1855.

ART. V. (1.) Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe. By the Rev. J. BALMEZ. Translated from a French Version of the original Spanish by C. J. HANFORD and R. KERSHAW. 1 vol. 8vo. Burns, London. 1849. (2.) Pilgrimage from the Alps to the Tiber; or, the Influence of Romanism on Trade, Justice, and Knowledge. By Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. 1 vol. 8vo. Shepherd and Elliot, Edinburgh; Hamilton and Adams, London. (3.) Les Nations Catholiques et les Nations Protestantes. ('Catholic and Protestant Nations compared in the Threefold Relation of material Wellbeing, Intelligence, and Morality.') By NAPOLEON ROUSSEL. 2 vols. 8vo. Meyrueis & Co., Paris; Nutt, London. 1854. (4.) Symbolik der Christlichen Confessionen. (The Fundamental Principles of the several Christian Churches; Part I., the Roman Catholic Church.') By A. H. BAIER, Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald. 1 vol. 8vo. Koch, Leipzig; Nutt, London. 1854.

(5.) Etudes Philosophiques sur le Christianisme.

(Philosophical 4 vols.

Studies on Christianity.') By AUGUSTE NICOLAS. 12mo. Vaton, Paris: Nutt, London. 1852. (6.) Regula Fidei Catholicæ. (The Rule of the Catholic Faith.") By P. P. N. CHRISMANN. A New Edition, revised by P. J. SPINDLER, with the permission and approbation of the superior Authorities. 1 vol. 8vo. Spithoever, Rome: Nutt, London. 1854. (7.) Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. (A Manual of the Creeds and Determinations touching Faith and Morals which have emanated from the General Councils and the Popes.') By H. DENZINGER. 1 vol. 12mo. Second Edition. Approved by the Ordinary. Spithoever, Rome; London, Nutt. 1854. (8.) Cours de Droit Canon. (A Course of Instruction in Canonical Law, Ancient and Modern.') By L'ABBÉ ANDRÉ. 2 vols. Small folio. Migne, Paris; Nutt, London. 1844. (9.) Kein wohlgeordneter Staat. (No well-ordered State can allow the Roman Catholic Church to exist free according to its own Laws.') Proved from 107 Papal Laws against the Rights of Princes and the Weal of Nations. By J. S. EICHLER. 1 vol. 8vo. Leske, Darmstadt; Nutt, London. 1854.

(10.) Offene Briefe an den Herrn Eichler.

('Public Letters addressed to the Rev. Mr. EICHLER against his work entitled No well-ordered State, &c. By Dr. J. I. RITTER. 1 vol. 8vo. Aderholz, Breslaw; Nutt, London. 1855.

(11.) Italy in the Nineteenth Century. By JAMES WHITEHEAD, Esq. 3 vols. 8vo. Second Edition. London: 1849.

(12.) History of Piedmont. By ANTONIO GALLENGA. 3 vols. 8vo. London.

1855.

THE Contest with Rome is daily becoming more serious-the contest is one for life or death. We have no wish to mitigate its

fury, or to see it brought to a premature termination. Two great antagonist principles are at issue, and the battle must rage until victory declares itself clearly and finally on this side or on that. Having long fought the battle on the ground of abstract principles, and by the exhibition of speculations of opposite tendencies, the representatives of the two conflicting principles seem now disposed to make their appeal to visible and palpable facts. Accordingly, the works whose titles stand above, after stating wherein those principles consist, occupy themselves with the actual consequences of the principles, especially as visible in the secular interests of the world. Which of the two principles is the more conducive to national welfare? Is Romanism preferable to Protestantism, or Protestantism to Romanism, viewed in their respective bearings on individual, domestic, and social life? This is a great question. The issue is a fair issue. At any rate, the claims of the two rival systems will be regarded in this light. Men are only too prone to study principles on what is considered their practical side. You cannot, if you would, prevent the world from asking 'what is the sure and known influence of Romanism, of Protestantism, on civilized life?' And beyond a doubt, acquittal or condemnation awaits a principle, whatever its name, just as it is found to be serviceable or disserviceable to man. Nor can the verdict be questioned by those who bow to the authority which declared 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' Equally clear is the announcement- Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.' (Matt. vii. 16, seq.) The question of final doom is, then, involved in the question of actual results. For ourselves, having faith in a righteous God, we repose with the fullest confidence on His providence, assured that in time false principles will be exposed in all their falsity, while the true will shine forth in radiant vindication. Having these convictions, we know how to wait patiently even under deferred hope. At the same time, we are not unwilling to take a utilitarian view of the subject. After all, facts are God's teachers; and if Protestantism is condemned by facts, it behoves us to review the grounds on which our principles have been formed. Equally may it be said, that if Romanism is condemned by its own influences, Romanism will find it necessary either to reform its system, increase its strength, or submit to a verdict of condemnation. But an infallible church cannot reform; the strength of Romanism has been put to the utmost stretch; what, then, remains but the sentence: Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?'

From these remarks, the reader will have presumed that we are about to take a comparative view of the physical, social, and moral influences of Romanism and Protestantism. Before we

Romanism and Protestantism defined.

But

115 enter into the particulars in which that view will be presented, we must endeavour to form a just and distinct idea of the two systems thus put into opposite scales. What is Romanism? What is Protestantism? In its final issue Romanism is the principle of visible and outward authority. In its final issue Protestantism is the principle of invisible and inward authority. Trace the two systems back to their last analysis, resolve them into their essential elements, and you will find the one and the other to be what we have now stated them to be. In this statement we have nothing to do with professions. Both claim to be the religion of the Lord Jesus. What are they in reality? As little have we to do with misrepresentations. Protestantism is charged with being a mere protest, and so, a mere negation. Hence an argument to its disadvantage; for a negation is a denial, and how can a denial give birth to positive good? From nothing, nothing comes; and if Protestantism only says 'no' to Romanism, Protestantism must be powerless except for destruction. Protestantism is not a mere negation. Protestantism, disowning Romanism, avouches Christ. Protestantism disowns Romanism for the very purpose of professing and proclaiming the gospel. The real issue is this-which is the right interpretation of the mind of the Master, which is the mind of the Spirit-that of Leo X. or that of Luther? To decide the issue, you must know what is the one and what the other interpretation. In order to ascertain the interpretation of the Papal Church, we have gone to the highest Papal authorities, and here in a few words signify the result. The Pope for the time being, is the vicar of Jesus Christ. As the vicar of Jesus Christ, the Pope, in the judgment of the modern Ultramontane Romanist, has and holds all power in heaven and on earth. Possessing this power, he utters infallible truth, and so becomes at once the sure and certain guide in things to be believed and things to be done, over which, consequently, he has and exercises supreme authority. This authority extends over conscience and all that pertains to the formation of the inner life, as well as to the regulation of the outer life. Hence the Pope, in the full and proper exercise of his authority, controls not only the individual and the home, but the state as well. a matter of fact, the Church, in forming the individual, forms society. As a matter of theory, the rights of the Church must. embrace man in his corporate capacity, if they regard man in his individual moral relations. The Pope, therefore, claims not only to 'govern men,' but to guide the state.' But every right supposes a correlative duty. It is in consequence the duty of individuals, it is the duty of communities, it is the duty of man as man, it is man's duty alike in his private and his public relations,

As

to receive the law from the Pope's lips, to receive from the Pope's lips his creed, his morals, his political principles; in a word, all his inner life, which is the source and the mould of his outer life. A direct and immediate influence, moreover, in the shaping and directing of that outer life belongs to the Pope, who, as the vicar and representative of Him who came to lead men to God, has full and unlimited dominion over the whole of human existence. And this dominion is in its nature imperative as well as supreme, since the Pope, in virtue of his relation to God, holds the keys of earth and heaven, and dispenses the awards of time and eternity.

This is Romanism. Romanism, then, is a visible and outward representation of Christ. The Pope affects to be not a God, but God on earth. In theory, the Pope is divine authority in a human form. In other words, the Pope is to the world in lieu of God. Having assumed the throne of God, the Pope declares himself possessed of the attributes of God; and, possessing the attributes, he of course exercises the functions of God. Yet, while thus in theory God, the Pope is really a man. Consequently, the Pope is the usurper of the seat of God, and Romanism is nothing less than the deification of a human being. That is, Popery is the substitution of the visible for the invisible, the substitution of the human in the place of the divine. In its essence, therefore, Popery is the negation of religion, whose essence consists in the rule and the recognition of the Infinite, Invisible, the One ever-living and self-subsistent Creator.

At this point we encounter the essence of Protestantism, which, denying this impious humanising of the divine, this blasphemous profanation of the sacred, this desecrating obtrusion of the invisible, this, the grossest, and as the grossest, so the foulest of all idolatries, owns God as God, owns God as the Creator, Governor, and Redeemer of the World; owns God as made known in the universe and in the Bible; and so owning God, owns Jesus as his sole image and representativethe light of his light, the interpreter of his will, the administrator of his church; and so the invisible lord of conscience, the invisible guide of life, the invisible fountain of holiness. Here, then, lies the antithesis between Romanism and Protestantism: the former is God in a visible human being; the latter is God in his invisible Son, the sole Head of the Church, the sole author and giver of life.' But God visible is no God. The Pope, then, is merely a man who assumes to be God. And Protestantism, inasmuch as it has for its central thought the God of the universe and the God of the Sacred Scriptures, is true religion, is real religion, is the only true and the only real religion. Romanism, consequently, is a pure sham; it is in very truth an awful lie, the most impious of lies, the concentration

117

The Question takes date from the days of Luther. and essence of all lies. Being such, Romanism must be baneful; it must be baneful to all who are therewith connected, alike to those who promulgate the lie, and those on whom the lie is forced.

When, however, we undertake to consider the respective influences of Protestantism and Romanism, we must clearly contemplate the two in their antagonism. But the antagonism, at least in its full character and proper issue, did not exist till the days of Luther. Then, and not before, did the rival principles of the two churches come into play. Disregarding this fact, Balmez, following other Romanist writers, removes the issue back into earlier and purer ages, and sets down to the credit of Rome that which really belongs to Christ. Yet, even here, Papal advocates should tread with cautious steps, else they will remind us that it was the hugeness of evil which Romanism engendered that made the reformation of the church necessary, and caused believers of earnest minds to account the work the most sacred and the most imperative. It is, however, with that enterprise in its commencement and in its results that we are concerned when we undertake to describe the comparative results of Romanism and Protestantism. Consequently, not earlier than the sixteenth century does our task begin. Then was it, and not before, that the two rival principles came into operation. Then was it, and not before, that the struggle commenced, which avowedly aims on either side at nothing short of the sole and exclusive dominion of the world. For three centuries and more has the battle already lasted. What are the resultsthe clearly ascertained results? One report of those results has been made, which Romanists have industriously turned to their own account. The boundaries within which Romanism and Protestantism originally settled down after the first collision have, it is affirmed, never since undergone any change. Look at the map of Europe; Italy, Austria, France, Spain, you see were Romanist in the sixteenth century, they are so still. On the other hand, Protestantism has plucked no fresh laurel. Catholic communities have, since that time, become infidel and Catholic again, but none have become Protestant.'* The author of this statement would have done well to remember the Latin adage, ponderandæ sunt sententia haud numerandæ — arguments are to be weighed, and not counted on the fingers.' Let it be that the relative numbers of Protestant and Romanist countries remain the same-are the countries themselves the same? Does England go for no more now than it was worth in the days of Henry the Eighth ? and does Italy go for as much? This is another aspect of the question before us, and, at the

6

Edinburgh Review, October, 1840, pp. 227-258, an article from the pen of Mr. Macaulay, brilliant, but misleading.