Графични страници
PDF файл



WHEN we look around upon the present state of the Christian Church, and then turning to ecclesiastical history acquaint ourselves with its primitive form and condition, the difference between them so strongly acts upon the imagination, that we are tempted to think, that to base our conduct now on the principles acknowledged then, is but theoretical and idle. We seem to perceive, as clear as day, that as the Primitive Church had its own particular discipline and political character, so have we ours; and that to attempt to revive what is past, is as absurd as to seek to raise what is literally dead. Perhaps we even go on to maintain, that the constitution of the Church, as well as its actual course of acting, is different from what it was ; that Episcopacy now is in no sense what it used to be; that our Bishops are the same as the Primitive Bishops only in name; and that the notion of an Apostolical Succession is “a fond thing." I do not wish to undervalue the temptation, which leads to this view of Church matters ; it is the temptation of sight to overcome faith, and of course not a slight one.

But the following reflection on the history of the Jewish Church, may perhaps be considered to throw light upon our present duties.

1. Consider how exact are the injunctions of Moses to his people. He ends them thus : “ These are the words of the covenant 6 which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children “ of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He “ made with them in Horeb. .... Keep therefore the words of “ this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that

ye do..... Neither with you only do I make this covenant and “ this oath ; but with him that standeth here this day before the “ LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this “ day." Deut. xxix.

2. Next, survey the history of the chosen people for the several first centuries after taking possession of Canaan. The exactness of Moses was unavailing. Can a greater contrast be conceived than the commands and promises of the Pentateuch, and the history of the Judges ? Every man did that which was right in his own

eyes.” Judges xvii. 6.

[ocr errors]


Samuel attempts a reformation on the basis of the Mosaic Law; but the effort ultimately fails, as being apparently against the stream of opinion and feeling then prevalent. The times do not allow of it. Again, contrast the opulent and luxurious age of Solomon, though the covenant was then openly acknowledged and outwardly accepted, more fully than at any other time, with the vision of simple piety and plain straightforward obedience, which is the scope of the Mosaic Law. Lastly, contemplate the state of the Jews after their return from the captivity ; when their external political relations were so new, the internal principle of their government so secular, God's arm apparently so far removed. This state of things went on for centuries.

Who would suppose that the Jewish Law was binding in all its primitive strictness at the age

when Christ appeared ? Who would not say that length of time had destroyed the obligation of a projected system, which had as yet never been realized ?

Consider too the impossible nature, (so to say,) of some of its injunctions. An infidel historian somewhere asks scoffingly, whether “ the ruinous law which required all the males of the chosen “ people to go up to Jerusalem three times a-year, was ever ob6 served in its strictness.” The same question may be asked concerning the observance of the Sabbatical year ;-to which but a faint allusion, if that, is made in the books of Scripture subsequent to the Pentateuch.

3. And now, with these thoughts before us, reflect upon our SAVIOUR’s conduct. He set about to fulfil the Law in its strictness, just as if He had lived in the generation next to Moses. The practice of others, the course of the world, was nothing to Him; He received and He obeyed. It is not necessary to draw out the evidence of this in detail. Consider merely His emphatic words in the beginning of Matth. xxiii. concerning those, whom as individuals He was fearfully condemning. “ The Scribes and Phari.

sees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you “ observe, that observe and do." -Again reflect upon the praise bestowed upon Zacharias and his wife, that “ they were both

righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and “ ordinances of the Lord blameless." —And upon the conduct of the Apostles.

Surely these remarkable facts impress upon us the necessity of going to the Apostles, and not to the teachers and oracles of the present world, for the knowledge of our duty, as individuals and as members of the Christian Church. It is no argument against a practice being right, that it is neglected ; rather, we are warned against going the broad way of the multitude of men.

Now is there any doubt in our minds, as to the feelings of the Primitive Church regarding the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession ? Did not the Apostles observe, even in an age of miracles, the

ceremony of Imposition of Hands ? And are not we bound, not merely to acquiesce in, but zealously to maintain and inculcate the discipline which they established ?

The only objection, which can be made to this view of our duty, is, that the injunction to obey strictly is not precisely given to us, as it was in the instance of the Mosaic Law. But is not the real state of the case merely this; that the Gospel appeals rather to our love and faith, our divinely illuminated reason, and the free principle of obedience, than to the mere letter of its injunctions ? And does not the conduct of the Jews just prove to us, that, though the commands of CHRIST were put before us ever so precisely, yet there would not be found in


extended course of history a more exact attention to them, than there is now; that the difficulty of resisting the influence, which the world's actual proceedings exert upon our imagination, would be just as great, as we find it at present ?


Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The following extract is from Bingham, Antiq. xv. 9.

In the primitive ages, it was both the rule and practice of all in general, both Clergy and Laity, to receive the Communion every Lord's day .... As often as they met together for Divine Service on the Lord's day, they were obliged to receive the Eucharist under pain of Excommunication .... And if we run over the whole history of the three first ages, we shall find this to have been the Church's constant practice .. We are assured farther, that in some places they received the communion every day.

Is there any one who will deny, that the Primitive Church is the best expounder in this matter of our SAVIOUR'S will as conveyed through His Apostles ?

Can a learned Church, such as the English, plead ignorance of His will thus ascertained ?

Do we fulfil it ?

Is not the regret and concern of pious and learned writers among us, such as Bingham, at our neglect of it, upon record ?


And, putting aside this disobedience, can we wonder, that faith and love wax cold, when we so seldom partake of the MEANS, mercifully vouchsafed us, of communion with our LORD and SAVIOUR ?

[ocr errors]


Sold at Messrs. Rivingtons', St. Paul's Churchyard, London, at the price of 2d. per sheet, or 78. per 50 copies ; of whom the Tracts may be had on the first day of every month.



THERE are many persons at the present day, who, from not having turned their minds to the subject, think they are Churchmen in the sense in which the early Christians were, merely because they are Episcopalians. The extent of their Churchmanship is, to consider that Episcopacy is the best form of Ecclesiastical Polity; and again, that it originated with the Apostles. I am far from implying, that to go thus far is nothing; or is not an evidence, (for it is, of a reverent and sober temper of mind; still the view is defective. It is defective, because the expediency of a system, though a very cogent, is not the highest line of argument that may be taken in its defence : and because an opponent may deny the fact of the Apostolicity of Episcopacy, and so involve its maintainer in an argument. Doubtless the more clear and simple principle for a Churchman to hold, is that of a Ministerial Succession ; which is undeniable as a fact, while it is most reasonable as a doctrine, and sufficiently countenanced in Scripture for its practical reception. Of this, Episcopacy, i. e. Superintendence, is but an accident; though, for the sake of conciseness, it is often spoken of by us as synonimous with it. It shall be the object of the following Tract to in

this higher characteristic of our Church. My position then is this ;—that the Apostles appointed successors to their ministerial office, and the latter in turn appointed others, and so on to the present day;--and further, that the Apostles and their Successors have in every age committed portions of their power and authority to others, who thus become their delegates, and in a measure their representatives, and are called Priests and Deacons. The result is an Episcopal system, because of the practice of delegation; but we may conceive their keeping their powers altogether to themselves, and in the same proportion in which this was done, would the Church polity cease to be Episco

sist upon

« ПредишнаНапред »