It was the introduction of this element which constituted the Reformation. The medieval, or Romish, Theology terminated in the opus operatum. The outward work was to change the inward heart of the man, without any agency of his own, or without any other agency of his than mechanically submitting himself to the outward work. The Reformation returned to the Scriptural and patristic doctrine that Justification was by Faith, that the work was not worked in the mere passive recipient, but only in him who arose and opened the door, consenting to be a coworker with GOD, and to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, because it is GOD Who worketh in him both to will and to do. This seems to be the true notion of Justification by Faith, that every man is in his own case to be a coworker with GOD by accepting and using the aid which He graciously gives, and without which no man can do any thing, so that all the merit of the works done belongs to God. Yet the work of individual reformation must be done by the man himself, using the powers which are given to him by GoD, and thus giving a voluntary consent to his own salvation.

This view no doubt involves a mystery, as what does not which relates to GOD, to His relations to man, or to His modes of working. This doctrine destroys the theory of the opus operatum, because it requires the working of an inward faith to be joined to the outward work before any thing can be effectually wrought by the latter. But it does not destroy the doctrine of sacramental efficacy. It is no more inconsistent with the idea that God has instituted means by which He conveys His grace to individuals, than it is with the doctrine that He could, if He so willed, change the hearts of men by a mere act of His Power. In fact there is no inconsistency between the doctrines of sacramental grace, or efficacy, and the necessity of communion with the Church, and that of Justification by Faith; but there is rather an analogy between them. Both imply that it is the good pleasure of GOD not, so to speak, to put forth all His strength, but rather to work subject to certain self-imposed conditions. In the one case the condition is the willing concurrence of the man who is to be the subject of the Grace. In the other it is the expression of that willing concurrence by an outward receiving of something which GOD

has instituted as the means of conveying His Grace. Some persons are ready to say, that the first doctrine is true, because it is worthy of GOD; but that the other is false, because it is unworthy of Him. But how do they know that one is worthy and the other unworthy of Him? He must know His own nature better than they can; and, in fact, the only question is: What has He said on the subject?

There are thus three schemes of theology: that which teaches the doctrine of the opus operatum; that which teaches the doctrine of a sacramental Grace, which is only available when received in faith; and that which teaches that men are saved without using the Church or the Sacraments as channels of Grace, by a simple Faith, which receives the Justification which GOD gives according to His good pleasure. These may respectively be considered as the Romish, the Saxon, and the Swiss systems of theology. The first was the work of the Schoolmen; the others arose at the Reformation.

The two latter systems were the product of the Reformation, or rather they were the Reformation itself. They both differed. from the medieval system in the point of Justification by Faith. That is, in requiring the willing reception, by the individual man, of the aids which GOD vouchsafed to offer to him, and the active employment of them when they have been received. This is inconsistent with the notion of the opus operatum; which is the very essence of doctrinal popery, although it is hard to see how it is theoretically connected with the notion of a pope.

In practice, however, the popes were the great maintainers of the doctrine of the opus operatum, and hence arose a practical connection between the two things. The papal power had been built up as the means of protecting the clergy against the civil rulers; and it had to use the clergy as its agents and assist ants in affording that protection. The result was, an intimate connection between the popes and the clergy throughout Western Christendom, which led to a mutual forbearance. The clergy submitted to be governed and plundered by the popes; who on their part showed a disposition to connive at the immoralities of the clergy. This became so great as to give rise to a cry for moral reform, which extended far more widely than that for doctrinal reform. It is probable, that the notion.

of the opus operatum was not without its influence in producing or fostering this clerical immorality. It is certain that it had a direct, and a very intimate connection with the means which were resorted to for raising money for the support of the papacy. The Reformation everywhere began with an outcry for moral reform in the Church and against the abuses of the papal power.

The last brought to the aid of the Reformers the civil rulers. These had long been engaged in struggles with the popes for political and ecclesiastical power. So long as the popes were the champions of pure morals, and sought political and ecclesiastical power as the means of promoting that cause, although some of the measures by which they sought to promote it were more than doubtful, they met with much sympathy and success. Probably, however, not with more than they very fully deserved. But so soon as the mind of Christendom perceived that they were sacrificing the cause of pure morals to that of their own power, all sympathy very justly departed.

The civil powers were not slow to avail themselves of the change of feeling. They were everywhere favourable to the Reformation; so long as the Reformers confined themselves to warring against clerical immoralities and the abuses of papal power. But it is remarkable that they generally turned against them, so soon as there was any attack upon the established system of Theology. When, however, the rulers discovered that if they were to succeed in reducing the power of the papacy they must have the aid of men who acted upon principles higher than those of mere worldly policy or interest, some of them took the Reformers into an alliance. These universally succeeded in freeing themselves from the papal domination.

Hence arose the notion, of which it is so difficult to disabuse the minds of our English cousins, and, in fact, of Europeans generally, that the civil authority is the natural counterpoise to, and protection from the papal power. While the popes and the kings acted in union against the Reformers, the Theological truths which they taught seemed in danger of being trampled out,as, in fact, they were in more countries than one. But when the princes found it convenient to sever themselves

from the pope, the Reformers were able to disseminate their views under their protection. Thus what may be called the political and the theological Reformations went on together in close alliance, and each derived a support which, humanly speaking, was valuable from the other. By their joint efforts the papal power was, in many places, put down; and wherever that occurred, the medieval theology shared its fate, or was at least reduced to a small number of adherents.

cases.

All this was not done without a violent contest; in which not only the powers of the human mind, but the passions of the human heart were excited to the utmost activity. The same result followed, as has always been found to follow in similar There was on all the points in dispute a tendency to go too far. As to the political power of the popes, taking the phrase in its strictest sense, it was not easy to go too far in its denial; since it has no foundation in right or truth. But it was intimately connected with his ecclesiastical power, for which, and by means of which, it had been built up. By ecclesiastical power, in this connection, is to be understood the power of the pope over the Church, and that rather as connected with external things than with doctrine.

The temporalities of the Church were the gift of the laity, and to some extent of the princes. The descendants of those by whom they were given found it convenient to forget that they were relieved by these gifts, so far as it was possible that they could be relieved, from the necessity of supporting the expenses of the Church by their contributions. Contributions, of which it ought never to be forgotten, that they are obligatory before GOD, although they are voluntary in the sight of man. They claimed, and within certain limits the Church allowed, the nomination of the individuals who were to enjoy the bounty of their ancestors. Agreeably to this precedent the princes, who claimed to be the founders, that is, endowers of all bishoprics within their respective dominions, asserted a right to nominate all Bishops. This the popes opposed, and on their side set up claims equally unfounded and more extravagant. Between these conflicting claims there arose an internecine war, which was waged for centuries with very varying success. In the course of this struggle the notion of the pope's

political power was developed. It had come to be seen, that there was and must be an ecclesiastical power distinct from the civil. The popes claimed and exercised this power, and endeavored to raise it above the civil power. The latter, not unnaturally, strove to exalt itself above the ecclesiastical power.

The idea of two independent powers, existing in the same territory, and acting upon the same persons, but each moving in its respective sphere, without intruding into that of the other, is not a very obvious one. To this day it is hardly apprehended out of the United States. Here it has been developed by circumstances, and is exhibited in two cases. One in the two great divisions of our political government; the United States and the States respectively. The other in the relations of Church and State. But the thing was not at all understood in the middle ages. The prevailing idea was feudalism, which recognized a federation, but one in which the federated powers were independent of each other, while all looked up to a common superior. Nowhere was there a double authority over the same territory; except where there existed between the two authorities the relation of superior and inferior, and that relation, too, extending over the same ground with the authority of the superior and inferior themselves. There was no conception of a sovereignty divided, so to speak, by a perpendicular line. These ideas were repeated in the organization of the Church, where each ecclesiastic looked up to his superiors, and to but one superior in each grade.

Thus there everywhere existed two federations, the feudal and ecclesiastical, organized in a manner strikingly similar, and each looking up to a single head, while neither accepted the idea of a divided sovereignty. The questions, which must have arisen logically, as things were then understood, and which the ambition of rulers was sure to develop practically, were: Which of the two powers, the ecclesiastical and feudal, was the superior? Which of the two heads was the supreme head, to which the other was to look up as his superior? As the feudal power was merged in the civil authority, these questions became merged in another, that is: Whether is the Church or the State the superior? The popes claimed and exercised the