong in principle, as broad in spirit, as our Lord intended her to be; trusting that, in proportion as her true motherhood is realised, her children will find their peace within her bosom. We cannot believe that there is any religious need which at the last resort the resources of the Church are inadequate to meet."

What does a man need in the spiritual sphere? Forgiveness of sins ?-the Church will grant him absolution. Peace with God? -he will find it in the Church's "bosom." "Grace to help in time of need"? Comfort in sorrow? Strength for the struggles of life, and support in the solemn hour of death? The whole burden of his need "the resources of the Church" are adequate to meet.
The Lord Jesus Christ is all in all in Christianity. But the Christ of this religion holds a position akin to that of the Sovereign in the British Constitution. Supreme in a sense, of course, the King must be regarded; but the King never touches the life of the ordinary citizen. And so here. Professor Harnack describes it admirably in a single sentence: "Christ as a person is forgotten. The fundamental questions of salvation are not answered by reference to Him; and in life the baptized has to depend on means which exist partly alongside, partly independent of Him, or merely bear His badge."
These words, descriptive of the Romish system under Gregory the Great, might be fitly placed upon the title-page of The Church and The Ministry. Witness the prevalence of such language as "salvation through the Church," "grace communicated from without"- expressions and ideas wholly foreign to Scripture, but well known in Romish theology. The work opens, of course, with an appeal to tradition. As soon as the writer comes to Scripture he at once betrays hopeless confusion between the kingdom of heaven and the Church of God. The kingdom was the burden of Hebrew prophecy; the Church was a "mystery" revealed after Israel's rejection of Messiah. He goes on to confound the Church regarded as "the body of Christ," with the Church as an organised society on earth. The former is the whole company of the redeemed of the Christian dispensation; the latter consists of the professing body upon earth at any particular time. Distinctions of this kind, so clear upon the open page of Scripture, a false theology ignores; and ignorance of them makes the New Testament seem a maze of inconsistencies and contradictions.
(Footnote - Such distinctions explain, ex. gr., how the Lord could say, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" ; "Go not into the way of the Gentiles," &c.; and yet how He could speak of I_ivine love to the world, and eternal life for "whosoever bëlieveth .. in Him." And as regards the twofold aspect of the Church, we find in Eph. iv. Ix, the ministry designed to fulfil the Diiiie pur-pose for the one, and in r Cor. xii. 28, we have the provision for the needs of the other. "For the building up of the body Of Christ" (Eph. iv. 12) we have (in addition to apostles, prophets, and teachers, which are common to both) evangelists or preachers of the gospel. In the Church as organised on earth we have no evangelists (for the Church is supposed to be composed of those who have been brought in by the gospel), but we have "helps, governments," &c. The sphere of government is the Church on earth; the sphere of the ministry of the gospel is the world. The Apostle Paul had this double ministry. "The gospel . . whereof I am made a minister"; and "the Church whereof I am made a minister" (Col. 1. 23-25).
Apostolic Succession, which is the burden of the book, is the special subject of the second chapter. The pundits of the Council of Trent had to face the fact that the Papal system rested upon a single text; the figment of Apostolic Succession has not even one perverted text to support it. It is not a question whether provision has been made for a true ministry in the Church until the end; that is assured by Divine faithfulness and power. But what we are here asked to believe is that Christ set in motion a mechanical system which, by a process of finger-tip touches, to be repeated generation after generation, would transmit to all posterity certain mystical influences, for the maintenance of what is called "grace."
Now this may be considered from the standpoint either of Christianity or of reason. As regards the latter, suffice it here to ask, Is it any wonder that in view of such teaching, so many intelligent and honest-minded men of the world should come to look upon religion as a jumble of silly fables and shameful frauds? And as regards the former, it would be idle to expect that the ordinary reader would follow an exhaustive exegesis of Scripture on the subject; but perhaps a clear statement of the error will render unnecessary an elaborate exposition of the truth.
The case stands thus. In the Apostolic Church there were apostles, bishops (or elders), and ministers. The apostles held a unique position. They admittedly had to do with the foundation of the Church. That they have successors is a mere inference. To establish that inference is the object of the treatise here under notice. A perusal of it will suggest to the intelligent reader a juggler's attempt to place a ball at rest half way down an inclined plane. Ordinary folk would place it either at the top or at the bottom. The Christian takes his stand upon Scripture; the Romanist falls back upon tradition; but these Romanising Anglicans are the advocates of an unintelligent and impossible compromise. It is a clever piece of casuistry, nothing more.
Not "deacons." There was no word in the Greek language for steam-engine when the New Testament was written; neither was there for deacon; and for the same reason! See Appendix IV., Note II.
No one can fail to mark the contrast between the tone of this book and that of the volume cited on p. 46, ante. As we read Canon Bernard's Lectures we seem to be breathing the pure air of heaven; when we turn to Canon Gore's treatise we are oppressed by the atmosphere of the crypt and the cloister. In the one we have Christian theology; in the other the theology of Christendom.
Here is the scheme: As there were three orders at the first, there must be three orders now. But as we no longer have apostles, the "bishops" of the New Testament are moved up to fill their place; and the position thus vacated by the promoted bishops is occupied by "priests" -not "presbyters writ large," but priests. The Romanist, more intelligent and more consistent than his imitators, recognises that above the apostles there was Christ, and so he sets up a Vicar of Christ, the Pope.
In the sublime arrogance of Rome there is something which almost commands an unwilling admiration; but this halting imitation of Rome evokes feelings of a very different kind. And there is nothing more pitiable about these men than their repudiation of the name of "Protestant." If their position be not a protest against Rome, it must be designed as a half-way house to Rome. If they are not Protestants they must be Jesuits. But whatever their intention, the tendency and results of their teaching are clear. Cardinal Vaughan writes: "The recent revival of Catholic doctrines and practices in the Church of England is very wonderful. It is a hopeful sign. It exhibits a yearning and a turning of the mind and heart towards the Catholic Church. It is a national clearing the way for something more."'
This religion bears a relation to Christ, akin to that which the Buddhism of to-day bears to Gautama. Nineteen centuries ago, as already explained, its Founder injected into His apostles the "grace" upon which our salvation depends; and the stock of the commodity now available has come down to us on the finger-tip touch system through a long succession. Salvation is thus "through the Church," by means of the sacraments; and therefore, apart from Apostolic Succession in an episcopacy, there can be no "Church," no valid sacraments, and of course no salvation. No, not quite that; for, we are told, "God's love is not limited by His covenant"; He is not bound to His sacraments. Which suggests that, considering the long ages during which the "sacramental grace" was flowing through the filthiest channels, sensible people will do well to distrust the orthodox "grace," and to cast themselves upon the "uncovenanted mercy" of God.
The Christian of course takes higher ground and denounces the whole system as both false and profane. It is false; for this theory of salvation "through the covenant" by "sacramental grace" denies the great characteristic truth of Christianity. This shall be demonstrated in the sequel. And it is profane, for it assumes that a "holy, holy, holy God" can recognise immoral and wicked men as His specially accredited ministers. What would be thought of the army - what would be thought of the Sovereign - if men convicted of crime, or disgraced by flagrant and notorious acts of immorality, were allowed to hold the King's commission? The only Scripture that can be cited in support of the profanity refutes it. For it was not the death of Judas which determined his apostleship, but his sin. All the apostles died; but Judas "by transgression fell." The man who stands upon Apostolic Succession may be indeed a minister of "the Christians' religion," but he has no valid claim to be acknowleged as a minister of Christ. He is separated from Christ by nineteen centuries of time,, and by an impassable slough of moral filth and spiritual apostasy.
To the superficial the grossness of the imposture is not apparent in the case of those whose life and character give them personal claims to respect and veneration. But if the position be tenable at all, such men are "in the same boat" with the vilest of the miscreants who disgraced the clerical office during the centuries before the Reformation shamed "the historic Church" into a show of outward decency, and compelled it to set its house in order. They moreover were "nearer to the fountain" than are their successors of to-day. And they, forsooth: were pillars of the Church, and custodians' of "grace," while men like a Chalmers or a Spurgeon are mere interlopers, whose deliverance from the doom of Uzzah is due to the uncovenanted mercy of God! That educated men can be deluded by such a system is proof of the baneful influence of human religion upon the mind.

THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH

CHAPTER SEVEN

IN the Church's name! "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." The only sacred thing on earth is "the Church." As for Holy Scripture, that may be patronised or mangled at pleasure: the dissecting knife of criticism cannot be applied to it too remorselessly. But to question the Divine authority of "the Church" is profanity beyond forgiveness. Just as in Pagan Rome men were free to believe in anything or in nothing, as it pleased them, so long as they were willing to burn incense at the appointed shrine, so is it in "Christian" England. There is but one God, and "the Church" is His prophet.
"In the Church's name!" With these men "the Church" is the one mediator between God and men. No, they will exclaim, not the Church but Christ; the mediator is Christ, speaking in and through the Church. How plainly and fully the Divine Spirit anticipated this plausible falsehood when He inspired the words, "There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all."' Not the Church, not Christ in the Church, not the "mystical Christ"; but Christ THE MAN who died for men; HE is the only mediator between men and God.
Society is occasionally startled by some notable secession to Rome; and the inference is a natural one that if "men of light and leading" take a step so momentous there cannot but be the most cogent reasons in its favour. As a matter of fact every one of these perverts has been angled for individually,(2) and the bait by which they have all been tempted is "the Church." (3) As the champions of the Neo-Romanism, so popular to-day in England, have taught them the founda-tion lie of the apostasy, that salvation is in and through "the Church," 4 they are easily drawn into the net, and duly make their submission to Rome.
(Footnotes, -(2) I have myself been honoured in this way. See Appendix II. (3)The lie is a venerable one. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" was a favourite maxim of Cyprian.)
The great Orthodox Church being ignored, this result is inevitable. A simple process of negative induction leads to it. For the position claimed by the ritualists for the Church of England is obviously that of a schismatical sect, severed from and repudiated by that Church to which it owes everything which they deem vital; and Protestantism regarded as a religion is rightly rejected as a transparent fraud. It was a common saying in the days of the Council of Trent that the Bible was the religion of Protestants. Protestantism in itself affords no anchorage for faith. But it provides a breakwater which makes our anchorage secure: it shields us from influences which make Christianity impossible. While priestcraft would set up a Church to mediate between God and man, Protestantism places in our hands an open Bible, and pointing us to the only mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, leaves us free to "obey the gospel."
Christianity makes salvation a personal matter between the sinner and God. It is not a question of subjection to ordinances of religion, but of personal submission to the Lord Jesus Christ. The contrast is presented in the most emphatic way in the great doctrinal treatise of the New Testament. At the close of his parting charge to Israel, Moses spoke as follows :- "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in the heart, that thou mayest do it (Deut. xxx. 11-14).
And now, mark how the inspired apostle uses these words. Addressing the Romans, he says :- "For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. x. 5-9 R.V.). According to the Divine revelation of Judaism, the way of life was obedience to ordinances; according to the Divine revelation of grace in Christianity, it is faith in Christ, and the acknowledgment of Him as Lord. And thus the apostle adds, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. . . . For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." And the inspired definition of the Church is, "All that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."'
Salvation therefore is not by the Church, but the Church is composed of those who are thus saved by Christ.
But this is mere Christianity, and what men crave for is a religion. For their "affairs" they have a lawyer; for their bodies, a doctor; and for their souls they want a priest. Christianity is Divine and therefore, as men deem it, supernatural and visionary; whereas religion is human and natural, and therefore practical.
Here, and throughout these pages, the word " religion" is used in its proper classical meaning - the only meaning in which it is used in our English Bible. "How little 'religion' once meant godliness," says Archbishop Trench, "how predominantly it was used for the outward service of God, is plain from many passages in our homilies and from other contemporary literature." So Thomas Carlyle writes that, "In Scotland, Dr. Laud, much to his regret, found 'no religion at all,' no surplices, no altars in the east or anywhere; no bowing, no responding; not the smallest regularity of fuglemanship or devotional drill exercise; in short, 'no religion at all that I could see - which grieved me much."'
In these days the secular press has taken up "religion." Priests and altars, confession and absolution, "the ornaments rubric" and "incense used ceremonially "- these and kindred topics are freely discussed in the daily newspapers. But no letters in the interests of Christianity appear in their columns. Letters of that kind gravitate to the waste-paper basket, while every one has been free to air his faith in the superstitions of human religion - superstitions which, formerly, the manhood of Christendom, especially in Roman Catholic countries, treated with cynical contempt.
(Footnote - Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (Introduction). Archbishop Laud was an authority upon religion, but not upon Christianity. For the Christian, "pure religion" (the Apostle James declares) "is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted in the world." And in commenting on this, Archbishop Trench remarks that the very (Greek word) of Christianity "consists in acts of mercy, of love, of holiness." In other words, Christianity is not a religion at all. (See The Silence of God, pp. 43-45, and Note II. of the Appendix.)
The following is a typical specimen of the sort of effusion above alluded to. After referring to the charge that "a clergyman who has a High celebration with Catholic ritual" cannot teach the doctrines of the Church of England, he proceeds "So I used to think, but I found I was mistaken. I had never read any theology in those days; I had only glanced at my Prayer-book; I knew nothing of the Ornaments Rubric, the Act of Uniformity, the Tractarian movement, &c. Consequently I bore false witness against my neighbour - viz., the ritualistic clergy. But when God revealed the truth to me and I understood what conversion meant, and what the Incarnation, the Catholic Church, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Real Presence, Confession and Absolution, and all the rest meant, then a new light dawned on my soul and I found a beautiful peace in the Church of England. Then I saw that what looked to me in my ignorance to be idolatry, formalism, treachery, was really love of Jesus, faith in God's promises, and loyalty to, the Church of England as part "of the one true Church."'
It is not easy to gauge the spiritual, or even the intellectual condition of men who in presence of the awful solemnities of "sin and righteousness and judgment to come" can find "a beautiful peace" through the study of the ornaments rubric and the Act of Uniformity, Were it not indeed for the solemnity of the subject, it would be exquisitely amusing. But it is too serious and too sad for ridicule. Of course ecclesiastical doctrines and practices may be discussed in a cold and formal way, without reference to experience.
But here the writer discloses his own spiritual history and the ground of his soul's peace. And yet there is not a word about Christ and His atoning sacrifice. "Christ as a person is forgotten; the fundamental questions of salvation are not answered by reference to Him."' Instead of Calvary we have the "Eucharistic sacrifice" of the mass, that the Church of which the writer is a paid servant describes as a "blasphemous fable." A discussion of the many questions here raised would fill a volume; but let us seize upon this vital error of "the one true Church," "the Catholic Church."
The haughty isolation, the dignified reserve, of the Greek Church is well fitted to impress the imagination, as is also the lofty intolerance of Rome. We know what "the Church" means with them, and we know what the Reformers meant by it. But what is "the one true Church" of these Neo-Romanists? Not the company of "all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," but the aggregate of the Episcopal communities, including that Church which rejects their fellowship with such disdain. The Reformers defined the Church as "a congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered";' and judging the Greek and Roman Churches by these tests, they in express terms excluded them from the category.
Mark what this implies. Prior to the Reformation, the English Church was but a branch of the Church of Rome; but the Reformers openly seceded from the Roman Communion; and in doing so they expressly repudiated its claims to be a true Church at all, and denounced its most characteristic ordinances as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." But the Reformers were not so narrow-minded and silly as to imagine that there was no Church on earth save in the southern half of this little island of Britain. Rome limits the Church to those who are within her pale; but they, refusing the place of a mere sect, which is the position occupied by the Neo-Romanists to-day, so defined the Church as to include all Christians everywhere who took their stand with them upon the truth and practice of primitive Christianity.' The Church founded by Augustine of Canterbury was not the Church of England, but a branch of the Church of Rome in England. Pope Gregory's mission corrupted and eventually stamped out, so far as the southern kingdom was concerned, the purer Christianity of the ancient Church of Britain - a Church founded in apostolic times by apostolic emissaries.
Was the Reformation then no more than a surface cleaning of the English branch of the apostate Church, or was it a repudiation of that evil system, and a return to the purer faith of earlier days?
Great issues depend upon the answer given to this question. The time foretold in prophecy is not yet, when there can be no salvation within the professing Church of Christendom. Not until the earthly people shall have been restored to favour as "the Bride" will the Church of Christendom be openly revealed as "the Harlot." - And then the command will be peremptory; "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached even unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."
(Footnote - Rev. xviii. 4, 5. I would not be understood as palliating the sin of remaining in the communion of an apostate Church. And if the Church of England were a branch of "the Catholic Church," in the sense in which the Romanisers use that term, no Christian should remain in it for a single day; not because there is no salvation within the historic Church-this may not b~i 'asserted-but because the Christian has to stand before the judgment.seat of christ. 2 Luke xi. 5o, 5i.)
For Divine judgments are cumulative. He is "a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him." It is not that the innocent suffer for the guilty, but that succeeding generations of God-haters, by identifying themselves with the sin of those whc have gone before them, become heirs of guilt. Thus it was that, as the Lord Himself declared, the Israel of Messianic days guilty of "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world." And by her own deliberate acts the "historic Church" entered upon the awful heritage of guilt; and when, at the close of this day of grace, her sins shall come up for judgment, upon her shall be avenged His holy apostles and prophets for "in her," we read, "was found the blood of prophets and of saints, even of all that have been slain upon the earth."' The Churches of the Reformation sought to "break the entail" of guilt, but these Neo-Romanists are determined, so far as in th