parallel it is to the state in which other religious truths are found, which no Churchman ventures to dispute. 1. Now in the first place, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Episcopacy is in fact not at all mentioned in Scripture even then it would be our duty to receive it. Why? because the first Christians received it. If we wish to get at the truth, no matter how we get at it, if we get at it. If it be a fact, that the earliest Christian communities were universally episcopal, it is a reason for our maintaining Episcopacy; and in proportion to our conviction, is it incumbent on us to maintain it. Nor can it be fairly dismissed as a non-essential, an ordinance indifferent and mutable, though formerly existing over Christendom; for, who made us judges of essentials and non-essentials? how do we determine them? In the Jewish law, the slightest transgression of the commandment was followed by the penalty of death; vide Lev. viii. 35; x. 6. Does not its universality imply a necessary connexion with Christian doctrine? Consider how such reasonings would carry us through life; how the business of the world depends on punctuality in minutes; how " great a matter" a mere spark dropped on gunpowder "kindleth.", But, it may be urged, that we Protestants believe the Scriptures to contain the whole rule of duty.-Certainly not; they constitute a rule of faith, not a rule of practice; a rule of doctrine, not a rule of conduct or discipline. Where (e. g.) are we told in Scripture, that gambling is wrong? or again, suicide? Our Article is precise; "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, &c. is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith." Again it says, that the Apocrypha is not to be applied" to establish any doctrine," implying that this is the use of the canonical books. 2. However, let us pass from this argument, which is but founded on a supposition, that Episcopacy is not enjoined in Scripture. Suppose we maintain, as we may well maintain, that it is enjoined in Scripture. An objector will say, that, at all events it is but obscurely contained therein, and cannot be drawn out from it without a great deal of delicate care and skill. Here comes in the operation of that principle of faith in opposition to criticism, which was above explained; the principle of being content with a little light, where we cannot obtain sunshine. If it is probably pleasing to Christ, let us maintain it. Now take a parallel case: e. g. the practice of infant baptism; where is this enjoined in Scripture? No where. Why do we observe it? Because the primitive Church observed it, and because the Apostles in Scripture appear to have sanctioned it, though this is not altogether certain from Scripture. In a difficult case we do as well as we can, and carefully study what is most agreeable to our Lord and Saviour. This is how our Church expresses it in the xxviith Article: "The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." This is true wariness and Christian caution; very different from that spurious caution which ultra-Protestantism exercises. Let a man only be consistent, and apply the same judgment in the case of Episcopacy: let him consider whether the duty of keeping to Bishops, be not "most agreeable with the institution of Christ." If, indeed, he denies this altogether, these remarks do not apply; but they are addressed to waverers, and falsely moderate men, who cannot deny, that the evidence of Scripture is in favour of Churchmen, but say it is not strong enough. They say, that if Almighty God had intended an uniformity in Church Government among Christians, he would have spoken more clearly. Now if they carried on this line of argument consistently, they would not baptize their children: happily they are inconsistent. It would be more happy still, were they consistent on the other side; and, as they baptize their children, because it is safer to observe than to omit the sacrament, did they also keep to the Church, as the safer side. The received practice, then, of infant baptism seems a final answer to all who quarrel with the Scripture evidence for Episcopacy. 3. But further still, infant baptism, like Episcopacy, is but a case of discipline. What shall we say, when we consider that a case of doctrine, necessary doctrine, doctrine the very highest and most sacred, may be produced, where the argument lies as little on the surface of Scripture,--where the proof, though most conclusive, is as indirect and circuitous as that for Episcopacy; viz. the doctrine of the Trinity? Where is this solemn and comfortable mystery formally stated in Scripture, as we find it in the creeds? Why is it not? Let a man consider whether all the objections which he urges against the Scripture argument for Episcopacy may not be turned against his own belief in the Trinity. It is a happy thing for themselves that men are inconsistent; yet it is miserable to advocate and establish a principle, which, not in their own case indeed, but in the case of others who learn it of them, leads to Socinianism. This being considered, can we any longer wonder at the awful fact, that the descendants of Calvin, the first Presbyterian, are at the present day in the number of those who have denied the Lord who bought them? Oxford, These Tracts are published Monthly, and sold at the price of 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50 copies. LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE. 1834. GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London. In a few days will appear, THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, CONTAINING THE NUMBERS PUBLISHED DURING THE ACADEMICAL YEAR JUST CONCLUded, AND ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THEIR SUBJECTS. PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON: AND SOLD BY ALL OTHER BOOKSellers. |