Page images
PDF
EPUB

As members of the Church of England we must argue the question from Scripture.

Now it is manifest, that if the Romish view were correct, and the apostles had had committed to them the power of forgiving sins as practised in the Church of Rome, they must at once have acted upon it. It was imperative on them to do so. Yet we meet with no exercise of such a power in the Acts of the Apostles. The apostles, in answer to every inquiry for salvation therein recorded, exhort to repentance, and faith, and to baptism in the name of Jesus. They never once say, “By virtue of the power given unto us, we forgive thee thy sins." On the contrary, they refer the inquirer direct to Jesus himself. Our Lord's commission to Paul regarding the Gentiles was, "to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Christ Jesus." The apostles first ascertained whether there was repentance and faith, and then they baptised; and when the faith was unfeigned, and was united in the same person with baptism, then was the latter for the remission of sins as a seal or sign. The recipient was regenerate by water and the Spirit the outward and visible sign and the inward and spiritual grace were one.

Again, after the regeneration and admission of the believer into the visible Church, we do not find in the Epistles anything about absolution or penance, or anything analogous to the directions and instructions in regard of those matters in the authorised documents of the Romish Church. There is, (James v. 16, 17.) an exhortation, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." The confession, mark, is " one to another"-not to a priest -neither is the prayer of a priest referred to, but rather that of a righteous or justified person.

It may, perhaps, be proper to notice that certain acts of the Apostle, such as the cure of the lame man by Peter and John, and the death of Ananias and Sapphira denounced by St. Peter,

are to be referred to certain peculiar gifts granted to the apostles, and not to the ordinary power of the ministry.

5th. It is evident that to exercise a power of the nature of that contended for by Romanists, the party vested with it must be infallible. The nature of the case, and the terms used by our Lord require this, and therefore any person claiming to give absolution without being infallible fails in the most essential point. A person saying, "I absolve thee, if thou art sincerely penitent, and if thou hast faith," conveys nothing beyond a declaratory view of God's mercy as revealed in his Word, and misses the very object in view, namely, a perfect assurance of pardon. It assumes that of which the penitent has, perhaps, the most doubt, namely, his perfect sincerity, and the reality of his faith. Assured of these, he knows he will be pardoned; but that of which he doubts, and of which he seeks assurance, the alleged absolver passes over, and leaves the matter as he finds it. Even the Church of Rome, bold as it is, flinches somewhat on this point. Its infallibility is a sort of moveable horizon, sometimes in the priest, sometimes in the pope, at others in the general councils-first in one authority, then in another, so that a penitent truly affected with a deep sense of sin, can find no repose. It is only those who do not repent who find a lullaby in a priest's absolution. Moreover, the pardon of sins by man, it seems, extends only to confessed mortal sins; any keeping back from man prevents the pardon. Moreover, after all, the absolution depends upon the will and intention of the priest. (See Council of Trent, Sessio vii., canon xi., Sessio xiii. c. vi.) What comfort can a truly awakened conscience derive from such an absolution ?

6th. The expressions, binding and loosing, undoubtedly were used anciently of an authoritative sentence, fully determining the matter at issue. Our Lord, therefore, bestowed power upon his apostles to declare infallibly his will concerning the kingdom of God, and the purity of the Church which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus

Christ himself being the chief corner stone. But this was effected by their being divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost to deliver the counsel of God, so that whatsoever they declared to be the true way of acceptance, would be ratified in heaven, and a sinner might, with perfect assurance, rely upon it for salvation. And again, what they denounced as damnable sin God would condemn at the last day. This the apostles did not only towards those who were their cotemporaries, but to the whole future Church by the Holy Scriptures: so that we of the present day are literally bound or loosed by the apostles. We have no other certain assurance of salvation beyond what they have preached and recorded. In this sense the power was exclusively given to the apostles, they having no successors in inspiration.

This view reconciles the commission given first to Peter alone, then to the apostles unitedly, and afterwards to St. Paul: inasmuch as to each and all the Holy Spirit was given to preach the Gospel, and authoritatively to declare the way of salvation. Whereas, if the power were an authority to determine as a judge in personal and individual cases, as the Council of Trent says it is, then would the succession to such authority be a matter difficult to ascertain. Who would say whether the authority must be from all the apostles in conclave, or whether in one were vested the full power? Ministers of religion, however, at the present day, bind and loose as they preach apostolic doctrine or otherwise: the faithful preaching of the word is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death to them that hear it. But this is to be done through the Scriptures, independently of which the preacher or priest, as he is neither infallible nor inspired, cannot bind or loose except in the matter of discipline so far as regards the Sacraments, and even in that case our Church says, in her Communion Service, it must be "by the ministry of the Word."

7th. Such appears to be the view of the Church of England. Her 3rd Canon declares her to be " an apostolic Church, teaching the doctrine

66

of the apostles." Her apostolicity, observe, depends not on the succession of her priesthood, but in the doctrine. The passage just quoted from her Communion Service is to the effect that any one who is disquieted should come to some discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution." The Church does not call her minister a priest, and the absolution he gives is by the ministry of God's Word; in other words, declaratory of the Gospel. The address of the bishop in the Ordination Service has already been quoted. In the same service the person ordained is asked if he will be "ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," &c.

8th. Bishop Jewell's " "Apology" is the next authority to the Canons and Liturgy, his work having been directed by the queen and bishops to be placed in all churches. The following extract shews his view: "We say also that the office of loosing consisteth on this point, that the minister either by the preaching of the Gospel offereth the merits of Christ, and full pardon to such as have lowly and contrite hearts, and do unfeignedly repent themselves, pronouncing unto the same a sure and undoubted forgiveness of their sins, and hope of everlasting salvation, or else, that the same minister, when they have offended their brother's mind with some great offence, or notable and open crime, whereby they have, as it were, banished and made themselves strangers from the common fellowship, and from the body of Christ, then after perfect amendment of such persons, doth reconcile them, and bring them home again, and restore them to the company and unity of the faithful."*

9th. From the preceding considerations it seems clear that when, in the ordination of priests, the bishop says, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto

* Apology, Chap. vi. Division 2.

thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments"-these words are to be understood, as Bishop Jewell says, of loosing either by preaching of the Gospel, or the absolving of great offences, by reconciling persons, and bringing them home again, and restoring them to the company and unity of the faithful. Therefore, no just objection can be taken against them as giving power to absolve judicially in the Romanist sense. So in the service for the Visitation of the Sick, the absolution is only ecclesiastical. The minister finds that the sick man confesses a heinous sin, which would exclude him from communion with the Church, and on his confession, being satisfied of his repentance, he says, "I absolve thee," and reconciles and restores him to the company and unity of the faithful.” But that this is not a judicial act, binding his eternal state, is manifest from the circumstance of the act not being imposed, but only granted if the penitent requires it-whereas, were it judicial, and necessary for salvation in the Romanist sense, it could not be limited to a penitent thus circumstanced, but would be requisite for every member of the Church. If the reformers of the Church of England had intended absolution to be anything more than ecclesiastical or declaratory, they would, as Mr. Newman says, "teach with stammering lips." But the total omission of any service for penitents is decisive of their views, and seems to preclude further discussion.

66

10th. It is to be observed, that if the Church of England does not claim for her ministers the judicial power of forgiving sins, that circumstance shakes the case of those who say she holds apostolic succession in the Romish sense, namely, that all power was given to the apostles, and by them handed down to the bishops, their successors, and that grace is communicated through the episcopacy, and through that channel alone, the maxim being, 66 no bishop, no

church." If the Church had held that view, she must have carried it through in her services, which we have seen she does not. Well for us that it is so, for the difficulties of the question upon that hypothesis are insurmountable, except to persons prepared to subjugate their minds implicitly to authoritative dogmas.

It is well known to scholars, that even the first link in the succession of the bishops of Rome; is a matter in dispute. It is true, indeed, that Eusebius gives lists of bishops, but they may, or may not, be correct. Then, again, some bishops might not be properly ordained; and if so, did they continue the succession? But who can conduct such an interminable and uncertain enquiry as would be necessary if grace came only through bishops canonically ordained in direct succession from the apostles? It is a rope of sand.

Most of the learned admit that the New Testament does not determine the question of episcopacy. Those who depend upon the authority of the Fathers must be sadly perplexed with Jerome's testimony. He says,* "A presbyter is the same as a bishop; and until, by the instigation of the devil, there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among_the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' churches were governed by a common consent of the presbyter. But afterwards, when every one regarded those whom he baptised as belonging to himself, rather than to Christ, it was every where decreed that one person elected from the presbyters should be placed over the others to whom the care of the whole Church might belong, and thus the seeds of dissension be taken away." Jerome proceeds to give his reasons, especially observing that St. Paul having sent for the presbyters, in the plural, of Ephesus, afterwards calls the same persons bishops, (Acts xx.) and his final conclusion is, "that it is by the customs of the

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Church that the presbyters are subject to him who is placed over them, so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom, than by the truth of the Lord's appointment," &c.

66

Our Church, in the Preface to the Ordination Service, says, "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been three orders in Christ's Church-bishops, priests, and deacons. Bishop Stillingfleet, in his latest and ripest judgment, modifying the views contained in his "Irenicon," says, What is the reason that they express it from the apostles' time rather than in the apostles' time, but that they believed, while the apostles lived, they managed the affairs of government themselves; but, as they withdrew, they did in some churches sooner and in some later, as their own continuance, the condition of the churches, and the qualification of persons were, commit the care and government of churches to such persons whom they appointed thereto ? Of which we have an uncontrollable evidence in the instance of Timothy and Titus; for the care of government was a distinct thing from the office of an evangelist and all their removes do not invalidate that, because, whilst the apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled in their several churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church, so it is the fairest hypothesis for reconciling the different testimonies of antiquity. For hereby the succession of bishops is secured from the apostles' time, for which the testimonies of Irenæus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and others are so plain: hereby room is left to make good all that St. Jerome hath said, and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the different settlements of churches at first. So that we may allow for the community of names between bishop and presbyter for a while in the Church-that is, while the apostles governed the churches themselves-but afterwards that which was then part of the apostolical office, became the episcopal, SEPTEMBER-1847.

which hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the Church."

We may add Bishop Hall's conclusions on what is meant by the phrase, "Divine right of Episcopacy." (Preface to translation of Schulten's Tract.) "Whereas there are three degrees of truth and holy institutions, as they are commonly distinguished, human, apostolic, divine: the first from mere men, the second from men apostolical, the third from God himself immediately-the author desires to go a midway in this difference, holding it too low to derive episcopacy from a merely human and ecclesiastical ordinance, holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command of God, and therefore pitching upon an apostolical institution, rests there."

With this we may be satisfied. The apostles have not bound us in this respect. We, however, honour and follow their practice. Yet we would not exclude from grace those who think otherwise.

11th. It is impossible to pass over the case of St. Paul, who was not in the original commission given by our Lord to his apostles. Yet subsequently it pleased God to call him to the office of an apostle. But it does not appear that his appointment was revealed to the existing apostles, nor did he confer with them at first, "but straightway he preached Christ." Nevertheless they acknowledged his divine commission when "Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way." (Acts ix. 20, 27.) See also Galatians ii. 9. where it is said, that "when James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was in him, they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." They did not repel him because he was not in their commission. So it may be fairly argued that if, by the ministry of one not episcopally ordained, we see the fruits of righteousness exhibited, and the "one faith" held, we ought to act on the same principle as the twelve did, and acknowledge him as a fellow-labourer, though not in our commission. The words of our Lord

2 C

addressed to his original apostles

seemed to be of an exclusive character, and would almost have appeared to justify the rejection of St. Paul's claim, but we see those inspired men yielded to evidence. His commission, however, did not invalidate theirs, although in some instances his prac

tice and discipline appeared to have differed from theirs, especially so far as concerned the keeping of the ceremonial law. The Lord in all ages may have a commission supplemental to that by the regular succession. Its test must always be apostolic doctrine."

66

"HAVE FAITH IN GOD."

THE uproars of a contested election have just died away: the rude shouts, the revelry, the childish artifices, the clamorous disputes which usually signalize these occasions of popular tumult, are over: as at a display of fireworks, there have been a glare and a noise, and then vacancy and silence have followed. How august now seem the holy quiet of the landscape -the awful calm of the firmament— the swell of the majestic sea-and all the sublime but obedient phenomena of nature! How does their tranquility seem to reproach the noisy turbulence of the town! How mean and insignificant appear, in comparison with them, the petty passions of the multitude, which, after a few hours of ebullition, sink into nothingness, leaving, however, their unseen record in heaven.

Something similar to this contrast is that which is presented by the lasting repose of divine wisdom, compared with the feverish impatience and hasty counsels of man. To Him who inhabiteth eternity there is no need of hurried operations: the progress of the age advances, under his guidance, slowly but certainly: no sudden leaps, no accelerated movements disturb the harmony of the Supreme. It is in "the fulness of time" that his decrees come to pass: moment after moment slowly passes into eternity: step by step the invisible hands move onwards upon the dialplate of time: and when the hour is reached, when the fixed period arrives, then the Deity comes forth from his retired dwelling-place, to display his glory in visible acts, which had been

long preparing in secret. We see the flash, but we know not where and how the cloud had been formingwhence it came. How consolatory ought this reflection to be amidst the manifold contrarieties to which most of us are subject; and how earnestly ought we to struggle to yield obedience to our blessed Lord's injunction, "Have faith in God!"

Doubtless the termination of some of the recent elections may have occasioned to the Christian many serious forebodings. He may have seen persons whose public speeches were distinguished by vulgar scurrility, and abuse of what he looks upon as holy, chosen as fit to form part of the most august assembly in the empire, and he may for a time have trembled for the ark of God. But how needless are his fears! The only question the individual has to ask himself is, "Have I done my own duty? have I to the utmost of my power advanced what I consider the righteous cause?" If he can answer in the affirmative, safely may he leave the result to Him whose hands hold the reins of universal rule, at whose "bidding thousands speed," and who can make even the wrath of man to praise him.

In the irritation of disappointment, we are too apt to forget that God works by evil as well as by righteous instruments. There are certain processes necessary in the moral world, which, humanly speaking, good men cannot perform; just as in the natural kingdom, there are certain offices which noxious animals can best fulfil. We cannot, by merely looking upon the present state of an instru

« PreviousContinue »