WARDLAW AND DAVIDSON ON ECCLESI- visible, or in other words, to the aspect of the Church

God, we would carefully avoid pronouncing upon these outward evidences as indubitable signs of conversion, and would seriously warn the person himself against regarding them in this light. We would deem it our duty to remind him that all these outward marks may be found where the inward grace is awanting, and that there is great danger of selfdelusion, by substituting the one for the other. We would apply to him the language of Paul, that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of man but of God."

|

ciation of individuals, organized according to certain rules, and distinguished by certain outward badges. An Englishman is an Englishman in virtue of his connexion with the English nation, irrespective altogether of internal qualifications. The Church of Christ is a complex idea; for, along with outward organization, which it has in common with other societies, it involves the spiritual element. And this element, unlike other societies, is that which forms the distinguishing characteristic of the Church, as of the Christian, in the sight of God, and which separates them from a world lying in wickedness. "Ye are not of the world," says Christ, “ even as I am not of the world."

But it must be very obvious that the Church, viewed in this light, is the object, not of sensible, but of spiritual vision-the object of faith, not of sight. It is true, that the holiness of the Christian is visible, and may be seen; but it is equally true that it may be counterfeited. Every feature of the renewed man, every gesture, and tone, and look, so to speak, by which he is distinguished, may be assumed by the hypocrite, and may impose on the most clearsighted discerner of spirits that ever sat in the chair of spiritual judgment. The outward form and coating of the Christian being thus so easily assumed, it follows that visible holiness is valuable only as the fruit and indication of the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit in the heart. But as this can be discerned and determined only by the great Searcher of hearts, the true Church of Christ, viewed as in the sight of God-the living body, of which the Saviour is the head-must be, in this point of view, to us invisible. The characteristics that distinguish it are given in Scripture; but, we repeat, this is merely a doctrinal exhibition. The doctrine should be preached

All this, be it observed, is merely doctrinal exhibition of Christian character. We are not sitting in judgment on the man; we are only teaching him to sit in judgment on himself. We are holding up to him the glass of God's Word, that he may there contemplate himself, and see “what manner of man" he is. If, however, we are to sit in judgment on the individual—in other words, to judge whether he should be regarded and treated as a Christian by men-it is plain that we must follow a course precisely the reverse of that already described. Here it would be vain to speak of the inward and invisible attributes of the Christian. On these no man may presume to sit in judgment, without invading the province of Him who claims it as his inalienable prerogative, to search the heart. "Man looketh on the outward appearance; but the Lord looketh on the heart." Nor will it do to say, we merely look at the outward appearances, and from these we form our judgment of the heart. Still this is pretending to judge the heart; and, call it a judgment of charity, or what you will, to propose the state of the heart, in the sight of God, as the point to be ascertained by our investiga--and it is preached as faithfully among us as among tions, amounts to a virtual usurpation of the place and office of the Omnipotent, as presumptuous in conception as it is impossible in execution.

Here, however, lies the very hinge of the whole controversy; and though at the point of divergence, where we begin to vary from our opponents, the variation may appear minute at first sight, and demand a little exercise of patience in our readers to trace it, we hope to make it as palpable in its origin as it afterwards becomes in its results. Let us apply, then, what we have said of the individual Christian to the Christian Church. If we are asked, What is the true Church in the estimation or in the eyes of God! we must reply, that it is a congregation of true believers, of spiritual men, knit together by the bonds of Christian love, and joined to the Lord Jesus, by a living faith through the Spirit. Here all the characteristics of a holy society would admit of being applied, including the outward quality of a holy life. For we do not form the full idea of a Church, any more than of a Christian, even in the sight of God, unless we include both the visible and the invisible element. And in this particular, perhaps, the terms visible and invisible do not fully bring out the distinction. The true Church, as seen by God, and as described by him in his Word, is, in point of fact, both visible and invisible. But there is another sense in which these terms admit of being employed with the utmost propriety. The visible element of outward holiness is merely the outward type or manifestation of the spiritual. The Church of Christ differs from all other associations of men. Civil society is a simple idea, being merely an asso

the Independents; it should be most surely believed and seriously applied by every hearer of the gospel to himself-and it is believed and applied by our people as well as by the Independents. But still this is the Church, not as visible-that is, not as actually seen in any outward organization on earth— but as seen in the doctrine of Scripture.

But if the question is, Where is the Church viewed as visible, or what should be admitted to constitute the materials of the Church, viewed as in the sight of men? it is plain that the process by which we arrive at our conclusion must just be reversed. We must begin with the outward and visible, and by this means aim at the inward and invisible. The constitution of the Church as invisible, is the work of God; the organization of the Church as visible, must be the work of man. And God's method of judging differs from ours as far as heaven from earth. "His thoughts and ways are as far above ours as the heaven is higher than the earth." He looks im-mediately to the heart, and, from its spiritual state, judges of the language of the lips and the life. We, not being capable of looking into the heart, can only judge from that language-in other words, from the profession and the practice. We profess ourselves unable to see any other media, equally sure and suitable, by which we can ascertain the materials of a Christian Church. And here, again, we must hold that, in judging by these marks, or rather by these rules, our object is not to ascertain the fact of the person's conversion, but merely to judge of the agreeableness of his character, in profession and in practice, with the laws which Christ has laid down in his

on my character in the sight of God. The apostle has said: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." But if a fellow-creature assumes the power of judging and pronouncing upon my character, he not only relieves me from the dread responsibility which lies on me to judge of myself as in the presence of God, and fosters in me a spiritual conceit; but whether he call himself priest or pastor, he is claiming the prerogative of Heaven, he is sitting in the temple of God," he is arrogating to himself a position and a power far above that assigned to the Christian minister-a power which no man may assume without being guilty of presumption, nor exercise without falling into the most glaring inconsistencies.

Is it still insisted that the office-bearers of the Church ought to demand from those that apply for communion, evidences of their conversion, to be sub

Word for the administration of his kingdom. Let us apply these principles to the party before us. Dr Wardlaw admits that 66 a profession may be made, and appearances may be assumed, by which the judgment of man may be deceived; the eye of human perspicacity failing to detect either the hypocrisy or the self-deception. And were the designations of visible and invisible, external and mystical, always understood with a restriction to the difference between man's discernment and God's, as meaning no more than that the Lord knoweth them that are his; and that, of those whom men may pronounce visibly his, there may be not a few whom he sees to be none of his;' they would express a distinction which can be questioned by none, and which pervades the Bible." (P. 48.) This admission may seem to give up, but, in reality, it involves, the whole question in dispute. It allows that man may be deceived, but quietly assumes that man is, neverthe-mitted to them for judgment; and that they should less, bound to judge and entitled to pronounce upon the spiritual character of those who are to be admitted into the fellowship of the Church. He speaks of "man's discernment and God's," as if the object of the two were identically the same, namely, to ascertain that they "are his;" whereas, the text quoted plainly teaches that the Lord only "knoweth them that are his;" and as we cannot possibly look into the heart, from which alone a true judgment can be formed, it is plain as day-light that we can neither be bound nor entitled to " pronounce" upon any man that he is a genuine convert. We may form a favourable opinion of a man's character, and, provided he has given no proofs to the contrary, that charity which hopeth all things and believeth all things," will hope and believe him to be sincere. But there is an immense difference between such a charitable belief or supposition, and a judicial conclusion pronounced as the ground of admission to the privileges of the Church. The mere fact admitted that "the judgment of man may be deceived," and that "the eye of human perspicacity may fail to detect hypocrisy and self-deception," is sufficient to show that we can neither be obliged nor warranted to form such a conclusion. We speak indeed of being "bound in charity to believe" such and such persons to be sincere; but this means that we are bound to judge charitably of them, not that charity is bound to judge them. Charity must be left free in its exercise as the air; and we all know that there are many cases in which we are constrained, by a thousand different reasons, which we would find it difficult to specify, to form a more favourable opinion of some professing Christians than others who make the same profession.

66

But we advance a step farther in our argument. It is admitted, on all hands, that Christian character ought to form the condition of admission to the privileges of the Christian Church. But we maintain that our Independent friends have entirely altered this condition. With them it is not the profession of Christian character that entitles a man to Church fellowship; but a persuasion, first in the mouth of the applicant, and next in the mind of the pastor who receives him, that he is truly possessed of Christian character in the sight of God. Now, this is a complete involution of the matter. My fitness to approach the table of the Lord consists in my possessing the qualifications of a converted man-not in my being assured that I possess these qualifications--far less in any assurance that may be given me to that effect by another man, pretending to sit in judgment

thus take heed not to receive any but those whom Christ has received? We answer, that however desirable it is that none but the genuine friends of Christ should connect themselves with the Christian Church, we are not entitled to demand, as the term of admission, anything beyond what we are fully quali fied and entitled to pronounce upon, namely, a credible profession of Christianity. If the passage to which they refer is that of the apostle Paul: "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us," we might reply that it evidently refers not to the reception of strangers into the Church, but to the mutual reception of Christian brethren, in the offices of reconciliation and forbearance. But the idea that we are to be guided in the admission of Church members by the same principles, or in the same way in which Christ admits us into his fellowship, is purely absurd. Christ receives us as sinners; the Church receives us as saints. He receives us on the ground of our faith, not by looking to the outward evidences, but to the inward principle; the Church receives us on the ground of our profession of faith. Christ receives us, not because he is persuaded, or because we are persuaded ourselves, that we are converted men, but in the way of converting us; our Independent friends would not receive as unless both they and ourselves were assured of our conversion, and unless we could give some account of the time, the means, and the manner in which it was effected. And this suggests our last remark on the Independent plan. Besides the theoretical blunder of demanding a test which no man can apply with certainty, it is chargeable with the more serious offence of practically shifting the ground of a sinner's acceptance before God, by substituting, in place of the merits of Christ, and the gospel invitation in which these merits are tendered to our faith, an inward persuasion of our conversion, and of our personal interest in the Saviour. Personal qualifications are no doubt necessary to constitute my fitness for approaching the table of the Lord; that is, faith in the sight of God, and a credible profession of faith in the sight of man; but these do not constitute my title or warrant to make that approach. A court dress is requisite, as a fitting attire, to attend a royal levee; it does not constitute our ticket of admission. So it is not my meetness, but Christ's mediation, not my conversion, but his gracious call, that forms my warrant to go to that feast. It would be superfluous to show how much the Independent scheme of fellowship tends to invert this order. Instead of turning the eye of faith to Christ, it turns it

inward on our own feelings, frames, and experiences, root of our holy religion, by aiming at its caricature, and inevitably leads the person to look to these as the Independent Doctor first insists that these reentitling him to the children's bread. Nor is it ne-negades are the only fair representatives of Presbycessary to show how incompatible this is with the recorded experience of the saints. Paul does not say, I know that I have believed, or, I know when I believed; but, "I know whom I have believed." Even when expressing sentiments which afford evidence of their conversion, they have not said, in so many words, that they were assured that they were converted men. Had our Lord put the question: "Simon, son of Jonas, art thou converted?" can we suppose that, in the bitterness of his grief, he would have answered in the affirmative? Ah, no! But as the question referred merely to one of the marks of conversion-" Lovest thou me ?"—Peter replied, and we may verily believe, without thinking of his conversion, certainly without perking up his face with a self-satisfied smile, as being sure of it, but in the natural burst of feeling at being suspected of the contrary-"Lord, thou knowest all things; thou know est that I love thee." And this satisfied our Lord. Our Independent friends, on the contrary, will be satisfied with nothing short of a full, true, and particular account of our conversion. Their language among themselves and to the world, is not a profession of faith in Christianity, but a profession of their faith in their being Christians. It amounts to an everlasting iteration of their own saintship--a perpetual conjugation of the verb-I am converted, thou art converted, he is converted, we are all converted, &c. &c. And, after all, in what respects, pray, do they differ from other professing Christians?

Úr Wardlaw, in attempting to meet the ordinary arguments for the Presbyterian method of admission to the Church, has advanced no new answers; but he has distinguished himself by his gratuitous assumptions, and his groundless imputations. As a specimen of the coolness with which he assumes for granted the point in dispute, we may take the following at the very commencement: "We have seen that a Church, according to the New Testament, is a Congregation." [We thought that the Independents had distinguished between a Church and a Congregation-the former being the select few who professed conversion, the latter including the promiscuous hearers who were not yet convinced of the fact.] "It seems very naturally and immediately to follow, that a Christian Church should be a congregation of Christians." (P. 86.) Very naturally indeed; but what do you mean by Christians? If professors of the Christian religion, walking in the ways of Christ, we are agreed: if genuine believers, this is taking the whole question for granted. As a specimen of his unjust and unfair imputations to his opponents, it is quite sufficient to say, that throughout he reasons on the assumption that we plead for "impure communion”—that we hold that Christians are to be unequally yoked with unbelievers; "that is, such as make it manifest that this is their character!" (P.97.) Can anything be more preposterous than such an imputation? Dr. Wardlaw must know that those who follow such a monstrous practice, are condemned by Presbyterians as strongly as by himself, as acting contrary to the laws and spirit of Presbytery; but he finds it more easy and convenient to deal with the worst class of Presbyterians than with the Presbyterian argument. Nay, as Voltaire insisted on identifying Catholicism with Christianity, that he might reach a deadlier blow at the

tery, and next proceeds to refute them. His mode of disposing of Scripture is equally unhappy. Referring to the account given us of the first Church formed by the apostles at Jerusalem, he would actually have us to infer, not only that the whole multitude then converted to the profession of Christianity were "saved" persons, but that the apostles, in admitting three thousand persons in one day into the fellowship of theChurch, had time to institute such investigations as to convince them that every soul among them was a genuine convert! The arguments drawn from the epistles being addressed to saints, and from the language in which the apostles address the brethren, have been so often answered, that it would be vain to advert to them. The admission of Judas to the last Supper, is got quit of, first, by denying he was there, which does not matter very much, seeing he was in the company of the apostles all along; secondly, by a quirk, namely, that our argument proves too much if he was there, inasmuch as the inference would be that we must "retain in full fellowship with the Church of Christ, Judases, knowing them to be such;" and, lastly, by making a mystery of it, beyond our imitation. Dr. Wardlaw does not seem to be aware, that the example of Christ in permitting one whom HE, being omniscient, knew to be a traitor, to the fellowship of his disciples, is adduced by us merely as a proof that even the omniscient Head of the Church admitted to his communion, not on the internal principle of grace, known only to himself, but on the outward evidence of profession and appearance, known and cognoscible by man. This is surely common sense; and yet the Doctor, proud of his fancied conquest, smiles most contemptuously in the face of any who would use the argument, and who would yet refuse admission to whom we know to be traitors!

But the most extraordinary specimen of the Doctor's exegetical ingenuity, is reserved for the parables representing the kingdom of heaven, or the Church, to which we are wont to refer. We beg merely to notice the sad havoc which he has made of the parable of the tares. (P. 108.) "This parable," says he, with supercilious coolness, "is rather a favourite resort of those who do not find their consciences bound by the principles of strict or pure communion." Well, what does he make of it! Why, the field, says he, is not the Church at all, but the world. The tares are "not hypocrites," but "known and visible children of the wicked one." The argument would "prove too much," as it would be subversive of all discipline, even the Presbyterian. And, in fine, the parable is "a lesson against persecution-a lesson against the use of carnal weapons in His spiritual kingdom." So it would appear the field is "the spiritual kingdom"-the Church, after all, and not the world. It would occupy more time than we can afford, to point out all the fallacies involved in this interpretation. Every one acquainted with Biblical interpretation is aware that our Lord had generally one design, one great maxim to teach in his parables, and that many of the incidental parts, necessary to complete the picture, were never intended to bear distinct meanings of a spiritual kind. Violating this plain rule, Dr Wardlaw has seized on some of the mere adjuncts of the allegory, and thereby attempted to involve us in a