صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

soon had every 1 Church respecting which we possess any distinct information, adopted the Episcopal form of government.

... In the

next place, it is equally true, that neither our Saviour nor his Apostles have left any express or positive ordinances for the administration of the Church2... It is also true that in the earliest government of the first Christian Society, that of Jerusalem, not the elders only, but the whole Church, were associated with the Apostles.'. ...

According to the earliest form of Episcopal government, it would appear that the bishop possessed little, if any power in matters of discipline, except with the consent of the council of presbyters. . . . Of most of the apostolical churches, the first bishops were appointed by the apostles; of those not apostolical, the first presidents were the missionaries who founded them; but on their death, the choice of a successor devolved on the

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

2 Principles are given, but no specific rules. Hinds's Early Church.' A History of the Church by the Rev. George Waddington, M.A. Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, and Prebendary of Ferring in the Cathedral Church of Chichester. 1833. p. 20. note.

Also the Christian Observer for March 1804, states that 'Episcopalians found not the merits of their cause upon any express injunction, or delineation of ecclesiastical government in the scriptures, for there is none.' Vol. iii. p. 155.

members of the society. In this election the people had an equal share with the presbyters and inferior clergy, without exception or distinction; and it is clear that their right in this matter was not barely testimonial, but judicial and elective. This appointment was final, requiring no confirmation from the civil power, or from any superior prelate, and thus in the management of its internal affairs, , every church was essentially independent of every other. The churches, thus constituted and regulated, formed a sort of federative body of independent religious communities, dispersed through the greater part of the empire, in continual communication, and in constant harmony with each other. It is towards the end of the second century that the first change is perhaps perceptible...' 'We find the first instance of general assemblies at this period. . Some evil will be expected to arise out of much good; and evils of some importance have been attributed to the necessary frequency of Synods. The first was an early addition to the orders and gradations of the hierarchy. . . . It is certain that, at this period, we find the first complaints of the incipient corruption of the clergy.'

1

, 2.

See also Bishop Kaye on Tertullian. 1826. ch. iv. p. 236.

"From the moment that the interests of the ministers became at all distinguished from the interests of the reli

[ocr errors]

The same candid writer, speaking of the provincial Synods, and the Metropolitans, of the third century, remarks: It was the natural consequence of this system, acting on human imperfection, that the occasional presidents insensibly asserted a general pre-eminence over other bishops, which it became their next step to dispute with each other; and that the other bishops, being now constantly distinguished from their presbyters by these synodical meetings, assumed both over them and the people a degree of ascendency not originally acknowledged, but which it was not difficult gradually to convert into authority.''

From the above statements of modern writers, of different schools and times, as well as from the testimonies of the Fathers previously adduced, we may learn that there was little, if anything, in the congregational or earliest form of Episcopacy, which may not be said to have been more or less practised in modern times, among various denominations of Christians; and that ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUITY, SO far as it can be regarded as an unimpeachable witness, and a faithful interpreter

2

gion, the corruption of Christianity may be considered to have begun.' Waddington's History of the Church, p. 25,

note.

1 Ibid. pp. 20. 23. 24 25. 35.

* See page 159.

I

of scripture precedents, confirms the position with which we set out, that No One form of goVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE INSISTED ON, TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING IT ESSENTIAL TO THE VISIBLE UNITY OF

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. It is with this object, and with reference to those exclusive claims which form so great a barrier to visible unity and fraternal union, in England, that the remarks on church-government, included in this and the previous sections, have been introduced.

He who refuses fully to recognise as brethren, those Christians who think differently, on this point, from himself, is surely incurring a very solemn responsibility, which he will do well to ponder, with much prayer to God, and careful study of his word. For how firmly assured ought we to be, that we have the revealed will of God expressly on our side, before we allow ourselves to act in a manner, apparently so little in accordance with the general tenor and genius of Christianity, as to treat him as an alien, who differs from us on a point of mere outward form; though, in what relates to essential doctrine, and to morals, he is an unexceptionable Christian! That there is nothing to warrant such an anomalous procedure, in the New Testament, or in any legitimate inferences that may be drawn from Ecclesiastical History, has, it is hoped, been sufficiently shown.

171

SECTION VI.

THE VISIBLE UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, NOT DEPENDENT ON HUMAN AUTHORITY.

[ocr errors]

In the absence of a divine right for the details of any particular form or ceremonial, recourse has been had to the argument for human authority. Many divines have maintained, with Stillingfleet, that What Form of Government is determined by lawful authority in the Church of God, ought to be submitted to, so far as it contains nothing repugnant to the word of God.' This authority the above writer regards as solely vested in the 'Civil Magistrate;' no other persons having any power to make laws binding men to obedience.' For though it be the Magistrate's duty to consult with the Pastors, for the settlement of the Church, he doth by vertue of his own power cause the obligation of men, by his own enacting what shall be done in the Church.'*

[ocr errors]

Though the New Testament furnishes no ground for investing the civil ruler with a func

Irenicum, Part ii. chap. viii. p. 416.

pp. 45, 46.-See also page 95 above.

Part i. chap. ii.

I 2

« السابقةمتابعة »