Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

deadly sin; and all this because we have a right to interpret scripture in our own way. We uphold the pure unmutilated scripture; the Bible, and Bible only, is the religion of protestants, and we the only interpreters of it. We say that all antiquity runs counter to our interpretation; and therefore, the church was corrupt from very early times indeed. But mind, we hold all this in a truly catholic spirit, not in bigotry. We allow in others the right of private judgment, and confess we, as others, are fallible men. We confess facts are against us, while we claim an indefeasible right to our own opinion. Far be it from us to say, that we are necessarily right; we only say, that the whole church is necessarily wrong. We do not impose our belief on any one; we only say, that those who take the contrary side are papists, firebrands, persecutors, madmen, zealots, and deserve nothing but contempt and reprobation, as a disgrace to the nineteenth century."

To such an argument, I am aware, it avails little to oppose historical evidence, of whatever kind. It sets out by protesting against all evidence, however early and consistent, as the testimony of fallible men; yet, at least, the imagination is affected by an array of facts; and I am not unwilling to appeal to the imagination of those who refuse to let me address their reason. With this view I am engaged in looking into certain heretical and apocryphal writings; or, at least, such as were afterwards unpopular with the church, to see if any vestige of the hypothetical system in question can be discovered there-any protest against self-righteousness, or against the episcopal succession; under the notion, that if their testimony is all the other way, it will be a further argument against that system; and at present I am reviewing the canons called apostolical.

The especial circumstances which recommend these canons to our notice are these: that they contain what there is reason to consider a fair portrait of the customs and opinions of the ante-Nicene church. This judgment about them, which depends on historical evidence, is confirmed by the two following circumstances: the canons in question were in great measure neglected, or at least superseded in the church, after Constantine's day, especially in the West. Let this be recollected by those who dwell upon the corruptions which they suppose resulted from the church's establishment by Constantine, and of which Rome was the fountain head. Further, there is ground, weak or strong, for suspecting, that the collection or edition of canons, as we have it, was compiled by heretics-probably Arians-though they have not meddled with the contents of them. Thus, while the neglect of later times separates these canons from Romanism, the assent of the Arians, if so, is a second witness, in addition to the judgment and practice of the early church, in proof of their apostolical origin. The first ages observe them; even heretics respect them; later and corrupt ages neglect them. Now, the argument to be derived from these canons, in behalf of the catholic system, is two-fold: first, from what they assume; secondly, from what they enjoin. I shall set down some points of detail under each of these heads.

First, as to what is implied in the canons, as an existing system

on which they are built. Let it be observed, they do but contain directions as to particular matters; they do not begin a religion; they do not form a church; nor are they reformations; they presuppose something existing, recognise it, and carry on its principles into their minute applications or developments. They are but ecclesiastical appointments, and assume apostolic appointments as their basis. Here, then, an argument arises in favour of what they assume, for the very reason that they do assume it. That they do not enjoin, but assume it, is not only a stronger evidence of its existence, but even of its importance. It is but a common remark, that indirect notice of facts and events in an historical document is a stronger evidence that they existed, or took place, than direct. But, over and above this, such implication is, in the present case, a stronger evidence of the authority and moment of the points assumed. For canons themselves are enacted on the authority of the church; what they assume as principles, and, instead of touching, only attempt to carry out, may seem to depend on an authority higher than the church, which the church cannot touch, and to come from the apostles. This distinction has already been noticed, and is very obvious. For instance, we are accustomed to place the sacraments among the divine and apostolical ordinances which Christ gave, and Christ only can annul; among ecclesiastical, the subordinate rites connected with them, the particular prayers, and the provision about sponsors. Among divine and apostolical ordinances, we place the Lord's day festival; among ecclesiastical are saints' days. Among the divine, are a number of, more or less, abstract or (what may be called) disembodied rites, to which the church gives a substance and form-such as public worship, imposition of hands, benedictions, and the sign of the cross, which are first elements of actual ordinances, and the instrumental principles of grace, and are variously applied and dispensed according to the decision of the church. Hence arise breviaries, councils, the rites of confirmation, absolution, and the like, which are of a mixed nature, ecclesiastical in form, divine and lifegiving in their principle. Now, then, let us see what these observances are on which the canons build their system, and we shall have some insight into what were considered apostolical at the time these canons were framed.

They are such as these: they take for granted the principle of ministerial superintendence, and the principle of ministerial succession, and consider them both vested in one and the same individual functionary. They take for granted that ordination is necessary, and that it is given by imposition of hands. They presuppose the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons. They take for granted the one baptism for the remission of sins. They assume that there is an altar and a sacrifice in the visible church under the gospel, and that by "the Lord's appointment." They take for granted the rite of holy communion. They take for granted the practice of excommunication. They speak of heretics, or sectarians, as existing, yet as being in a state of serious disadvantage; they use concerning them the same (what is now called) fierce and contemptuous language which occurs in later centuries. They take for granted a local and

diocesan episcopacy. They take for granted an order of precedence among the bishops of each nation. They take for granted that councils are composed of bishops. They take for granted that married men may be clergy-nay, may be bishops. They recognise the. observances of celibacy and fasting. They recognise the fast of the great sabbath, or Easter eve, and of Lent, and of Wednesday and Friday. They imply the observance of Easter; they imply the existence of festival days. They recognise the use of churches; and of wax, and of oil, gold and silver vessels, and linen, in the worship, and these as consecrated. They speak of demoniacal possession and exorcism.

Let us picture to ourselves the position of a modern protestant in a communion where such points were first principles; with his societies instead of the church-his committees, boards, and platforms, instead of bishops-his Record or Patriot newspaper instead of councils-his "concerts for prayer" instead of anathemas on heretics and sectaries— his spoutings at public meetings instead of exorcisms-his fourths of October instead of festival days-his glorious memories instead of holy commemorations-his cheap religion instead of gold and silver vessels -his gas and stoves for wax and oil-and his denunciations of selfrighteousness for fasting and celibacy. This, indeed, would be the very fault he would find with the whole system, he would say he was not at home in it, or, in other words, that there is nothing evangelical in it; yet there is quite as much evangelical surely in such canons as in chapters in St. Paul, such as 1 Cor. v., or vii., or x., xi., or xiv. ; or 2 Cor. ix; or 1 Tim. iii., iv., or v. This absence, then, of the essential gospel doctrines, even supposing they were absent, which would not be granted by any one who had studied these canons, is not in point, unless it is a proof that rulers of the church do not hold doctrines, because they also give rules of discipline, and, when giving the latter, do not deliver the former instead. Certain doctrines may be true, and certain ordinances also; the one may be prescribed in canons, the other taught in confessions. It does not follow that those who enforce the one do not enforce the other; but it does follow that those who enforce the latter to the exclusion of the former, do not enforce both. Those who enforce the discipline, need not deny the doctrine; but those who think to escape the discipline by professing the doctrine, are more careful of doctrine than the early church was, and have no congeniality of feeling with times which considered it better to follow out what they had received than to reason against it, "to do these, yet not leave the other undone."

And here, since the subject of doctrine has been mentioned, it may be as well to instance some points of belief which do occur in the course of these canons. Besides the doctrines of the trinity and atonement, which are incidentally mentioned, there are the following :-that it is wrong to inflict corporal punishments for religious offences; that to pay for preferment is simony; that unanimity is a chief duty of Christians; that on the bishop solely falls the cure of souls, and its responsibility; that those who serve the altar should live of the altar; that to acknowledge heretics is to associate Christ with Belial; that there

is a difference, under the gospel, between true priests and false priests; that baptism is the cross and death of the Lord; and that persons who fast on festivals fulfil the prophecy in the beginning of 1 Tim. iv.

But it is time, secondly, to turn to the actual injunctions of these canons, which have not indeed any direct binding force on us as canons, as I noticed in a former paper, but which at least may be taken as an historical evidence of the sort of religion which was in that age considered as included under the idea of Christianity. They will be found to breathe a certain spirit, very unlike what is now popular, and to be developments of principles which must be counted false, unless modern received principles are false instead. I shall set down some of them without any great care to be systematic:

It was provided, then, that every bishop should be consecrated by two or three bishops, and the inferior orders always by a bishop; that no bishop, priest, or deacon, should take on him secular cares; that, unless under very extraordinary circumstances and leave from his brethren, a bishop should not move from see to see; that he should not admit into his diocese the clergy of another; that he should not ordain out of his diocese; that neither bishop, priest, nor deacon, might put away his wife on pretext of religion; that a person who married a second time after baptism should not hold any office in the ministry, nor one who had married two sisters or a niece; that a cleric should not become surety; that neither bishop, priest, nor deacon, might take interest of money; that clergy who had entered the sacred pale single might marry, provided they were only readers or chanters; that no secular influence should interfere with appointment of bishops; that letters of introduction should be required of foreign ecclesiastics; that no suffragan could act in extra-diocesan matters without his metropolitan, nor the metropolitan without his suffragans; that councils should be twice a year for doctrine and settlement of disputes; that the bishop should have the oversight of all church property, but might not give to his relatives, who, if poor, were to receive the alms of the poor, nor to himself, unless for his necessary maintenance and that of brethren who were his guests; that the inferior clergy might not move without him; and that a distinction should be preserved between the church property and his private property, the latter of which he might bequeath to wife, children, relatives, and servants, as he would.

Moreover, these canons enjoin that no bishop, priest, or deacon, might join in prayer with sectaries (aiperukoiç), much less allow them to perform any ministerial acts; or acknowledge their baptism, sacrifice, or ordination; nor re-baptize, or re-ordain, or be re-ordained, or neglect trine immersion, or refuse to restore a penitent; or allow the forged scriptures of the sectaries to be read in church; or ridicule the maim, deaf, blind, or lame, or eat flesh with the blood, or fast on Sundays, or on Saturdays, except Easter eve, or not fast in Lent, and on Wednesday and Fridays, except on account of bodily weakness; or enter a sectarian meeting or synagogue to pray, whether cleric or layman, or apply to common uses consecrated vessels or linen; that such bodily infirmities, and such only, should be a bar to ordination which interfered with ministerial usefulness; that kings and civil magistrates VOL. XIII.-Feb. 1838.

X

should not be insulted; and household slaves not ordained without the leave of their masters and the grant of freedom.

Such is a sketch of the main rules of discipline in the primitive church as they have come down to us; and they shew clearly enough the sort of religion which was then considered apostolic; not that which we should term the "free and easy" religion, but what our opponents would call the "formal and superstitious."

[ocr errors]

THE MEANING OF THE BENEDICTION.

SIR,-Will you allow me a small space in your truly ecclesiastical Magazine, in order to direct the attention of my brother clergymen to the exact meaning of our solemn form for blessing the congregation? An erroneous sense is generally connected with a portion of this form, owing to the ambiguity of two words, "keep" and "in:" "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord!" This is often understood as if the thing asked were, that peace might cause our hearts and minds to persevere in the knowledge and love of God," &c. Now, the strangeness of making peace the cause, instead of the result, of knowledge and love, is sufficient to raise doubts as to the correctness of the interpretation; and these doubts are both confirmed and elucidated by a reference to the passage of scripture on which this formula is founded: "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep (ppovpnoe, shall guard and defend,) your hearts and minds, through Christ Jesus," (Phil. iv. 7.) This parallel passage defines the signification of both "keep" and "in," as occurring in our liturgical benediction; it shews that "keep" is to be understood, not in the sense of "causing to persevere," but in that of defending, as a garrison defends a citadel, or a centinel his post, which is the literal rendering of opovpew. So we find this word translated in 2 Cor. xi. 32, where we read, that the governor deputed by king Aretas "kept with a garrison" (ippovpe) the city of Damascus; he maintained and defended it against all external attacks. Again, as to the preposition "in," the parallel scripture passage shews it is used in the sense of through" our hearts and minds are to be kept or defended, through the knowledge and love of God and of his Son Jesus Christ." The following are probable instances of this idiom:-"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in (or through) my name, (by pleading it,) he will give it you," (John, xvi. 23.) God preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In (or through) thee shall all nations be blessed," (Gal. iii. 8.) "Grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in (by, or through,) newness of life," (Communion Service.) Instances more apposite than the above I have often met with, but have neglected to note them down.

I feel justified in suggesting to the clergy the propriety of so modulating the voice, while delivering the benediction, as to prevent their flocks from misunderstanding it. This may be done by slightly drop

« FöregåendeFortsätt »