Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

the solemn declaration of those holy martyrs who lived in the Apostles' times, and some of whom by Apostolic hands were made bishops—as, for instance Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, &c.;-thirdly, from the united testimony of all the writings that have come down to us of those times, and of every historian. If the appointment of bishops to rule over elders and deacons were an usurpation not known in the first century, as Mr. Vaughan intimates, it is most extraordinary that all of a sudden the universal church should submit to this usurpation, and that no one disappointed elder, till Ærius in the fourth century, should have resisted it, either in Africa, Asia, or Europe. That this should have been the case is inconceivable; but, seeing what our poor envious human nature is, it is very conceivable that, in these last days, when perilous times are come, and men are lovers of their own selves and proud, there should be hundreds of pamphleteering elders to take the side of Mr. Vaughan.

From what has been said, it will appear that it is not necessary to the defence of episcopacy that bishops and presbyters, as mentioned in the New Testament, should designate two different orders. That there should be successors to the ordinary office of the apostles, as well as to that of elders and deacons, is what we wish to prove ; and the Apostles could not fully appoint their successors but in the prospect of their own removal. Till then, bishop and presbyter might be exchangeable terms, used only for their equal appropriateness to rulers in the church. The Apostles sometimes call themselves apostles, sometimes bishops, sometimes elders; and they also give the names of apostle, bishop, elder, to others; as Epaphroditus, &c. They did every thing they could to settle the question of episcopacy, by appointing Timothy, Titus, Ignatus, Polycarp, Clemens, &c. with their own hands, into an office of overseeing other ministers and deacons in those larger churches that required it in their life-time. After the Apostles' time, we have the testimony of the historians down to the Reformation.

The evidence in favour of episcopacy is so universal, and so strong, that no sound thinker, one would imagine, would hesitate to prefer it to a theory of church government which was never put in practice until 1500 years after Christ.

Many think that episcopacy is one of the peculiar works of the Papacy ; but not only is it not

described among those only marks by which we know from Scripture what the Papacy is, but it could not possibly be a mark of that: for, among the many heresies and apostasies and divisions of the Christian church, the Papacy is that particular one which had Rome for its centre, and which is described as contra-distinguished from all the rest; whereas episcopacy has been the universal practice of all churches, those which never were united under Rome and those which Rome renounced. Beside the Roman church, there was the Greek church; the Armenian Christians in Asia ; the Jacobite Christians in Mesopotamia ; the Nestorians; the Indians, founded by St. Thomas; the Waldenses and Albigenses ; the Moravians--all these are governed by episcopacy, as well as the Church of England. All factions also in the church, such as the Donatists, the Novatians, the Arians, acknowledged episcopacy.

We had intended, upon the testimony of that pious and learned prelate, Bishop Hall, to have shewn that the Reformers on the continent, at the time of the Reformation, would have had their churches governed episcopally if they could. That their's was a new theory, the Reformers there acknowledged; and Calvin, whose name gave celebrity to the scheme, excuses himself by declaring, that not he, but Farrel and Veret, were the originators. The divines of Germany, who drew up the Confession of Augsburg, thus write: “And now here again we desire to testify to the world, that we will willingly conserve the ecclesiastical government, if only the bishops will cease to exercise cruelty upon our churches. This our will shall excuse us before God, and before all the world unto all posterity, that it may not be justly imputed to us that the authority of bishops is impaired among us.” To the same purpose Camerarius, in

' his Life of Melancthon, affirms concerning those two great lights of Germany, Luther and Melancthon, " that Philip Melancthon, not only by the consent but by the advice of Luther, persuaded the Protestants of that time, that, if bishops would grant the free use of the true doctrine, their ordinary power and administration over their several dioceses should be restored to them.” And Melancthon himself writes ; “You do not believe how much I am hated, both by the Naricians and I know not who else, for restoring to the bishops their jurisdiction.” Again, in his history of the Augustan Confession; “This” (says he) “ troubles certain immoderate men, that jurisdiction is redelivered to the bishops, and their ecclesiastical polity restored.” There is one observation of Calvin's, which must in particular be very edifying to Mr. Vaughan, and with that we will dismiss the subject of episcopacy: Calvin did not want to abolish bishops and bishoprics : he only wished them to rule, as ours in England do, according to the Scriptures and the will of Christ. * If," says he, in his treatise on the necessity of reforming the church,

they would bring us such an hierarchy wherein the bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselves to Christ, that they depend on him as their only Head,” &c. &c. (all which our bishops in England not only do not refuse to do, but solemnly swear to do), “then surely, if there shall be any

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

that shall not submit themselves to that hierarchy, reverently, and with the greatest obedience that may be, I confess there is no anathema of which they are not worthy!!

We now come to the subject of Private Judgment, and the duty of every Christian man in this respect; and we select the following sentence from our author as our text :

P. 10: We may notice, in the first place, the distinctness with which the New Testament writers recognise the right of private judgment, and enjoin its exercise. By the right of private judgment we mean the liberty with which every man is • endowed to form his own conclusions as to what the Scriptures ' teach with respect to the great questions of truth and duty.

prevent mistake, however, on this subject, it cannot be too distinctly remarked, that the liberty of forming our own

opinions, as to what the sacred word inculcates on such points, * is inseparable from an obligation to the diligent and the devout

use of all the means which may conduce to render those opinions correct.

Now here is an admission which we request our readers to note: that this duty of exercising private judgment, in entertaining our own opinions, is “inseparable from” (and therefore of course perfectly compatible with) “an obligation to the diligent and devout use of all the means which may conduce to render those opinions correct.

That is to say, that the right of private judgment is to be exercised only within that sphere which the duties and obligations that God has imposed upon the Christian mark out for it. Without going into the abstract question of what are the rights of man; whatever rights, real or fancied, man, as man, can claim, it is certain that at his baptism into Jesus Christ all natural rights of every description are wholly renounced. The old man, with all his claims, must henceforth be put to death; and the rights and duties of the new man alone must have any charm for us, or any influence over us. From such time, therefore, we renounce all right to exercise the caprices of our individual tastes and inclinations, and calling that using the right of private judgment; all arbitrary and selfish dispositions to be independent of our brother Christian, and calling that using the right of private judgment; and all those disobedient, ambitious, and rebellious tempers, which prevent us from acknowledging "subjection to one another in the fear of the Lord,” and calling that using our right of private judgment.

Now we charge Mr. Vaughan with leaving altogether out of his consideration, as one of those means which God has given us to be used conjointly with the right use of our private judgment, the authority of the church. The authority of the church forms no part of Mr. Vaughan's creed : but, on the contrary, instead of attempting to reconcile that authority with the right of individual judgment, the tendency of all his arguments is to upset all church authority, whatever. Among "all the means which may conduce to render our private opinions correct,” our blessed Lord seemed to be of opinion, when be sent forth the order of ordained ministers to teach and have rule over the brethren, that suCH AN ORDER might conduce to the correction of individual judgment. But Mr. Vaughan carefully keeps their claim to authority out of view, except where he condemns it as a corruption of Popery; and the means whereby alone he would qualify the exercise of the right in question would seem to be, attention to reading, meditation, and prayer," as if they were the only, or the chief, means prescribed by Holy Writ. But this enumeration, be it observed, occurs in the Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, who was himself a bishop in the church, and invested with the authority of the church. In the exhortations of our Lord and his inspired Apostles to the brethren, there are such words as these: “If he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican :” “Obey them which have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls as they that must give account:” “Submit to every ordinance,” &c. &c.

To get rid of the visible church, its powers and claims-to keep it out of the visible is the great tendency of all the Dissenters' writings, and the great end, we fear, of some of them. “All the designs,” says Mr. Rogers *, which have been formed against Christianity since its first institution, have endeavoured its subversion as a visible society. And that the present enemies of the Gospel among us pursue the same maxims, appears from the applause and triumph with which they receive all notions which tend to dissolve the external polity of the church, and withdraw men's respect from those offices and administrations without which it cannot subsist. They are contented that the duties which flow from our internal relation to Christ, and belong to us as members of his invisible church, should be pressed and recommended, provided the submission we owe to those whom he has appointed to rule over us be left out of the catalogue, and all those laws, duties, and offices which incorporate us and unite us as a visible society, be exposed as priestcraft and imposture. Because they see plainly that these principles will so effectually assist them in subverting the church as a visible society, that not even a single congregation can be formed upon them; and they are very well satisfied, that,

In his treatise on the Visible and Invisible Church ; a book we strongly recommend to all Dissenters who are open to inquiry, and wish for conscientious unity with the church of their country.

if they can once dissolve those ties which unite us together as a visible church, our invisible church will give them no trouble, but expire of itself.”

It cannot be too frequently remembered, that the church of Christ is not only a sect believing a certain number of doctrines and spiritual truths, but a society visibly incorporated, openly professing those doctrines, and subjected to authority and rule, teachers and ordinances. Our Lord not only required that his truth should be believed, but that the believers should be joined together in an outward and visible brotherhood, over which he himself appointed an order of outward and visible governors. Whoever, therefore, upon plea of the right of private judgment, or any other right, propounds doctrines which are inconsistent with the exercise of that authority which Christ has given to the appointed rulers and teachers of his church, making all attempt on their part to enforce their own interpretations, or to put down their opponents' as an invasion of that right, is just misusing one part of the truth for the purpose of abusing all the rest. If Mr. Vaughan wishes to serve the church of Čhrist, it must not be by taking one class of duties and setting it up against another and a different class, but by doing his best to reconcile with one another all the duties enjoined. Let him, for instance, reconcile the authority of the church with the right of private judgment, and we will thank him for his services; but we suspect that in doing this he will be obliged to put off his Dissenting gown, and henceforth condescend to teach in those ranks of Christian ministers whose authority he is now both attempting to rival and to undermine.

Not that, whatever might formerly have been the case, our present Dissenters differ from the Church only in matters of rule and discipline. Schism invariably leads to heresy; and they now deny many of the doctrines of their mother, as well as refuse her discipline-(see our author's condemnation of the offices of our Church on baptism, on confirmation, and the forgiveness of sins; his objections to the alliance of church and state, &c., pp. 83, 26, 33, &c.) But we are of opinion that the right apprehension of church authority would lead to such a respect for that of the Church of England, that no person would set himself up as her opponent until he had done that which in nine cases out of ten would annihilate his oppugnancy viz. had studied the scriptural authorities, and the noble de fences of all her doctrines, which those holy divines in her communion have put forth in her justification ; 'whose writings have,

; next to the Scriptures, the greatest claim upon the respect and attention of the Dissenters, even as their present living and ruling successors have upon their obedience, whatever Mr. Vaughan may teach to the contrary, VOL. II.-NO, IUI,

4 U

« EelmineJätka »