Such is the notion of the Church as presented in the great leading s3rmbols of the principal churches and by their representative men. The subject is one beset with difficulties, because of the failure alwa3rs to dis- criminate between the visible and invisible Church, and because every denomination, in order to render itself powerful and practical, must assume the form of a Church, and is consequently driven to define the Church to suit its own position and history. The distinction between the visible and invisible Church was recognised by Augustine; in his controversy with the Donatists, who held that to predicate catho- licity of the Church it was necessary it should have sub- jective purity in its members, and that, so soon as it allowed corrupt and unworthy •members, it ceases to be catholic, he maintained, ** Many, by partaking of the sacrament, are with the Church, and yet are not in the Church." Further: **Those who appear to be the
Church, and to oontradict Christ, therefore do BotW long to that Churdi which is called the body «f Christ" (see Neander,C%nff<»aiiZ)0^aMii^ 11,895). Tbt there is one visible Church all these ConfeBsloDs eoiw cede ; but whether or not there be a visible Chvdi on earth entitled to be called the tme Chvrch, and thi only true Church, is the qnestioii at iasae bctweeo Romanists and Protestants. Certainly, '« if we jadse of the various churches into whidi Qu^tendom is di> vided by their conforming in all respects by the pria* dples and requirements of the Gospela, we cannot al- low that any one of them is the perfect lepreaentstioe of that ideal state at which they all aim ; noi^ eo tfe other hand, can we entirely deny the name of a Chrit- tian Church to any one which professes to be bniU to the Gospel of Christ They have all ao mndi in ce»> mon in thb religions feith and life, and so much wfakk distinguishes them from all other religioiia'socictia, as to justify us in considering them as <Mie whole, ssd calling them, in a wide sense, The Chiistiaii Ghmck" (Gieseler, Church ffigtory, vol. i, § 1).
8. Notet, Faith, and AttrUmttt tf the OtmrA,-^) The wjtet of the Chureh are the signs by whidi the Ti»> ibie Church Is distinguished, and dififer according ti the views which are held in the defini^n of the Chmck. ^(a) The Roman Catechism states them to be unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity QC€tL Qmc Trid, p. 80, 81). Bellarmine assigns, in additioii to then, antiquity, uninterrupted duration, amplitude, agree* ment in doctrine with the primitive Chorcb, ssne* tity of doctrine, efficacy of the doctrine, the glciy of miracles, the light of prophecy, the confiesslon of sd> versariea, the unhappy end of the Chnrch's enenitt, and temporal felicity (BelianmM^s Nottt of the CSmrd examined and rejuted by eminent EnffHeh Divima, Loud. 1840). The ' * unhappy end of the Churdi*s enenles^ and "temporal prosperity" are rejected by Tooncly, Bailly, and generally by modem Romiah theolo^ani (see Palmer, On the Church, i, 27). (&) The Churci of England has no authoritative dedantioii. beyond iti xixtb article — the preaching of the pore word of God and the due administration of the sacraments, ete. ; but the proper administration of the sacraments bf ministers regularly authorized has led to a diSextsat of opinion in determining these notes, which has be- come a wide divergency, the one side adhering to a free interpretation, in common with all Prote^tents. and the other approaching to the stricter Roman Cath- olic view. The strict, so-called, chnrchly interpselfr tion begins with the inclusion of apostoUcity (Palmer), and extends to truth of doctrine, use df means (as wdl as sacraments) instituted by Christ, antiqui^ without change of doctrine, lawful succession withoat changi of doctrine, and universality in the moeesssse seoie, L e. the prevalence of the Church successiTely in all nations (Dr. Field). This tendency towards 'Roman- izing views has culminated in what is, for convenicoce, termed the Hi^-Church, or Sacramentarian psr^r, some of whom openly advocate a union of the Qmrck . of ^England with the Church of Rome and Uie Greek Cliuroh, in order to realize their note of the visiblr unity of the Church. '* It is worthy of remark," nys Litton, " that every theory of the Church, whether it profess to be Ronumist or not, which teaches that ^ true being thereof lies in its visible characteristic, adopts instinctively the Romish notes, and rejects the Protestant" (c) The distinctively '^Protestant notes" — ^the preaching of the pure word of God and the right administration of the sacraments — are applicable not to the mystical body of Christ, but to the visible Chnicfa, or, rather, to churches or congregations of believcn. "The Protestant says, in genend, the church (or a part of it) is there where the Word and the sacram^ts are ; and the society in which the one b preadied and the other administered is a legitimate part of the visi- ble Catholic Church" (Litton, On the Chnrdk, PhOa. p. 2M). " Some formuktries, e. g. the Scotch Co«i: (art.
CHURCH
825
CHURCH
Ijg) mdd the exeidae of diacipline*' (ibid,); and this k loes Terj pfropeiij, lor if imrity of dootrine and life if bo be T"ftint^i^*^, it mast always be a mark of a tme Church that there be discipline. Bat inasmach as it is impossible to discern always wbo are inwardly pore, md also perfectly to enforce discipline, the yfeible Chnrch wfll always be liable to the intrusion of the widEod, and hence cannot claim to be identical with the mystical body of Christ in any one plaoe, but may claim to be a part of it, so fkr as in its doctrine and life it ocmforms to the requirements of the QospeL '* As notes'* (the sacraments and the ministry <tf the Woitd), ^therefinre, serre to assure us of the existence of that mystical body which in itself is an object not of sense, bat of feith; by which the charge brought of old against Protestant doctrino— that ito invisible Chnreh ia a fiction of the imaginatioii— is abundantly reflited" (Litton, p. 267).