Parochial and Plain Sermons

N these words St. Paul speaks of the Church as containing within it good a.nd bad, after our Saviour's pattern, who, in the parables of the:Net and of the Tares, had, from the first, announced the saine serious truth. That Holy House which Christ Iormed in order fo be the treasury and channel of His ace to mankid, over which His Apostles presided at the first, and after them others whom they appointed, was, even froln thefi • rime, the seat of unbelief and unholiness as weI1 as of true religion. Even among the Apostles themselves, one was "a devil.":No wonder then that ever since, whether among the rulers or the subjects of Che Church, sin 1,as abounded, where nothing but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost shotfld bave been found. I is so a this day; out eyes see i; we cannot deny if. But, though we all see it, we do hot all see i in that larticulur light which Scripture sheds upon i. We often account for if differently, we view it in a different relation to other truths, from thtt in which it really stands. In other words, we adroit the fact, but adol»t our own theory about it. I will explain what I mean, wlfich will introduce a subject wot'th considering: The sight of the ains of Christians bas led us to speak of vhat are called the Visible and thê Invisible Church in what seems an unscriptural way. The word Church, al»llied fo the body of Christians in this wofld, mcans but one thing in Scriptm'e, a visible body invested with ivisible lrivileges. Scripture does not sleak of two bodies, one visible, the other invisible, each vih its own COml»lement of members. Bat this is  common notion at lresent; and if is an erroneous, and (I will add) a dangerous notion. If is true there are some senses in which we naay allowably talk of the Visible and Imn:sible Chnrch. I ara hot finding fault with mere exI)ressions; one is hot bound in common discourse fo use every word vith scientific l»recision. If is allowable fo sI)eak of the ¥isible and of the Invisible Church, as two sides of one and the saine thing, sel»arated by out minds onl5 hot in mality. For instance, in lolitical matters, we somerimes speak of Eng'land as a nation and sometimes as a state; hOt meaning diffêrent things, but one certain identical thing viewed in a different relation. Vhen we sl)eak of the Nation, we take into accourir ifs vat'iety of local rights, interests, attachments, customs, oliniçns; the character of ifs leoi)le, and the history of that character's formation. On the other hand, when we leak of the State, we imlly the notion of orders, ra.nks»

and powers, of the legislative and executive depar- ments, and the like. In like manner, no ha.tre can corne of the distinction of the Church into Visible and Invisible, while we view it as, on the whole, but one in different aspects; as Visible, because consisting (for instance) of clergy and laityJas Invisible, because resting for its life and strength tlpon unseen influences and gifts from Iteaven. This is hot, -eally to divide into two, any more than to discriminate (as they say) between concave and convex, is fo divide a curve line j which!ooked at outwrdly is convex, but looked at inwardly, concave. Again, we may consider the Church in one century as different from the Church in another. We may speak of the modern Church and the ancient Church; and this without meaning that these are two bodies, naerely by way of denoting difierence of time. In  simflar way we talk of the ewish Church and the Christian, though a-eally both Churches are one, only nnder different Dispensations. "Vhat is meant," you will ask, "by the Ch}trch in one age being the saine as the Church in another? » plainly this, that there is no real line of demacation between theln, that the one is but the continuat.ion of the other, and that you may as well talk of two Churches at this moment in the north and south of England, as two in different centm'ies. Properly speaking, the One Church is the whole body gathered together from all ages; so that the Church of this very age is but part of it, and this in the saine sense in which the Church in England, again, in this.day, is but l»a of the t)resent Chua-eh Catholic.

In the nexg wofld this whole Church will be broughg together in one, whenever ifs separate members lived, and then, too, all ifs unsound and unfruitful members will be dropped, so that nothing but holiness will remain in it. Here, then, is a second sense in which we ma.y discriminate between file Church Visible and Invisible. The body of the elect, conteml]ated as if will be hereafter, nay, as if already exists in Paradise, we may, if we will, call the Church,,'md, since this blessed eonsummation takes I, laee in the nnseen world, we may eall it the Invisible Church. I)oubtless, we may speak of the l:nvisible Chureh in the sense of fim Church in glory, or the Church in est. There is no error in such a mode of sloeech. We do hOt make two Chm'ches, we only view the Christian body as existing in the wor]d of spirits; and the lresent Church visible, so fat" as it eally has laloE and lot in the saine blessed- IIi?SS. Still further, we may, by a figure of st)eech, sIeak of the members of the existing Church, wh o are at l»resent walking in God's faith and fear, as the Invisible Church; hOt meaning thereby that they constitute a sel»arate body (which is hOt the case), but by a mental abstraction, separating them off in imagination from the test, slea-]dng of them as invisible because we do hot know them, and speaking of them as leculiarly the Church because they are 'hat al] Christians are intended and ought fo be, and are all that would remain of the Church ¥isib]e, did the Day of Judgment suddenly corne. In like manner, sleaking loolitically, we talk of the Clergy as the Church: here is a larallel instance, in which a part of  body is viewed as the whole; still, who would suy that the Laity re one Church by themselves, and the Clergy by themselves another? In a]l these senses then, whether xve sleuk of the Church as invisibIy bIest and succoured, or as triuml»lmnt hereafter, or in relation toits true members, who are ifs substantiul SUl»l»O and glory, we allovably nmke mention of the Invisible Church. But if we conceive of the Invisible  one, and the Visible as another, us ff there were one body without spirituel privileges, of good and bad together, and another of good only, with sliritual privi]eges, surely we speak without varrant, or rather withott leave of Holy Scriptme. The Church of Christ, as Scril)ture teaches, is visible body, invested with, or (I nmy say) existing in invisible livi]eges. Take the analo of the humua body by wuy of illustration. Considering nan according to his unimul nature, I night sleuk of him as having n organized visible frame sustained by an seen spirit. hen the soul leaves the body it ceuses to be a body, it becomes  corpse. So the Church wonld cease to be the Church, did the Holy Spirit leuve it; and it does hot exist at al] except in the Slirit. Or, consider the igure of  tree, which is our Lord's own instance. A vine bas many branches, they me all nourished by the sup which circulutes throughout. There muy be deud branches, still they are upon one and the seltsume tree. Yrere they as numerous us the sound ones, were they  hundred rimes as many, they would hot form a tree by themselves. Were all the branches dead, were the stock dead, then it would be a dead tree. ]ht any how, we could never say there were two trees. Such is the Scripture account of the Church, a living body with branches, some dead, some living; as in the text by another figure- "In a great house there are vessels; some to houour, and some to dishonour." Can any account be pl,niner than this is? Why divide into two, when the only reason for so dividing, viz., the improbbility that good and bad should be found together, is superseded, as irrelevant, by our Lord and His Apostles themselves? Yery various things are said of the Church; somerimes it is spoken of as glorious and holy, sometimes as abounding in offences and sins. Itis naturel, perhaps, at first sight, to invent, in consequence, the hypothesis of two Churches, as the Jews h,nve dreamed of two Messiahs; but, I say, out Saviour has implied that itis unnecessary, that these opposite descriptions of it are hot really incompatible; and if so, what reason remains for doing violence to the sacred text? Consider these various descriptions, ca.refitlly examine them, and say, why itis hot possible to adjust them together in one subject, directly we know that itis lawful to do so? Consider how they were all fnlf-fl]ed in the case of the Corinthians, which is expressly given in Scripture. For instance, the Church is ruade up of ranks and offices. "Goal bath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Itis inhabited by the Holy Ghost: "Ail these worketh that [III] P one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, though many, are one body; so also is Crist. » Saeraments are the instruments whieh the Holy Ghost uses: "P,y one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whet.her we be boml or free; and bave been a.ll ruade to drink into one Spirit." Yet, in spite of these preeious gifts, the Clmreh eonsists of bad as well as good; for the Corinthians, though "the temple of the Holy Ghost," are reproved by St. Paul for being "puffed up," "contentions," and "earnal." Now, in answer to this aeeount of the Chureh, as one, and hot double, it may be objeeted, that "surely it is impossihie that bad men eau really bave God's graee within them, or that the irreligious or seeular ean be properly ealleël justified or eleet; yet sueh men are outwardly in the Chureh, so that there are two Churehes any how, an outward and an inward." Or, again, it may be said that "repentanee and faith are eonïessedly neeessary in order fo enjoy the Christian privilçges; those, therefore, who bave hot these requisites, eertainly bave hot the pfivileges, that is, are not members of Christ's true Curch; from whieh again it follows, that there eertainly are two bodies, whatever words we use." It will be added, perhaps, that "Simon Nagus, though he had been baptized, was unregenerate, being addressed by St. Peter as being ' in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.' " On the other hand it rnay be  Acts viii. 23.

argued, that "there are good men outside the Visible Church, riz., among Dissenters, who, as being good, must necessarily be in the Invisible Church; and thus there certainly are two Churches." On the whole, then, there are these two arguments to prove that the word Church has two distinct meanings in Scripture; first, that there are bad men in the Visible Church; next, that certain good men are out of it:—both being derived ri'oto thc actual statc of thi,ngs u,hich we sce, 'hich is supposed fo be a legitimate comment upon the words of Scripture. 1. We will first take the objection, that bad men are in the Visible Church; what is this fo prove? Let ts observe. If is maintained, that "" bad men cannot be members of the truc Church, therefore, there is a truc Church distinct from the Visible Church." we shall be nearer the trtth, if, instead of sa.ying "bad men cannot be members of the truc Church," we word it, "bad men cannot be true members of the Chnrch." ]oes hot this meet all that reason requires, yet without leading fo the inference that the Church Visible is hOt the truc Church? Again, if is said that "the Visible Church has hot the gifts of grace, because wicked men are members of if, who, of course, cannot bave them." Yat! must the Chtrch be without them herself, because she is not able to impart them fo wicked men What reasoning is this? because certain individuals of a body bave flem not, therefore the body has them Surely if is possible that certain members of a body should be debarred, under circumstances, from ifs privileges  nd this we eonsidex" tobe the case vith bad men.

Let us return to the instance of a tree, already used. Is a dead branch paoE or hot part of a tree? You may decide this way or that, but you will never say, because the branch is dead, that therefore the tree bas no sap. It is a dead branch of a living tree, hot a branch of a dead tree. In like manner, ineligious men are dead Inembers of the one Visible Church, which is living and true, hot members of a Church which is dead. Because they are dead, it does hot follow that the Visible Church to which they belong is dead also. Or, consider the parallel of a body politic. Are peinons, who are under disabflities, members of it or hot? Are convicts? Prisoners are debarred from ceoEain rights, but they are still members of the state, and, after a while, recover what they bave forfeited. The case is the saine as regards the Church. Its invisible privileges range throughout it; but there may be, on the part of individuals, obstacles or impediments which suspend tlei" enjoyment of them. It is one thing to be admitted into the body, and another thing to enjoy its 1)rivileges. While men are impenitent, the grace of the Christian election does hot operate in their case. And in proportion to their carelessness and profaneness do they quench the Spirit. ttence it is, that faith is necessary for our justification, as an indispensable condition, where it can be had. Simon Magus, we may securely gmnt, was profited nothing by his baptism; the font of regenemtion was opened upon him, but his hemoE was closed. The blessing was put into his hand, but he had not that which a]one could apprehend and apply it. It was sealed up from him, and only penitence and faith could unseM it. Therefore St. Peter bids him repent, that he might receive it. He went on further in wickedness, as history informs us, and then, of course, the gift thus attached to him, but not enjoyed, wou]d prove, at the last day, but a cause of heavier condemnation. I do hot presume fo say that this is the true explanation of his casc, which is not told us, but as a mode of explaining if, and yet keeping c]ear of the conclusion, for the sake of which it is usual]y brought. If there be one such explanation, there may be others. In like manner, when men fall into sin, t]tcy lose the light of God's countenance; but why should if be withdrawn from the Holy Church, for thcir individual transessions? There was a controversy, in early rimes, which illustrates still fm'ther the foregoing explanation of the difficulty. It was disputed whether the baptism administered by clergy who were heretics, and had been put out of the Church, was valid. And af length it was decided as fol]ows: that the baptism was valid for the primary purpose of baptism, viz., that of admitting into the visible body of Christ, but that the ejoymct of its privileges was suspended, while the parties receiving it remained in heretical communion. On coming over to the Church Catho]ic, they were formally admitted by confirmation, and released from the bond under which they had hitherto lain. If, then, I ara asked what is tobe thought of the state of irreligious men in the Chttrch, I answer, that if open sinners, or heretics, or leaders in dissent, be meant, they are tobe put out of if by the competent authority. As fo those who are hOt such, we cannot determine about their real condition, for we cannot see their hearts, hIa.ny may seem fair and specious to us, who are really dead in God's sight; and these, of course, cannot possess the gifts of grace any more than Simon Magus. Or they may be lukewann, unstable, inconsistent; and may thus have forfeited, more or less, the privileges which bave graciously been committed fo them. But how does all this show that the Visible Church has hOt the true and spiritual gifts of the Gospel attached fo her? 2.:Now, fo consider the second objection that is urged, viz., thàt "there are good men extelal fo the Visible Church, therefore there is a second Church, clled the Invisible." In answer, I observe, that as every one, who has been duly baptized, is, in one sense, in the Church, even though his sins since bave hid God's countenance from him; so, if a man bas not been baptized, be he ever so correct and exemplary in his conduct, flis does not prove that he has received regeneration, which is the peculiar and invisible gift of the Church. Vhat is Regeneration? If is the gift of a new and spiritual nature; but men bave, through God's blessing, obeyed and pleased Him without it. The Israelites were not regenerated; Cornelius, the Centurion, was hOt regenerated, when his prayers and ahns came up before GooE:No outward conduct, however consistent, can be a criterion, fo our mortal judgments, of this unearthly and mysterious privilege. Therefore, when you bring fo me the case of religious

Dissenters, I rejoice af hearing of them. If they know no better, God, we trust, will accept them as IIe did the Shunammite. I wish, vith all my heart, they partook the full blessings of the Church; but all my wishing cannot change God's appointlnents; and His appointment, I say, is this—tlmt the Church Visible should be the minister, and ba]?tism the instrument of egeneration. But I have said nota word to imply that a man, if he knows no better, may hot be exemplary in his generation without if. So much in answer to this objection; but the saine consideration throws light upon the former diiiculty also, that of inconsistent men being in the Church. /Regeneration, I say, is a new birth, or the giving of a new nature. Iqow, let if be observed, there is nothing impossible in the thing itself, though ve believe it is hot so, but nothing ilnpOssible in the very n0tivt of a regeneration being accorded even fo impenitent sinners. I do hot say regeneration in ifs fulness, for that includes in if perfect happiness and holiness, fo which if tends from the first; yet regeneration in a true and sufilcient sense, in ifs primary qualifies. ]?or the essence of regeneration is the communication of a higher and diviner nature; and sinners ïnay lmve this gift, though if would be a curse fo them, nota blessing. The devils bave a nature thus higher and more divine than man, yet they are not preserved thereby from evfl. And if this is the case even with sinners, ïnuch more is regeneration conceivable in the instance of children, who have done neither good nor evil. Iqor does it ail follow, even though they grow up disobedient, and are a scandal to the Church, that therefore the Church has not conveyed to them a great gift, an initiation into the powers of the world to corne. If, indeed, this gTaci0us privflege ensured religious obedieuce, then, truly, disobedience in those who bave been admitted into the Church would prove that the Church had hot conveyed it to them. But, until a man is ready fo lnainta.in that the Spirit cannot be "quenched," he has no warrant for saying that it bas hot been given. Now, then, after these explanations, let me ask, in what is this whole doctrine concerning the Church, which I have been giving, inconsistcnt? What di2cult J does it present to force us to reject the plain word of Scripture about it, and to imagine a Visible Church with no privileges at all, and an Iuvisible Church of real Christians exclusively with them? Surely, nothing but the influence of a human system, acting on us, can make us read Scripture so perversely! and how is it a less violence to deny that the Church which the Apostles set up, and which is, in marrer of fact, among us at this day, is (what Scripture says it is) the pillar and ground of the Truth, the Mother of us all, the House of God, the dwelling-place of the Holy Ghost, the Spouse of Christ, a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, and destined to remain even to the end of the worldhow is this a less violent perversion of Scripture truth than theirs, who, when Scripture says that Christ is God, obstinately maintain He is a mere man? I will notice in conclusion one objection which subtle minds may make to the statements now set before you. It may be said that the Church has forl'eited its early privileges, by allowing itself to remain in a state of sin and disorder which Christ never intended: for instance, "that from time to tilne there have been eat corruptions in it, especially nnder the ascendancy of the Papal power: that there have been very many scandalous appointments to its highest dignities, that infidels have been bihops, that men have administered baptism or ordination, hot believing that ace was imparted in those sacred ordinances, and that, in particular in our own countw, heretics and open sinners, whom Christ would have put out of the Church, are suffered, by  sin on the part of the Chnrch, to remain within it unrebuked, uncondemned." This is wha.t is somctimes said; and I confess, had we not Scripture to consult, it would be a very specious argument against the Church's present power, now at the distance of eighteen hundred years from the Apostles. It wonld certa.inly seem as if, the conditions not having been fiflly obsowed on which that power was granted, it was forfeited. But here the case of the Jewish Church affords us the consoling certainty, that God does hot so visit, even though He might, and that His girls and calling "are withot repentance. ''1 Christ's Church cannot be in a worse condition than that of Israel when He visited it in the flesh; yet He expressly assures us that in His day "the Scribes and Pharisees," wicked men as they were, "sat in Moses' seat," and were to be obeyed in what they taught; and we find, in accordance with this informa-  Rom. xi. 29.

234 The Church Visi3[c and IuvisiMe.

tion, that Caiaphas, "because he was the high priest," ]lad the gift of prophecy—had it, though he did hot know he had it, nay, in spite of his being one of the foremost in accomplishing our Lord's crucifixion. Surely, then, we may infer, that, however fallen the Church now is ri'oto what if once was, however unconscious of its power, it still has the gift, as of old time, to convey and withdraw the Christian privileges, "to ]find and to loose," to consecrate, to bless, to teach the Truth in all necessary things, torule, and to prevail. But if these things be so, if the Church Visible really ]las invisible privileges, what must we think, my brethren, of the general spirit of this day, which looks upon the Chtu'ch as but a ci41 institution, a creation and a portion of the State? What shall be thought of the notion that it depends upon the breath of princes, or upon the enactments of human law? What, again, shall be thought of those who fiercely and rancorously oppose and revfle what is really an Ordinance of God, and the place where His honour dwellefl? Even to the Jewish priesthood after the blood of the Redeemer was upon it, even toit St. Paul deferred, signifying that God's high priest was hot to be reviled; and if so, surely much less the rulers of a branch of the Church, which, whatever bave been its sins in rimes past, yet is surely innocent (as we humbly and fervently trust) of any inexpiable crime, hIoreover, what an unworthy part they act, who, knowing and confessing the real claires of the Church, yet allow theln to be lightly treated and forgotten, without uttering a word in their behalf; who from secular 1)olicy, or other insuffieient reason, bear to hear our spiritual ntlers treated as mere civil funetionaries, without instrueting, or 13rotesting against, or foregoing intimaey with those who despise them, nay evert co-operating with them eordially, as if they eould serve two masters, Chris and the world! And how melancholy is the general spectacle in this day of ignorance, doubt, pel2lexity, misbelief, perverseness, on the subjecg of this great doctrine, to say nothing of the jealousy, hatred, and unbelieving spirit with whieh the Chureh is regarded! Surely, thus mueh we are forced to gxant, that, be the privileges vested in the Chureh what they may, yet, at tresent, they are, as to their full fruits, suspended in our braneh of i by our 13resent want of faith; nor eart we expeet that the glories of Christ's Kingdom will again be manifested in it, till we repent, confess "our offenees and the offences of our forcfathers;" and, instead of trustîng to an arm of flesh, claire for the Chureh wha God has given it, for Christ's sake, "whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear."